Philosophy Now Forum

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 11:44 pm Mike that's lyrics to a Rush song. You're supposed to say something like 'thank you Neil Peart' or 'so now your plagiarizing Rush songs?'

Oh well, "Anything that is too stupid to be spoken is sung." Voltaire said that.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 11:26 pm listen mike, you can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. Immanuel, henry, bahman and I will choose a path that's clear. We will choose freewill.

So, what kind of choice are you discussing? Free choice, or the other kind?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 11:18 pm

Could you tell me what you think the difference is between "free will" and "will" and "free choice" and "choice"?

No. That's not what I'm here for. My views on free will (bein' one) are on record, so to speak, all over the forum.

Right now, my interest is, again, pointin' out: if a man is not a, or lacks, free will, he chooses nuthin', which means all your talk of social/moral/legal reform is just sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

That's it, that's all.

I asked you, do you at least differentiate between "free will" and "will" and "free choice" and "choice"?
Did this question cause your brain to crash from overload?

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 12:03 am

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 11:26 pm listen mike, you can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. Immanuel, henry, bahman and I will choose a path that's clear. We will choose freewill.

So, what kind of choice are you discussing? Free choice, or the other kind?

What's "the other kind"?

There are only two possibilities, Mike: either people have choice (the word "free" is optional and redundant, and adds nothing important to the concept) or they have no such thing as choice -- they are predetermined. There is no third option available, rationally speaking.

You keep talking about their choice of political systems. But Determinism says they have no choice.

So, as a self-confessed Determinist, you've gelded yourself, then you want to tell everybody how to be fruitful. You've denied the possibility of choice, then told us what you think we should choose.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. And everybody who's called you on that is right.

I asked you, do you at least differentiate between "free will" and "will" and "free choice" and "choice"?
Did this question cause your brain to crash from overload?

Sorry, BM. Pesky stuff like havin' supper and fartin' around with my kid got in the way of answerin' your most important question...

do you at least differentiate between "free will" and "will" and "free choice" and "choice"?

No.
see Mannie's post, just above, for details

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:33 am Sorry, BM.

Where I live, "BM" stands for a couple of things...

Compatibility is only possible understanding freedom as a real experience of feeling free, not a metaphysical proposition of actually being free.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 12:20 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 12:03 am

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 11:26 pm listen mike, you can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. Immanuel, henry, bahman and I will choose a path that's clear. We will choose freewill.

So, what kind of choice are you discussing? Free choice, or the other kind?

What's "the other kind"?

See? Guys, this is where your group (Immanuel, henry, bahman and promethean75) falls short. You simply cannot shake the notion that neither free will nor free choices exist. To you, "will" and "choice" are synonymous with "free will" and "free choice".
However, here is an instance of a choice that is obviously not free: My chess computer considers millions of alternatives before making a move. Then, it chooses one of them, the one it deems "best". This move is not "best" because "free will" dictates so. Following the rules of logic, it is the brain's calculations that determines that this is the best course of action. And this choice is not free.
This, my dear friend Immanuel Can, is "the other kind" of choice, the kind whose existence you cannot comprehend. It's based on logic, so no wonder you all don't get it.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 7:14 am See? Guys, this is where your group (Immanuel, henry, bahman and promethean75) falls short. You simply cannot shake the notion that neither free will nor free choices exist. To you, "will" and "choice" are synonymous with "free will" and "free choice".
However, here is an instance of a choice that is obviously not free: My chess computer considers millions of alternatives before making a move. Then, it chooses one of them, the one it deems "best". This move is not "best" because "free will" dictates so. Following the rules of logic, it is the brain's calculations that determines that this is the best course of action. And this choice is not free.
This, my dear friend Immanuel Can, is "the other kind" of choice, the kind whose existence you cannot comprehend. It's based on logic, so no wonder you all don't get it.

I totally agree.

But I wonder why there is this confusion in not being able to distinguish between choice and free choice, between will and free will.

I think that this inability depends on the perception, perhaps unconscious but still painful, that the non-existence of free will implies the non-existence of the ego.

This consequence arouses instinctive horror.
Because the ego absolutely does not want to die.

And therefore one reacts by not wanting to see reality.

It seems to me, BigMike, that you have come to see the non-existence of free will, but you have not yet perceived its inevitable consequences.

bobmax wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 7:38 am It seems to me, BigMike, that you have come to see the non-existence of free will, but you have not yet perceived its inevitable consequences.

Well, I cannot really comment on what I don't see. I may not have perceived every consequence. However, I do perceive some consequences, some of which I believe could be earth-shattering. I have enumerated a few of them below, using words in their current contemporary sense, fully aware that we may redefine some of them in the future to conform to a new worldview.

• I can't imagine how any religion could survive the rejection of free will.
• Assigning moral responsibility is futile, because it doesn't exist.
• Free speech makes no sense.
• Imagining free democratic voting is difficult.
• Reward, including CEO's compensations, and punishment must be redefined, especially in terms of justification.

However, I believe you nailed it with your above response. Couldn't have done it better myself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 5:40 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:33 am Sorry, BM.

Where I live, "BM" stands for a couple of things...

Yep. But, considerin' his content, it fits, yeah?

You simply cannot shake the notion that neither free will nor free choices exist.

Hey, if I'm the meat machine you say I am: I got no choice in the matter.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 7:14 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 12:20 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 12:03 am

So, what kind of choice are you discussing? Free choice, or the other kind?

What's "the other kind"?

See? Guys, this is where your group (Immanuel, henry, bahman and promethean75) falls short. You simply cannot shake the notion that neither free will nor free choices exist.

What are you smoking, Mike? None of us said anything like this. We all believe that "choice" or "free choice," if you prefer DOES exist. It's Determinism that's false.

To you, "will" and "choice" are synonymous with "free will" and "free choice".

Only because they are.

What you're completely missing is that it's not us that says so: it's Determinism itself!

Determinism, you see, is an all-or-nothing proposition. It posits that ALL (apparent) "choices" are merely middle links in physical-causal chains. It doesn't allow for ANY other option.

Either an action is Deterministic, or, if it has even a smattering of "will" or "freedom" in it, it is not, by defintion, "determined" at all. Determinism is absolute or nothing.

Get it yet?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 1:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 5:40 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:33 am Sorry, BM.

Where I live, "BM" stands for a couple of things...

Yep. But, considerin' his content, it fits, yeah?

I have no words.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 11:26 pm listen mike, you can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. Immanuel, henry, bahman and I will choose a path that's clear. We will choose freewill.

Speaking of Rush, let's go right to the source: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_ ... f%20choice.