compatibilism

[iambiguous]

If determinism is true, then can we hold people morally responsible for their actions?
Bryer Sophia-Gardener (William Johnson)
at quora

If a person is generally responsible for their actions, we have good reason to hold that person morally accountable for that person’s actions unless he or she has some good excuse for temporary failure to behave morally.

And if the person is not? And if the excuse this person give is in and of itself no less an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

And then the part where, even given at least some measure of autonomy, who gets to say what either is or is not immoral?

To understand why we have good reason to hold such people morally accountable for their actions, even if their brains and hormone systems are more or less deterministic mechanisms, it is necessary to understand what morality is.

Free will determinism? More or less? Besides, how would we go about demonstrating that our understanding of morality is not as well but another necessary component of the only possibly reality?

Earlier, I pointed out that we humans “can negotiate with others to create shared plans that will extend beyond our lifetimes. We can go so far as to plan for the perpetual happiness and survival of our species and its members.”

And all that it is necessary in order to ascribe this to free will is to believe it. After all, it's not like the hard determinists are able to demonstrate that this belief is false. And then given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule", we're all in the same boat here. There are no doubt many, many things about the cosmos we have no comprehensive understanding of at all. Instead, we create arguments that revolve almost entirely around the meaning given to the words in the arguments themselves.

While the word “morality” can refer to any plan or plans that have been adopted by some person or community for the extended survival, happiness, and/or meaningfulness of that person or community, any such “morality” would be subject to evaluation by the best possible plan that we could negotiate for the happiness, meaningfulness, and survival of our species, its members, and other sentient beings.

And if these evaluations and negotiations are in turn just more of the same...seemingly autonomous but no less wholly in sync with a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

Accordingly, that best possible plan is the archetype for what “morality” most truly is. Since the “archetypical form of morality” is the best possible plan, it is a better morality than any other so called “morality”.

I'm not really sure, however, what this all pertains to socially, politically and economically. So -- click -- if you think you do understand it, please connect the dots between what you think he means and the behaviors you choose.

Also, why is it what "morality" most truly is, rather than morality?

[iambiguous]

If determinism is true, then can we hold people morally responsible for their actions?
Bryer Sophia-Gardener (William Johnson)
at quora

From this point on, I will use the word “morality” to refer to that best possible plan for human beings (whatever that plan might be) and our current best approximation of what that best possible plan might be.

In other words, to click or not to click? Or to click or not to click being in turn but one more manifestation of a wholly determined world. Same with plans, of course.

Unless, of course, I am simply unable to grasp the position of those who argue that either way Mary was still morally responsible for "chooing" an abortion in a world where she was never able not to opt otherwise.

Over and again, in regard to moral responsibility, it's not the plan we subscibe to but the extent to which we are able to demonstrate that this plan is derived from free will.

Consistent with that definition of “morality”, I will also say that a reason is a “good” reason to the extent that it complies with that best possible plan or at least our best approximation of that best possible plan.

Now for the part that seems to irritate -- enrage? -- some in regard to my own suggestion that even given free will it is reasonable in a No God world for mere mortals to experience a "fractured and fragmented" assessment of value judgments.

Then the part where some note how their own "best possible plan" is both wholly determined by the laws of matter and yet still something they are responsible for.

Morality (i.e., the best possible plan) can only be the best possible plan if it will be followed. It will be useless if people are not motivated to follow it. Consequently, in order to be the best possible plan, morality will necessarily include the best possible plan for motivating people to comply with the requirements of morality. Thus, since morality calls on us to motivate people to act morally, there is good reason to motivate people to comply with morality.

Same here. If this makes sense to you please note how it is applicable given your day to day interactions with others in which moral conflagrations are confronted.

Plans
Reasons
Motivations
Behaviors

And then all of these folks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

If you get my drift...of your own volition?

[Ben JS]

And if the excuse this person give is in and of itself no less an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

Our motivation is to influence the future to be closer to our ideal.
We do not know what the future will be.

Determinism is not a reason to stop striving towards your ideal future.

People using determinism to argue that the current predicted trajectory ought be or cannot be other,
are contributing an influence that I predict leads away from the future I consider ideal.

Thus, I am motivated to highlight that we can contribute to an outcome,
that leads us away from a predicted future that is not preferable,
in the absence of our attempted actions to alter said predicted outcome.

Whilst it may be determined that everything goes to shit,
it may also be determined that we were meant to contribute in a way that everything does not go to shit.
I hope that the future is determined to not be shit,
and I attempt to act in a way that I believe contributes to the future not being shit.
Due to my preference to influence the future to be closer to my ideal.

-

We actions in the present, aren't expected to influence the immediate past.
Our actions in the present, are expected to influence the immediate future.

An excuse refers to the past.
An excuse for the unknown future, does not make sense.
If you anticipate something non-preferred in the future,
instead of appealing for acceptance of a predicted act -
instead one can dedicate energy to altering predicted act.

Determinism does not claim you shouldn't attempt to avoid predicted non-preferred futures.

-

Yes, iam, if determinism is true, then everything is determined -
even our thoughts and actions in response to it.
It was determined for us to recognize it,
and determined for us to question how to act in response to it.
And determined for others to deny it.

This is all trivially true.

Determinism is not an excuse to not attempt to alter the predicted future,
because we do not know what the determined future is.
Anyone claiming that the current prediction of the future is inevitable,
has a fundamental misunderstanding of how determinism works.

Any predicted future is not determined.
Making an excuse is a willful action.
Willful actions can be evaluated on their merit.
To hold someone accountable means to evaluate their actions.
Why?

Because if someone wills to act unhealthily,
we anticipate they we do this again in the future.
And it is the future we are concerned about.
Thus we attempt to influence that person's decisions.

[Ben JS]

Transferring a discussion here so it's not off topic:

Modern men have replaced the absolutist ideal of god's will with the idea of absolute order, calling it determinism.
They want to be given a purpose, because they fear the responsibility of giving themselves one.

Wrong.

Belief in determinism does not remove one's will to create their own purpose and seek their ideals.

What it does, is enable us to be more forgiving and compassionate to those who act unhealthily.
It makes us wiser.

Determinists aren't telling anyone to abandon all purpose and self accountability for their actions or intent.

Why are you so comfortable stating falsehoods?

-

Existential nihilism, which I consider my beliefs aligned with - does not contradict Determinism.
This philosophy of thought says we CAN create our own meaning, and finding purpose within ourselves.

But this is all off topic from this brilliant thread, so I wont belabor the point.

Wrong.

Suck confident declarations should be accompanied with reasoning.

Belief in determinism does not remove one's will to create their own purpose and seek their ideals.

You should run this by your fellow free-will deniers.
Choice is the issue.
If your choices, your will, is not able to select from multiple options, then it has no choice.

What it does, is enable us to be more forgiving and compassionate to those who act unhealthily.
It makes us wiser.

Determinists aren't telling anyone to abandon all purpose and self accountability for their actions or intent.

Why are you so comfortable stating falsehoods?

No, they are self-contradicting.
They act in ways that contradict their absolutist claims.... because they want to save themselves from accountability.

If you allow for some participation in what is being determined, then this is an acknowledgment that life has some degree of freedom equal to its power.
Free-will does not mean man can liberate himself form causality, only that his judgments and choices are part of causality.

Existential nihilism, which I consider my beliefs aligned with - does not contradict Determinism.
This philosophy of thought says we CAN create our own meaning, and finding purpose within ourselves.

But this is all off topic from this brilliant thread, so I wont belabor the point.

Therefore, each man can 'choose' his purpose.
This is a choice between multiple options.
The amount of options, accessible, determines a man';s freedom, and his freedom is determined by his power, his will power.

Free-will does not contradict causality, it simply reminds man that his willful actions, choices, judgments, are part of causality.

Otherwise, how would big brains and intelligence be naturally selected?

My response:

[Ben JS]

Choice is the issue.
If your choices, your will, is not able to select from multiple options, then it has no choice.

It is not a free choice.
The act of considering options, and selecting one -
whilst completely compelled, as much as everything else,
can be described as making a choice.

But this act of making a choice, is an illusion.
That's why it's described as an illusion of choice.

This biological process, that unfolds in our brains,
when we are compelled to consider options,
and compelled to select one -
has a name.

'Choosing' 'choice'.

And, I'll note for the observant among us.
I did not use the word choice in my response to Pistolero.
Pistolero introduced this term, and then criticized the term.
That's what we call a strawman,
but even the criticism falls flat.

No, they are self-contradicting.
They act in ways that contradict their absolutist claims.... because they want to save themselves from accountability.

Blanket declarations regarding a diverse group of people's motives,
without even trying to have a discussion with one.
A tired accusation from those who take issue with the concept.
'Oh, we wont address the tenets of determinism,
instead we'll character assassinate anyone who believes it.'

Here's a proverb for you: Analyze what is said, not who is speaking.

My motive for discussing determinism,
is to influence others into making wiser decisions.
Not retaliating and causing harm out of ignorance.

But regardless of the motive of those who believe determinism is accurate,
one primarily should address the topic, not ones who adopt it.

Even if you could establish every single person who believes determinism is vile scum,
that wouldn't make determinism any less accurate.
Either it's true or false.

Character assassination is the last resort of the desperate.

Guess you don't have any strong arguments against determinism, eh?

If you allow for some participation in what is being determined, then this is an acknowledgment that life has some degree of freedom equal to its power.

We actions contribute to the result.
But they were determined to do so.

A domino participates in the chain reaction of dominoes falling,
but it has no choice in the matter.
But in it's absence, the outcome would be different.
The domino contributes to the outcome,
but in a determined manner.

We act in accord with our will.
Our will is determined.
Our acts are determined.

So, you're wrong.

Free-will does not mean man can liberate himself form causality, only that his judgments and choices are part of causality.

There are multiple meanings of free will.
I think there are two primary definitions of free, when communicating about free will.

1: free from causality [libertarian free will]
2: volitional, capacity to act in accord with one's will [no gun to head]

We can act volitionally in accordance with our will,
but we cannot volitionally alter the contents of what they're determined to be.
Thus, if there is only one option, describing it as free is completing misleading.

We have a will, and we can act in accord with it.
We don't need to describe it as free.
We can simply differentiate when someone has volitionally acted in accord with their will.

It is important to differentiate between what is volitional and unvolitional,
when assessing how we expect a person to act in the future.

If a person voltionally engages in an unhealthy behaviour,
we may expect they'll likely make a similar decision in future.
If a person is coerced at gunpoint to act in an unhealthy way,
once the gun is removed from their head, we don't expect them to repeat it.

If our interest is to reduce harm in the future,
then the way we react to the one who volitionally causes harm,
as opposed to the one who is forced beyond the contents of their will to do so,
ought be different.

This is a choice between multiple options.

We consider multiple possibilities,
possibilities that are only so due to our ignorance.
If determinism is true,
there was only ever one outcome,
and any other 'possibility' considered was actually an illusion.

Hence, the 'illusion of choice'.
We go through the process of choosing and considering,
but it was completely determined - and there was never going to be a possibility of an alternate result.
From our limited awareness,
there are possibilities we cannot eliminate due to our ignorance.

The amount of options, accessible, determines a man';s freedom,

One option. The determined option.
So very little freedom - none actually.

and his freedom is determined by his power, his will power.

Man is powerless to alter the contents of his will, than what was determined to occur.
The contents of one's will can be different in one moment to the next, but this change was determined.
Monday, man wants steak for dinner. Tuesday, man wants chicken. - The content's of man's will changed.

One's will can change, and does so. But only in a determined manner.

-

Robert Sapolsky, a stanford professor, released a book tilted 'Determined: Life Without Free Will'.
In it, he has addressed every single criticism you have raised here.
Like your last one in his chapter 'Willing Willpower: The Myth of Grit'.

I could paste it verbatim if you like.

-

What is interesting is that the information against your assumptions is available,
but you appear to make little effort to verify your claims.
You assume something that sounds right,
and then run with it as if fact.
If you made any effort to understand the position you're railing against,
you would come to see all your criticisms have already been answered -
and you've produced no counters to the answers, nor even acknowledged their possibility.

It's really poor quality control, on your part.
The quality of your thought, is undermined by your lack of willingness to verify.
That you so nonchalantly state untruths as if undisputed, really damages the intellectual integrity of your claims.

[Pistolero]

Explain how costly big brains and intelligence evolves if they offer no advantage, and judgment and choice are illusory.
Natural selection is about random mutations propagating because they are advantageous.

In your delusional worldview, they offer no advantage and man, and his big brains, are no different than stones.
So, how do if brains evolve if they offer no advantage and are disadvantageous, because they trick men into believing they have some control over their own destiny?

We're back to Creationism, only now it is called absolute order, determining, rather than god creating.

[Ben JS]

Explain how costly big brains and intelligence evolves if they offer no advantage, and judgment and choice are illusory.
Natural selection is about random mutations propagating because they are advantageous.

Well, you've just shifted the goal posts.
But I'll humor you.

-

The process of reacting to the environment entails non-illusory mechanisms.
The process of evaluating the environment entails non-illusory mechanisms.

Those 'big brains', are providing an advantage for the 'big brained' thing's survival.
They are the mechanism by which this intelligent being can outcompete it competitors,
and adapt to the challenges / adversities of it's environment, and potentially flourish in these conditions.

Whilst the acts of a being are beyond the being's control,
that being still must possess the mechanisms by which it could contribute to an outcome,
if an outcome is to occur which requires a being with this capacity.

In other words, a domino cannot cause another domino to fall, if it does not have the weight (mechanism) to contribute to this result.

Big brains are a pre-requisite of evaluating / selecting.
Natural selection lead to this outcome.

[Pistolero]

Explain how costly big brains and intelligence evolves if they offer no advantage, and judgment and choice are illusory.
Natural selection is about random mutations propagating because they are advantageous.

Well, you've just shifted the goal posts.
But I'll humor you.

-

The process of reacting to the environment entails non-illusory mechanisms.
The process of evaluating the environment entails non-illusory mechanisms.

Those 'big brains', are providing an advantage for the 'big brained' thing's survival.
They are the mechanism by which this intelligent being can outcompete it competitors,
and adapt to the challenges / adversities of it's environment, and potentially flourish in these conditions.

Whilst the acts of a being are beyond the being's control,
that being still must possess the mechanisms by which it could contribute to an outcome,
if an outcome is to occur which requires a being with this capacity.

Big brains contribute a multiplication of probability, not certainty.
Will separates the living form the non-living.
It's advantage is that it focuses energies upon an objective, participating in what is being determined.

Has nothing to do with escaping causality or being able to create reality....
Free is a qualifier of will.... like 'power'....or 'weakness' or 'strength'.
Strong-willed does not mean omnipotent, so why must free-will amen detachment from what has been determined?

Freedom is determined by power.
Power means the ability to overcome resistance, multiplying the options accessible to a will, ergo it means an increase in freedom, i.e., options.
Nothing metaphysical required.

In other words, a domino cannot cause another domino to fall, if it does not have the weight (mechanism) to contribute to this result.

Though a single life form is not very powerful, when compared to all the wills of life across the cosmos, and relative to the will-less energies across the cosmos, it makes up for it by focusing its aggregate energies, by collectivizing them, and through persistent consistency.

Big brains are a pre-requisite of evaluating / selecting.
Natural selection lead to this outcome.

Yes...so the question remains unanswered by those who declare free-will to be illusory....how does intelligence emerge, and big brains, if they offer no advantage, but rather a disadvantage, since they "trick" us into believing we have agency?

They are implying Creationism, minus the willful intent of a god.
Do big brains evolve merely to increase suffering, by making life aware of how impotent it is?
Is the cosmos sadistic?

If choice/will is illusory, then it cannot have been naturally selected, but created despite it being disadvantageous.

At least admit it that the Death of God denied you of a crucial part of your coping mechanism: a scapegoat.
Most can deal with no authoritarian, totalitarian willful Divinity, but the loss of the messianic scapegoat they cannot accept.
They need something to blame...if not God then cosmic order. If not a totalitarian creator then a absolute determinator.

[Pistolero]

'Choosing' 'choice'.

And, I'll note for the observant among us.
I did not use the word choice in my response to Pistolero.
Pistolero introduced this term, and then criticized the term.
That's what we call a strawman,
but even the criticism falls flat.

Will, every act participating in an organism, with the intent of continuing its wilfulness - life.
most willful actions are subconscious.
Choice, lucid presentation of options, from which to will, or choose.

Which is illusory.
The choice or the will?

Freedom simply means available and accessible options.
So, power determines freedom.
Nothing metaphysical involved.

Metaphysis, detached from physis, is the playpen of charlatans.....
Beware of those selling you supernatural powers, couched in linguistic walls of nonsense.
They muddy the water....and call it "profound" or "complex" to imply that they are advanced.
Mencken said....beware of those offering salvation....lies.

Freedom does not mean supernatural powers, or escaping causality, or the determined past.

Will = focus of aggregate organic energies upon an objective.
Only life wills, and so only life has a motive, a purpose.
Freedom = power. Quantity and quality of options available and accessible to an individual organism.
So free-will is about degrees.

We are as free as our powers allow.

[Ben JS]

Big brains contribute a multiplication of probability, not certainty.

From the perspective of determinism,
possibility is an illusion as there's only one outcome.
Possibility is a product of our ignorance - our inability to know the determined future.

If determinism is true, the future is certain.
Our acts, would thereby, be contributing the the only possible outcome.

From out limited capacity to evaluate the situation,
we could describe our acts as increasing the likelihood of an outcome.
This is only from our limited perspective, and an illusion - that there was ever possibility.

Free is a qualifier of will.... like 'power'....or 'weakness' or 'strength'.

Please define what you mean when you use the qualifier 'free'.
What is the definition of free you are using.
And as my previous post pointed out,
there are multiple meanings of 'free will'.
Please do not conflate them.

If the terms are conflated, we are speaking past each other.
But both the types of 'free will' I described in the previous post,
have already been accounted for and explained away, in the context of determinism.

the question remains unanswered by those who declare free-will to be illusory....how does intelligence emerge, and big brains, if they offer no advantage, but rather a disadvantage, since they "trick" us into believing we have agency?

I never said the illusion was a disadvantage - simply that is was there.
It is you, who has introduced the term disadvantage.
And you who has introduced the possibility that intelligence / big brains offer no advantage.
These are the assumptions you've introduced.

I have not said either. So you've shifted the goal posts, and straw manned my position. Racking up the logical fallacies.

-

My previous post states that intelligence / big brains do increase the survivability of the being with them -
thus, a survival advantage.

Can you read, Pistolero?

Those 'big brains', are providing an advantage for the 'big brained' thing's survival.
They are the mechanism by which this intelligent being can outcompete it competitors,
and adapt to the challenges / adversities of it's environment, and potentially flourish in these conditions.

Note the part where I say, "are providing an advantage".

-

You've now shifted the goal posts to me explaining natural selection and evolution to you.
As though the arguments I raised rely on me providing these explanations to you.

Are you doing this intentionally?
A picture is being established of your lack of capacity, or preference,
for remaining on the primary areas of contention -
once one area is answered,
you quickly shift to another,
and imply the previous area is dependent on the latter.

A misunderstanding, or underhanded strategy on your part.

If choice/will is illusory, then it cannot have been naturally selected, but created despite it being disadvantageous.

To repeat:
The biological mechanisms by which one evaluates their environment and devises strategies for interacting with their environment are not illusory.
These are what have been shaped by natural selection.

The illusion is that there were alternatives, not that there are mechanisms by which actions are made.

More incorrect conflations by you.

At least admit it that the Death of God denied you of a crucial part of your coping mechanism: a scapegoat.
Most can deal with no authoritarian, totalitarian willful Divinity, but the loss of the messianic scapegoat they cannot accept.
They need something to blame...if not God then cosmic order. If not a totalitarian creator then a absolute determinator.

Here's a proverb for you: Analyze what is said, not who is speaking.

Regardless of the motive of those who believe determinism is accurate,
one primarily should address the topic, not ones who adopt it.

Even if you could establish every single person who believes determinism is vile scum,
that wouldn't make determinism any less accurate.
Either it's true or false.

Character assassination is the last resort of the desperate.

EDIT: [I'll get back to you later. The lack of my immediate response is not an indication of an inability to address your tired points, but of time management.]

[Pistolero]

Free is a qualifier of will.... like 'power'....or 'weakness' or 'strength'.

Please define what you mean when you use the qualifier 'free'.
What is the definition of free you are using.

I've already provided this.

Choosing a definition that makes it impossible for any mortal being to attain, is part of your methodology.
Not you, because you don't have the brains....but the definitions you've adopted....freely, willfully chosen.

I never said the illusion was a disadvantage - simply that is was there.
It is you, who has introduced the term disadvantage.
And you who has introduced the possibility that intelligence / big brains offer no advantage.
These are the assumptions you've introduced.

I'm not talking to you, exclusively...you are a dullard.
I am using you to address the arguments I've come across.

I have not said either. So you've shifted the goal posts, and straw manned my position. Racking up the logical fallacies.

The question stands...if choice is illusory and there is no free-will, entirely, completely, totally, absolutely, then how do big brains with high IQ's evolve?
You've taken away the advantage to be selected naturally, so what's left?

An advantage is determining. It increases probabilities.
So, a will's freedom cannot be illusory, because this erases the advantage that would explain its presence.
We all experience will in ourselves and in others.
we all experience ourselves and others trying to decide, and what they decide determining their fate.
No illusion.

My previous post states that intelligence / big brains do increase the survivability of the being with them -
thus, a survival advantage.

Big brains offer no advantage if they have no freedom, that is no ability to select from two or more options.

Your fellow free-will deniers will tell you that they do not accept the idea that a man can choose other than what he's chosen.

Are you doing this intentionally?

Yes....freely.
I have many options - because I am relatively free, and I chose to address your fellow deniers, and not you.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
There moment you agreed that intelligence is advantageous you've accepted that a organism participates, to whatever degree, in determining its fate.

A misunderstanding, or underhanded strategy on your part.

No shit...and yet you insulted me numerous times, before I reciprocated.

You don't understand but declare my reasoning "tired."

To repeat:
The biological mechanisms by which one evaluates their environment and devises strategies for interacting with their environment are not illusory.
These are what have been shaped by natural selection.

Yes....and so you accept that life has agency and that the will is not unfree.

The moment you accepted that a organism could have chosen other than what it did, you've affirmed its freedom.
Choice is not illusory, because then the advantage would also be illusory.

If you choose to define a concept, like freedom, in a way that would make it impossible for any mortal being to meet your criteria, then you should seek the motives beneath your choices.
Why do you not give 'power' the same treatment....as in willpower?


Freedom is determined by power.
More power means more resistance can be overcome, multiplying options....and options is how we measure freedom.

Now go away.

[Pistolero]

Advantage of big brains:
Ability to evaluate the cost/benefits of multiple options, informing an organism, before it chooses, which option is 'best,' relative to its objectives.

If choice is illusory, there is no advantage.
Why and how do big brains evolve, if they offer the disadvantage of illusion?

Choosing to define the concept 'free' in a way that no mortal being can meet the criteria, exposes a hidden objective.
Selectively applying this method to the qualifier' 'free' and not to all qualifiers, e.g., strong, weak, power, good, bad, etc......exposes the motive.
Inconsistency is revealing.


My definitions are not arbitrary. They can be independently verified.
I do not CHOOSE to define these concepts in a way that would make a specific outcome probable.

If you live your life in antithesis to how you define words, then the hypocrisy is your own.
Do you CHOOSE to look before you move?
If you do then you are validating the fact that choice participates in determining a man's fate.
Do you carefully consider your options, before you choose? If you do then this contradicts your theory that choice is illusory.

[Ben JS]

and yet you insulted me numerous times, before I reciprocated.

When you talk so much shit, it can be easy to lose track of what you've spouted.

Before I even began the exchange with you,
you were spouting this in a non-related topic:

"Modern men have replaced the absolutist ideal of god's will with the idea of absolute order, calling it determinism.
They want to be given a purpose, because they fear the responsibility of giving themselves one."

You declared all who believe in determinism,
do so out of fear of responsibility.

Imbecile doesn't recognize how making blanket statements asserting others beliefs are spawned from fear is insulting.
Then claims they were civil.

Are you senile?

Freedom = power

Wow. Very insightful.
Saying two separate concepts are identical.

Creating your special snowflake definitions,
and then saying the concepts others talk about are false,
because they don't adhere to your special snowflake definition?

You're an imbecile.
And lack intellectual honesty.

I'm not talking to you, exclusively

Oh, so you're making shit up -
and implying I said the shit you just made up.

That's one way to approach a conversation..

If you're intellectually dishonest.
And when your claims are shown to be foolish,
why not just make shit up?

if choice is illusory and there is no free-will, entirely, completely, totally, absolutely, then how do big brains with high IQ's evolve?
You've taken away the advantage to be selected naturally, so what's left?

Blatantly lying here.
Par the course for one that's cool with making shit up.

I literally answer your contention,
and then you claim I did the opposite.

For anyone who isn't interest in making shit up,
here's how I did not remove the natural selection's capacity to affect the structure of our brains:

The process of reacting to the environment entails non-illusory mechanisms.
The process of evaluating the environment entails non-illusory mechanisms.

Those 'big brains', are providing an advantage for the 'big brained' thing's survival.
They are the mechanism by which this intelligent being can outcompete it competitors,
and adapt to the challenges / adversities of it's environment, and potentially flourish in these conditions.

Whilst the acts of a being are beyond the being's control,
that being still must possess the mechanisms by which it could contribute to an outcome,
if an outcome is to occur which requires a being with this capacity.

In other words, a domino cannot cause another domino to fall, if it does not have the weight (mechanism) to contribute to this result.

Big brains are a pre-requisite of evaluating / selecting.
Natural selection lead to this outcome.

The biological mechanisms by which one evaluates their environment and devises strategies for interacting with their environment are not illusory.
These are what have been shaped by natural selection.

The illusion is that there were genuine alternatives, not that there are mechanisms by which actions are made.

===
===

Big brains offer no advantage if they have no freedom

Wrong. But you're either too ignorant or intellectually dishonest to recognize it.
I've explained the advantage,
but you're covering your ears and asserting the opposite.
Quite a display of your power.

A misunderstanding, or underhanded strategy on your part.

No shit...

Openly stating they have no integrity.

To repeat:
The biological mechanisms by which one evaluates their environment and devises strategies for interacting with their environment are not illusory.
These are what have been shaped by natural selection.

Yes....

So then you accept that there is a mechanism by which natural selection can influence a being's intelligence, even in a determined world.
This means your prior claim, and I quote:
"In your [...] worldview, they offer no advantage and man, and his big brains, are no different than stones."
Is completely unfounded and wrong. That's unfortunate for you.

As stated above, imbecile, a stone does not have the biological mechanisms to evaluate it's environment.
A brain, does have the biological mechanism to evaluate it's environment.
See the difference? I'm doubtful, given your track record.

If a result is to occur that entails the mechanism of evaluating the environment,
then the mechanism must arise. The pathway it arises is by being shaped by natural selection.

Was that your silver bullet, imbecile?
Is this why you refuse to acknowledge it's impotence as an argument?
Why you refuse to acknowledge that it has been dismantled?

Bitch move, imbecile.

and so you accept that life has agency and that the will is not unfree.

The imbecile is unable to recognize intention can exist in the absence of freedom.
We design machines, and program objectives within them - and the machines have no freedom.
They simply function in accord with their design in the absence of freedom.

We're different, imbecile, because we are aware.
The objectives we have are influenced by our preferences, which the machines we lack.
But we are akin to machines, in that we have no capacity to alter the determined course of existence.
We can imagine possible futures, but they're imaginary - except for the determined one.
There are predicted possible futures, and we can aim for particular ones,
but the future that will eventuate, has already been determined before we existed.

There is one future, and only one future.
We are determined to contribute to it's eventuation.
That there was a possibility of any other future arising,
is a product of our own ignorance and false, illusory projection on reality.

The moment you accepted that a organism could have chosen other than what it did, you've affirmed its freedom.

Fortunately, I didn't.
This 'moment' you describe, is one more thing you just made up.

I said we had the illusion there was an alternate choice.
We can contemplate options we have no capacity to make reality.

-

What's particularly disappointing about you,
is that if you had any genuine interest in understanding determinism,
you could simply research and discover how you're preconceptions are misguided.
Instead you'd rather rant, rave and make shit up.

[Pistolero]

Imbecile doesn't recognize how making blanket statements asserting others beliefs are spawned from fear is insulting.
Then claims they were civil.

Insulting indirectly, not personally, you fuckturd.
If you recognized yourself in my description, moron, then this is obvious that you are one of those hypocrites that has replaced the one-god, with absolute order.

Saying two separate concepts are identical.

No, moron, power DETERMINES freedom.

Creating your special snowflake definitions,
and then saying the concepts others talk about are false,
because they don't adhere to your special snowflake definition?

I'm the "snowflake" you poor manchild, looking for a way to save your ego from choices you've made?

Snowflake.....are races social constructs?
Let's see who's the snowflake.

Oh, so you're making shit up -
and implying I said the shit you just made up.

No, moron, I did not say you said it, because you are dull, and don't know what you are saying./
I am dressing...for one more time I repeat, those who have denied free-will using idiotic arguments.

Like that other imbecile, from ILP, who spends more time here than the forum he administers, who equated choice with the illusion that the earth is flat.
But we can dispel the error of a flat earth, using many methods.....can anyone give me one method to dispel the illusion of choice?

Even the retards making these claims spend their lives carefully considering their options BEFORE they make a choice.
For what reason, if choice is an illusion and man has no free-will?
Why go through the pretense of judging and carefuller considering options, if it's all determined and no man can choose other than what he chooses?

Again, idiotic dullard, how would big brains evolve if life had no agency and having the ability to choose is illusory?
Why go through all the trouble if man is no different than a stone rolling down a cliff-side?

If man does have a choice that participates in determining his fate, then he has free-will.

The way you define the term 'free' determines the outcome.
and in the case of your ilk, the motive is to erase disparities and suffering.

As an example of using this method;
If I were driven to create the ILLUSION of parity, I would define 'power' in a way that would make ti impossible for any mortal to meet the criteria, so that I could say that 'power was an illusion' and that all men are equally powerless
I would define power as omnipotence, claiming that any man that cannot prove to be omnipotent is automatically impotent.

Another example, because this is my last post on the subject.

If I were desperate to create the ILLUSION of racial or individual intellectual parity, I would define knowledge and understating as OMNISCIENCE, so that I could claim that any mortal man that cannot prove that he is omniscient must be igroant, or as equally ignorant as all men.

This is what you fucks do with the concept of freedom.
You give ti supernatural, metaphorical definitions so that you can then dismiss it as illusion, because no man can ever meet the criteria you've set.
Why?
To missis human disparities that produce bad choices.
To deal with regret.
To absolve men of their responsibilities in determining their own fate.

You all experience choice, but declare ti illusory....because your objective is not clarity but parity.
Every day you make conscious and unconscious choices, every one of them participating in determining your options, and your fate, but you fear acknowledging this because you cannot blame anything nor anyone for the negative shit that happens to you, as a consequence of your choices, based no your bad judgments.

You fucks crave absolution - salvation. you need scapegoats....someone, or something to accuse for whoever happens to you, because most of what happens to you is unintentional, unforeseeable, undesirable.....collateral damages your choices cause.

Your intellect dishonesty is now projected upon me, hypocrite.
So, I will repeat my question, for the others, expecting nothing from you....

If choice is an illusion, and free-will is an illusion, then how were big brains naturally selected, when good judgments leading to good choices offer no advantage?
For an advantage to have an effect it must be actual, not illusory. Illusory choices create illusory advantages.

If you remain true to your convictions, and believe that man has no free-will - not a degree, but none at all- and that choice is an illusion, then you've made big brains and high IQ's useless.
All they can do, in your worldview, is expose you to the pain of realizing how helpless you are.

Big brains evolved because they offer an advantage. What advantage?
They can collect and process larger amounts of data, to create a judgment, expressed through a choice.
The choice is not illusory, it is actual. We make them daily.
I just chose to scratch my left testicle, and not the right one....even through ti did not itch.
I freely chose it. I could have chosen to scratch the right one, or not scratch at all....so many options.

Whilst the acts of a being are beyond the being's control,
that being still must possess the mechanisms by which it could contribute to an outcome,
if an outcome is to occur which requires a being with this capacity.

Then choice is not illusory, dumbass, and life does have a certain degree of freedom.
I do not need absolute control to be able to participate in what is being determined, imbecile....just as I don't need to be omniscient to have some knowledge and understating....
My participation in what is being determined is determined by my power.

Freedom is determined by power. An individual man’s aggregate power (energies) is infinitesimal, when compared to the number of organisms in existence, on earth and across the cosmos, and, more significantly, when compared to the cosmic forces involved in continuously determining the world, as it is. A dynamic fluctuating state of constant interactivity – flux.

When placed in such perspectives a man’s will is insignificant and might as well be non-existent.
An organism compensates for this through consistency. Consistency is the nature of being alive.
Consistency, over time, is a force-multiplier. The infinitesimal power of an individuated organism increases the probability of producing a ‘positive,’ for it, effect, through the multiplier of time – persistence across space/time.
Another force multiplier is self-control and understanding. Self-control and understanding make an organism’s infinitesimal energies more effective, by making them more efficient through persistent focus.
Another method is collectivization of wills. By including its individual will within a unity, an organism increases its effect – empowering – but at what cost? Many philosophers, championing individualism, consider the cost too high, even if many of them deny free-will. A stoic approach.
In effect, they would rather live independently, surrendering to their fate, as this is determined and imposed upon them by overpowering cosmic forces, than surrender their will to a collective.
The idea of god comes from this collectivization of wills – intersubjectivity. A singular god is akin to globalism, in that it proposes and represents a collectivization of cosmic wills, beginning with the multiplicities found on earth.
In ancient times divine powers were gauged by the quantity of worshippers surrendering their will to them – this is the meaning of sacrificial rites. A worshipper sacrifices animals, as representations of his willful self-sacrifice; his willful surrendering of his will. A god would become as powerful as the number of followers he or she could gather, focusing their wills upon whatever objectives the priestly class deemed the god willed. A method of mass control, multiplying individual willpower – increasing its freedoms by, paradoxically, surrendering them. Ironically, freedom through collectivization demands a submission of individual freedoms to a collective, governed by authority figures. In practice, an individual surrenders his infinitesimal freedom of will, to a collective, identifying and adopting the collective’s unified wills as his own.
A significant force multiplier, at a high price. An individual sacrifices his infinitesimal freedom of will – willpower – to a collective by immersing his identity within a representative abstraction, e.g. god, or an ideal. Denial of free-will is part of the sacrificial rites of inclusion – evidence of worthiness, i.e., faith. An individual’s freedoms, i.e. willpower, are increased but only through the mediating approval of a collective. An individual rejects his individual needs/desires and becomes entirely committed in realizing the collective’s needs and desires, as these are presented to him via authorities. Her experiences this as empowerment. His will is now entirely immersed within a collective will, and so denial of self is an aspect of self-sacrifice. A man regresses to an infantile state, or the level of a animal (manimal), or an automaton that is completely determined by external wills and will-less cosmic forces, stoically accepting his fate as the price of his inclusion. Such a man has no identity outside what is permitted by the collective. Such a manimal only has his primal pleasures to give meaning to his existence, because anything other than self-preservation is dependent on collective consent.

In other words, a domino cannot cause another domino to fall, if it does not have the weight (mechanism) to contribute to this result.

Yes, imbecile.....you figured it out.
Power determines quantity of optinos...and quantity of options is how we measure freedom.

A slave, or a herd psychology, like yours, has few options.
A master has more options...he is more free, not absolutely free.
He is not free from nature or need, or causality.

Freedom is a qualifier of Will....as is power, strength, good/bad....
Relative, moron....i am relatively powerful. Relative to another or to a median....as I am relatively free.
My choices participate in determining my fate....as they participate in determining another's fate.
For example...your choice of leader, your silence, as a dumb-ass American, contributed to the determination of the fate of a Palestinian child.
You are culpable, to a degree equal to your power to affect policy.

The illusion is that there were genuine alternatives, not that there are mechanisms by which actions are made.

There you go, hypocrite...contradicting yourself.
We always have alternatives, idiot.
The choice we make we cannot unmake....the wave collapses into a point, creating a new wave.

Are men inclined towards particular choices?
Yes.
Can they choose against their impulses?
Yes.
Does this make a difference?
Yes.
Are some choices harder to make than others?
Yes.
Do men prefer the path-of-least resistance?
Yes.

If we have no alternative, hypocrite, we have no actual choice.
There's your illusion, in your self-comforting delusions.
A singular option is not a choice, moron.
A slave you are.
If you can only choose the one thing, that's not a choice, moron.....
Choice necessitate options - alternatives.

And that's the end of that.....waste of my time.
Listen hypocrite....as long as you continue contradicting yourself, with your every choice, and its careful consideration of alternative options, you can believe whatever comforting delusion helps you protect your ego from its culpability in determining your fate and the fate of others.

Ta, ta,

[Pistolero]

Master/Slave Liberty
The slave thinks of freedom as a liberation from something, and since he can never completely liberate himself from everything, he considers himself eternally bound.
A master thinks of freedom as the liberty to do something, and since he is only limited by his power, he considers himself as free as his power allows.