Philosophy Now Forum

nameless wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:13 pm

peacegirl wrote:Dear friends,

I have been on the internet for some time, and it's a very difficult undertaking. Why is this so? Because people look back at one's online history and come to false conclusions. Will you give me space in which to speak before jumping to conclusions?? I hope so.

I am uninterested in the words that you have left lying around on your trip through the net. That was what you thought then.
The words that I will evaluate and critique are the ones presented Now (unless you wish to link me to others).
I don't come to "conclusions", understanding and critical evaluation is an ongoing process. 'Conclusions' are for 'believers', religion rather than philosophy.
Philosophers are mind sharks!
Welcome.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 8:38 am I remember you, you were the one selling your dad's 3rd rate alternative to scientology based on determinism. First book's almost free, but then you pay to unlock all these extra levels, right?

FlashDangerpants wrote:Here it goes again, just a repeat of what was thrown around and has taken hold without one iota of curiosity on your part; just a conclusion based on air, nothing more.

You missed out, there was a guy who went absolutely mental for determinism recently, you could have pulled off some sort of Bonnie and Clyde heist with BM5 on your side.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 3:10 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 8:38 am I remember you, you were the one selling your dad's 3rd rate alternative to scientology based on determinism. First book's almost free, but then you pay to unlock all these extra levels, right?

What levels are you talking about?

FlashDangerpants wrote:Here it goes again, just a repeat of what was thrown around and has taken hold without one iota of curiosity on your part; just a conclusion based on air, nothing more.

You missed out, there was a guy who went absolutely mental for determinism recently, you could have pulled off some sort of Bonnie and Clyde heist with BM5 on your side.

A lot of people believe in determinism (which, by the way, is defined in such a way that doesn't allow for the reconciliation between "free will" (doing what one wants "freely" or without external constraint) and having no free will; i.e., the inability to choose both A and B equally, when there are meaningful differences between the two), but determinism alone is not the discovery. It is only the gateway to knowledge that was hidden behind this hermetically sealed door.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 4:03 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 3:10 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 8:38 am I remember you, you were the one selling your dad's 3rd rate alternative to scientology based on determinism. First book's almost free, but then you pay to unlock all these extra levels, right?

What levels are you talking about?

FlashDangerpants wrote:Here it goes again, just a repeat of what was thrown around and has taken hold without one iota of curiosity on your part; just a conclusion based on air, nothing more.

You missed out, there was a guy who went absolutely mental for determinism recently, you could have pulled off some sort of Bonnie and Clyde heist with BM5 on your side.

A lot of people believe in determinism (which, by the way, is defined in such a way that doesn't allow for the reconciliation between "free will" (doing what one wants "freely" or without external constraint) and having no free will; i.e., the inability to choose both A and B equally, when there are meaningful differences between the two), but determinism alone is not the discovery. It is only the gateway to knowledge that was hidden behind this hermetically sealed door.

The following seem to be a much better definition of "free will" as I understand it.

Free will suggests that our choices are not simply the inevitable outcome of prior events or external factors. Instead, we have the ability to initiate actions and make decisions that are not predetermined.

What is your understanding of "determinism" given the above definition of "free will"?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 6:56 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 4:03 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 3:10 pm

What levels are you talking about?



A lot of people believe in determinism (which, by the way, is defined in such a way that doesn't allow for the reconciliation between "free will" (doing what one wants "freely" or without external constraint) and having no free will; i.e., the inability to choose both A and B equally, when there are meaningful differences between the two), but determinism alone is not the discovery. It is only the gateway to knowledge that was hidden behind this hermetically sealed door.

The following seem to be a much better definition of "free will" as I understand it.

Free will suggests that our choices are not simply the inevitable outcome of prior events or external factors. Instead, we have the ability to initiate actions and make decisions that are not predetermined.

What is your understanding of "determinism" given the above definition of "free will"?

It is true that our choices are not simply the inevitable outcome of prior events or external factors that remove the agent's ability to choose. It is the definition of determinism that is causing a split between these two opposing belief systems that are easily reconciled when a correct definition is given. We need a basis for communication or else this thread will die as it did 15 years ago.

We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false. So, without further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 9:09 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 6:56 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 4:03 pm

The following seem to be a much better definition of "free will" as I understand it.

Free will suggests that our choices are not simply the inevitable outcome of prior events or external factors. Instead, we have the ability to initiate actions and make decisions that are not predetermined.

What is your understanding of "determinism" given the above definition of "free will"?

It is true that our choices are not simply the inevitable outcome of prior events or external factors that remove the agent's ability to choose. It is the definition of determinism that is causing a split between these two opposing belief systems that are easily reconciled when a correct definition is given. We need a basis for communication or else this thread will die as it did 15 years ago.

We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false. So, without further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note.

Actually, as I understand it, in philosophy the "free will"/"determinism" debate is typically about whether or not an individual has "the ability to initiate actions and make decisions that are not predetermined". You seem to agree that the individual does.

Thinkofone wrote:However, the text in italics, which is presumably a quote from the book, seems to be addressing the fact that an individual can be restricted by whatever is considered "moral" within a given society/community. Framing it within the context of the terms "free will" and "determinism" seems problematic. Am I misunderstanding what the text in italics is saying?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 12:49 am

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 9:09 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 6:56 pm

It is true that our choices are not simply the inevitable outcome of prior events or external factors that remove the agent's ability to choose. It is the definition of determinism that is causing a split between these two opposing belief systems that are easily reconciled when a correct definition is given. We need a basis for communication or else this thread will die as it did 15 years ago.

We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false. So, without further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note.

Actually, as I understand it, in philosophy the "free will"/"determinism" debate is typically about whether or not an individual has "the ability to initiate actions and make decisions that are not predetermined". You seem to agree that the individual does.

Our fate is not predetermined as if to say that our choices were already determined beforehand, without our consent. Only looking back can we say our choices were predetermined; we just didn't know what those choices would be, until we chose them. I hope that makes sense.

Thinkofone wrote:However, the text in italics, which is presumably a quote from the book, seems to be addressing the fact that an individual can be restricted by whatever is considered "moral" within a given society/community. Framing it within the context of the terms "free will" and "determinism" seems problematic. Am I misunderstanding what the text in italics is saying?

Yes, a person will (not can) be restricted, under this new set of environmental conditions, to do only that which hurts no one without any threats of punishment being necessary.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 2:34 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 12:49 am

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 9:09 pm

Actually, as I understand it, in philosophy the "free will"/"determinism" debate is typically about whether or not an individual has "the ability to initiate actions and make decisions that are not predetermined". You seem to agree that the individual does.

Our fate is not predetermined as if to say that our choices were already determined beforehand, without our consent. Only looking back can we say our choices were predetermined; we just didn't know what those choices would be, until we chose them. I hope that makes sense.

Thinkofone wrote:However, the text in italics, which is presumably a quote from the book, seems to be addressing the fact that an individual can be restricted by whatever is considered "moral" within a given society/community. Framing it within the context of the terms "free will" and "determinism" seems problematic. Am I misunderstanding what the text in italics is saying?

Yes, a person will (not can) be restricted, under this new set of environmental conditions, to do only that which hurts no one without any threats of punishment being necessary.

Our fate is not predetermined as if to say that our choices were already determined beforehand, without our consent. Only looking back can we say our choices were predetermined; we just didn't know what those choices would be, until we chose them. I hope that makes sense.

Not sure what you have in mind here.

Only that determinism, in my view, does not mean that an outside force is predetermining our every move such that we have no choice and we aren't agents of our own decisions. But that in itself does not mean our will is free.

Thinkofone wrote:Some believe that all events have a cause or causes with prior events causing all subsequent events. this leaves no room for chance; this leaves no room for "free will". As such, an entity having perfect knowledge of the past and the laws of nature could predict the future including all thoughts an individual will have. Is this what you have in mind when you say "our choices were predetermined; we just didn't know what those choices would be, until we chose them" or something else?

No, I just mean to say that, if will is not free, everything we have done or will do, is predetermined not so much by events that we have no choice in making, but that our choices, once made, could not have been otherwise. IOW, we don't lose our agency to choose, which is what the definition of determinism implies. But there is a flaw in the standard definition and it's causing lots of confusion.

Yes, a person will (not can) be restricted, under this new set of environmental conditions, to do only that which hurts no one without any threats of punishment being necessary.

You lost me here. "this new set of environmental conditions"?