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

[henry quirk]

Just for clarity here, your answer to my question is that he wouldn't always choose the same necessarily. If we rewind time in every relevant way and press play, less say 100 times we rewind and press play, he might make a different choice sometimes, right?

Yes. Not that he would, only that he could.

What does If we rewind time in every relevant way mean?

[Flannel Jesus]

Just for clarity here, your answer to my question is that he wouldn't always choose the same necessarily. If we rewind time in every relevant way and press play, less say 100 times we rewind and press play, he might make a different choice sometimes, right?

Yes. Not that he would, only that he could.

What does If we rewind time in every relevant way mean?

Meaning rewinding time for the physical, mental, spiritual aspects of it - I'm just clarifying that we're not rewinding time for the physical stuff but letting his soul continue to exist in its post-suckling form. The soul, the mind, whatever - all that is rewound too

Every aspect is back to what it was at moment -1 (except us as outside observers of course)

[henry quirk]

Just for clarity here, your answer to my question is that he wouldn't always choose the same necessarily. If we rewind time in every relevant way and press play, less say 100 times we rewind and press play, he might make a different choice sometimes, right?

Yes. Not that he would, only that he could.

What does If we rewind time in every relevant way mean?

Meaning rewinding time for the physical, mental, spiritual aspects of it - I'm just clarifying that we're not rewinding time for the physical stuff but letting his soul continue to exist in its post-suckling form. The soul, the mind, whatever - all that is rewound too

Every aspect is back to what it was at moment -1 (except us as outside observers of course)

Okay. Please, continue.

[Flannel Jesus]

Just for clarity here, your answer to my question is that he wouldn't always choose the same necessarily. If we rewind time in every relevant way and press play, less say 100 times we rewind and press play, he might make a different choice sometimes, right?

Yes. Not that he would, only that he could.

What does If we rewind time in every relevant way mean?

So, if we rewound time and you pressed play, you wouldn't be particularly surprised to find that he chose something different some of the time - that would fit within your world view, that fits within what you think choice means, etc.

So, let's say we rewind and press play, and he goes to the teet again, and we rewind and he goes to the teet and we rewind and he goes to the teet - we've seen him go to the teet 4 times in a row now - and we rewind and on the fifth go of it, we see him choose differently! He pulls away and cries even louder.

Now this was his first choice in this lads life, and so the question is, what is the source of the difference between run 5 and runs 1-4, right?

And you've already said, it's not randomness, it's his choice, it's HIM. Right?

So can you go into any more detail about why he might have chosen differently in run 5? If it's not randomness, and everything else was the same, including his mind and his body and his soul and his will - every aspect of his person - then what is the source of this change?

It's acceptable if you just reiterate that it's not randomness and that it really truly is HIM or his mind or his will that is the source of this change, I'm just giving you an opportunity to add any clarifying remarks if you want to. If you don't feel any desire to clarify further than that, let me know, I'll move to the next part of the thought experiment.

[henry quirk]

Now this was his first choice in this lads life, and so the question is, what is the source of the difference between run 5 and runs 1-4.

Why would he choose to decline the nipple? Hell if I know.

it's his choice, it's HIM. Right?

Yep.

So can you go into any more detail about why he might have chosen differently in run 5?

No. I'm not him.

If it's not randomness, and everything else was the same, including his mind and his body and his soul and his will - every aspect of his person - then what is the source of this change?

I won't hazard a guess. His head is his. I'm not privy to it. I will ask, again, why, all things bein' the same, would he change his mind? He's hungry, his instinct tells him the nipple might end his hunger. He's curious anyway. So: why not latch on?

You can move forward, if you like.

[henry quirk]

People tell us what they believe about minds but it is deemed true by them only because it is what they do believe is true in their own mind.

Sometimes folks go where evidence leads. Fire is hot. Ain't nuthin' subjective about it.

Yet none of us, to the best of my knowledge, have a way in which to demonstrate that what we believe...about minds is in fact...true about minds.

With some folks, it's not worth the effort. Evidences are offered and such folks dismiss the evidences with snark like...

Okay, then...only your scientists count.

With that kind of dismissal: why keep tryin'?

[Flannel Jesus]

it's his choice, it's HIM. Right?

Yep.

You can move forward, if you like.

So, the rest of the thought experiment is really just ruminating on what's already been said. There's no new scenarios, but there is I think plenty to talk about in what's already been said.

Goes 1-4 he chooses teet. Go 5 he chooses to cry. The source of that difference? The source of the difference between 1-4 and #5? The source is, according to the libertiarian free-willist, HIM.

We'll call him Willy, if you will. Free Will Willy. His name now is William Sasso - he goes by Free Will "Free Will" Sasso now. But that's all beside the point.

Willy is the source of the difference.

But, we've established that when we rewind time, Willy is the same. When we rewind back to moment -1, Willy is in exactly the same state every time - we've perfectly rewound every aspect of him. So... can he really be the source of the DIFFERENCE if he's the SAME? (forgive me for typing like Age here, but this is important). I find it... unsatisfying, to say the least, to say that the source of the difference is something that was the same.

Let's consider a completely different example of something entirely unrelated to see perhaps why it's so unsatisfying. I've got two examples, one neat and one messy.

Example 1: the neat example -- We work in a physics lab. We have a supercomputer that does relativistic calculations of physical scenarios. We've prepared a simulation - we're going to roll a rock down a hill. Now, our simulations software is perfectly deterministic -- OR SO WE THINK! So, we roll the rock down the hill, and it bounces down and hits various rocks and dirt clumps and pieces of grass, and near the bottom of the hill it bounces off this one particular other rock and it bounces right-ward.

And then we reset the simulation -- the simulation that we've apparently programmed to be deterministic -- and something unexpected happens. For some reason, the rock bounces left.

So I look to you and I ask you, "Why did it bounce left this time?" And your answer to me is, "Because the rock model was a perfect sphere."

And so I ask you if it was a perfect sphere on the run where it bounced right, and you say "Yeah of course". And I say "so why did it bounce right?" and you say "because it was a perfect sphere."

Now, at this point, me and everyone else in the room is looking at you like... WHAT? It was a perfect sphere, perfectly the same both times we ran the simulation, and you're saying that THAT'S the source of the difference? The source of the difference is something that was perfectly the same between them? Does that make sense? I certainly can't make sense of it. I want to find a difference to explain the difference, intuitively, I don't want to look at something that was perfectly the same to explain the difference.

Example 2: a little bit more messy -- We observe two children playing in a playground. They're very similar, both rich, white, from rich white christian families, family intact with a rich white mom and dad. I say to you, "hm, I wonder how their lives will play out". Fast forward many years. One of the kids is a multi-millionaire, successful, running a business of his own creation. The other one is in a half way house for drug addicts.

"How did their lives turn out so differently?" I ask you. "Well, you see, this one had rich white christian parents", you say. I give you a funny look. It doesn't make sense to me. As an explanation for the source of the difference, it just doesn't make sense to me. You've pointed to something the same between them as the source of the difference...

This is where I get hung up with libertarian free will. This is where I go from thinking "I don't know if libertarian free will exists, but I'd like to see some evidence" to thinking "I don't know that there's ANY possible state of the world that could possibly correspond to free will existing. I think it's just untenable".

The idea that you could explain the source of a change between two scenarios as being something that was perfectly the same between the two scenarios just seems intuitively extremely absurd to me, and I believe most people would understand my intuitive reaction here. Do you understand why it feels intuitively absurd to me?

[henry quirk]

But, we've established that when we rewind time, Willy is the same. When we rewind back to moment -1, Willy is in exactly the same state every time - we've perfectly rewound every aspect of him. So... can he really be the source of the DIFFERENCE if he's the SAME? (forgive me for typing like Age here, but this is important). I find it... unsatisfying, to say the least, to say that the source of the difference is something that was the same.

It's unsatisfying for a materialist, yes. The wonder is why promissory materialism is not even more unsatisfying.

Example 1

Example 1 is a poor one. First, no such simulation has been run in our presence (and if it were run, and the results varied as you say, my response would be the friggin' program is glitched or a programmer introduced some variable and didn't tell us, not the rock model was a perfect sphere). Second, a rock -- real or simulated -- is not a person.

Example 2

Example 2 is also poor. My response, in the context of this thread, might be they're two different people, two different free wills. One made good choices, the other dd not. Certainly, I wouldn't say Well, you see, this one had rich white christian parents.

The idea that you could explain the source of a change between two scenarios as being something that was perfectly the same between the two scenarios just seems intuitively extremely absurd to me

Obviously, neither scenario is about things being exactly the same. In the first, a true determined simulation would result in the rock moving exactly the same each time. If the simulated rock acts unpredictably it is, as I say, becuz the program is flawed or becuz there's a hidden variable rendering the sim as open-ended. In the second example we're talkin' about two different people. The choices they make can differ.

[popeye1945]

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?

We live on the third rock from the sun, and as modern science now tells us, all is interconnected. My thought is that this interconnection is the principle of reaction.

The mind is compelled to seek beginnings, often when there are none. [/quote]

I never spoke of beginnings but rather how life functions in the world, with the world as cause and life as reactionary creatures, where their reactions are cause to a slowly changing world.

A beginning must be created "out of nothing".
[/quote]

Actually, there is a science video establishing that. I believe you can access it on YouTube. Astronomy!

[popeye1945]

If we agreed that all life forms are reactionary creatures then free will would not be, do you not agree? Would evolutionary adaptation be feasible if all life forms were not reactionary creatures ever adapting to the slowly changing world? Would diseases come into being in some other way than reaction to the invasion of chemical, biological invasion, physical injury, or our neediness for elements of the physical world? Our inbuilt neediness is a premier for reaction, we must seek what is needed within our life support system the larger reality of earth. We are a functional part of it through reactions to its life sustaining elements.

For the sake of our own sanity, we must ask ourselves, whether individuals or nations, what are they reacting to? The very idea of free will is an egotistical illusion, reactions are how we belong. Human behaviors cannot be understood under any other premise. Yet another example, human sexual selection built in need is cause for reactions, and it is not an intellectual decision to be attracted, but primordial need. I would be most interested if anyone out there could present to me a human action, there is no such creature. An added thought, in order to move in the world, one must be moved within, in other words, one must be motivated by a desire to effect a change, and motivation spell's reaction, not action. A popular term is cause and effect, when it would better be expressed cause and reaction, where cause creates reaction and reaction becomes cause.

[popeye1945]

So one would have to do something that is "not caused" according to Belinda, in order to have Free-Will?

Any other Determinists want to join her stance? Iwannaplato? Flannel_Jesus? Is that the distinction?

Yes, another determinist. All organisms are reactionary creatures to the greater reality of the earth, where their reactions become causes to the physical world. Your presence in my physical world makes me react to you, and vice versa. There is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. Ask yourself this, if life forms in general were not reactionary, would evolutionary adaptation be possible? All human movement is motivated and motivation spell's reaction not action, and not action spells no free will. Please if you doubt, give me an example of human action.

[Flannel Jesus]

Obviously, neither scenario is about things being exactly the same. In the first, a true determined simulation would result in the rock moving exactly the same each time. If the simulated rock acts unpredictably it is, as I say, becuz the program is flawed or becuz there's a hidden variable rendering the sim as open-ended. In the second example we're talkin' about two different people. The choices they make can differ. "One made good choices, the other dd not. Certainly, I wouldn't say Well, you see, this one had rich white christian parents."

That's exactly right! If something different happens, it must be because of something different!

You get it! You got my point! Fantastic!

You say they were bad examples, but you perfectly achieved the thought process I wanted you to: you see in both cases that it's completely obviously the case that, in order to explain the different result, there has to be a DIFFERENCE to point to, you can't point to something that was the same between them. In the case of the rock there must have been some hidden difference we didn't see. In the case of the rich kids something must have led one to making poor choices, their difference in outcome clearly could not have been because of some traits they both share - it can't be because of something that was the same. You've PERFECTLY understood both examples.

So apply that to the first choice of willy. Why did he choose something different? Don't point me to Willy as the source of the difference, because Willy was perfectly the same. When it comes to my two examples, you apparently understand fully why it makes no sense to say the source of the difference was something that was the same, so apply that to Willy. Why did something different happen in run#5?

[Wizard22]

Yes, another determinist. All organisms are reactionary creatures to the greater reality of the earth, where their reactions become causes to the physical world. Your presence in my physical world makes me react to you, and vice versa. There is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. Ask yourself this, if life forms in general were not reactionary, would evolutionary adaptation be possible? All human movement is motivated and motivation spell's reaction not action, and not action spells no free will. Please if you doubt, give me an example of human action.

Okay this response will be to your previous ones, a reaction if you will.

When you hinge Free-Will upon a reactionary perspective, then yes, it makes sense to deny Free-Will. But I did not say that existence is only-reactive. It is active, re-active, inter-active. These are directional differences of perspective. It's like "looking forward", "looking present", or "looking past". Determinists seem to be 'backward' looking in the sense of looking at the Past, as the premise. If "Choice" is something that "could have been otherwise", then I completely understand why and how Determinists are denying Libertarian Free-Will, and placing constraints on Compatible Free-Will, such that "choice making decisions" make rational sense. They are caused. They are reactionary (to previous causes). The premise here are chains of causes and effects which represent patterns in nature.

My problem with this, is that Free-Will cannot be measured from one direction only.

Therefore it cannot be only-reactionary.


This is why Henry explicitly mentions and argues on behalf of 'Action', 'Active' sense. Choices are made...right now...right here. You cannot isolate them to the past, or to the future, what would have been, or what will be. Choice needs to be 'determined' in the Present. Because that is what separates the Choice as real or unreal, true or false, made or unmade.

You need to actually make the Choice. Or that choice doesn't exist. Or it doesn't apply to Free-Will.

Determinists seem to be missing these points...

[Wizard22]

Determinists seem to premise most of their idealized 'Choices' as "unreal things", choices not made, or purely hypothetical.

No—choices must be real. They must be made present. They must 'materialize'. THAT is the only way anything could possibly be Determined.

So the Act of Choice is the point of contention.


Libertarian "Choices" are simply those that are unavailable for most others conventionally. Some humans have different, exceptional choices, than others. An Olympic athlete has a different Choice (because of his/her capability) than 99.99% of humanity. Rare, exceptional choices, are those that seem impossible to most others. But they're not actually, physically impossible.

Just as this applies to Physics and the body, so too does it apply to Metaphysics and the mind. No two Thinkers are alike. No two capabilities for thought, imagination, reason, are the same. There's always a difference in ability. So too does this differentiate 'Libertine' Choices. It's an entirely different quality of "Free-Will".

It's like "The Free-Will of God", for those who are religious, this might make more sense.

[Wizard22]

The "Act of Choice" is the point of time by which a human agency "takes responsibility" from then on out, forward.

That's why Choice is critical, and it proves "Free-Will" as defined by the Free-Willists. Determinists seem to hang-up on this part.

There is necessarily a moral character involved here. You have to "take control" of the Choice, its intended and unintended results.


Cause, and, you don't know the effects it will produce. Because people don't know (the future), this makes all Choice a matter of Risk. Real choices make you vulnerable. This is why there is a moral character involved, and why Determinism v Free-Will matters. It matters what you think, believe, do, about this.