Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:31 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 2:53 pm
But a feeling of free will cannot do anything unless it has a causal effect, in another word free will has to be real.

Not ontic and absolute free will, but the feeling of free will is real. It's a real feeling, as you and I can attest to.This feeling affects cerebral choices in the sense that its opposite, powerlessness, would render us ineffectual and we would die.


Deterministic idea? What does that even mean?

The claim that God is a deterministic idea means that God is the uncaused cause of all events bar none. This is what is meant by the metaphor of God as the ground of being.

The uncaused cause is a being.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:33 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm [Posted in response to Age]

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will. Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. If an organism must be motivated, the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment, and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.
Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will. Too many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

Taking a broad view, your words suggest a determined universe. In that sense, your universe is static, in the sense that there is never any action, never anything unexpected or unplanned. It is all predicted and predictable. The creation of the universe, however that came about, is the Original Cause. All subsequent events follow unavoidably from this Cause. Is that a reasonable interpretation of your words, and your position?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:55 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:49 am The fact that all creatures are reactionary is in direct opposition to the idea of free will.

WHY?

What is the EXACT 'idea' of 'free will, to you?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:49 am One can choose among choices how one will react to one's environment but one cannot not react, for even considered inaction is a reaction to the environment. The environment is cause to all reactionary organisms, just as their reactions cause to the outer world and its fellows.

And what EXACTLY is the point, which you would like to make here?

Age,

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm
Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm
If an organism must be motivated the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm
Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm To many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:21 pm I think "Age" and "bahman" are people who stop learning.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:21 pm I see too much ego in theirs comments that make me dont answer.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:55 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:45 pm Why does evolution grant such a feeling, having free will, if it is an illusion?

Evolution is a passive and mindless process, without volition, or the ability to "grant" anything. Also, it seems to me there is a huge abstract gap between evolution and free will, to the extent that it's difficult to see any clear connection between them.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:45 pm Free will is absolutely unnecessary in a deterministic world so why should we have it? No need to say that our world is not always deterministic because of the existence of options.

OK, then I won't. If we have free will, then it doesn't matter if you think it "unnecessary", does it? But you ask anyway, "why should we have it?"

The trouble with "why" questions is that they can only be answered if their context is completely known and understood. Completely. If the context is fully known and understood, then the answer to the "why" question is obvious; it follows directly from the question and its context.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:55 pm But your question contains quite a few unknowns and assumptions.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:55 pm Do we have it (free will)? What is it? I.e. what is it that "free will" gives us freedom to do, and what are we not free to do, even if we do have free will? Those will do to be going on with...

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:33 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm [Posted in response to Age]

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will. Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. If an organism must be motivated, the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment, and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.
Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will. Too many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

Taking a broad view, your words suggest a determined universe. In that sense, your universe is static, in the sense that there is never any action, never anything unexpected or unplanned. It is all predicted and predictable. The creation of the universe, however that came about, is the Original Cause. All subsequent events follow unavoidably from this Cause. Is that a reasonable interpretation of your words, and your position?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:48 pm

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:21 pm I see too much ego in theirs comments that make me dont answer.

Yes, I see ego, anger, contempt and ill-will, personal insults, and so on.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:48 pm More to the point, I see no philosophy.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:48 pm I'm puzzled that the moderators here don't, er, moderate such behaviour.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:48 pm Does this forum even have (active) moderators?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:51 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:48 pm

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:21 pm I see too much ego in theirs comments that make me dont answer.

Yes, I see ego, anger, contempt and ill-will, personal insults, and so on. More to the point, I see no philosophy. I'm puzzled that the moderators here don't, er, moderate such behaviour. Does this forum even have (active) moderators?

Yes there is moderation.
But you will find it quite open minded.
Death threats are out!
Anger and contempt is regarded as normal cut and thrust.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:53 pm

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:21 pm I think "Age" and "bahman" are people who stop learning.

I see too much ego in theirs comments that make me dont answer.

In my experience Age does not read, or cannot read what he does not like to hear.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:53 pm Bahman has zero ability to counter, but he does read what you write, but may fail to understand some points.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:53 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:31 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 am
The claim that God is a deterministic idea means that God is the uncaused cause of all events bar none. This is what is meant by the metaphor of God as the ground of being.

The uncaused cause is a being.

Impossible.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:17 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:33 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm [Posted in response to Age]

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will. Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. If an organism must be motivated, the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment, and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.
Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will. Too many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

Taking a broad view, your words suggest a determined universe. In that sense, your universe is static, in the sense that there is never any action, never anything unexpected or unplanned. It is all predicted and predictable. The creation of the universe, however that came about, is the Original Cause. All subsequent events follow unavoidably from this Cause. Is that a reasonable interpretation of your words, and your position?

Each reaction is a cause as each cause is a reaction, if we could know of a first cause

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm then all that followed would be a chain reaction the complexity of which would make it impossible to know if anything is determined but common sense tells us that all organisms are reactive creatures to the physical world just as the world is a reaction to the cosmos.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm Survival depends upon biological reaction to the larger reality of the physical world we are functional aspects of that greater whole. Our knowledge of our given situation is very limited but free will is not a rational conclusion.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm Even the diseases organisms are subject to are reactions to physical injury, chemical or biological intrusion of the body and we have a reactive immune system to deal with intrusions of most kinds. Humanity has as yet not accomplished its own self control, and it looks very much that this will be its demise. In the face of such complexity little is solid knowledge, but most assuredly free will could never be our reality.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:55 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:55 pm

WHY?

What is the EXACT 'idea' of 'free will, to you?


And what EXACTLY is the point, which you would like to make here?

Age,

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will.

"popeye1945",

I asked you to inform us of what exactly is the 'idea' of 'free will' to you. So, before you TELL us that if all organisms are reactive creatures, then 'that' "trashes the idea of free will", how about you TELL us about what, EXACTLY, is the 'idea' of 'free will'? Is that fair enough?

In case you are NOT YET AWARE, 'your idea' of 'free will' is NOT necessarily the 'same idea' of 'free will' that "others" have or hold. So, until you explain to us what YOUR 'idea' of 'free will' is I, for one, have absolutely NO idea of what 'idea' of 'free will' is, EXACTLY, which you CLAIM here is ALREADY 'trashed' by your claim that IF all organisms are reactive creatures, then THAT 'idea' of 'free will' IS 'trashed'.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm
Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction.

I will make this LOUD and CLEAR. To me, the 'idea' of 'free will' does NOT 'infer' ANY thing. To me, 'free will' (or the 'idea' of 'free will') refers to a VERY SPECIFIC 'thing'.

Now, you claim here that there is ABSOLUTELY NO such thing as human action, which, to me, I infer that you are claiming that absolutely EVERY thing that humans do is just a 'reaction'. But this leaves me to then wonder if there is ANY such thing as 'action' AT ALL. To you, is there ANY such thing as 'action'?

If yes, then WHERE, WHEN, and WHAT is 'that action'?
But if there is absolutely NO 'action' anyway, then WHY even bring 'it' into a discussion/argument?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm
If an organism must be motivated the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.

Is there ANY 'thing', to you, that IS 'an action'?

If no, then just SAY SO.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm
Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will.

Thank you for FINALLY informing us of what the 'idea' of 'free will' means, or refers to, to you.

Now, if 'free will' infers the above here, to you, then, OBVIOUSLY, there is NO such thing as 'free will', to you.

End of story.

However, would you like to explain to us if there is/was 'an action' AT ALL?

And, if, to you, there is/was NO 'action' AT ALL, then you do agree and accept that the Universe is eternal, correct?

If no, then would you like to explain the CONTRADICTION and INCONSISTENCY here?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm To many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

When people have or hold the 'idea' of 'free will', which you do here, then this way of LOOKING AT and SEEING things here occurs.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:55 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:55 pm

WHY?

What is the EXACT 'idea' of 'free will, to you?


And what EXACTLY is the point, which you would like to make here?

Age,

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will.

"popeye1945",

I asked you to inform us of what exactly is the 'idea' of 'free will' to you. So, before you TELL us that if all organisms are reactive creatures, then 'that' "trashes the idea of free will", how about you TELL us about what, EXACTLY, is the 'idea' of 'free will'? Is that fair enough?

In case you are NOT YET AWARE, 'your idea' of 'free will' is NOT necessarily the 'same idea' of 'free will' that "others" have or hold. So, until you explain to us what YOUR 'idea' of 'free will' is I, for one, have absolutely NO idea of what 'idea' of 'free will' is, EXACTLY, which you CLAIM here is ALREADY 'trashed' by your claim that IF all organisms are reactive creatures, then THAT 'idea' of 'free will' IS 'trashed'.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm
Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction.

I will make this LOUD and CLEAR. To me, the 'idea' of 'free will' does NOT 'infer' ANY thing. To me, 'free will' (or the 'idea' of 'free will') refers to a VERY SPECIFIC 'thing'.

Now, you claim here that there is ABSOLUTELY NO such thing as human action, which, to me, I infer that you are claiming that absolutely EVERY thing that humans do is just a 'reaction'. But this leaves me to then wonder if there is ANY such thing as 'action' AT ALL. To you, is there ANY such thing as 'action'?

If yes, then WHERE, WHEN, and WHAT is 'that action'?
But if there is absolutely NO 'action' anyway, then WHY even bring 'it' into a discussion/argument?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm
If an organism must be motivated the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.

Is there ANY 'thing', to you, that IS 'an action'?

If no, then just SAY SO.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm
Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will.

Thank you for FINALLY informing us of what the 'idea' of 'free will' means, or refers to, to you.

Now, if 'free will' infers the above here, to you, then, OBVIOUSLY, there is NO such thing as 'free will', to you.

End of story.

However, would you like to explain to us if there is/was 'an action' AT ALL?

And, if, to you, there is/was NO 'action' AT ALL, then you do agree and accept that the Universe is eternal, correct?

If no, then would you like to explain the CONTRADICTION and INCONSISTENCY here?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm To many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

When people have or hold the 'idea' of 'free will', which you do here, then this way of LOOKING AT and SEEING things here occurs.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:25 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:55 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm

Age,

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will.

"popeye1945",

I asked you to inform us of what exactly is the 'idea' of 'free will' to you. So, before you TELL us that if all organisms are reactive creatures, then 'that' "trashes the idea of free will", how about you TELL us about what, EXACTLY, is the 'idea' of 'free will'? Is that fair enough?

In case you are NOT YET AWARE, 'your idea' of 'free will' is NOT necessarily the 'same idea' of 'free will' that "others" have or hold. So, until you explain to us what YOUR 'idea' of 'free will' is I, for one, have absolutely NO idea of what 'idea' of 'free will' is, EXACTLY, which you CLAIM here is ALREADY 'trashed' by your claim that IF all organisms are reactive creatures, then THAT 'idea' of 'free will' IS 'trashed'.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm
Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction.

I will make this LOUD and CLEAR. To me, the 'idea' of 'free will' does NOT 'infer' ANY thing. To me, 'free will' (or the 'idea' of 'free will') refers to a VERY SPECIFIC 'thing'.

Now, you claim here that there is ABSOLUTELY NO such thing as human action, which, to me, I infer that you are claiming that absolutely EVERY thing that humans do is just a 'reaction'. But this leaves me to then wonder if there is ANY such thing as 'action' AT ALL. To you, is there ANY such thing as 'action'?

If yes, then WHERE, WHEN, and WHAT is 'that action'?
But if there is absolutely NO 'action' anyway, then WHY even bring 'it' into a discussion/argument?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm
If an organism must be motivated the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.

Is there ANY 'thing', to you, that IS 'an action'?

If no, then just SAY SO.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm
Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will.

Thank you for FINALLY informing us of what the 'idea' of 'free will' means, or refers to, to you.

Now, if 'free will' infers the above here, to you, then, OBVIOUSLY, there is NO such thing as 'free will', to you.

End of story.

However, would you like to explain to us if there is/was 'an action' AT ALL?

And, if, to you, there is/was NO 'action' AT ALL, then you do agree and accept that the Universe is eternal, correct?

If no, then would you like to explain the CONTRADICTION and INCONSISTENCY here?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:42 pm To many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

When people have or hold the 'idea' of 'free will', which you do here, then this way of LOOKING AT and SEEING things here occurs.

Age,

No, there is no such thing as action there is cause and effect and this is the motor that runs the show. All creatures being reactive to the higher reality of the physical world react to it and when they do, this is experienced as cause in the physical world and the physical world then reacts in the form of changing its nature in some incremental degree/s The idea of action is an egotistic illusion, giving humanity an unrealistic idea of its powers and it's significance to the world. This wrong-headed idea has given us the disaster of climate change and the degradation of the environment in general. It is humanity's disrespect to its larger self which is its physical environment. I felt a need to bring the term action into the dialogue simply because there is no other way to discredit the term.