For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 1:32 amWHY?
Are you AFRAID or SCARED of some 'thing'?
Or, is there some OTHER reason you, supposedly, do NOT want to back up everything you say?Done it. AND, as I SAID ABOVE STILL STANDS.
Which, by the way, can NOT BE REFUTED.
If you can NOT UNDERSTAND what I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT here, then so be it.
The title of the thread is wrong! Free will by definition is the ability to choose between at least two options unimpeded. Cause and effect make a chain of causality which means that we are dealing with one option at any given time. A deterministic system cannot evolve further when it faces options. You are able to choose between two options unimpeded therefore you are free.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 5:02 pm When I chose to commit a crime, or not commit a crime I make a decision. The decision is based on a nexus of causalities which include all antecedent conditions including my motivation, volition, physical and mental needs, education, socialization, experience ad infinitem. It might be difficult for another to predict my choice. But that choice can only make sense if it is the sum of those causalities, the things that make me who I am. There are laws that might deter me, or encourage me. but it is not free in an absolute sense that I am free of the deterministic condition of the universe, the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment. It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine, I make the choice. Free will is illusory, such choices are determined or would be meaningless. I am that agent of determinism compatible with causality and the exercise of my will.
But apparently, God gives us free will. And about that, we have no choice, because he insists upon it. Unless you are a Calvinist, then you don't.
Does anyone care to refute this?
No.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:46 amThe title of the thread is wrong! Free will by definition is the ability to choose between at least two options unimpeded. Cause and effect make a chain of causality which means that we are dealing with one option at any given time. A deterministic system cannot evolve further when it faces options. You are able to choose between two options unimpeded therefore you are free.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 5:02 pm When I chose to commit a crime, or not commit a crime I make a decision. The decision is based on a nexus of causalities which include all antecedent conditions including my motivation, volition, physical and mental needs, education, socialization, experience ad infinitem. It might be difficult for another to predict my choice. But that choice can only make sense if it is the sum of those causalities, the things that make me who I am. There are laws that might deter me, or encourage me. but it is not free in an absolute sense that I am free of the deterministic condition of the universe, the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment. It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine, I make the choice. Free will is illusory, such choices are determined or would be meaningless. I am that agent of determinism compatible with causality and the exercise of my will.
But apparently, God gives us free will. And about that, we have no choice, because he insists upon it. Unless you are a Calvinist, then you don't.
Does anyone care to refute this?
My point is that all options cannot be real in a deterministic world.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 11:09 amNo.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:46 amThe title of the thread is wrong! Free will by definition is the ability to choose between at least two options unimpeded. Cause and effect make a chain of causality which means that we are dealing with one option at any given time. A deterministic system cannot evolve further when it faces options. You are able to choose between two options unimpeded therefore you are free.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 5:02 pm When I chose to commit a crime, or not commit a crime I make a decision. The decision is based on a nexus of causalities which include all antecedent conditions including my motivation, volition, physical and mental needs, education, socialization, experience ad infinitem. It might be difficult for another to predict my choice. But that choice can only make sense if it is the sum of those causalities, the things that make me who I am. There are laws that might deter me, or encourage me. but it is not free in an absolute sense that I am free of the deterministic condition of the universe, the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment. It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine, I make the choice. Free will is illusory, such choices are determined or would be meaningless. I am that agent of determinism compatible with causality and the exercise of my will.
But apparently, God gives us free will. And about that, we have no choice, because he insists upon it. Unless you are a Calvinist, then you don't.
Does anyone care to refute this?
The point is that we are often freely faced with two or more options.
That is what I call it non-free decision.
I agree with your take and perspective here in bulk, but I think you've missed what this guy is saying.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 11:09 am
No.
The point is that we are often freely faced with two or more options. And at that moment in time, the choice we freely make is wholly determined by what and who we are as individuals. It is determined by what we want, need, or feel at that moment.
If it were any other way, then it would not be our choice, but capricious.
You should use less CAPITALIZATION and 'parentheses'. Save grammatic modifications for when they're really important, use it sparsely.
Everybody in philosophy is argumentative. You have points to make, beliefs, like everybody else. You should become aware of your own intentions.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 1:28 amI would 'argue' otherwise, but I do have THE WORST 'argumentative style', right?
Also, could this then mean that 'this' is because I am NOT 'argumentative', and whereas people who have THE BEST 'argumentative style' are 'argumentative'? Or does it NOT work 'this way' when in relation to 'this'?
No I think I know what "the guy" is saying. He missed the obvious (I thought) irony of the statement.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 2:57 pmI agree with your take and perspective here in bulk, but I think you've missed what this guy is saying.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 11:09 am
No.
The point is that we are often freely faced with two or more options. And at that moment in time, the choice we freely make is wholly determined by what and who we are as individuals. It is determined by what we want, need, or feel at that moment.
If it were any other way, then it would not be our choice, but capricious.
He's saying, how can you talk about being faced with a "choice" in a deterministic world? He's saying what kind of choice is it if you couldn't really have chosen otherwise?
I think that's an important question to answer, even if I inevitably disagree with his take, because the meaning of the word "choice" itself is a little bit tricky in these scenarios.
Now you're contradicting yourself.
You're equivocating. You think "restrained by factors" like preferences and such is equivalent to "not free", while he does not. So for him there's no "which is it", because he doesn't equivocate those things.
