Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:54 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:30 pm
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.

LOL NO one I know of does NOT accept that that is the definition that that one of MANY dictionaries has and uses.

But, as I have just CLEARLY SHOWN and POINTED OUT, that definition that that one dictionary has, and which you use, is a definition of a 'thing' that would OBVIOUSLY be an IMPOSSIBILITY to even exist.

Now, if you want to continue to use an IMPOSSIBLE to exist definition, which fits in with and suits your currently HELD BELIEF, then by all means feel FREE to use that one. I am CERTAINLY NOT wanting to stop you.

What you are doing here is working PERFECTLY for what I am SHOWING and REVEALING here. So, please continue on as you are.

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 12:02 am**

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:37 pm
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.

And here is a PERFECT example of WHY gaining wisdom was BLOCKED and PREVENTED while STUPIDITY and ABSURDITY PREVAILED, back in the days when this was being written.

LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' from BELIEFS only STOPS and PREVENTS one LEARNING more and becoming WISER in regards to what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS EXACTLY.

This one BELIEVES some 'thing' here SO STRONGLY that 'it' is now completely BLIND to the Fact of what 'it' ACTUALLY DOING now.

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 7:47 am**

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:54 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:30 pm
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.
LOL NO one I know of does NOT accept that that is the definition that that one of MANY dictionaries has and uses.

But, as I have just CLEARLY SHOWN and POINTED OUT, that definition that that one dictionary has, and which you use, is a definition of a 'thing' that would OBVIOUSLY be an IMPOSSIBILITY to even exist.

Well, determinists say the same thing, though they say it a bit more eloquently than you do. Determinists say that free will, as Britannica defines it and as people who believe in it say it is, is an illusion.

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:38 am**

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 7:47 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:54 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:30 pm
I fear Britannica will not allow me to alter their definition of free will. Sorry. We will have to accept it.
LOL NO one I know of does NOT accept that that is the definition that that one of MANY dictionaries has and uses.

But, as I have just CLEARLY SHOWN and POINTED OUT, that definition that that one dictionary has, and which you use, is a definition of a 'thing' that would OBVIOUSLY be an IMPOSSIBILITY to even exist.
Well, determinists say the same thing, though they say it a bit more eloquently than you do. Determinists say that free will, as Britannica defines it and as people who believe in it say it is, is an illusion.

LOL So, there are people who BELIEVE IN a 'thing' which, by definition, could NOT even exist. Okay.

By the way, saying some 'thing' so-called 'more eloquently, in NO means makes what they say 'more accurate' or even accurate AT ALL. As just SHOWN and PROVED True by what you just said here.

ALSO, you STILL have NOT YET grasped the Fact that there is NO human being who says 'free will' exists, with and from that IMPOSSIBLE definition, which you continue to HOLD ONTO and USE.

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:01 am**

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:38 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 7:47 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:54 pm
LOL NO one I know of does NOT accept that that is the definition that that one of MANY dictionaries has and uses.

But, as I have just CLEARLY SHOWN and POINTED OUT, that definition that that one dictionary has, and which you use, is a definition of a 'thing' that would OBVIOUSLY be an IMPOSSIBILITY to even exist.
Well, determinists say the same thing, though they say it a bit more eloquently than you do. Determinists say that free will, as Britannica defines it and as people who believe in it say it is, is an illusion.
LOL So, there are people who BELIEVE IN a 'thing' which, by definition, could NOT even exist. Okay.

Just to make sure you understand, the definition does not describe something "which, by definition, could NOT even exist." The issue arises when determinism is taken into account. Some people, including me, say it's because the idea of free will is wrong, while others say it's because the idea of determinism is wrong. Still, most people (59.1%, according PhilPapers https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl) argue that there is no problem and that free will and determinism can both be true (although they can't explain how).

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:27 am**

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:01 am
Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:38 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 7:47 am
Well, determinists say the same thing, though they say it a bit more eloquently than you do. Determinists say that free will, as Britannica defines it and as people who believe in it say it is, is an illusion.
LOL So, there are people who BELIEVE IN a 'thing' which, by definition, could NOT even exist. Okay.
Just to make sure you understand, the definition does not describe something "which, by definition, could NOT even exist."

SO, please inform us of HOW, EXACTLY, there COULD EXIST; "Some, supposed, power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions INDEPENDENTLY of any prior event or state of the universe."

You STILL do NOT YET seem to UNDERSTAND that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that could exist INDEPENDENTLY of absolutely ANY 'prior event' or 'state of the Universe'. And to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing could is just ABSURD and FOOLISH, in the extreme.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:01 am The issue arises when determinism is taken into account.

What 'issue'?

There is NO 'issue' here as ONLY 'determinism' exists WHEN and IF one USE 'that definition' for the words and term 'free will'.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:01 am Some people, including me, say it's because the idea of free will is wrong, while others say it's because the idea of determinism is wrong. Still, most people (59.1%, according PhilPapers https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl) argue that there is no problem and that free will and determinism can both be true (although they can't explain how).

But I can EXPLAIN FULLY, and VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, HOW BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' DO ACTUALLY C0-EXIST, TOGETHER.

So, WHY did you PRESUME what you do here?

Also, HOW could a 'thing', which could NEVER even be A POSSIBILITY, let alone be AN ACTUALITY, be 'wrong'?

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:36 am**

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:27 am

What you say is so incomprehensible that I do not even understand what you are asking. You appear to take every side and no side at all.
Perhaps I would understand if you asked me one question at a time. Or even better, perhaps, if someone else could explain to me what you mean.

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 11:14 am**

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:36 am
Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:27 am
What you say is so incomprehensible that I do not even understand what you are asking.

Would it be more correct if you said, "What you ask is so incomprehensible that I do not even understand what you are asking", or "What you say is so incomprehensible that I do not even understand what you are saying"?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:36 am You appear to take every side and no side at all.

Thank you for letting us know this?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:36 am Perhaps I would understand if you asked me one question at a time.

Do you understand that EACH and EVERY question I posed to you above has been asked one at a time?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:36 am Or even better, perhaps, if someone else could explain to me what you mean.

I can tell you what I mean. When I ask you a question I do NOT mean ANY thing.

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 11:41 am**

My list of idiots, my foe list, includes "Age," "seeds," "henry quirk," and "iambiguous." I no longer have the patience to deal with any of these people. Age was temporarily removed from the list but has since been reinstated to the roster. I've reached the point where I can no longer put up with his idiocy.

Being on my list means that I will not see any of those idiots' posts anymore. They are all invisible to me.

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 12:21 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 11:41 am My list of idiots, my foe list, includes "Age," "seeds," "henry quirk," and "iambiguous." I no longer have the patience to deal with any of these people. Age was temporarily removed from the list but has since been reinstated to the roster. I've reached the point where I can no longer put up with his idiocy.

Being on my list means that I will not see any of those idiots' posts anymore. They are all invisible to me.

LOL 'you' SAID this LAST TIME "bigmike".

And, 'you' are just RUNNING AWAY and HIDING because what 'you' have been SAYING and CLAIMING here has been PROVED to be Truly IDIOTIC and STUPID, making what 'you' are 'trying to' 'argue' for absolutely ILLOGICAL, INVALID, AND UNSOUND. As has ALREADY been CLEARLY SHOWN and PROVED True.

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 12:25 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:01 am
Some people, including me, say it's because the idea of free will is wrong, while others say it's because the idea of determinism is wrong. Still, most people (59.1%, according PhilPapers https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl) argue that there is no problem and that free will and determinism can both be true (although they can't explain how).

That's not a survey of a random, general population.

It's a survey of university philosophy faculty and philosophy students. The 59.1% is the result for "Target Faculty" which is a specific set of US, Canadian and European universities.

The results don't apply to "most people".

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 12:36 pm**

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 12:25 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:01 am
Some people, including me, say it's because the idea of free will is wrong, while others say it's because the idea of determinism is wrong. Still, most people (59.1%, according PhilPapers https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl) argue that there is no problem and that free will and determinism can both be true (although they can't explain how).
That's not a survey of a random, general population.

It's a survey of university philosophy faculty and philosophy students. The 59.1% is the result for "Target Faculty" which is a specific set of US, Canadian and European universities.

The results don't apply to "most people".

I'm aware of that, but as far as I know, there has never been another survey like that. Others, including Dan Dennett, have made reference to the Philpaper survey, so I chose to mention it in passing. Moreover, it is my subjective impression that there are far more compatibilists than determinists around, but it would be nice if I was wrong.

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 5:07 pm**

I was going to say thanks for the patience BigMike and Belinda have with Age and I find that they already put him on the ignore list

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:31 pm**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 3:26 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:33 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 8:24 pm

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.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:00 pm
Yes, Leucippus, who is credited with being the first to propose the concept of determinism, viewed it very differently than modern scientific thought.

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.

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:30 pm**

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 5:07 pm I was going to say thanks for the patience BigMike and Belinda have with Age and I find that they already put him on the ignore list

"bigmike" is continually, supposedly, putting me in 'its' ignore list, but then 'it' FREELY CHOOSES to bring me back out AGAIN when 'it' WANTS to respond to something that I have said and written.

Philosophy Now Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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