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

[Iwannaplato]

You missed the point entirely.

The point is that Determinists admit that human Laws govern, dictate, and literally 'determine' human behaviors, which is opposite the point made in the title.

No, you don't understand what determinism means. It means that WHATEVER HAPPENS is caused by the state of things in the previous moment. And this causal chain goes back to the beginning of time. People with break laws - which determinists are aware of -follow laws and do all the things that people are doing now, inevitably.

When a person who believes in free will looks around the world, that person sees that most people follow the big laws and some people break those laws.
When a person who believes in determinism looks around the world that person sees that most people follow the big laws and some people break those laws.

So either way, most people follow laws and some break them - the felony laws.

I notice that you do not respond to the points I make. Nor have you produced evidence that determiniist think it's better if there is no free will.

[Iwannaplato]

These posts by this guy really have me scratching my head. It's as if he's talking about something else entirely...

Yes, he seems to think that determinism has to do with legal systems, perhaps fascism or communism.
He's extremely confused, and not much of a discussion partner so far.

[Wizard22]

Determinism means a state of Certainty about Fate under the condition that Omniscience (knowing all possible Causes) is true.

Since Omniscience is not true, on top of the fact that humanity is ignorant about most things, and most causes, there really is very little case to make on its behalf.

Man has a free-will. Those that disagree, are those that choose to renounce their autonomy and self-responsibility in life, their moral character, over to others (mainly politicians and religious authorities). Because it's easier to be an unthinking, unquestioning Follower in life, than to become a Leader, or to become Independent altogether.


Hopefully this clarifies your confusions. I can see how this is difficult for most people to understand.

[Wizard22]

As for arguing about my past 30 years of philosophy, debates, arguments, with others...feel free to disbelieve my personal experiences, it makes no difference to me. I don't expect trust from others, prima facie.

Nor do I give it. Others need to prove their main points/convictions first. That's how my respect is earned.

[Flannel Jesus]

Man has a free-will. Those that disagree, are those that choose to renounce their autonomy and self-responsibility in life, their moral character, over to others (mainly politicians and religious authorities).

I don't think I've ever met a determinist that would agree with that.

[Iwannaplato]

Determinism means a state of Certainty about Fate under the condition that Omniscience (knowing all possible Causes) is true.

Since Omniscience is not true, on top of the fact that humanity is ignorant about most things, and most causes, there really is very little case to make on its behalf.

You are confusing human ability to predict things with whether all current states inevitably follow prior ones. IOW you don't really understand what determinism means. The vast majority of deteminists (meaning pretty much all except a very confused, lost minority) know that humans are not omniscient. They arrive at their conclusions both through empirical studies, where it seems, so far that every event, is determined by the previous state, but also via deduction. That we have causal chains, and what else would provoke a person's choice but their internal states - desires, intentions, etc. - and external factors impinging on them and their bodies. I am not convinced, but I recognize the power of their arguments. I also have never heard a good case made for free will. So, I remain agnostic.

Man has a free-will. Those that disagree, are those that choose to renounce their autonomy and self-responsibility in life

What do you base this on? Do you really see that? I know professionals in many fields who vote, take care their families, show up on time, keep promises, work responsibily, argue against laws their consider poor and so on and so on. Seriously, what are you talking about.

Here's the thing: I think you are making a very common mistake.

You think determinists only think about external causes. IOW what is outside determines what we do and choose....Nope.

They also include internal causes: our desires, motivations, goals as CAUSES. The combination of internal and external causes leads to future events and choices.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

, their moral character, over to others (mainly politicians and religious authorities). Because it's easier to be an unthinking, unquestioning Follower in life, than to become a Leader, or to become Independent altogether.

Again you don't understand the determinism is an ontological position, not a political position or attitudinal position. A determinist could be a complete rebell against government and religion without being in the slightest degree hypocritical.

Hopefully this clarifies your confusions. I can see how this is difficult for most people to understand.

It's difficult for people who actually understand what determinism means and have at least some minimal understanding of philosophy in general to understand when someone talks about determinism without really knowing what it means.
[

[Iwannaplato]

Man has a free-will. Those that disagree, are those that choose to renounce their autonomy and self-responsibility in life, their moral character, over to others (mainly politicians and religious authorities).

I don't think I've ever met a determinist that would agree with that.

I think he's making too rather cliche mistakes:
1) he thinks that if one believes in determinism, one believes that external causes are the only causes
2) he's conflating social/political freedom with belief in free will. If you don't believe in free will you don't believe in freedom.

In the post couple back where he uses omnicience in his argument, he also conflates an inability to predict all phenomena with indeterminism.

I don't think he's read much philosophy. I don't think he knows what determinism means. I don't think he's capabable, at least so far, of even looking at the things he is confused about or conflating and unconflating them.

In fact, I wondered at bit if he might be a troll. (who actually knows these things, but wants
to irritate)

[Flannel Jesus]

In the post couple back where he uses omnicience in his argument, he also conflates an inability to predict all phenomena with indeterminism.

This is the second time recently that I've seen someone make a claim like this. Confusing determinism with the idea that human beings are the ones "determining" via predicting. Weird category error to make.

I don't think he's read much philosophy. I don't think he knows what determinism means. I don't think he's capabable, at least so far, of even looking at the things he is confused about or conflating and unconflating them.

I think it would be hard to maintain these confusions for long if you do, in fact, read about the philosophies you're arguing against.

[Skepdick]

2) he's conflating social/political freedom with belief in free will. If you don't believe in free will you don't believe in freedom.

What's the difference? They are both experienced in the exact same way.

Of course I could act, speak or think as I want and I could've wanted to act, speak or think otherwise - but for all the things preventing me from doing so.

One of those things being the laws of physics.
Another of those things being other humans.

[Iwannaplato]

I should have been clearer here...

In the post couple back where he uses omnicience in his argument, he also conflates an inability to predict all phenomena with indeterminism.

He's confusing an inablity to predict everything with proof indeterminism is the case.

This is the second time recently that I've seen someone make a claim like this. Confusing determinism with the idea that human beings are the ones "determining" via predicting. Weird category error to make.

Yes, category errors.

I don't think he's read much philosophy. I don't think he knows what determinism means. I don't think he's capabable, at least so far, of even looking at the things he is confused about or conflating and unconflating them.

I think it would be hard to maintain these confusions for long if you do, in fact, read about the philosophies you're arguing against.

None of which would matter if he wasn't another belligerant mind reader

[popeye1945]

I wouldn't call them "Reactions", but I do agree that nothing exists in a vacuum, which is to say that every "action" is part of the timeline of the universe. Everything is connected, therefore interactive. Action, Reaction, Interaction.

The main problem I see, is how people have fundamental misunderstanding of how the brain works, with regard to Cognition. The human brain produces a 'backward' effect when it comes to Consciousness. This means that humans are better at looking at the 'past', then preparing for and predicting the 'future'. People have bias toward the once-was, over the up-and-coming. Therefore, people place Certainty in the past, rather than in the future. To me, this is logically incorrect. It seems like the right thing to do, based on how mammals evolve, but it has a critically false premise. It presumes that Physics, the Universe, Existence, can fundamentally change over a period of time, that disrupts Everything else. Humans have an 'apocalyptic' or 'cataclysmic' type of fear, within the brain. This clouds reasoning and judgment. It presumes that, because I die, so too must the rest of Existence. It is similar to a desperate man drowning, willing to take the entire ship and others down with him. I link these to Solipsism, Nihilism, Fatalism, Determinism, and the Death-Drive. What's the alternative?

It is interesting that you underline how the governing principles remain constant and thus humanity should be able predict the future, unfortunately existence is much more unpredictable when one is speaking of the journey of an individual life.

The Alternative is that the universe, Existence, is bigger than you or I or humanity or even the meager notion of 'God'. It means that our ignorance is insignificant, and must be overcome. Presume that the Rationalists were correct, starting with Aristotle. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. All energy is conserved. Natural Law preexists the conscious mind: existence est principle. When viewed this way, the Determinists are simply wrong every step of the way. They have a bias, to want to end (their own) "free-will" from the start, from the premise. Like an Atheist attacking God, they re-write the definition on their terms (Flying Spaghetti Monster) so as to render it logically impossible. Then it's a one-way philosophical debate: a monologue. You're debating a religious fundamentalist, a closed-mind. To become free means to delimit oneself in this way.
[/quote]

To consider the situation of life and free will as interaction, that would be focusing on the principle of the unmoved mover, perhaps your religious inclination is playing into this. Just assume that all is already in play, then there is no movement that is not a reaction. I would welcome an example of human action that I could not point out as a reaction. As to your inference that individuals believe when they die that the world dies with them, I find bazaar, but perhaps I am misunderstanding you. I recall to mind however, something Schopenhauer said, " When an individual closes their eyes in death, a world ceases to be." The statement is more profound than it seems at first, for apparent reality is the production of the individual and/or species, as biological readout. Each individual's world is somewhat different, according to the state of their biology, for apparent reality is biology reactions and a self-projecting its censoring experiences of the energies around it. As far as natural laws preexistence to life, no disagreement there, but apparent reality is not what is there, it is what is there processed through biological consciousness. As to the quote, I do not think it was Aristotle. The real quote I think is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, for we all know matter can certainly be destroyed or as energy changed in form. The one thing the flying spaghetti monster and God have in common of course is there is no proof of either.

[henry quirk]

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

The following applies if man is a free will...

The free willist believes he is accountable for what he does. The buck stops with him (no matter his circumstance or his apparent lack of say-so in a circumstance). At his best he's just; at his worst he's compassionless.

The determinist believes he isn't accountable for what he does. The buck belongs to something or someone else (reachin' clear back to the Big Bang, or God). At his best he's compassionate; at his worst he's gullible.

The compatibilist believes that he's accountable for some of what he does. The buck is split (35 cents for him, 65 cents for someone or something else). For the life of me, I can't say what such a person is at his best or worst.

What the determinist and the free willist have in common is neither knows what is going to happen. Free willist and determinist are both at the mercy of chance.

The difference being: the free willist is inclined to believe he has at least some say-so over outcomes while the determinist believes que sera sera.

If man is not a free will, if he's just a meat machine, then all bets are off, the question is meaningless.

So, the real question is: *Is man a free will?
best answer, for or against, gets a No Prize and a Gold Star (and mebbe a cookie)




*or, Does man possess free will?
personally, I find this to be an inferior, inaccurate, question

[Wizard22]

Most people don't give more than five minutes of thought to this subject in their entire lives. They presume their experience of freedom is real and that's that. And there's no reason they'd question it because the vast majority have always concurred.

There is no sense in which the will is free. We feel free to exactly the extent we are ignorant of causality.

Aka Ignorance is bliss. It's a sliding scale.

I disagree.

More knowledge = More choice = More power = More freedom.

Ignorance is what makes your will NOT free. More ignorance = Less knowledge = Less freedom.

[Wizard22]

Since Omniscience is not true, on top of the fact that humanity is ignorant about most things, and most causes, there really is very little case to make on its behalf.

You are confusing human ability to predict things with whether all current states inevitably follow prior ones. IOW you don't really understand what determinism means. The vast majority of deteminists (meaning pretty much all except a very confused, lost minority) know that humans are not omniscient. They arrive at their conclusions both through empirical studies, where it seems, so far that every event, is determined by the previous state, but also via deduction. That we have causal chains, and what else would provoke a person's choice but their internal states - desires, intentions, etc. - and external factors impinging on them and their bodies. I am not convinced, but I recognize the power of their arguments. I also have never heard a good case made for free will. So, I remain agnostic.

Of course, you're a Determinist, and don't believe in Free-Will.

Perhaps I can convince you, perhaps not. I just read, today, another Determinist defining 'Determinism' as primarily External causes. Because what happens to Determinism, your world view, when Causes become 'internal', when they become Human and Social and Political? Well then, things become quite complicated, quite fast.

The onus turns to YOU to explain why a person would feel they have control over their 'Internal' causes, versus why they wouldn't feel in control. Because that would be the fundamental difference of why a person would believe they're either 'free' and in control of such forces, versus 'not' free, and not in control of such forces.

It's as simple as being Determined, versus Determining.


Do you know more than me about Determinism?? I don't see it yet, show me, and show others.

As for the others, I don't think the Determined necessarily want to have a Free-Will, or would admit to it if they did have one. Because Free-Will means admittance to these "internal causes". It means Ownership, of many things people don't want to Own. Like being evil. Or being stupid. Or making mistakes. Or harming other people. So why are people so one-sided? Why do people want to give off the impression of Innocence and being without Sin? Why do people presume values about themselves, when not proven?

All of this shows up by how a person believes, or does not believe, Free-Will.

[Wizard22]

To consider the situation of life and free will as interaction, that would be focusing on the principle of the unmoved mover, perhaps your religious inclination is playing into this. Just assume that all is already in play, then there is no movement that is not a reaction. I would welcome an example of human action that I could not point out as a reaction. As to your inference that individuals believe when they die that the world dies with them, I find bazaar, but perhaps I am misunderstanding you. I recall to mind however, something Schopenhauer said, " When an individual closes their eyes in death, a world ceases to be." The statement is more profound than it seems at first, for apparent reality is the production of the individual and/or species, as biological readout. Each individual's world is somewhat different, according to the state of their biology, for apparent reality is biology reactions and a self-projecting its censoring experiences of the energies around it. As far as natural laws preexistence to life, no disagreement there, but apparent reality is not what is there, it is what is there processed through biological consciousness. As to the quote, I do not think it was Aristotle. The real quote I think is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, for we all know matter can certainly be destroyed or as energy changed in form. The one thing the flying spaghetti monster and God have in common of course is there is no proof of either.

The 'reactions' end when ignorance begins.

A rock sitting on the ground, unconscious, mindless, has no reaction to the universe around it. It is one and the same. There is nothing to 'react' to. Action and reaction are biological, corresponding to a 'beginning' of time. Without such, there are no 'reactions'. Because what is reacted to, except the past?

The mind is compelled to seek beginnings, often when there are none.

A beginning must be created "out of nothing".