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

[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?

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?

A definition, if properly constructed, should not be open to debate. You say what you think the thing you just defined means and what you think about it based on your definition. Everyone else needs to just accept it. Of course, if your definition makes no sense, like if it contradicts itself, others can rightly point out the mistake and say that it can't be used because it doesn't make sense. But if you have a good definition, you are free to use it in your own argument. Any argument against your claims must be based on flaws in the way you come to your conclusions, not on your definition itself.

If your definition is a logically valid one, any arguments against it should be ignored or politely dismissed, or the debate will go on forever.

[Age]

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?

It can be, and has been, resolved in about the time of a heartbeat. But the way 'you', posters, here have been carrying on there is NO wonder WHY this 'free will'/'determinism' has carried on for centuries, hitherto when this was being written, with absolutely NO progress.

The way these people here are SHOWING how they would communicate and discuss with each other is absolute PROOF of just how CLOSED, and thus STUPID, those people, back in those times, REALLY were.

[Age]

That is the safest thing to do when one has no solid ground to stand on.

And my point is illustrated thusly...

You say I cut & ran. I reacted.

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

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

That is just 'determinism' from YOUR perspective and definition.

[phyllo]

And my point is illustrated thusly...

You say I cut & ran. I reacted.

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

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

That is just 'determinism' from YOUR perspective and definition.

Okay, go ahead and give your definition and perspective.

[Age]

Pop,

Even a casual review of my contributions, in-forum, over the years, shows I'm always up for a good tussle.

LOL

What you say and claim here is very funny considering just how much 'you' run away, hide, and cower "henry quirk" when 'you' are CHALLENGED and/or QUESTIONED over what 'you' have said and claimed.

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.

Yes 'you' BOTH ARE IMMOVABLE, and this is just simply because 'you' are BOTH STUCK in 'your' OWN BELIEFS.

[Age]

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

That is just 'determinism' from YOUR perspective and definition.

Okay, go ahead and give your definition and perspective.

I will BUT my definitions are of absolutely NO significance at all here. What is SIGNIFICANT and IMPORTANT here is what we come to AGREE WITH and ACCEPT. Until then discussions like this are just a waste of time, as has been proved true throughout the centuries.

Anyway, to me;
'Free will' just refers to the ability, within, to make choices.

'Determinism' just refers to what happens, happens because of past events.

So, ALWAYS what is going to happen, WILL come about, which, by the way, DID come about because of BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' from those definitions and perspective.

But, please feel absolutely FREE to pick and CHOOSE your own definitions.

[Age]

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?

A definition, if properly constructed, should not be open to debate.

And 'your' definition of 'free will' "bigmike" is certainly NOT up for debate, because your definition of 'free will' could NOT even be a possibility to exist, let alone even relate to what ACTUALLY exists.

You say what you think the thing you just defined means and what you think about it based on your definition. Everyone else needs to just accept it.

But absolutely NO one HAS TO just accept ANY definition. Sure we HAVE TO accept that 'you' have and HOLD an IMPOSSIBLE to exist definition but we certainly do NOT HAVE TO accept that definition AT ALL.

Of course, if your definition makes no sense, like if it contradicts itself, others can rightly point out the mistake and say that it can't be used because it doesn't make sense.

And your definition makes NO sense, which has ALREADY been POINTED OUT to you.

That you will NOT accept this and you just want to continue to HOLD that definition and BELIEVE what you do here is your CHOICE ALONE.

But if you have a good definition, you are free to use it in your own argument. Any argument against your claims must be based on flaws in the way you come to your conclusions, not on your definition itself.

What makes a 'definition' a 'good definition', to 'you', "bigmike"?

Is making up a definition, which could NOT even be a possibility to exist, just so that one could then, laughably, CLAIM that now what they BELIEVE is true, is therefore true, a 'good reason'?

If your definition is a logically valid one, any arguments against it should be ignored or politely dismissed, or the debate will go on forever.

Is making up a definition, which could NOT even possibly exist, be a logically valid one?

[BigMike]

Anyway, to me;
'Free will' just refers to the ability, within, to make choices.

When my robotic vacuum cleaner, a Roomba, encounters a wall, it will sometimes turn to the left and sometimes to the right. According to your definition, it possesses free will. You might want to hone the definition a little bit, don't you think? I think it would be helpful to include something that differentiates "will" and "free will".

'Determinism' just refers to what happens, happens because of past events.

Are you implying that, for instance, if you make a choice, you make that choice "because of past events"?

[Age]

Anyway, to me;
'Free will' just refers to the ability, within, to make choices.

When my robotic vacuum cleaner, a Roomba, encounters a wall, it will sometimes turn to the left and sometimes to the right. According to your definition, it possesses free will.

NO it does NOT, AT ALL.

And here is ANOTHER example of just how CLOSED or NARROWED people are when they only look at 'things' from their OWN VIEWS, BELIEFS, or ASSUMPTIONS.

You might want to hone the definition a little bit, don't you think?

At it stands now, NO, NOT AT ALL. That definition is VERY SUFFICIENT, and works PERFECTLY, as it stands, in the GUTOE.

But if ANY one wants to PROVIDE ANY other definition for 'us' to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, then I am MORE than WILLING to, and to CHANGE.

I think it would be helpful to include something that differentiates "will" and "free will".

Did your definition do this?

'Determinism' just refers to what happens, happens because of past events.

Are you implying that, for instance, if you make a choice, you make that choice "because of past events"?

In A sense. But NOT in the ABSOLUTE sense that you WANT to refer to.

Also, and ONCE AGAIN, it seems like 'you' are absolutely FREE to when 'you' WANT to PICK and CHOOSE when to read, and respond to, 'me'.

[BigMike]

Anyway, to me;
'Free will' just refers to the ability, within, to make choices.

When my robotic vacuum cleaner, a Roomba, encounters a wall, it will sometimes turn to the left and sometimes to the right. According to your definition, it possesses free will.

NO it does NOT, AT ALL.

If this is the case, then it is abundantly clear that I have a misunderstanding of what you mean when you say "the ability, within, to make choices". Could you please elaborate on that for me?

[Belinda]

The newborn infant is evidence man is not a free will. The deep sleeper is evidence man is not a free will.

Nope. A newborn is is incapable of sophisticated thinkin', is incapable of sexual congress: is this evidence sophisticated thinkin or sexual congress are fictions? The deep sleeper is asleep, not brain dead. His mind is turned inward, not turned off.

You have just said there are causes that the newborn infant, and the sleeping man, are not free wills. The causes you say are " incapable of sophisticated thinkin', is incapable of sexual congress:" . These are indeed facts, as is that the sleeper's mind is turned inwards.

If these facts necessary and sufficient to separate free wills from not free wills, then there is no difference between these facts and free will. Your claim is a tautology. And there is no need to add free will to the facts. Because you have said in effect to be incapable of sophisticated thinkin', of sexual congress, and of outward-turned mind is the same as saying free will.

[BigMike]

But if ANY one wants to PROVIDE ANY other definition for 'us' to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, then I am MORE than WILLING to, and to CHANGE.

This one works for me: Britannica defines free will as "the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will) However, there are numerous other equivalent definitions available.

[BigMike]

I think it would be helpful to include something that differentiates "will" and "free will".

Did your definition do this?

Yes, it is free because it is "independently of any prior event or state of the universe". Obviously, it would not be free without this clause.

[BigMike]

'Determinism' just refers to what happens, happens because of past events.

Are you implying that, for instance, if you make a choice, you make that choice "because of past events"?

In A sense. But NOT in the ABSOLUTE sense that you WANT to refer to.

Not because I "WANT to refer to" it that way. I rely solely on your own definitions. Is there a problem with your definitions? How then do you imply that which I asked you, if "NOT in the ABSOLUTE sense"?

[phyllo]

But if ANY one wants to PROVIDE ANY other definition for 'us' to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, then I am MORE than WILLING to, and to CHANGE.

This one works for me: Britannica defines free will as "the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will) However, there are numerous other equivalent definitions available.

That's a good definition because it focuses on the one critical difference between free-will and determinism.