Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:50 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:28 am So, if humans have this line in their source code: "IF (this happens), THEN (you can CHOOSE to do or NOT do absolutely ANY thing)," what do you mean by "CHOOSE"?

I mean, pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives, or decide on a course of action.

What did you think I meant by 'CHOOSE', and what do you mean by 'CHOOSE'?

Since there is only one "best choice," the next question is how much of a "choice" is that?

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:53 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:38 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:10 pm I don't think many people will adopt a definition that so clearly goes against the idea of free will. But to be fair to you, your definition of free will shows that this kind of free will can't exist, whether you believe in determinism or not.

Unfortunately, I don't think many people care much about that particular kind of free will.

What is 'many people' based on EXACTLY, other than 'your' OWN 'confirmation bias'?

You, yourself said, just five minutes ago, that popeye1945's definition is a contradiction.

LOL I NEVER said ANY such thing, and the IRREFUTABLE PROOF is crystal clearly written above.. Here is MORE PROOF of just how quickly these posters here, back in the olden days, would ASSUME and PRESUME things, and BELIEVE them to be true, BEFORE they even began to sought out CLARIFICATION.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:53 am If you don't remember, here is what you said:

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:33 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 5:18 pm

To me, the ability to "perform reactions independently of any prior event or state of the universe" would be contradictory. What do you think?

For what it is worth, I think it would be CONTRADICTORY.

And this is just because EVERY human decision AND behavior is ALWAYS a REACTION, of a prior event.

So, 'trying to' CLAIM that human beings could even do some thing that is an IMPOSSIBILITY such as being absolutely INDEPENDENT of ANY prior event would only lead to CONTRADICTIONS.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here I WAS, and STILL AM, SAYING that what 'you' are SO DESPERATELY 'trying to' CLAIM here is CONTRADICTORY.

Which I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED True anyway.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:58 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:50 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:28 am So, if humans have this line in their source code: "IF (this happens), THEN (you can CHOOSE to do or NOT do absolutely ANY thing)," what do you mean by "CHOOSE"?

I mean, pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives, or decide on a course of action.

What did you think I meant by 'CHOOSE', and what do you mean by 'CHOOSE'?

Since there is only one "best choice," the next question is how much of a "choice" is that?

LOL

There could be as many 'best choices' as there are CHOOSING human beings.

Now, what is the word 'best' here in relation to, EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:04 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:58 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:50 am
I mean, pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives, or decide on a course of action.

What did you think I meant by 'CHOOSE', and what do you mean by 'CHOOSE'?

Since there is only one "best choice," the next question is how much of a "choice" is that?

Now, what is the word 'best' here in relation to, EXACTLY?

Are you asking me what you meant by "pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives, or decide on a course of action"? Have you forgotten what you meant by "the best or most appropriate"?

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:10 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:04 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:58 am

Since there is only one "best choice," the next question is how much of a "choice" is that?

Now, what is the word 'best' here in relation to, EXACTLY?

Are you asking me what you meant by "pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives, or decide on a course of action"?

NO.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:10 am Have you forgotten what you meant by "the best or most appropriate"?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:51 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:10 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:04 am
Now, what is the word 'best' here in relation to, EXACTLY?

Are you asking me what you meant by "pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives, or decide on a course of action"?

NO.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:10 am Have you forgotten what you meant by "the best or most appropriate"?

Didn't you just ask "Now, what is the word 'best' here in relation to, EXACTLY?"

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 2:43 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 11:19 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 3:58 pm

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.

Sorry Henry.
I'll try to explain.

sophisticated thinkin', of sexual congress, and of outward-turned mind

is the same as free will. What more does 'free will' add to "sophisticated thinkin', of sexual congress, and of outward-turned mind " ?

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:03 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:51 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:10 am
Are you asking me what you meant by "pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives, or decide on a course of action"?

NO.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:10 am Have you forgotten what you meant by "the best or most appropriate"?

Didn't you just ask "Now, what is the word 'best' here in relation to, EXACTLY?"

YES, and I am STILL WAITING for you to answer.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 12:14 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:03 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:51 am
NO.

Didn't you just ask "Now, what is the word 'best' here in relation to, EXACTLY?"

YES, and I am STILL WAITING for you to answer.

Are you stupid? Do you want me to tell you what you meant by the word "best" when you said "pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives, or decide on a course of action"?!?!?

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:33 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 8:24 pm

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

So, if Mary aborted Jane two months ago, aborts her today or aborts her two months down the road, Jane was/is/will be aborted.

You keep saying over and over again that favorite quotation of yours : "All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain..." and so on. When you say "All of this", which "this" are you referring to? Is it related to free will? Or determinism? Or are you just flabbergasted about something you don't understand?

Click.

This being all matter. There was matter and the laws that governed it before it "somehow" evolved into living matter. There was living matter and the laws that governed it before it "somehow" evolved into conscious matter. There was conscious matter and the laws that governed it before it "somehow" evolved into us.

And if you are not "flabbergasted" as to how matter itself actually accomplished that, what does this tell us about your own intellectual depth?

If Albert Einstein was still around, I have little doubt regarding how flabbergasted he would be.

After all, why on Earth do you suppose the gray matter and the white matter encompassing the human brain "somehow" invented all those Gods to explain it?

Instead, what those of your ilk do is to dismiss the "supernatural" and then "philosophically" just shrug off all the stuff you don't know about how the human condition itself fits into the explanation for the existence of existence itself. As though what could possibly be more trivial!!

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:33 pmThen of course there is the Mary/Jane fictional story of yours. I have asked you what the big deal is? I really don't get it.

As I noted to bobmax on my own Compatibilism thread...

"...the Mary/John story is based on a true experience that I had. John wanted Mary to give birth. If it was a girl, he wanted to call her Jane. But Mary aborted the fetus.

I just didn't use their real names.

Instead, in my view, compelled by your brain or not, you soar up into the intellectual contraption clouds:

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:32 pmDeterminism is an old idea that no longer makes sense. The old literal view of determinism was stabbed in the heart by Heisenberg. But the conservation laws still stand in a modern language (even conservation of energy, which for a few years was in serious doubt). Even in a quantum mechanical world with all its uncertainties and things coming into and going out of existence, this new definition of determinism is true: things must follow the physical laws of conservation (of energy, momentum, angular momentum, electric charge, etc.), which, by the way, are the basis of all physical laws.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:33 pmI just wanted to make it clear how my definition of determinism is different from what Leucippus said 2500 years ago. When quantum mechanics was discovered, the definition of determinism had to be revised, as I explained in the quotation above. Consider looking up the parts you don't understand if this is too complicated for you.

Again:

A "new definition". As though any definition is not the product of human brain matter wholly embedded in the immutable laws that govern all matter.

What, the laws of matter pertaining to the human brain were different for Leucippus?

As for quantum mechanics, that is just another inherent aspect of the laws of matter that we don't fully understand. Or, sure, in a No God world it is in fact crucial for understanding how Nature itself actually did go about creating human autonomy/volition/free will.

But that then really gets spooky. As though the Universe/Nature itself [like God] has an actual teleological component such that there is a reason or purpose behind it doing this. Pantheism?

As for "looking into parts I don't understand", are you or are you not arguing here that this is an option I am able to choose of my own volition in order to make me wise like you? Or will I choose instead to remain ignorant or stupid like everyone else here who doesn't think exactly as you do about these things?

Only, as we all know, human brain matter is unlike any other matter that there ever was. Indeed, only the brain matter of God Himself is more mind-boggling the flocks of bleating sheep here will insist.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:33 pmThat claim is false. Normal matter makes up the brain; there is nothing supernatural about it.

Ah, of course: the "free will determinist" matter that your brain is composed of.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 3:26 pmWhat, the laws of matter pertaining to the human brain were different for Leucippus?

Yes, Leucippus, who is credited with being the first to propose the concept of determinism, viewed it very differently than modern scientific thought.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:00 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 3:26 pmWhat, the laws of matter pertaining to the human brain were different for Leucippus?

Yes, Leucippus, who is credited with being the first to propose the concept of determinism, viewed it very differently than modern scientific thought.

You seem to have undermined your entire argument.

Now there is the possibility that "the laws of matter" will change again and that the understanding of physics is insufficient to speak about determinism.

Maybe even making free-will a possibility.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 12:35 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 12:14 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:03 am
Didn't you just ask "Now, what is the word 'best' here in relation to, EXACTLY?"

YES, and I am STILL WAITING for you to answer.

Are you stupid? Do you want me to tell you what you meant by the word "best" when you said "pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives, or decide on a course of action"?!?!?

NO.

WHY would you even PRESUME such a thing?

Now, back to where we were, do you still want to stick with A definition of 'free will' that is OBVIOUSLY one that could NEVER actually even exist? Or, would you like to CHANGE that definition?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:46 pm Now, back to where we were, do you still want to stick with A definition of 'free will' that is OBVIOUSLY one that could NEVER actually even exist? Or, would you like to CHANGE that definition?

I fear Britannica will not allow me to alter their definition of free will. Sorry. We will have to accept it.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:34 pm Now there is the possibility that "the laws of matter" will change again and that the understanding of physics is insufficient to speak about determinism.

That's just how things work in the scientific world. There is not much that we can do to change that. Deniers of scientific consensus almost always think this to be a groundbreaking discovery they've found. Scientists just roll their eyes at that.

Maybe even making free-will a possibility.

And pigs might fly.