Do you believe in Free will? Determinism?

[Impenitent]

God is a deterministic idea. Free Will was invented by certain theologians to expedite blame while retaining God's overarching power.

Cui bono?

no, the ability to choose one's action is innate

crowd control methods were invented and enacted by certain theologians

-Imp

Give me one example of human behaviour that is not motivated from without. Motivations spell reactions, not actions; actions are perhaps for the gods. There is no such thing as human action; there are but human reactions. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and through its reactions, it is a source of cause to the larger world in the process of reciprocal causation.

playing music or singing without an audience

-Imp

[popeye1945]

no, the ability to choose one's action is innate

crowd control methods were invented and enacted by certain theologians

-Imp

Give me one example of human behaviour that is not motivated from without. Motivations spell reactions, not actions; actions are perhaps for the gods. There is no such thing as human action; there are but human reactions. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and through its reactions, it is a source of cause to the larger world in the process of reciprocal causation.

playing music or singing without an audience

-Imp

Interesting, but no cigar. The best one anyone has come up with so far. Certainly, singing or playing music cannot be considered unmotivated. Perhaps you hear a song that gives you pleasure through melody and/or lyrics, so you wish to repeat the process that gives you pleasure. I think it was Spinoza who pointed out that there are three primary emotions: pain, pleasure, and desire; you have at least two in play here. Humanity will not evolve intellectually nor morally until it comes to know its own nature, that of a reactionary creature, as all creatures are, and through that nature, it stays aligned with the ever-changing reactive world. This reactive nature of the organism is the process of BEING THE WORLD through the process of reciprocal causation, the engine of the evolutionary process. There is one thing an organism cannot do, and that is, it cannot, NOT react to its environment, because that is what it is as a functional element of the earth. Oh, the above, "without an audience, just as you are an object in the world even to yourself. So, you would be, in this sense, your own audience reacting to your own performance.

[popeye1945]

Give me one example of human behaviour that is not motivated from without.

Hunger for food, and the hunger to satisfy curiosity, are reactions to the inner world, not the outer world. One can experience the outer world and either be curious or not curious, depending on innate curiosity.

The physical world is your life support system. The fact that presence itself is a cause to other presences through the process of reciprocal causation means you are the Earth, remember there is no such thing as independent existence. You have many different needs of your environment, hungry and thirsty, just a few, you are thinking you are separate from, instead of functioning as an aspect of a whole. You do not even experience reality; what you do experience is how reality, the energies that surround you, alter and change the standing state of your biology. This is what you experience: your body being constantly altered, and consciousness gives you a readout of bodily experiences that you call your reality; your apparent reality is not ultimate reality. All of the world's organisms are reactive creatures; it is just what they are, and their reactions through reciprocal causation belong to the greater whole. The concept if humanity is to evolve, it must abandon this brutal notion of free will. This does not mean that society cannot or will not protect itself from those who violate the standards of the community; it just means it will do so with a greater degree of compassion.

[Walker]

That’s fine if one can reconcile this contradiction:

1. Everything you do is a reaction.
2. You are responsible for everything you do.

Contradictions don't exist in nature.
They're only in the noggin ... which is part of nature's big picture.

[popeye1945]

That’s fine if one can reconcile this contradiction:

1. Everything you do is a reaction.
2. You are responsible for everything you do.

Contradictions don't exist in nature.
They're only in the noggin ... which is part of nature's big picture.

Walker,

That is not logical, my friend. 1 and 2 don't make a logical syllogism. Though that is the way the legal system and the church and its concept of sin work in the here and now. The legal system actually knows it's a flawed system, or there would not be the concept of extenuating circumstances in the judgment of those brought before it. Context defines is an inescapable reality. To face that reality would take a highly evolved society, and I have my doubts that we'll ever get there. Reaction is just reality, with the present understanding of the individual being a totally free and responsible agent in this world, judgment is fierce, illogical, and even cruel. Context gives you your identity. If you did not choose your context, you did not choose your identity. You play a part, the stage dictates, didn't Willy Shakespeare say the world is a stage?

[Walker]

That is not logical, my friend. 1 and 2 don't make a logical syllogism.

Never-the-less, that's the way it is.

[Immanuel Can]

That is not logical, my friend. 1 and 2 don't make a logical syllogism.

Never-the-less, that's the way it is.

What a stupid question.

There's no "you," and no possibility of 'believing" in a Determined universe. Your brain states would be predetermined, not chosen, and there would be no particular identity distinct from causal chains that could "believe" it. That, and that your "belief" would not make even the slightest difference to what was fated to happen anyway.

Such a stupid question. Such an inane topic. Even a rudimentary philosopher knows better than to bother with a self-contradicting question like "do you believe in Determinism." If you can believe, it ain't Determinism.

Sheesh.

[Walker]

No one knows the future, and knowing the future has never been necessary.
We presume an animal can live its whole life without knowing the future, or maybe they do know and we just forget.

Man has the need to create the future, according to the capacity of humans, which is creative, and constantly analyzes options of this or that due to binary perception of reality ... binary perception being one way of apprehension, another being direct knowing of what must be done.

I think a good definition of Choice is: the discovery of what must be done.

Let's make it bold, and frame it if necessary.



(Although this posting is a reaction to the discussion, I am responsible for de words because of the one thing everyone knows for sure ...)

I Am is true, all else is inference.

[Walker]

Reactionary action is why socialism does not work in reality.

Do people insist that socialism is logical? I think so.

In socialism, people get trapped into a system of life, doing what they must, and have the innate need to change it as a reaction to the soul crushing.

The overlords know this, and know what to observe in human reactions to determine who needs the current version of the Winston Smith treatment. This is because, or rather the reason why, the government has an urgent need for each person to have a social credit score, but no ID for elections.