compatibilism

[Belinda]

Obviously, "free will" means volition. I already pointed that out.

So are you saying, "Volition has no head, therefore there's no such thing as volition?" You're making no sense, B.

What is volition?

You want another synonym? How about "will"? Or "decision" or "choice"? How many do you need?

What causes will, decision, or choice ?

[Immanuel Can]

What is volition?

You want another synonym? How about "will"? Or "decision" or "choice"? How many do you need?

What causes will, decision, or choice ?

That's the hot question. Because when you use the phrase "causes will," you're already presuming Determinism, a "prior cause". But that's assuming your conclusion, not offering evidence for it.

The important question is whether or not will itself can commence or instigage a causal chain, through the actions of the one who wills and acts upon that will.

[promethean75]

If I were religious I'd roll with the ninth century theologian Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari and the occassionalists because they're waaay cooler than the Christian theologians who were always so fuckin depressed and worried about sumthin or another and flagellating themselves and oh God I don't even wanna think about it.

[BigMike]

The important question is whether or not will itself can commence or instigage a causal chain, through the actions of the one who wills and acts upon that will.

You won't know the answer to that question until you define the word "will".

[Belinda]

You want another synonym? How about "will"? Or "decision" or "choice"? How many do you need?

What causes will, decision, or choice ?

That's the hot question. Because when you use the phrase "causes will," you're already presuming Determinism, a "prior cause". But that's assuming your conclusion, not offering evidence for it.

The important question is whether or not will itself can commence or instigage a causal chain, through the actions of the one who wills and acts upon that will.

That is to the point. I don't believe will is ever an origin, whereas you do believe will sometimes originates.

[BigMike]

You can be free withing various ranges, under some pressure or constraints, and with or without regard for inducements. But so long as you, yourself, had the deciding "vote" on the matter, you were, for our purposes, "free."

Immanuel Can thinks that he has psychokinetic abilities due to his "will". He believes that his will can physically move objects.

[promethean75]

I know man. It's like he thinks he's Uri Geller or something.

[bahman]

Does unimpeded mean the same as unbiased in your book?

They have different meanings. We can stick to unimpeded if you wish for sake of discussion.

Fine. And unimpeded in this context means that natural laws are not interfering. However, the neurons responsible for every movement and action are governed by physical laws. Conclusion: Either free will does not exist, or if it does, it cannot control your body's actions and is therefore irrelevant.

Any system behaves deterministically unless it faces options. By deterministic, we mean that the system evolves from one state to another unique state. It must be obvious that the deterministic system is dealing with a problem when faces options since two states now are available for the system to evolve instead of the usual one. This means that a decision is needed in such a situation. There are two types of main decisions depending on how we prefer options: 1) Determined, 2) Free. These types of decisions depend on the situation of course by which I mean that determined decisions only happen when the system prefers one option over another. There are several categories of free decisions that we discuss shortly. It can be shown that a determined decision can be performed by a deterministic system such as a computer (for example the "if" condition in computer programing, the CPU is designed such that to make a decision in such a situation). How a deterministic system can make a determined decision is complicated and it is off-topic. But a deterministic system cannot make a free decision for an obvious reason, the system is determined and it is not free. But what are the examples of free decisions? 1) When the options are equally liked, 2) When the final outcomes of options are not known, 3) When we choose the option that we do not prefer for no specific reason.

[Immanuel Can]

The important question is whether or not will itself can commence or instigage a causal chain, through the actions of the one who wills and acts upon that will.

You won't know the answer to that question until you define the word "will".

If you read the earlier messages, Mike, I've defined it by several synonyms already.

Let's start with "volition."

[Immanuel Can]

What causes will, decision, or choice ?

That's the hot question. Because when you use the phrase "causes will," you're already presuming Determinism, a "prior cause". But that's assuming your conclusion, not offering evidence for it.

The important question is whether or not will itself can commence or instigage a causal chain, through the actions of the one who wills and acts upon that will.

That is to the point. I don't believe will is ever an origin, whereas you do believe will sometimes originates.

Yes, that's right. That's the difference.

But here's the problem: you and the others keep advocating for particular social policy choices, all the while insisting that choices can instigate nothing.

You're going to have to explain to me how both can be reconciled.

[Immanuel Can]

You can be free withing various ranges, under some pressure or constraints, and with or without regard for inducements. But so long as you, yourself, had the deciding "vote" on the matter, you were, for our purposes, "free."

Immanuel Can thinks that he has psychokinetic abilities due to his "will". He believes that his will can physically move objects.

No, if you read more carefully, you'd see what I actually said. I said the question is whether or not "will" can mobilize "body" into "action."

Determinists, on the other hand, have to suppose that the world is made up of deluded zombies. "Zombies," because they are mobilized not by their wills, but by powers beyond their brains. And "deluded," because they continue to imagine that they are making a difference to outcomes, whereas you have to insist they are making none at all.

So, back to the key question: how can you advocate certain social policy choices, when you, as a Determinist, have to believe that effectual choices are impossible?

[Iwannaplato]

So, back to the key question: how can you advocate certain social policy choices, when you, as a Determinist, have to believe that effectual choices are impossible?

There's the added issue of...once you claimed to be utterly determined, you have to admit your lines of reasoning may merely seem reasonable to you. You are compelled think think you are making sense. Doesn't mean you're wrong, but you really have no way to 'look at your reasoning objectively' Atoms hit atoms in molecules in nerves all predetermined in the big band and poof you got a feeling that what you said just made sense. None of which means that free will is the case, but it seems to be something that determinism entails but determinists rarely seem to consider or acknowledge.

[BigMike]

The important question is whether or not will itself can commence or instigage a causal chain, through the actions of the one who wills and acts upon that will.

You won't know the answer to that question until you define the word "will".

If you read the earlier messages, Mike, I've defined it by several synonyms already.

Let's start with "volition."

Is that your definition of will, VOLITION? What's VOLITION, then?

[BigMike]

You can be free withing various ranges, under some pressure or constraints, and with or without regard for inducements. But so long as you, yourself, had the deciding "vote" on the matter, you were, for our purposes, "free."

Immanuel Can thinks that he has psychokinetic abilities due to his "will". He believes that his will can physically move objects.

No, if you read more carefully, you'd see what I actually said. I said the question is whether or not "will" can mobilize "body" into "action."

What does your assertion that "will" can mobilize "body" into "action" mean besides that it can actually move the body? Do you mean that your "will" might just ask your body nicely to consider acting? How ridiculous can you get?

[Immanuel Can]

So, back to the key question: how can you advocate certain social policy choices, when you, as a Determinist, have to believe that effectual choices are impossible?

There's the added issue of...once you claimed to be utterly determined, you have to admit your lines of reasoning may merely seem reasonable to you. You are compelled think think you are making sense. Doesn't mean you're wrong, but you really have no way to 'look at your reasoning objectively' Atoms hit atoms in molecules in nerves all predetermined in the big band and poof you got a feeling that what you said just made sense. None of which means that free will is the case, but it seems to be something that determinism entails but determinists rarely seem to consider or acknowledge.

Right. Well said.

Determinism is actually anti-scientific...because it requires that the molecules inside the scientist's head that 'tell' him his experiment proves something are not activated as a result of truth, and are not evidence of the scientist actually coming to know anything, but of some other prior cause at the atomic level...like the chain of causal events that proceed from the beating of the wings of a mosquito in his lobby, or the chemical composition of his lunch.

So how does one trust the "pronouncements" of a meat machine driven purely by prior chemical or physical causes? One cannot.

So human beings cannot "know" anything. Instead, they can merely "succumb to the feeling of knowing things, purely as a result of prior stimuli unrelated to truth." But they may be 100% wrong, and the scientific method no longer "proves" or even "indicates" anything at all with regard to truth.