Philosophy Now Forum

The issue of whether free will is deterministic or "random", really boils down to an issue of definition of a metaphysics of free will. From this perspective, one finds an innumerable amount of definitions. To reduce free will to one definition in many respects leads to a one dimensional viewpoint whose only definition can result as a series interconnected primitives/axioms that reduces the nature of free will to a non-zero sum game of "stacked" definitions.

To argue for or against free will requires an axiomatic take on what free will is, leading to a level of subjectivity amidst observers resulting in a "probabilistic" definition as those partaking in such a discussion will have specific viewpoints compared to those who do not. It is these viewpoints which lends itself to an inherent probabilistic definition.

Take for example the nature of your standard philosophy forum. The average member has often put more time and effort in trying to understand such perceptions; and in review of these perceptions usually take a fallibilistic approach as the sheer numbers of opinions leads one to a mentally where justification does not always equal truth.

Taken from just the nature of definition alone, as to what free will is, requires acknowledgement of the probabalistic nature of definition when coming from the perspective of "man as the measurement of all things." It is within this nature of definition, requiring an inherent probabilism that we can observe a dualism between:

1) A necessary stability, observed through the ability to manifest beginning angles of measurement.
2) A necessary flux corresponding from the furtherance of that beginning angle of measurement.

It is within this duality of "stability" and "flux" that a duality of causality and non-causality occurs, which appears at the surface as contradictory but in reality can be observed as a minimum of 2 dimensions required in order to understand the nature of what constitutes free will.

When dealing with causality, or stability, one has to take the perspective of

exact A + exact B = exact C.

However, just using the above example and nature of aquiring definition we observe a lack of exactness/definition which corresponds to

A + exact B
exact A + B
or
A+B

all of which, through application of Chaos theory, do not equal exact C. And yet we are stuck with a minimum form of defintion in both A and B that corresponds in nature to subjective Axioms.

A fusion, from a Hegelian view of sythesis, can be aquired in order to give further definition, as to what free will contains as elements, without really giving an contradictory limit to it.

(Causality/stability)+(flux/randomness)= Probabilistic Determinism
****(The name of which I have to give credit to Stephen Hawking).

It is from a perspective of a probabilistic determinism, that the option of an answer "C" can be attributed for:
A + exact B
exact A + B
or
A+B

without having any specific contradictions that view both "Causality" and "Randomness" not as perspectives fighting for dominance but rather different dimensions of the same thing.

Now as to the magnitude of these dimensions, that is another argument all together as a hypothetical free will that composes 99.9999999....% of the human condition versus one that composes .0000000000...1% is still free will either way.

The need for stability allows certain Platonic forms to exist, as order implies existence, while requiring a necessary element of flux that allows for propagation. Take for example the platonic form of a tree. The form of a tree is the form of a tree regardless of how it manifests. But the ability for it to manifest in variety falsely puts question as to what a tree really is, as the questions occur is a tree with 100 branches more of a tree than
one with 2? And you get the points, as forms as strictly measures of possible functions rather than the functions as 1 dimensional specifics. This same argument can be applied to the form and function of what free will is and is not, taking into account a necessary propogative element that allows for "possibility."

One cannot say that the free will is completely random as complete randomness implies a complete deficiency in existence through a deficiency in order.

One cannot say that free will is completely deterministic either as a complete determinism does not account for any form of variables changing within the succession of variables. And this succession of variables requires a degree of flux inherent within the variable itself.

So the best course of action in regards to the question of "Free Will" vs. "Determinism" is to view it as a non-zero sum game of "Free will" and "Determinism" both manifesting each other as a "Probabilistic Determinism".

Eodnhoj7. It is an important problem. If it were true that an individual originated his actions there would be, under law, no mitigating circumstances. And vice versa if her actions were caused.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Dave Mangnall wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"I'm genuinely asking for help in accessing a detailed account of free will."

Why not begin with the best resource and reference you have: you and your own experience of choosing and self-directing?

Hi, Henry. Nice to hear from you again.

"Choosing" proves nothing.
Sure it does! Now pay attention!

Free Will
noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

We choose, but we do not choose how we choose.
Incorrect, as knowledge informs all choices!

We choose, but we do not “make choices”.
Incorrect as variable knowledge can 'make' choices either available or not.

The choices come to us, appear before our consciousness,
Sorry but no, it's not necessarily love and miracles out of nowhere. No abracadabra! It's memory banks of knowledge!

during the course of the unfolding of events,
Yet you've just shot your limited knowledge in the foot! Not very smart, but then a clone often has no other recourse.

the rolling revelation to ourselves of our personal script.
Which is in fact, informed by knowledge, or not!

Similarly with "self-direction".
Not at all!

When you think of yourself as making a decision,
Your accessing your memory banks of knowledge!

what you're really doing is finding out what it is that you're going to find yourself doing.
You are surely starting to sound like a mindless drone, a parrot, a puppet, but the people that wrote what it is that you're choosing to, 'quote/paraphrase,' i.e., so called knowledge, wasn't. Where they? As they coined that particular vein of reason, not that it's necessarily reasonable, right? Sure, it's their chosen opinion! And sure you've chosen to parrot it! Right?

Can you only find your strength in the words of others? I guess that's your CHOICE! I mean the argument is still ongoing right? There has been no necessarily correct victor declared by any so called authority, such that it's deemed absolutely in fact knowledge, right? Only in your own mind have you, thanks to your particular interpretation of the words that other minds have written, chosen, to declare a victor, right?


Try a bit of introspection at the moment of choice or decision and then tell me I'm wrong!
Already been there and done that, and "you're wrong!" Unlike you I can course my entire life and see very clearly my growth, and in all cases my choosing was informed by knowledge, or not. Of course it was contained within the framework of the universe and mans violence (laws). But make no mistake, I can choose from any variables that a deterministic universe makes available to me, in any moment I choose!

And then tell me, in detail, of your experience of "choosing".
Please take note of the 'fact' that whether I choose to inform such a bonehead or not, doesn't necessarily prove or disprove you're parroted assertions. Though I'm sure you'll choose to 'believe' otherwise!

Gosh, you're a feisty little fellow aren't you? I've read all your ravings with interest, and I hope that very soon you find the professional help that you surely need!

henry quirk wrote:"Now, Henry, if I understand you, the consciousness has some causal force in your free will model, rather than being merely a means of perception, as it is for me. So can you describe for me your own experience of decision-making?"

Honestly, Dave, I'm not seein'' much profit, for me, in describing how I go about things when we can't even agree on sumthin' as basic as consciousness. See, I don't think consciousness has a causal force. Instead, I think 'I' am a causal force.

When I say “if I understand you”, that’s an invitation, which you in fact accepted, to correct me if I misunderstand you. So progress has in fact been made. At least it has for me, even if there's no profit in it for you. I take it that you’re unpersuaded by my idea that there’s still value in debate that does not lead to persuasion, if it does lead to a greater understanding of the otherness of the other.

By your reckoning, there's no fundamental difference between me and lightning as both me and the sky spark are just products or links in a chain.

No difference between you and lightning? What on earth can make you think that I reckon any such thing? I’ve noted throughout the thread a tendency to hugely exaggerate the implications of determinism. For me, the only point of issue is whether, whatever you’ve done, you could have done otherwise. You believe that you could, because of free will. I believe that you could not, because of determinism.

We're all mules on this matter, tugging away...if it's all the same to you: I'm slippin' out of the harness for awhile.

I’m sorry you’re feeling disenchanted with the debate. And we all need a break sometimes. But when you return, as I’m sure you will, I’d still like to hear your description of the decision making process.

Hi Immanuel. Nearly three weeks ago I promised you a considered response to this post. I’m sorry it’s taken so long. It’s hard work keeping up with this thread. It’s a good job I don’t have a job any more.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dave Mangnall wrote:]I'm still not convinced we understand each other on mind changing. What is it you think that determinism would prevent from happening in this respect?

Ah. Well, here I have to remind you of your objection to Spheres. He thinks that "feeing free" is equivalent to "being free." Clearly you don't think that's true; but it does nicely represent the difference between my position and what I think yours might be. For I say that being free is more than a feeling, and you -- if you're a Determinist -- would have to insist it was just a sort of weird, psychological effect or impression overlaid on the pure factuality of predetermination of all things.

Really, Immanuel, you must stop telling me on what I would have to insist! I don’t find anything weird about feeling free. The differences between us on this would be utterly insignificant if we weren’t discussing philosophy. Let me explain why I say that, using an example.
I feel free to go to the pub tonight. I’m not incarcerated, or impaired, or broke. My wife wouldn’t try to stop me. The only reason I won’t be going to the pub tonight is that I don’t want to. I’m thinking that so far my feeling of freedom is the same as yours.
Here’s the difference, trivial except for its philosophical import. For me, if I don’t want to go to the pub, it could not be otherwise. I read my inner script, and find it involves not wanting to go to the pub. For you, it could be otherwise. You’ve used your free will to choose to not to want to go to the pub. (For all I know, of course, you could be down the pub as I write!)

But everything happens as it must happen.

What secures our confidence in that axiom?

My confidence in that axiom is provisional on your not being able to explain to me how something could have happened other than as it did. As soon as that explanation’s received and understood, out of the window goes the axiom, and my determinism with it. Because the axiom is a fundamental cornerstone of my determinism model.

... the unpredictable future...

How can a Determinist future ever be accorded the adjective "unpredictable"? Not in human practice, I mean; I understand that people quit routinely feel unpredictability -- but rather in theoretical implication. That is, if nothing but causality applies, then IF we had the data and computational ability to do it, then in theory ALL events would be predictable: or so Determinism must hold. So why call any "unpredictable"?

Sorry, sloppy language on my part. I was talking of unpredictable in practice, not unpredictable in principle.

It's almost as thought we self-aware entities have a built-in doubting ability for Determinism -- or more, that we cannot seem to function as living entities without acting as if physical causality isn't really all that's true, as if it just isn't the whole story. And isn't it odd that physical causality should have built that into us, if indeed, it is purely physical causes that have done that? But it's so generally observable that at least we've got to ask that question, no?

I’ll admit candidly that I don’t understand your point here. I think my confusion stems from this. In my everyday functioning as a living entity, as opposed to my philosophising, I don’t give the truth or otherwise of physical causality a moment’s consideration.

Nah, Dave, I'm done.

Again, not seein' the point in the debate (here or in the wider culture).

I'm inclined to just let folks do and think what they like (*as long as they're mindin' their own business and keepin' their hands to themselves).

Mannie is a worthy debate partner with, I think, a much bigger investement in seein' wrong heads made right, so I leave it to you and him to hash out.









*and I got the perfect remedy for those that won't

Dave Mangnall wrote:

I feel free to go to the pub tonight. I’m not incarcerated, or impaired, or broke. My wife wouldn’t try to stop me. The only reason I won’t be going to the pub tonight is that I don’t want to. I’m thinking that so far my feeling of freedom is the same as yours.
Here’s the difference, trivial except for its philosophical import. For me, if I don’t want to go to the pub, it could not be otherwise. I read my inner script, and find it involves not wanting to go to the pub. For you, it could be otherwise. You’ve used your free will to choose to not to want to go to the pub. (For all I know, of course, you could be down the pub as I write!)

For all know not wanting to go to the pub may be one your most constant traits. If this is so, together with not wanting to go to the pub tonight, if you were to do violence to your feelings and go to the pub despite your established preference , to prove that FreeWill existed, would this act prove that your will was free?

Dave Mangnall wrote:It’s a good job I don’t have a job any more.

Hi Dave.

Retired or withdrawn from post, I hope? Not anything unpleasant? Good.

...you must stop telling me on what I would have to insist!

I don't mean to tell you what you must personally believe -- of course, that could be anything at all -- but what one would be logically obliged to believe if one were a person who wanted to be rationally consistent with the premises in question. That's all. If you decide you don't want to be, I have no opinion on your right to choose that state.

Here’s the difference, trivial except for its philosophical import. For me, if I don’t want to go to the pub, it could not be otherwise. I read my inner script, and find it involves not wanting to go to the pub. For you, it could be otherwise. You’ve used your free will to choose to not to want to go to the pub. (For all I know, of course, you could be down the pub as I write!)

But in Determinism, Dave, there's no "inner script" that produces causes and effects. "Inner script" can mean only what was written for you by prior forces, such as your hangover from last night, or your lack of funds to go to the pub tonight. These, in turn, were not random factors but predetermined by other forces...and so on forever.

But everything happens as it must happen.

What secures our confidence in that axiom?

My confidence in that axiom is provisional on your not being able to explain to me how something could have happened other than as it did.

That's not logical. "I do not presently believe IC can explain away Determinism to me, therefore Determinism is true." How does it sound when put like that?

As soon as that explanation’s received and understood, out of the window goes the axiom, and my determinism with it. Because the axiom is a fundamental cornerstone of my determinism model.

Then I would say, "Open the window." You've given yourself no reason to think Determinism is true. Being unconvinced of free will is not sufficient warrant for any confidence in Determinism. All that logically follows is uncertainty. And if you are content to profess that, then I would understand.

Sorry, sloppy language on my part. I was talking of unpredictable in practice, not unpredictable in principle.

Oh. Okay. No problem.

If Determinism is true, though, what's the difference between "in practice" and "in principle"? Do you mean "in delusion" versus "in reality" respectively?

It's almost as thought we self-aware entities have a built-in doubting ability for Determinism -- or more, that we cannot seem to function as living entities without acting as if physical causality isn't really all that's true, as if it just isn't the whole story. And isn't it odd that physical causality should have built that into us, if indeed, it is purely physical causes that have done that? But it's so generally observable that at least we've got to ask that question, no?

I’ll admit candidly that I don’t understand your point here. I think my confusion stems from this. In my everyday functioning as a living entity, as opposed to my philosophising, I don’t give the truth or otherwise of physical causality a moment’s consideration.

Oh. I just meant that if Determinism is the rule of the universe, why would we even have a sense that things were any other way? Why would everybody act like they believe in free will, when free will was a total delusion? For it seems to me that the universe itself has no stake in cultivating in us delusions about reality, does it? And how would a delusion be better than any hard-nosed realistic Determinism, if Determinism were true?

It all just doesn't add up. It seems to presume that somehow, a "Determinist" universe 'chooses' to cause us to feel as if Determinism isn't the way things are? Why? How? In fact, how can a Determinist universe "decide" anything, or have any "purpose" in what it makes us think? Why is it even possible for us to think free will is real?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dave Mangnall wrote:It’s a good job I don’t have a job any more.

Hi Dave.

Retired or withdrawn from post, I hope? Not anything unpleasant? Good.

Hi, Immanuel.

Thank you for coming back to me so quickly when I took so long to come back to you.

Yes, I am retired, free to devote myself to philosophy, music, the game of bridge, and generally living the life of the mind.

But in Determinism, Dave, there's no "inner script" that produces causes and effects. "Inner script" can mean only what was written for you by prior forces, such as your hangover from last night, or your lack of funds to go to the pub tonight. These, in turn, were not random factors but predetermined by other forces...and so on forever.

Correct. My inner script is predetermined by what I think of as the Causal Nexus.

What secures our confidence in that axiom?

My confidence in that axiom is provisional on your not being able to explain to me how something could have happened other than as it did.

That's not logical. "I do not presently believe IC can explain away Determinism to me, therefore Determinism is true." How does it sound when put like that?

Sorry, I’ve expressed myself badly. I’m happy to believe in axioms that are unprovable but which also appear to be irrefutable, as long as those axioms support a conceptual model within which the world appears to make sense. If you, or anybody else, can refute such an axiom, then there goes the irrefutability and there goes the model. Meanwhile, pending such refutation, I’m happy with the axiom and the model.

As soon as that explanation’s received and understood, out of the window goes the axiom, and my determinism with it. Because the axiom is a fundamental cornerstone of my determinism model.

Then I would say, "Open the window." You've given yourself no reason to think Determinism is true. Being unconvinced of free will is not sufficient warrant for any confidence in Determinism. All that logically follows is uncertainty.

My confidence in Determinism is based on my introspective insights regarding the nature of choice and decision, which I have described earlier, together with the observation that although the account of determinism is incomplete, inevitably so, the account of free will is non-existent. From what I’ve read, both from yourself and the others contributing to this thread, your position is exactly that of Samuel Johnson. “We know our will is free and there’s an end on’t”.

Sorry, sloppy language on my part. I was talking of unpredictable in practice, not unpredictable in principle.

Oh. Okay. No problem.

If Determinism is true, though, what's the difference between "in practice" and "in principle"? Do you mean "in delusion" versus "in reality" respectively?

Ah, your sarcasm's breaking out again. It's no good trying to make me feel foolish; you know that's not going to work!

Several so-called paradoxes, including the famous “Newcomb’s paradox” are based on the idea that if determinism were to be true then, in principle, some fantastic being or supercomputer could know everything that was going to happen. There’s an example back up this thread. In practice, no such being or computer exists, and it never will.

It's almost as thought we self-aware entities have a built-in doubting ability for Determinism -- or more, that we cannot seem to function as living entities without acting as if physical causality isn't really all that's true, as if it just isn't the whole story. And isn't it odd that physical causality should have built that into us, if indeed, it is purely physical causes that have done that? But it's so generally observable that at least we've got to ask that question, no?

I’ll admit candidly that I don’t understand your point here. I think my confusion stems from this. In my everyday functioning as a living entity, as opposed to my philosophising, I don’t give the truth or otherwise of physical causality a moment’s consideration.

Oh. I just meant that if Determinism is the rule of the universe, why would we even have a sense that things were any other way? Why would everybody act like they believe in free will, when free will was a total delusion? For it seems to me that the universe itself has no stake in cultivating in us delusions about reality, does it? And how would a delusion be better than any hard-nosed realistic Determinism, if Determinism were true?

I’m going to quote Nietzsche here, from “The Gay Science”. I do realise that he was not a determinist, far from it, but this seems relevant.

“We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live - by the postulating of bodies, lines, surfaces, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content: without these articles of faith no one could manage to live at present! But for all that they are still unproved. Life is no argument; error might be among the conditions of life.”

Now, humour me for a moment and imagine that determinism might be true. If that were the case (as I believe it is, of course) then it might well be necessary that, nonetheless, the great majority of people, and possibly all the people who are running the show, should believe in free will. Error might be among the conditions of life.

I hope that answers all your questions, although I'm pretty sure it won't! I look forward to hearing from you further. I still owe you a response on your other March 4th post.

Immanuel Cant wrote:

Several so-called paradoxes, including the famous “Newcomb’s paradox” are based on the idea that if determinism were to be true then, in principle, some fantastic being or supercomputer could know everything that was going to happen. There’s an example back up this thread. In practice, no such being or computer exists, and it never will.

That would be true if it were the case that the future is finite. This is possible, that the future is finite, and when the Universe ends so will time end.
We however are not supercomputers and moreover a supercomputer such as IC describes is impossible due to computers' depending upon truth relative to time. That is why determinism doesn't imply prediction.

I endorse Dave Mangnall in his opinion that while determinism is not proven it has some reason/evidence to it while Free Will has none.

thedoc wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: You are surely starting to sound like a mindless drone, a parrot, a puppet, but the people that wrote what it is that you're choosing to, 'quote/paraphrase,' i.e., so called knowledge, wasn't. Where they? As they coined that particular vein of reason, not that it's necessarily reasonable, right? Sure, it's their chosen opinion! And sure you've chosen to parrot it! Right?

Can you only find your strength in the words of others? I guess that's your CHOICE! I mean the argument is still ongoing right? There has been no necessarily correct victor declared by any so called authority, such that it's deemed absolutely in fact knowledge, right? Only in your own mind have you, thanks to your particular interpretation of the words that other minds have written, chosen, to declare a victor, right?

You constantly use the term "right?", with a question mark. Who are you trying to convince, and what are you trying to convince them of? If it's short for "Am I right?" then I would have to say that you are wrong.

Doc, that's the beauty of freedom of speech, any fool can say anything that they want, right?
And I'll be the first to support you in that endeavor! And that's right!!!!

Dave Mangnall wrote:My inner script is predetermined by what I think of as the Causal Nexus.

Then Dave, you can't imagine I will ever agree with you. After all, I must be just reacting to the causal forces behind my own position. Or if I change, it will not because of Dave Mangnall's argument, but only that I was predestinated to change.

So there's no win for you at all.

...I’m happy to believe in axioms that are unprovable but which also appear to be irrefutable, as long as those axioms support a conceptual model within which the world appears to make sense. If you, or anybody else, can refute such an axiom, then there goes the irrefutability and there goes the model. Meanwhile, pending such refutation, I’m happy with the axiom and the model.

There's some sense to that, Dave. We all go with the most plausible theory we have until we find a better one. Nothing wrong with that per se.

The problem with Determinism, though, is not that it is true but that it admits of no falsification For every evidence presented by one who believe in Free Will, Determinism has a reductional response: "That's just...X, or Y, or Z." And because Free Will (accepting, for the sake of argument, that it exists, for the moment) if it does exist is surely a spiritual phenomenon, is not amenable to visual appearances in the way physical causes and effects are.

So the Determinist can always use what I call "nothing-buttery." It goes, "Mind? That's nothing but brain." "Consciousness? That's nothing but an epiphenomenon." "Morality? That's nothing but a manifestation of social arrangements." "Reason? That's nothing but post facto rationalization." "Self? That's nothing but the body." "Love? That's nothing but hormones." And so on. Every single answer I would say is reductional and inadequate, leaving the asker feeling like something important has been missed. But it's impossible to dissuade anybody who's sipping the Determinist cool-aid that those answers are real answers.

But flip it around. Do you remember Karl Popper and Falsificationism? He said that if a scientific theory is genuinely coherent, there will be terms specifiable upon which it is falsifiable. In other words, to say that we have reason to think it's RIGHT we owe it to people to say what the test would be to show it's WRONG, and then affirm that the challenge of that test has been sufficiently met. Then they ought to believe us.

So if Determinism is such a good, compelling, rational and scientific theory as you say, and not a reductional dodge, then let me ask you this:

What do you regard as a scientific test that would falsify Determinism?

From what I’ve read, both from yourself and the others contributing to this thread, your position is exactly that of Samuel Johnson. “We know our will is free and there’s an end on’t”.

I guess you have not read all I've written on it to others, because I've said a whole bunch of times what phenomena seem to me to point strongly toward the existence of Free Will. I've even pointed to your own behaviour as evidence. Moreover, I've actually proposed a test to see if one can get in touch with the existential experience of Free Will. But you seem to have missed all that somehow...

If Determinism is true, though, what's the difference between "in practice" and "in principle"? Do you mean "in delusion" versus "in reality" respectively?

Ah, your sarcasm's breaking out again.

Not a jot, actually. I am totally sincere.

Orwell said that when we use euphemisms instead of the word we really believe, we are in danger of fooling not just other people but ourselves as well. I really agree with that, so I was asking you if saying what you meant looked right -- and sarcasm was not at all in my mind.

In practice, no such being or computer exists, and it never will.

But self-evidently, if the Supreme Being did, He would be able to do this sort of calculation, no?

...error might be among the conditions of life.”

Now, humour me for a moment and imagine that determinism might be true. If that were the case (as I believe it is, of course) then it might well be necessary that, nonetheless, the great majority of people, and possibly all the people who are running the show, should believe in free will. Error might be among the conditions of life.

I don't doubt that it is. But it fails to respond to the question of whether Determinism is the error or Free Will is. That's what has to be settled.

But I think we can judge actually. You see, cause and effect actually admits of no "error." I don't mean that human beings cannot appear to do things "erroneously." What I mean is that the term "error" really has no referent in a Determinist universe, because effects ALWAYS follow their causes perfectly. What then can an "error" be, but merely a false attribution we make upon the actual phenomenon of things being as they were predestined to be?

So it is the Determinist view that has no place in it for the concept of "error." The very existence of that concept, if there is any reality to it, serves only the Free Will side.

I hope that answers all your questions, although I'm pretty sure it won't! I look forward to hearing from you further. I still owe you a response on your other March 4th post.

We're all busy, Dave. Honestly, I can't tell you when I'll have to bug out for a bit and then come back. I might go on vacation, or be preoccupied with work, or whatever. When I do, if I find I need to, I'm sure you'll be patient too. You seem a reasonable guy.

Dave Mangnall wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Dave Mangnall wrote:
Hi, Henry. Nice to hear from you again.

"Choosing" proves nothing.
Sure it does! Now pay attention!

Free Will
noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

We choose, but we do not choose how we choose.
Incorrect, as knowledge informs all choices!

We choose, but we do not “make choices”.
Incorrect as variable knowledge can 'make' choices either available or not.

The choices come to us, appear before our consciousness,
Sorry but no, it's not necessarily love and miracles out of nowhere. No abracadabra! It's memory banks of knowledge!

during the course of the unfolding of events,
Yet you've just shot your limited knowledge in the foot! Not very smart, but then a clone often has no other recourse.

the rolling revelation to ourselves of our personal script.
Which is in fact, informed by knowledge, or not!

Similarly with "self-direction".
Not at all!

When you think of yourself as making a decision,
Your accessing your memory banks of knowledge!

what you're really doing is finding out what it is that you're going to find yourself doing.
You are surely starting to sound like a mindless drone, a parrot, a puppet, but the people that wrote what it is that you're choosing to, 'quote/paraphrase,' i.e., so called knowledge, wasn't. Where they? As they coined that particular vein of reason, not that it's necessarily reasonable, right? Sure, it's their chosen opinion! And sure you've chosen to parrot it! Right?

Can you only find your strength in the words of others? I guess that's your CHOICE! I mean the argument is still ongoing right? There has been no necessarily correct victor declared by any so called authority, such that it's deemed absolutely in fact knowledge, right? Only in your own mind have you, thanks to your particular interpretation of the words that other minds have written, chosen, to declare a victor, right?


Try a bit of introspection at the moment of choice or decision and then tell me I'm wrong!
Already been there and done that, and "you're wrong!" Unlike you I can course my entire life and see very clearly my growth, and in all cases my choosing was informed by knowledge, or not. Of course it was contained within the framework of the universe and mans violence (laws). But make no mistake, I can choose from any variables that a deterministic universe makes available to me, in any moment I choose!

And then tell me, in detail, of your experience of "choosing".
Please take note of the 'fact' that whether I choose to inform such a bonehead or not, doesn't necessarily prove or disprove you're parroted assertions. Though I'm sure you'll choose to 'believe' otherwise!

Gosh, you're a feisty little fellow aren't you?
Surely your opinion! Which are like as. ho..s, yes? Projection?

I've read all your ravings with interest,
A self stroking characterization! Projection?

and I hope that very soon you find the professional help that you surely need!
Again, A self stroking characterization! Projection?

But you are surely 'free' to dodge using those ploys. Or could it be that your response was in fact 'determined' by your fear! But then you have the 'free will to instead 'choose' to quell that fear, to finally think for yourself.

Fear, the mind killer!

Dave Mangnall wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"Now, Henry, if I understand you, the consciousness has some causal force in your free will model, rather than being merely a means of perception, as it is for me. So can you describe for me your own experience of decision-making?"

Honestly, Dave, I'm not seein'' much profit, for me, in describing how I go about things when we can't even agree on sumthin' as basic as consciousness. See, I don't think consciousness has a causal force. Instead, I think 'I' am a causal force.

When I say “if I understand you”, that’s an invitation, which you in fact accepted, to correct me if I misunderstand you. So progress has in fact been made. At least it has for me, even if there's no profit in it for you. I take it that you’re unpersuaded by my idea that there’s still value in debate that does not lead to persuasion, if it does lead to a greater understanding of the otherness of the other.

By your reckoning, there's no fundamental difference between me and lightning as both me and the sky spark are just products or links in a chain.

No difference between you and lightning? What on earth can make you think that I reckon any such thing? I’ve noted throughout the thread a tendency to hugely exaggerate the implications of determinism. For me, the only point of issue is whether, whatever you’ve done, you could have done otherwise. You believe that you could, because of free will. I believe that you could not, because of determinism.

We're all mules on this matter, tugging away...if it's all the same to you: I'm slippin' out of the harness for awhile.

I’m sorry you’re feeling disenchanted with the debate. And we all need a break sometimes. But when you return, as I’m sure you will, I’d still like to hear your description of the decision making process.

Your attempt at being a condescending putz is obvious, yet you only achieve being the latter. At least in my minds eye! Do you reckon, yes?

Oh it's just determined, right? What a self stroking moron, you! Do you Reckon????

Free will exists within the framework of determinism, such that free will is; relatively speaking, of course!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

thedoc wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: You are surely starting to sound like a mindless drone, a parrot, a puppet, but the people that wrote what it is that you're choosing to, 'quote/paraphrase,' i.e., so called knowledge, wasn't. Where they? As they coined that particular vein of reason, not that it's necessarily reasonable, right? Sure, it's their chosen opinion! And sure you've chosen to parrot it! Right?

Can you only find your strength in the words of others? I guess that's your CHOICE! I mean the argument is still ongoing right? There has been no necessarily correct victor declared by any so called authority, such that it's deemed absolutely in fact knowledge, right? Only in your own mind have you, thanks to your particular interpretation of the words that other minds have written, chosen, to declare a victor, right?

You constantly use the term "right?", with a question mark. Who are you trying to convince, and what are you trying to convince them of? If it's short for "Am I right?" then I would have to say that you are wrong.

Doc, that's the beauty of freedom of speech, any fool can say anything that they want, right?
And I'll be the first to support you in that endeavor! And that's right!!!!

I would agree to a point, and that point is that with every freedom comes a responsibility to not abuse that freedom by causing harm to others. So understanding that, people should not just say anything they want.