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

[Wizard22]

If you want free-will or God, then you can't go and get it.

Says you!

[Flannel Jesus]

You haven't shown anything so far that demonstrates how you came to the conclusion that determinism must be false. You've only discussed the apparent existence of compatibilist freedom. That can exist with determinism.

Why are you so attached to Compatibility?

You said you were going to demonstrate why determinism is ontologically false. Your demonstration was, we have freedom, so determinism cant be true. But the only freedom you've presented is compatibilist freedom.

I'm not particularly attached to it, it's just pertinent right here, right now. It's pertinent to your demonstration, because it means your demonstration doesn't really disprove determinism. It doesn't really have anything to do with determinism at all.

Generally, if you say x disproves y, but your x is compatible with y, then x didn't disprove y. Maybe there's exceptions to that, I guess, but this doesn't look like one.

[phyllo]

If you want free-will or God, then you can't go and get it.

Says you!

I guess that you equate thoughts to reality.

[Wizard22]

You haven't shown anything so far that demonstrates how you came to the conclusion that determinism must be false. You've only discussed the apparent existence of compatibilist freedom. That can exist with determinism.

Why are you so attached to Compatibility?

You said you were going to demonstrate why determinism is ontologically false. Your demonstration was, we have freedom, so determinism cant be true. But the only freedom you've presented is compatibilist freedom.

I'm not particularly attached to it, it's just pertinent right here, right now. It's pertinent to your demonstration, because it means your demonstration doesn't really disprove determinism. It doesn't really have anything to do with determinism at all.

Generally, if you say x disproves y, but your x is compatible with y, then x didn't disprove y. Maybe there's exceptions to that, I guess, but this doesn't look like one.

...because 'human' freedom is not the only type of freedom?

Furthermore, not even the best scientists claim to know enough about other animals and organisms as to determine what exactly they are or how exactly the behave. Science is a work in progress. So is physics. So why be a Determinist when Determinists claim to only...wait on the final results, and even when those results come in, they'll simply move the goalposts again, and again, and again.

What are Determinists waiting for, exactly, except somebody else to dictate to them what is or is not true? That certainly doesn't sound like Free-Will to me...

[Wizard22]

I guess that you equate thoughts to reality.

I think Free-Will is based on reality, and Determinism is based on fantasy.

[Wizard22]

Determinism is the excuse the masses of humanity use, to absolve themselves of personal responsibility and social accountability.

It's like trying to be immune from the criticism or judgment of others. Determinism is Anti-Social.

[Flannel Jesus]

It seems as though your demonstration that determinism must be ontologically false really ended up being more like "determinists can't be certain that it's ontologically true".

Sure, pure determinism is far from a certainty. Especially given quantum mechanics. That position seems pretty far removed from "I know that determinism is ontologically false".

[Wizard22]

Okay, this will be my third attempt then.

What is Determinism based off of, except Causality, that something causes something else to be, like a trigger or catalyst. Effects proceed from Causes. Cause -> Effect.

Are humans generally correct and accurate about this relationship, or generally incorrect?


If it's a mere guessing game, then, Determinism is ontologically false. So how is it not a guessing game? How does anybody know, with any degree of confidence, that a specific effect arises from a specific cause? Is such a thing necessarily true?

[Wizard22]

If people generally do NOT know the causes of phenomenon...like what causes people to Murder, then there's no reason to believe that Murder is 'Determined'. It's un-determined. It's in-determinate.

Unless you can spell out the Cause, with a high probability, or to a certainty, then what is your belief system hinged upon??

[phyllo]

Okay, this will be my third attempt then.

What is Determinism based off of, except Causality, that something causes something else to be, like a trigger or catalyst. Effects proceed from Causes. Cause -> Effect.

Are humans generally correct and accurate about this relationship, or generally incorrect?


If it's a mere guessing game, then, Determinism is ontologically false. So how is it not a guessing game? How does anybody know, with any degree of confidence, that a specific effect arises from a specific cause? Is such a thing necessarily true?

You have been arguing that belief in free-will produces positive behavior and belief in determinism produces negative behavior.

Now you don't know if there is a cause and effect??

[Wizard22]

When Determinism is premised upon any degree of certainty, yes, it does produce negative effects.

Cosmic irony

People are invested in their own hubris, especially when it's false.

[Wizard22]

At least it's true that Free-Will positively affects morals and characters, to some small degree, while Determinism cannot by definition.

[Flannel Jesus]

We know that matter generally follows what some people describe as casual patterns. There are different levels of abstraction for describing those casual patterns, like relativity, chemistry, quantum mechanics. As far as humanity can tell, all matter follows these patterns all the time (with the patterns in qm being potentially more probabilistic than singularly determinate)

Humans are made of matter. Human brains are made of matter. When a human does something, we have every reason to believe that's part of the casual patterns we've observed in matter.

Maybe you think that's a logical leap. Maybe you're right to some extent. It's a leap that I feel is relatively small and intuitive. I'm comfortable with it even if I can't philosophically be certain of it.

But even if that wasn't the case, even if causality extended past the physical... well, is still casualty.

[Wizard22]

But even if that wasn't the case, even if causality extended past the physical... well, is still casualty.

That's exactly your leap-of-faith though. Why do you presume "the rules" apply outside the ruleset???

I don't presume such. Maybe that's just me?

[Wizard22]

Consider this...

Does 'Causality' matter when you're dreaming, or having a nightmare? Why should it? Or why shouldn't it? Can you explain dreams logically?