Does the "Free Will" point of view affect morals and character?

[henry quirk]

How you got this...

So, a person's mental or physical health has no bearing on their behaviors, most people at least would consider them limitations.

...from this...

He is a free will, yes. Thing is: damage & illness can hobble a person. Stan, with late stage muscular dystrophy is not evidence walking is a fiction. Lou, with severe down's syndrome, is not an evidence high intelligence is impossible. Marc, with sociopathy, is not evidence that man is not a free will.

...is beyond me.

[phyllo]

You acted based on the current situation and your past experience. That's determinism in a nutshell.

And my point is illustrated, again.

I say I, as a free will, considered my past experiences, weighed the pros & cons, and decided it wasn't worth the effort.

I'm not doin' this for the next 20 pages...it's a dance...I'm done dancin'.

I don't think that you actually understand what determinism is.

[henry quirk]

Henry.
I think you may be in the wrong place if you think I am in error and yet do not wish to point out my faulty thinking processes.

Likewise, I'm sure.

[henry quirk]

You acted based on the current situation and your past experience. That's determinism in a nutshell.

And my point is illustrated, again.

I say I, as a free will, considered my past experiences, weighed the pros & cons, and decided it wasn't worth the effort.

I'm not doin' this for the next 20 pages...it's a dance...I'm done dancin'.

I don't think that you actually understand what determinism is.

I do. It's you determinists who keep actin' as free wills who miss the train.

[phyllo]

And my point is illustrated, again.

I say I, as a free will, considered my past experiences, weighed the pros & cons, and decided it wasn't worth the effort.

I'm not doin' this for the next 20 pages...it's a dance...I'm done dancin'.

I don't think that you actually understand what determinism is.

I do. It's you determinists who keep actin' as free wills who miss the train.

There is no such thing as "acting as free wills".

You simply don't understand the claims of determinists or free-willers.

[popeye1945]

Henry.
I think you may be in the wrong place if you think I am in error and yet do not wish to point out my faulty thinking processes.

Likewise, I'm sure.

Henry, I am not the one avoiding debate.

[henry quirk]

Pop,

Even a casual review of my contributions, in-forum, over the years, shows I'm always up for a good tussle. But -- and, becuz I'm not the sharpest wedge of cheese, it took years for me to learn this -- I recognize stalemate. No profit is had, by anyone, in dancin', which is all that lies beyond stalemate.

Now, I got nuthin' against you personally, and as you prefer to think of yourself as determined, well, that's no skin offa my nose. And if I thought some headway was possible, I'd be in it up to my neck. But, best I can tell, we're immovable & irresistible, the both of us.

[BigMike]

Some people seem to think that this forum is like a weird reality show whose main goal is to stir up rivalries and intrigues for entertainment. And maybe it is.

But I recently read a description of a four-step refutation model. So, here is a short summary for anyone who might be interested:

Step 1: "You say..."

• Directly refer to the argument
• Rephrase the argument
• State point quickly and clearly

Step 2: "But I disagree…"

• State your counter-argument
• Can be the opposite of the opponent's claim
• Can attack reasoning/evidence of opponent

Step 3: "Because…"

• Offer reasoning evidence to enforce your counter-argument
• Can be independent support
• Can be reasoned criticism

Step 4: "Therefore..."

• Compare your refutation to the opponent's argument
• Show that your argument is better

[iambiguous]

Yo, BigMike! You're up!!!

Again, from my frame of mind, you speak of this as though in regard to the future, the laws of matter "somehow" provide the human brain with the capacity to either choose be wise or to be unwise. Just as the libertarians will argue about the present and the past as well.

Let me put it this way: if you have unfulfilled needs, you will suffer pain or discomfort. This is communicated by the sensory nerve system or hormones secreted by glands into the bloodstream. If your needs are not met, you may become physically or mentally ill, or even die. Biology has evolved to encourage survival and the propagation of your genes. Individuals that do not survive and reproduce are really a dead end: a waste of time, space, and precious energy. They provide no contribution and are hence biological failures in the grand scheme of things.

Particularly, the brain has evolved the capacity for short- and long-term memory, as well as learning, so that its owner can be at or near the front of the pack and be the most fitted for survival. When the body responds to physical or emotional pain in a way that alleviates the pain, the brain strengthens the synapses involved by developing new axon terminals to improve neurotransmitter transmission, making it more likely to repeat that response the next time. This is how learning occurs; by the development of new axon terminals. It enhances a person's response to any scenario.

Your brain is programmed and conditioned to accomplish what it calculates best for you, and it does so by learning how to meet your physical and emotional requirements (see Maslow's hierarchy of needs), so ensuring the least amount of pain and the greatest amount of happiness and contentment. Additionally, the learning tells you what results to anticipate from particular behaviors. Naturally, ignorance in a certain field may end in the opposite: maybe more misery and anguish, or at best, becoming a victim of chance. Learning is the window into the future, and in your words, how “the laws of matter "somehow" provide the human brain with the capacity to either choose be wise or to be unwise.”

There you go again...

"Let me put it to you this way..."

As though you had the option to put it to me another way...but chose this way. Just as the libertarians would put it. You note all of the chemical/neurological/biological imperatives unfolding in our brains when we "choose" one thing and not another thing. But "somehow" in posting all of this it reflects wisdom on your part and not ignorance or stupidity. Only when others refuse to think exactly as you do here are they "somehow" being ignorant or stupid.

Again, put just as the free will folks would note it.

Then from my frame of mind [compelled or not] just more of the same...

How exactly does that work...chemically, neurologically? Link us to the neuroscientists who in turn have arrived at this conclusion about the human brain grappling with the future.

I recommend Nobel prize winner Eric R. Kandel's In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. You can get it here: https://www.amazon.com/Search-Memory-Em ... 8&qid=&sr=

Those who embrace free will, when asked that, will reflect on all of the options they have at their disposal in providing me with the best book/article/internet link/youtube video, etc., to answer my question.

Then I, of my own volition, will opt to read the publication or view the video.

But as a "free will determinist", you always seem to have access to the best of both worlds.

[iambiguous]

Some people seem to think that this forum is like a weird reality show whose main goal is to stir up rivalries and intrigues for entertainment. And maybe it is.

Click.

On the other hand, some people think that the posts in this forum are embedded in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

And there's the BigMike here who [to me] seems to argue precisely that himself. But then there's also the "free will determinist" BigMike who seems to differentiate wise posts [his] from unwise posts [posts that fail to agree entirely with his].

That's the BigMike I'm grappling to understand given either an inherently fated/destined, wholly determined world or one in which both he and I "somehow" did acquire free will when "somehow" lifeless matter evolved into living matter that "somehow" evolved into us.

But I recently read a description of a four-step refutation model. So, here is a short summary for anyone who might be interested...

Isn't this how the libertarians would pose it? BigMike of his own volition recently read a description of a refutation model. Now he's asking you if, of your own volition, you are interested in it.

So, what do I keep missing here?

[BigMike]

Yo, BigMike! You're up!!!

And your question is...?

[Iwannaplato]

Some people seem to think that this forum is like a weird reality show whose main goal is to stir up rivalries and intrigues for entertainment. And maybe it is.

But I recently read a description of a four-step refutation model. So, here is a short summary for anyone who might be interested:

Step 1: "You say..."

• Directly refer to the argument
• Rephrase the argument
• State point quickly and clearly

Step 2: "But I disagree…"

• State your counter-argument
• Can be the opposite of the opponent's claim
• Can attack reasoning/evidence of opponent

Step 3: "Because…"

• Offer reasoning evidence to enforce your counter-argument
• Can be independent support
• Can be reasoned criticism

Step 4: "Therefore..."

• Compare your refutation to the opponent's argument
• Show that your argument is better

Tis a rare creature, might be on the endangered list, sadly.

[phyllo]

Some people seem to think that this forum is like a weird reality show whose main goal is to stir up rivalries and intrigues for entertainment. And maybe it is.

But I recently read a description of a four-step refutation model. So, here is a short summary for anyone who might be interested:

Step 1: "You say..."

• Directly refer to the argument
• Rephrase the argument
• State point quickly and clearly

Step 2: "But I disagree…"

• State your counter-argument
• Can be the opposite of the opponent's claim
• Can attack reasoning/evidence of opponent

Step 3: "Because…"

• Offer reasoning evidence to enforce your counter-argument
• Can be independent support
• Can be reasoned criticism

Step 4: "Therefore..."

• Compare your refutation to the opponent's argument
• Show that your argument is better

Arguments here are nothing but babble since no two people are in agreement on the meaning of the two words : determinism and free-will.

[BigMike]

Arguments here are nothing but babble since no two people are in agreement on the meaning of the two words : determinism and free-will.

You'd think it wouldn't be too tough to resolve, wouldn't you?

[phyllo]

Arguments here are nothing but babble since no two people are in agreement on the meaning of the two words : determinism and free-will.

You'd think it wouldn't be too tough to resolve, wouldn't you?

Okay. How?

Biggus calls you a "free-will determinist".

I post some determinism stuff and HQ says it's free-will.

They think that determinism is some sort of zombie state.

How are you going to shift them from these ideas?