Philosophy Now Forum

From ILP:

iambiguous wrote:Is the matter in the meteor mindlessly hurtling toward Earth the same or different from the matter in the brain cognizant of it and "choosing"/choosing to intervene and deflect it/destroy it?

Ben JS wrote: From the perspective of determinism: both the rock and the person are on an inevitable path, which was paved long before either resembled anything close to their namesake.

So, the rock and the person are the same with respect to being determined to react in a certain manner - however, the characteristics of their reactions, are not identical.

A rock isn't going to talk to you.
This is a relevant distinction when trying to plan a preferable way to interact with a meteor, accounting for it's own behaviour.
Asking a meteor if it would kindly alter it's trajectory, isn't an effective approach.

Thus, our expectations of a meteor and of a person, can be different.

Okay, we can talk, the rock and the meteor cannot. But if what we say is the only possible thing that our material brains were ever able to compel us to say in the only possible reality in the only possible world? What "for all practical purposes" difference does that make?

We are still back to the profound mystery of mindless/talkless matter "somehow" configuring into human beings going back to whatever brought into existence matter and its laws in the first place.

Here some say God. Others say God but insist that God is but the universe itself. That "somehow" this universe has a teleological component that, as with the traditional Gods, is simply too "mysterious" for us to grasp. Then the No God paths taken by, among others, Buddhists.

On the other hand, again, I'm the first to admit that you and others here might be closer to whatever the objective truth is. I can only note -- compelled or freely -- what "I" think makes sense to me "here and now".

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:If the matter is exactly the same and all matter is enthrall to the laws of matter, responsibility is merely an illusion of autonomous choice for us. The meteor and the minds that interact with it are all as one in the only possible reality.

Ben JS wrote: We can have different expectations of a person, and react to them differently.
Our actions are an attempt to influence the future towards a preferred outcome.
Recognising the differences between entities allows us to engage with them more effectively.
Our incentive needn't be about blame, but about influencing the environment away from non-ideal potential outcomes.
An entity is contributing to a result, as it was determined to do so.
Our actions and beliefs are also contributing to the result.

Once again you note all this merely by assuming that "expectations", "attempts to influence", "recognizing differences" etc., are "somehow" within our reach autonomously. That we really could have opted for other conclusions.

Yeah, no doubt about it, that is possible.

Now actually go about proving it. And basically what we "philosophers" do here is to anchor our "demonstrations" in worlds of words. Sets of definitions and deductions regarding assumptions made about what is going on chemically, neurologically when we "choose"/choose/"choose" this instead of that.

Ben JS wrote: A child-killer roams a city.
Everyone knows who it is, but haven't been able to apprehend him.
One night a parent, Bob, hears an unusual noise in Sally's room - [Bob's child].
Bob opens Sally's door, and there the killer stands by an open window.
Bob says to himself:
'If I close this door and go about my usual business,
any harm that comes to my child,
was determined to happen.
Thus, there is no need for alarm.
No need to intervene.'
Bob closes the door and Sally dies.

...

Did Bob's belief that he doesn't contribute to the outcome, play a role in his daughter's death?
What if he believed that his actions did contribute to the outcome?
Perhaps he would have taken actions in an attempt to alter the predicted outcome,
instead of declaring the predicted outcome without his intervention is inevitable?

Is there an incentive to influence Bob's beliefs?
Perhaps the killer may return to attack Bob's other child, little Jimmy.
If we attempt to influence Bob to actively seek to protect Jimmy,
we're attempting to path the way to a preferred outcome -
one where parents don't stand idly by as their children die.

Should we not have concern for Bob? concern for little Jimmy?
Perhaps it was inevitable that Sally was to die like this,
likewise, perhaps it is inevitable that we influence Bob to protect Jimmy.

So ought not Bob and us alike, seek the preferred outcome?

Okay, suppose that all of the above unfolds in a movie. We see these actors doing these things, mouthing these words and [in voiceovers] thinking these thoughts.

But it's all predicated entirely on a director compelling the actors to act out the screenwriter's script.

Now, imagine nature and its laws compelling us to exchange these posts on this thread.

You think that of your own free will you are presenting us with this hypothetical scenario. But you were never able not to. Just as we are never able not to react to it other than as we must.

Or suppose you dreamed the above scenario.

And then you wake up. Does reality then click into the real deal mode?

Sure, maybe.

But how do we pin this down beyond all possible doubt. Hell, for all we know even the "real deal world" is just a page out of the Matrix.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:29 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:19 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:57 pm Whether God exists or not, regarding any physical pain the foetus might experience in the abortion procedure one would consider the SAME. (however, in my experience of God - it is capable of 'erasing' pain - I can explain the circumstances where this occurred after having my arm broken after I was assaulted by someone wielding a baseball bat it you feel interested)

Well, if an omniscient and omnipotent God does exist, He is aware of the abortion. He is aware of any pain associated with it. And He has the power to stop the abortion, to end the pain. He does neither.

Just as He has the power to squash Vladimir Putin like a bug. He does not.

Same with you and your broken arm.

"He" caused the broken arm - that morning as I climbed out of bed a voice stated very clearly "Tonight, bad luck." There is of course more to that story and the circumstances that made it "justified" to this entity.

Here we get down to those convoluted arguments regarding an alleged omniscient God and human autonomy. If God knows all then He knows that you will break your arm. So there is nothing you can do to not break it. And if He is omnipotent He has the power to make certain that you never break it. But you break it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:29 am Atheists (not sure what u r still, perhaps I am a bit slow on the uptake) seem to think that we should all be is some sort of "perfection" if there is a God, that we should already have heaven. The question then beckons, Y R we not?

This atheist is more interested in exploring why an alleged loving just and merciful God seems willing to allow truly terrible, terrible things to happen to what most construe to be good people, while allowing truly wonderful, wonderful things to happen to those most construe to be bad people. Look around you at the world we live in today. A teeny, tiny percentage of those billionaires who own and operate the "show me the money" global economy while millions upon millions barely subsist from day to day. Not to mention that, "each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes". U.N.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:19 pmHow to explain that? Of course: His "mysterious ways". Unless someone here has another definitive, demonstrable explanation for why in a free will world we choose the things we do. Given an omniscient, omnipotent God. Or given that no Gods exist at all.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:29 am You truly are ambiguous...you appear to be blaming God and its lack of interference and in the same move blaming free will and us, since 'we' choose the things we do. You really need to be direct with me, waffle tires me.

No, I'm only suggesting that if a God, the God, your God, does in fact exist, who else is to blame for earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses.

And "here and now" I believe in determinism. So anyone I blame for anything at all I was never able to not blame. Like the Gods we invent in a wholly determined universe, we are all off the hook.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:57 pm So, moving on to any further considerations..

If there is NO God, morally I suppose one might consider that you have the chance to provide life to a human, and aborting will clearly deny that.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:19 pm Again, it always comes down to the particular set of circumstances in which the pregnancy unfolds. And what can any of us really know about it as the pregnant woman herself does? She could have any number of reasons to not want to be pregnant. She was raped. The pregnancy occurred as a result of a defective birth control device. It will damage a relationship she is in. It will cause her to lose her job or drop out of school. It will result in her own possible mental, emotional of physical affliction...even death. Or she rationalizes it as not the killing of a human being at all but just of a "clump of cells".

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:57 pm Rape etc.. now you are throwing more circumstances into the equation not aforementioned in our brief exchange. Sure kill, what's the problem?

And this has exactly what to do with the point I make above? "Circumstances" is precisely my point. How in vastly different ways they can vary existentially and how existentially they are construed differently by different people. The argument that revolves around the manner in which I construe dasein here given human autonomy.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 6:49 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:29 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:19 pm

Well, if an omniscient and omnipotent God does exist, He is aware of the abortion. He is aware of any pain associated with it. And He has the power to stop the abortion, to end the pain. He does neither.

Just as He has the power to squash Vladimir Putin like a bug. He does not.

Same with you and your broken arm.

"He" caused the broken arm - that morning as I climbed out of bed a voice stated very clearly "Tonight, bad luck." There is of course more to that story and the circumstances that made it "justified" to this entity.

Here we get down to those convoluted arguments regarding an alleged omniscient God and human autonomy. If God knows all then He knows that you will break your arm. So there is nothing you can do to not break it. And if He is omnipotent He has the power to make certain that you never break it. But you break it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:29 am Atheists (not sure what u r still, perhaps I am a bit slow on the uptake) seem to think that we should all be is some sort of "perfection" if there is a God, that we should already have heaven. The question then beckons, Y R we not?

This atheist is more interested in exploring why an alleged loving just and merciful God seems willing to allow truly terrible, terrible things to happen to what most construe to be good people, while allowing truly wonderful, wonderful things to happen to those most construe to be bad people. Look around you at the world we live in today. A teeny, tiny percentage of those billionaires who own and operate the "show me the money" global economy while millions upon millions barely subsist from day to day. Not to mention that, "each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes". U.N.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:19 pmHow to explain that? Of course: His "mysterious ways". Unless someone here has another definitive, demonstrable explanation for why in a free will world we choose the things we do. Given an omniscient, omnipotent God. Or given that no Gods exist at all.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:29 am You truly are ambiguous...you appear to be blaming God and its lack of interference and in the same move blaming free will and us, since 'we' choose the things we do. You really need to be direct with me, waffle tires me.

No, I'm only suggesting that if a God, the God, your God, does in fact exist, who else is to blame for earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses.

And "here and now" I believe in determinism. So anyone I blame for anything at all I was never able to not blame. Like the Gods we invent in a wholly determined universe, we are all off the hook.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:57 pm So, moving on to any further considerations..

If there is NO God, morally I suppose one might consider that you have the chance to provide life to a human, and aborting will clearly deny that.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:19 pm Again, it always comes down to the particular set of circumstances in which the pregnancy unfolds. And what can any of us really know about it as the pregnant woman herself does? She could have any number of reasons to not want to be pregnant. She was raped. The pregnancy occurred as a result of a defective birth control device. It will damage a relationship she is in. It will cause her to lose her job or drop out of school. It will result in her own possible mental, emotional of physical affliction...even death. Or she rationalizes it as not the killing of a human being at all but just of a "clump of cells".

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:57 pm Rape etc.. now you are throwing more circumstances into the equation not aforementioned in our brief exchange. Sure kill, what's the problem?

And this has exactly what to do with the point I make above? "Circumstances" is precisely my point. How in vastly different ways they can vary existentially and how existentially they are construed differently by different people. The argument that revolves around the manner in which I construe dasein here given human autonomy.

Apparently there are more logical gateways within the human brain than there are atoms within the entire universe, so to think that a human consciousness does not have free will within those synaptic binary options is ridiculous.

Iambigous, you started the thread some months ago, and have been pretty active in it up to this last page. What have you learned on compatibilim in these pages?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 8:40 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 6:49 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:29 am

"He" caused the broken arm - that morning as I climbed out of bed a voice stated very clearly "Tonight, bad luck." There is of course more to that story and the circumstances that made it "justified" to this entity.

Here we get down to those convoluted arguments regarding an alleged omniscient God and human autonomy. If God knows all then He knows that you will break your arm. So there is nothing you can do to not break it. And if He is omnipotent He has the power to make certain that you never break it. But you break it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:29 am Atheists (not sure what u r still, perhaps I am a bit slow on the uptake) seem to think that we should all be is some sort of "perfection" if there is a God, that we should already have heaven. The question then beckons, Y R we not?

This atheist is more interested in exploring why an alleged loving just and merciful God seems willing to allow truly terrible, terrible things to happen to what most construe to be good people, while allowing truly wonderful, wonderful things to happen to those most construe to be bad people. Look around you at the world we live in today. A teeny, tiny percentage of those billionaires who own and operate the "show me the money" global economy while millions upon millions barely subsist from day to day. Not to mention that, "each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes". U.N.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:19 pmHow to explain that? Of course: His "mysterious ways". Unless someone here has another definitive, demonstrable explanation for why in a free will world we choose the things we do. Given an omniscient, omnipotent God. Or given that no Gods exist at all.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:29 am You truly are ambiguous...you appear to be blaming God and its lack of interference and in the same move blaming free will and us, since 'we' choose the things we do. You really need to be direct with me, waffle tires me.

No, I'm only suggesting that if a God, the God, your God, does in fact exist, who else is to blame for earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses.

And "here and now" I believe in determinism. So anyone I blame for anything at all I was never able to not blame. Like the Gods we invent in a wholly determined universe, we are all off the hook.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:57 pm So, moving on to any further considerations..

If there is NO God, morally I suppose one might consider that you have the chance to provide life to a human, and aborting will clearly deny that.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:19 pm Again, it always comes down to the particular set of circumstances in which the pregnancy unfolds. And what can any of us really know about it as the pregnant woman herself does? She could have any number of reasons to not want to be pregnant. She was raped. The pregnancy occurred as a result of a defective birth control device. It will damage a relationship she is in. It will cause her to lose her job or drop out of school. It will result in her own possible mental, emotional of physical affliction...even death. Or she rationalizes it as not the killing of a human being at all but just of a "clump of cells".

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:57 pm Rape etc.. now you are throwing more circumstances into the equation not aforementioned in our brief exchange. Sure kill, what's the problem?

And this has exactly what to do with the point I make above? "Circumstances" is precisely my point. How in vastly different ways they can vary existentially and how existentially they are construed differently by different people. The argument that revolves around the manner in which I construe dasein here given human autonomy.

Apparently there are more logical gateways within the human brain than there are atoms within the entire universe, so to think that a human consciousness does not have free will within those synaptic binary options is ridiculous.

Attofishpi, you just endorsed free will as if free will were the same sort of thing as atoms. The inescapable difference between atoms and free will is that atoms are effects of causes whereas free will is not caused . To believe Free Will exists you may as well believe ghosts exist!

So attofishpi is saying that after a certain number of quantifiable synapses occur, a point is reached when 'freewill' happens, when a special set of synapses occur that aren't caused by what causes the others... rather by something entirely different - an immaterial 'soul', the 'agent' residing in a body that it has causal control over.

A very bold proposition. I should like to examine further the argument making this claim, as well as any evidence that might support it.

Thank you and good day.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 8:40 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 6:49 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:29 am

"He" caused the broken arm - that morning as I climbed out of bed a voice stated very clearly "Tonight, bad luck." There is of course more to that story and the circumstances that made it "justified" to this entity.

Here we get down to those convoluted arguments regarding an alleged omniscient God and human autonomy. If God knows all then He knows that you will break your arm. So there is nothing you can do to not break it. And if He is omnipotent He has the power to make certain that you never break it. But you break it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:29 am Atheists (not sure what u r still, perhaps I am a bit slow on the uptake) seem to think that we should all be is some sort of "perfection" if there is a God, that we should already have heaven. The question then beckons, Y R we not?

This atheist is more interested in exploring why an alleged loving just and merciful God seems willing to allow truly terrible, terrible things to happen to what most construe to be good people, while allowing truly wonderful, wonderful things to happen to those most construe to be bad people. Look around you at the world we live in today. A teeny, tiny percentage of those billionaires who own and operate the "show me the money" global economy while millions upon millions barely subsist from day to day. Not to mention that, "each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes". U.N.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:19 pmHow to explain that? Of course: His "mysterious ways". Unless someone here has another definitive, demonstrable explanation for why in a free will world we choose the things we do. Given an omniscient, omnipotent God. Or given that no Gods exist at all.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:29 am You truly are ambiguous...you appear to be blaming God and its lack of interference and in the same move blaming free will and us, since 'we' choose the things we do. You really need to be direct with me, waffle tires me.

No, I'm only suggesting that if a God, the God, your God, does in fact exist, who else is to blame for earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses.

And "here and now" I believe in determinism. So anyone I blame for anything at all I was never able to not blame. Like the Gods we invent in a wholly determined universe, we are all off the hook.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:57 pm So, moving on to any further considerations..

If there is NO God, morally I suppose one might consider that you have the chance to provide life to a human, and aborting will clearly deny that.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:19 pm Again, it always comes down to the particular set of circumstances in which the pregnancy unfolds. And what can any of us really know about it as the pregnant woman herself does? She could have any number of reasons to not want to be pregnant. She was raped. The pregnancy occurred as a result of a defective birth control device. It will damage a relationship she is in. It will cause her to lose her job or drop out of school. It will result in her own possible mental, emotional of physical affliction...even death. Or she rationalizes it as not the killing of a human being at all but just of a "clump of cells".

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:57 pm Rape etc.. now you are throwing more circumstances into the equation not aforementioned in our brief exchange. Sure kill, what's the problem?

And this has exactly what to do with the point I make above? "Circumstances" is precisely my point. How in vastly different ways they can vary existentially and how existentially they are construed differently by different people. The argument that revolves around the manner in which I construe dasein here given human autonomy.

Apparently there are more logical gateways within the human brain than there are atoms within the entire universe, so to think that a human consciousness does not have free will within those synaptic binary options is ridiculous.

Well, I guess that settles it then!!

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 9:25 am Iambigous, you started the thread some months ago, and have been pretty active in it up to this last page. What have you learned on compatibilim in these pages?

Click.

First, of course, there is no getting around how surreal these discussions are.

Here I am arguing that I believe that I am compelled by the laws of matter to type these words in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

But then, as with all the rest of us, I go on to defend myself as though, on the contrary, I am opting freely to choose the words I use just as you opted freely to read them.

But: the bottom line [mine] never changes...

First, the astrophysicists tell us, was the Big Bang. Out of nothing at all came everything there is. Trust them here. Stars eventually formed, resulting in, over billions of years, countless supernovas that created the heavier elements that eventually led us.

In other words, over these billions of years the heavier elements "somehow" evolved into living matter that evolved into conscious matter that evolved into self-conscious matter able to identify itself as matter "somehow" intertwined in the laws of nature.

But, to the best of my current knowledge, no scientist or philosopher is able to encompass definitively how all of this "works" so as to result either in human autonomy or in nature's own automatons.

And then [of course] the theologians have their own narrative: God.

Or the No God equivalent?

As for the compatibilist account of all this, it still seems ridiculous to me. Especially the part [given my own obsession with "I" in the is/ought world] where determinism is reconciled with moral responsibility.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:36 pm

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 9:25 am Iambigous, you started the thread some months ago, and have been pretty active in it up to this last page. What have you learned on compatibilim in these pages?

Click.

Translation: I am a robot.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 10:43 am

attofishpi wrote: Apparently there are more logical gateways within the human brain than there are atoms within the entire universe, so to think that a human consciousness does not have free will within those synaptic binary options is ridiculous.

Attofishpi, you just endorsed free will as if free will were the same sort of thing as atoms. The inescapable difference between atoms and free will is that atoms are effects of causes whereas free will is not caused . To believe Free Will exists you may as well believe ghosts exist!

I never stated free will as some sort of "thing" as atoms!!

I stated that the LOGICAL GATEWAYS (paths for decision making) courtesy of synaptic connections within the brain are greater than there are atoms in the entire universe.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:13 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 8:40 am Apparently there are more logical gateways within the human brain than there are atoms within the entire universe, so to think that a human consciousness does not have free will within those synaptic binary options is ridiculous.

Well, I guess that settles it then!!

Well done.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 9:57 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 10:43 am

attofishpi wrote: Apparently there are more logical gateways within the human brain than there are atoms within the entire universe, so to think that a human consciousness does not have free will within those synaptic binary options is ridiculous.

Attofishpi, you just endorsed free will as if free will were the same sort of thing as atoms. The inescapable difference between atoms and free will is that atoms are effects of causes whereas free will is not caused . To believe Free Will exists you may as well believe ghosts exist!

I never stated free will as some sort of "thing" as atoms!!

I stated that the LOGICAL GATEWAYS (paths for decision making) courtesy of synaptic connections within the brain are greater than there are atoms in the entire universe.

Yes, but synaptic connections are physical and causal. Synaptic connections are both causes of events and effects of other events. Free Will is uncaused by any event whatsoever therefore Free Will is impossible.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 9:59 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:13 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 8:40 am Apparently there are more logical gateways within the human brain than there are atoms within the entire universe, so to think that a human consciousness does not have free will within those synaptic binary options is ridiculous.

Well, I guess that settles it then!!

Well done.

Problem: greater complexity does not automatically make something intelligent.

If the processes involved are not will-based, it doesn't matter how many there are. A hammer has only one, repeated process...and has no free will. A cotton mill is much more complex, but no more intelligent or possessed of will than is a hammer. A computer is vastly more complex than a cotton mill; and yet it also has no free will. For all three, the only will involved comes from outside, from will-having beings, like us.

So it would not matter how many "gateways" are in the human brain, if all they ultimately are is "gateways." A "gateway" is not something that has will.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 11:01 pm Free Will is uncaused by any event whatsoever therefore Free Will is impossible.

Your problem is in what you regard as a "cause," not in free will itself.

The important question is, "Is will itself a 'cause' of anything?" The Determinist answer is "No." Ironically, to say so, and to think that their utterance is meaningful, they have to have will. If they're just acting on prior physical "causes" then their denial means nothing...they couldn't help but say it. Yet there is no "they" there to believe it, and no free hearer to be convinced.

Such is the obviousness of the folly of Determinism...and Compatiblism, of course.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 11:01 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 9:57 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 10:43 am Attofishpi, you just endorsed free will as if free will were the same sort of thing as atoms. The inescapable difference between atoms and free will is that atoms are effects of causes whereas free will is not caused . To believe Free Will exists you may as well believe ghosts exist!

I never stated free will as some sort of "thing" as atoms!!

I stated that the LOGICAL GATEWAYS (paths for decision making) courtesy of synaptic connections within the brain are greater than there are atoms in the entire universe.

Yes, but synaptic connections are physical and causal. Synaptic connections are both causes of events and effects of other events. Free Will is uncaused by any event whatsoever therefore Free Will is impossible.

It seems apparent there ARE in fact different levels of "determinism". A human mind wills the synaptic states of the brain.

The statement that free will does not exist implies humans do not freely choose what decisions they make, which is wrong. Sure, there are reasons that cause the mind to choose a certain thing (a causal affect).
For me it does goes back to predeterminism, as in for me, if determinism is true then things should be able to be empirically proven via pre-determining results.