HUMANS DO NOT ACT, BUT REACT, SO MUCH FOR FREE WILL

[Immanuel Can]

Motivation is the key;

It cannot be. Under Deterministic theories, there can be no "motivation," because "motivation" implies a mind that chooses to do something.
Rather, Determinism would have to say there was only "causality." Popeye was caused to argue for Determinism. He didn't "know" that it was better, and wasn't "motivated" to argue for it -- he was forced to, because impersonal, material, prior causes locked him into nothing but that.
In other words, Popeye is not rational. He's predetermined. That's the story Determinism has to tell.

The above is nonsensical; determinism is defined by its nature as cause/s. Motivation is the cause

No, according to Determinism, there is no "motivation." "Motives" are mind-states. The mind does not exist. Only physical pre-causes exist.

As I have asked in the past, give me one example of a human behaviour that is not a reaction to a causal stimulus.

Argumentation. what you're trying to do right now.

Moreover, there is no way to "believe" him. Whatever IC or anybody else was going to "decide" is actually nothing else but causality operating again. So if they disbelieve him, they are not "right" or "wrong" to do so; like him, they are all puppets on strings, and cannot choose to do anything but whatever causality has pre-fated them to do. They have no choice but to disbelieve, because prior causes MAKE them disbelieve.
So why is Popeye arguing? Only because he has to; Determinism has fated him to this project, and he is fated to be disbelieved or believed not based on the rationality of his argument, but purely on those prior material causes. He has nothing he can possibly gain. He's wasting energy.
Good thing Determinism also says there's no "him" to feel bad about that.

The above is again nonsensical;

It's Determinism. Determinism is nonsensical. And arguing for it is totally self-refuting: if you can do it, Determinism must be false; if you can't do it, then Determinism might still be true, but there's no rational reason to accept it, and arguments are futile.

[popeye1945]

It cannot be. Under Deterministic theories, there can be no "motivation," because "motivation" implies a mind that chooses to do something.
Rather, Determinism would have to say there was only "causality." Popeye was caused to argue for Determinism. He didn't "know" that it was better, and wasn't "motivated" to argue for it -- he was forced to, because impersonal, material, prior causes locked him into nothing but that.
In other words, Popeye is not rational. He's predetermined. That's the story Determinism has to tell.

The above is nonsensical; determinism is defined by its nature as cause/s. Motivation is the cause

No, according to Determinism, there is no "motivation." "Motives" are mind-states. The mind does not exist. Only physical pre-causes exist.

As I have asked in the past, give me one example of a human behaviour that is not a reaction to a causal stimulus.

Argumentation. what you're trying to do right now.

Moreover, there is no way to "believe" him. Whatever IC or anybody else was going to "decide" is actually nothing else but causality operating again. So if they disbelieve him, they are not "right" or "wrong" to do so; like him, they are all puppets on strings, and cannot choose to do anything but whatever causality has pre-fated them to do. They have no choice but to disbelieve, because prior causes MAKE them disbelieve.
So why is Popeye arguing? Only because he has to; Determinism has fated him to this project, and he is fated to be disbelieved or believed not based on the rationality of his argument, but purely on those prior material causes. He has nothing he can possibly gain. He's wasting energy.
Good thing Determinism also says there's no "him" to feel bad about that.

The above is again nonsensical;

It's Determinism. Determinism is nonsensical. And arguing for it is totally self-refuting: if you can do it, Determinism must be false; if you can't do it, then Determinism might still be true, but there's no rational reason to accept it, and arguments are futile.

Now that is an irrational conclusion. If determinism is causal, it means it is so by means of affecting an effect, a biological effect. You're also not dealing with or challenging what I have stated. Your definition of determinism is nonsensical; that is what makes the argument absurd.

[Immanuel Can]

The above is nonsensical; determinism is defined by its nature as cause/s. Motivation is the cause

No, according to Determinism, there is no "motivation." "Motives" are mind-states. The mind does not exist. Only physical pre-causes exist.

As I have asked in the past, give me one example of a human behaviour that is not a reaction to a causal stimulus.

Argumentation. what you're trying to do right now.

The above is again nonsensical;

It's Determinism. Determinism is nonsensical. And arguing for it is totally self-refuting: if you can do it, Determinism must be false; if you can't do it, then Determinism might still be true, but there's no rational reason to accept it, and arguments are futile.

Now that is an irrational conclusion. If determinism is causal, it means it is so by means of affecting an effect, a biological effect.

Biological effects are material and impersonal. They have no mind. They can't grasp arguments.

You're also not dealing with or challenging what I have stated.

Actually, I'm wiping it out. It's dead.

You're using "mind" terms like "motivation" to describe a process that Determinism requires to be purely impersonal, physical and causal. In other words, you're not a real Determinist either: the words you're using show you don't understand Determinism at all, as does your propensity for arguing, when arguments cannot be part of any Deterministic causal chain, because they're abstract and appeal only to "minds."

[popeye1945]

No, according to Determinism, there is no "motivation." "Motives" are mind-states. The mind does not exist. Only physical pre-causes exist.
Argumentation. What you're trying to do right now.

Well, you may be right. I was wrong once back in the early sixties and swore never to do that again---lol!!
So, you believe determinism doesn't affect the mind or human will as so defined? Here is a formal definition of determinism.
"The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions."

Tell me, do you believe that the physical world is cause to all living organisms? Is the mind a totally independent agent in the world? Do you not realize that determinism, as you have so defined it, would have been defeated many erons ago; we would not be debating it today. Tell me, do you believe you are in this world or of this world? There is a very important difference; if you are of this world, that means you are a functional part of something larger than yourself, which means you are a relational part of the Earth. Then you must ask, functional in what way? Humanity is having a very profound effect on the condition of the environment, and the physical world is being profoundly changed by our activities. Do you accept that? Do you imagine this effect travels only one way? If not, you must then ask in what way it works both ways, meaning a reciprocal two-way relation, where you are affected. and through your reactions to your outer world, become a cause of its changing. It is called reciprocal causation, and it is the engine of reality.




It's Determinism. Determinism is nonsensical. And arguing for it is totally self-refuting: if you can do it, Determinism must be false; if you can't do it, then Determinism might still be true, but there's no rational reason to accept it, and arguments are futile.
You're using "mind" terms like "motivation" to describe a process that Determinism requires to be purely impersonal, physical and causal. In other words, you're not a real Determinist either: the words you're using show you don't understand Determinism at all, as does your propensity for arguing, when arguments cannot be part of any Deterministic causal chain, because they're abstract and appeal only to "minds."

As I stated above, by your definition, of course your right, but you're definition lacks an understanding of reality. It might be thought of as cause and effect in flow, or cause and reaction, the two-way reciprocity, being affected and reacting to the effect becomes cause to your outer world. Are you familiar at all with something called epigenetics? This is where some trauma experienced by your parents or grandparents creates a change in them that is passed on generationally. It does not change your DNA, but it changes the reading of your DNA; the effects of your parents or grandparents trauma are visited upon you in the here and now, altering your behaviour. This is today's science, not someone's wild idea. You need to give the topic greater thought.

[popeye1945]

The idea that DNA acts as a seat of consciousness is a compelling bridge between biology and metaphysics, though it remains outside the realm of mainstream consensus. In standard science, DNA is a storage medium for biological instructions, whereas consciousness is typically viewed as an emergent property of complex neural networks and real-time information processing.

However, from a systems theory or "process philosophy" perspective, DNA could be viewed as a foundational layer of a distributed intelligence. If consciousness is defined as the ability of a system to "read," react to, and organize itself based on environmental information, then the way DNA orchestrates cellular life resembles a form of deep, biological memory. While a molecule itself lacks subjective "awareness" in the human sense, it serves as the essential blueprint that allows sentient life to emerge and persist.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, you may be right. I was wrong once back in the early sixties and swore never to do that again---lol!!
So, you believe determinism doesn't affect the mind or human will as so defined? Here is a formal definition of determinism.
"The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions."

Tell me, do you believe that the physical world is cause to all living organisms?

No. It's "a" cause, a cause of many things. It's not a cause for free will, or the exclusive cause of decisions beings with wills make.

But that's not enough for Determinism: for Determinism, it has to be the only cause of all things, including what appears to us to be free will.

Is the mind a totally independent agent in the world?

No. The word "totally" makes the question too extreme. Nobody says that the physical world is not any contributor to human choice. But it's not the sole contributor or determinant of what humans choose.

Do you not realize that determinism, as you have so defined it, would have been defeated many erons ago; we would not be debating it today.

We shouldn't be, really. It's nonsense. But lots of dumb debates have persisted for along time: we're still arguing about things like racism, for example, or whether prostitution is good, or whether babies should be murdered.

Tell me, do you believe you are in this world or of this world?

In, not merely of.

Humanity is having a very profound effect on the condition of the environment, and the physical world is being profoundly changed by our activities. Do you accept that?

Determinism cannot accept that. I can, of course.

Do you imagine this effect travels only one way?

I've answered that. Natural factors are involved as contributors to our decisions; they are not the determining factor.

...you're definition lacks an understanding of reality.

No, that's not the case.
But what is clearly the case is that your definition isn't properly fleshed out: that you "lack an understanding" of the implications of belief in Determinism. You keep imagining it leaves place for things it simply doesn't.

If Determinism were true, then the inescapable implication is that there would be no such thing as argumentation, or motivation, or identity, or cognition, or mind, or will or freedom. Good thing it's not true.

[Immanuel Can]

The idea that DNA acts as a seat of consciousness is a compelling bridge between biology and metaphysics,...

No, it's a load of twaddle, actually. DNA is just a string of nucleotides, something far too simple to house any "consciousness." It's no more "consciousness" than a blueprint is a skyscraper.

[popeye1945]

The idea that DNA acts as a seat of consciousness is a compelling bridge between biology and metaphysics,...

No, it's a load of twaddle, actually. DNA is just a string of nucleotides, something far too simple to house any "consciousness." It's no more "consciousness" than a blueprint is a skyscraper.

Immanuel,

Just curious, do you believe that for the individual, context defines? When we come into this world, do we have an identity at birth? If the answer is no, where do you imagine that identity comes from? With epigenetics, it clearly shows that DNA is adaptable to the changing environment, so not quite as clear-cut as you would have it. Do you believe that what you perceive as your everyday reality, your apparent reality, is just what it seems? As an agent of free will, is that from birth, or when does the power of free will arise? The blueprint of a building does not change or rearrange itself to suit the environmental conditions. We certainly are at different ends of the pole here. You do realize I hope that all creatures are reactionary organisms, and there is one thing no organism can do, and that is, to NOT react to its environment. Its reactions to the world are, in turn, causes to its outside world; this is the reciprocal causation I spoke of above. Does the fact that no human behaviour is performed that is not motivated from the outside, and those few that might be said to be inner needs, find the satisfaction of those needs in the outer world? Do you know the process of how you come to know the world? The process has nothing whatever to do with free will. The world you perceive is a biological readout of the changes the outside world or its energies alter/change the standing state of your biology, so you do not experience reality, you experience the changes effected in your biology. Your definately a hard sell, but it stimulating at any rate.

[Immanuel Can]

The idea that DNA acts as a seat of consciousness is a compelling bridge between biology and metaphysics,...

No, it's a load of twaddle, actually. DNA is just a string of nucleotides, something far too simple to house any "consciousness." It's no more "consciousness" than a blueprint is a skyscraper.

Immanuel,

Just curious, do you believe that for the individual, context defines?

I'll tell you what I believe...that I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

When we come into this world, do we have an identity at birth?

Of course we do. What a dumb question. How could there be a "birth of you" if "you" is not an identity?

...all creatures are reactionary organisms,

Do you include yourself? Is your claim merely a "reaction" to your "environment," and unrelated to reason, logic and mind? Or do you actually want me to believe you're reasoning, using your mind, and hoping to appeal to another mind, so that it will change? If it's the latter, then YOU don't believe in Determinism, no matter what I think.

The process has nothing whatever to do with free will.

You assert this, with no proof -- and then, by arguing, act just as if it's not true. And then you wonder why I don't believe you.

Honestly, I don't think you have the foggiest notion of what Determinism implies about you. If you did, you'd realize you can't believe in Determinism: if Determinism were true, then you could only be predetermined to be under the causally-induced impression that Determinism is true, not to know that it is.

And you can't argue for it. Arguing assumes the existence of things that Determinism requires you not to believe can exist.

[Dubious]

The idea that DNA acts as a seat of consciousness is a compelling bridge between biology and metaphysics,...

No, it's a load of twaddle, actually. DNA is just a string of nucleotides, something far too simple to house any "consciousness." It's no more "consciousness" than a blueprint is a skyscraper.

...except that without a blueprint, the skyscraper or anything built or engineered wouldn't exist. So, in effect, though DNA is not in itself a seat of consciousness, without that prime building block, there would be no consciousness at all in anything specified as organic. It's the materialistic which creates the various levels of consciousness which progress from simply existing to reevaluating it as an evolutionary, metaphysical type of emergence in which the materialistic devolves as a subset in spite of being its very nucleus. Origins are fundamental to understanding a concept or how it harmonizes with observed fact.

[popeye1945]

No, it's a load of twaddle, actually. DNA is just a string of nucleotides, something far too simple to house any "consciousness." It's no more "consciousness" than a blueprint is a skyscraper.

Immanuel,

Just curious, do you believe that for the individual, context defines?

I'll tell you what I believe...that I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

That's honest, at least. No organism at birth has an identity; you are born into this world as an anonymous constitution and do not gain a sense of identity until you are defined by the environment you are born into. There are examples of young animals, newborns that imprint on the first large presence around them, even geese imprint a human as their mother. Even in courtrooms, the judge takes the defendence circumtances in context into consideration. Just as a word is defined by the paragraph and sentence in which it is found. That is not to say that a particular constitution does not have some unique propensities, but the context will either allow for their expression or hinder their expression. This also addresses your protest below.

When we come into this world, do we have an identity at birth?

Of course we do. What a dumb question. How could there be a "birth of you" if "you" is not an identity?

..

all creatures are reactionary organisms,

Do you include yourself? Is your claim merely a "reaction" to your "environment," and unrelated to reason, logic, and mind? Or do you actually want me to believe you're reasoning, using your mind, and hoping to appeal to another mind, so that it will change? If it's the latter, then YOU don't believe in Determinism, no matter what I think.

Of course, I include myself; we are presently reacting to one another. Do you understand the relationship between subject/person and object/the psychical world? A quote might help: " Subject and Object stand or fall together. "Schopenhauer This means there really isn't either without the other. There is reciprocal causation going on, which makes you and the physical world one.

The process has nothing whatever to do with free will.

You assert this, with no proof -- and then, by arguing, act just as if it's not true. And then you wonder why I don't believe you.

Well, let's try it this way: you do as an organism come to know the world, this is a forgone conclusion, so you tell me how this comes about, and if your understanding is better than mine, I shall adopt your theory. So, you tell me how you come to know the world.

Honestly, I don't think you have the foggiest notion of what Determinism implies about you. If you did, you'd realize you can't believe in Determinism: if Determinism were true, then you could only be predetermined to be under the causally-induced impression that Determinism is true, not to know that it is. And you can't argue for it. Arguing assumes the existence of things that Determinism requires you not to believe can exist. [/quote]

I posted the formal definition of determinism above. Tell me, do you believe that in the here and now, your behaviours are caused by the outside world and affect your will to react to said cause? You are affected to make something different, you take that effect and make it your will, you must then react to fulfill your will, and through the response/reaction, it is accomplished.

[popeye1945]

The idea that DNA acts as a seat of consciousness is a compelling bridge between biology and metaphysics,...

No, it's a load of twaddle, actually. DNA is just a string of nucleotides, something far too simple to house any "consciousness." It's no more "consciousness" than a blueprint is a skyscraper.

...except that without a blueprint, the skyscraper or anything built or engineered wouldn't exist. So, in effect, though DNA is not in itself a seat of consciousness, without that prime building block, there would be no consciousness at all in anything specified as organic. It's the materialistic which creates the various levels of consciousness which progress from simply existing to reevaluating it as an evolutionary, metaphysical type of emergence in which the materialistic devolves as a subset in spite of being its very nucleus. Origins are fundamental to understanding a concept or how it harmonizes with observed fact.

Also, DNA has built the organism and its consciousness, and all of humanity's creations are, but biological extensions or expressions of its nature; the nature of DNA is the nature of humanity itself.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel,

Just curious, do you believe that for the individual, context defines?

I'll tell you what I believe...that I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

That's honest, at least. No organism at birth has an identity; you are born into this world as an anonymous constitution and do not gain a sense of identity until you are defined by the environment you are born into. There are examples of young animals, newborns that imprint on the first large presence around them, even geese imprint a human as their mother. Even in courtrooms, the judge takes the defendence circumtances in context into consideration. Just as a word is defined by the paragraph and sentence in which it is found. That is not to say that a particular constitution does not have some unique propensities, but the context will either allow for their expression or hinder their expression. This also addresses your protest below.

When we come into this world, do we have an identity at birth?

Of course we do. What a dumb question. How could there be a "birth of you" if "you" is not an identity?

..

all creatures are reactionary organisms,

Do you include yourself? Is your claim merely a "reaction" to your "environment," and unrelated to reason, logic, and mind? Or do you actually want me to believe you're reasoning, using your mind, and hoping to appeal to another mind, so that it will change? If it's the latter, then YOU don't believe in Determinism, no matter what I think.

Of course, I include myself; we are presently reacting to one another. Do you understand the relationship between subject/person and object/the psychical world? A quote might help: " Subject and Object stand or fall together. "Schopenhauer This means there really isn't either without the other. There is reciprocal causation going on, which makes you and the physical world one.

The process has nothing whatever to do with free will.

You assert this, with no proof -- and then, by arguing, act just as if it's not true. And then you wonder why I don't believe you.

Well, let's try it this way: you do as an organism come to know the world...

Start there. You and I are not just "organisms." We're volitional, spiritual beings, as well as organic. So your first assumption would need to be proved, not just granted without evidence.

Honestly, I don't think you have the foggiest notion of what Determinism implies about you. If you did, you'd realize you can't believe in Determinism: if Determinism were true, then you could only be predetermined to be under the causally-induced impression that Determinism is true, not to know that it is. And you can't argue for it. Arguing assumes the existence of things that Determinism requires you not to believe can exist.

...do you believe that in the here and now, your behaviours are caused...

No. I believe they are chosen. The outside world sets some of the options under which each choice can be made...for example, I can go east, west, north or south. But where I stand right now, I have no ability to choose upwards or downwards, so my environment is contrary to the possibility of two choices, but offers me four others.

The locus of choice is my will, not the environment around me. And you believe the same, since you both offer to "change" my will, and offer to "change" your own, if my argument turns out to be better. You can't "change" anything, under Determinism, nor have you any will with which to do it. All there is, is the state of being the external environment has imposed upon you. No more.

[popeye1945]

I'll tell you what I believe...that I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about.


Of course we do. What a dumb question. How could there be a "birth of you" if "you" is not an identity?

Do you include yourself? Is your claim merely a "reaction" to your "environment," and unrelated to reason, logic, and mind? Or do you actually want me to believe you're reasoning, using your mind, and hoping to appeal to another mind, so that it will change? If it's the latter, then YOU don't believe in Determinism, no matter what I think.

You assert this, with no proof -- and then, by arguing, act just as if it's not true. And then you wonder why I don't believe you.

Well, let's try it this way: you do as an organism come to know the world...

Start there. You and I are not just "organisms." We're volitional, spiritual beings, as well as organic. So your first assumption would need to be proved, not just granted without evidence.

Honestly, I don't think you have the foggiest notion of what Determinism implies about you. If you did, you'd realize you can't believe in Determinism: if Determinism were true, then you could only be predetermined to be under the causally-induced impression that Determinism is true, not to know that it is. And you can't argue for it. Arguing assumes the existence of things that Determinism requires you not to believe can exist.

...do you believe that in the here and now, your behaviours are caused...

No. I believe they are chosen. The outside world sets some of the options under which each choice can be made...for example, I can go east, west, north or south. But where I stand right now, I have no ability to choose upwards or downwards, so my environment is contrary to the possibility of two choices, but offers me four others.

The locus of choice is my will, not the environment around me. And you believe the same, since you both offer to "change" my will, and offer to "change" your own, if my argument turns out to be better. You can't "change" anything, under Determinism, nor have you any will with which to do it. All there is, is the state of being the external environment has imposed upon you. No more.

You don't seem to wish to deal with what I have presented, or the request that if you don't believe what I say about how one comes to know the world, then take a crack at it yourself. Everybody has the sense that they have free will; it is philosophy that questions the obvious or the apparent. If we cannot get beyond your belief that what seems to be true is true, it is self-evident. I don't think any progress will be made here. So, I am out.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, let's try it this way: you do as an organism come to know the world...

Start there. You and I are not just "organisms." We're volitional, spiritual beings, as well as organic. So your first assumption would need to be proved, not just granted without evidence.

...do you believe that in the here and now, your behaviours are caused...

No. I believe they are chosen. The outside world sets some of the options under which each choice can be made...for example, I can go east, west, north or south. But where I stand right now, I have no ability to choose upwards or downwards, so my environment is contrary to the possibility of two choices, but offers me four others.

The locus of choice is my will, not the environment around me. And you believe the same, since you both offer to "change" my will, and offer to "change" your own, if my argument turns out to be better. You can't "change" anything, under Determinism, nor have you any will with which to do it. All there is, is the state of being the external environment has imposed upon you. No more.

You don't seem to wish to deal with what I have presented,

That is exactly what I've dealt with. Your premises are not defensible, so your arguments have been reduced to the status of mere preferences of belief...unless you can prove statements like that human beings are nothing but "organisms" with no further qualities. I really don't think you can.

Everybody has the sense that they have free will; it is philosophy that questions the obvious or the apparent.

And isn't that an odd thing, if the world were Deterministic? Why would a Deterministic universe determine that everybody in it had to operate by way of delusion? Any advocate of Determinism surely has to explain that, as well.

If we cannot get beyond your belief that what seems to be true is true, it is self-evident.

What is? Nothing obvious seems to come from this claim.

There are two types of "seemings": things that seem true and are not, and things that seem true and are. What evidence do you have that free will is one of the former, i.e. a seeming that is false, not the latter, i.e. a seeming that is true?