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

[Flannel Jesus]

Well, the compatibilist interpretation says, "he could have, *if he wanted to*". Right? "He doesn't want to, in this moment, but he could if he did". That seems to really, really closely mesh with what you've been saying. You've been saying things like "He could, but why would he?"

That's not compatibilism. Compatibilism attempts to reconcile free will with determinism.

Yes, which is what those words do.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

"According to one strand within classical compatibilism, freedom is nothing more than an agent’s ability to do what she wishes in the absence of impediments that would otherwise stand in her way."

In other words, if Willy wanted to choose something different (even though he factually doesn't), and nothing is impeding his ability to do this or that, then according to the quote above, he has compatibilist free will.

So what I said very much is in line with compatibilism.

[Wizard22]

Animals make choices. Infants make choices. Pretty much all organisms make some small 'choice' of some kind.

Why is this important? Because non-living things, objects, rocks, water droplets, most of physical existence does not make choices.


So already there is a division. Most material does not make choice, but some humans do. Most of existence does not have free-will, but some humans do. For humans to deny free-will completely (hard determinism), this position implies that the material state between non-living and living matter is same, along with their chemical and conscious-producing bodies. This is clearly false. Humans are clearly different than non-living things, objects, rocks, water droplets, etc.

At this point, hard determinists might argue "yes but the same forces apply to humans as to physical objects". Oh. Really? Which forces? Gravity? External forces? This is beside-the-point. External forces are only half of the picture. Internal forces are more important. The hard determinist must admit that a rock has a fundamentally different "internal force" than a human, an animal, an infant. So the two are not the same, and "the same forces" do not apply.

So what is the internal force of life, and of humans, that allow for free-will?

The first observation I make is self-locomotion. Living things can 'move' around "by themselves". So living things can "move themselves" in ways that physical, non-living objects cannot. I would call this "Resistance". The Resistance of Life, is its Self-Locomotion. And when it it expressed by highly evolved, highly capable organisms (Humans), then it appears as "Choice".

Determinists are not even close to accurate or correct at pinpointing this "internal force". They are stuck on the External, not the Internal.

[Wizard22]

That an organism has self-locomotion, and can move around in an environment (Navigate), means that a 'choice' is already being made by the direction that organism goes.

This applies to simple-cell organisms, whose direction is "caused" by their reproduction and nutrition-seeking genetics. This applies to complex-cellular organisms, insects, fish, lizards, birds, etc. all the way up to human. The more 'evolved' and 'intelligent' the organism is perceived to be, the more 'choice' it has in its direction: its self-Locomotion, its Resistance, its Choice.

This must be the basis of any and all "Free-Wills". It begins with a choice of direction, into "external" environments.

[popeye1945]

Evolutionary adaptation is not a choice. Context defines, and thus it defines necessity. All creatures are reactionary organisms. All choices are motivated, and motivation spell's reaction not action. Unmotivated action would be free will, but there is not such creature.

[Wizard22]

Reacting to what exactly?

[Belinda]

he has a 0% chance of doing something different. You think this

I don't. Junior declining the nip; my takin' different routes: there's a chance, no matter how small, either of of us might.

How did you go from "no, he wouldn't make a different choice" to now saying there's a small chance? You weren't disagreeing with me every time I used the word "guranteed". I'm getting whiplash here

Chance is a short word for unpredictability. Choice relates to number and quality of choices. A careful and wise parent tries to increase the quality and number of Junior's choices which includes increasing Junior's knowledge and wisdom so Junior is less often a victim of chance.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't. Junior declining the nip; my takin' different routes: there's a chance, no matter how small, either of of us might.

How did you go from "no, he wouldn't make a different choice" to now saying there's a small chance? You weren't disagreeing with me every time I used the word "guranteed". I'm getting whiplash here

Chance is a short word for unpredictability. Choice relates to number and quality of choices. A careful and wise parent tries to increase the quality and number of Junior's choices which includes increasing Junior's knowledge and wisdom so Junior is less often a victim of chance.

Thank you for your words, but unfortunately it hasn't cured my whiplash

[Belinda]

How did you go from "no, he wouldn't make a different choice" to now saying there's a small chance? You weren't disagreeing with me every time I used the word "guranteed". I'm getting whiplash here

Chance is a short word for unpredictability. Choice relates to number and quality of choices. A careful and wise parent tries to increase the quality and number of Junior's choices which includes increasing Junior's knowledge and wisdom so Junior is less often a victim of chance.

Thank you for your words, but unfortunately it hasn't cured my whiplash

You have a thesis and then someone comes along and presents you with an antithesis resulting in cognitive dissonance which makes you uncomfortable. If you are wise and broad minded you can choose whether or not to dismiss the antithesis as nonsense, or alternatively incorporate the competing theses to create a new synthesis.

Neither alternative has anything to do with so-called 'Free Will'. However your ability to choose and choose wisely has a lot to do with your personal freedom within the world as it is.

[Wizard22]

Evolutionary adaptation is not a choice. Context defines, and thus it defines necessity. All creatures are reactionary organisms. All choices are motivated, and motivation spell's reaction not action. Unmotivated action would be free will, but there is not such creature.

So non-living objects, like a gust of wind, has free-will because it's an unmotivated action??

What?

[Flannel Jesus]

You have a thesis and then someone comes along and presents you with an antithesis resulting in cognitive dissonance which makes you uncomfortable. If you are wise and broad minded you can choose whether or not to dismiss the antithesis as nonsense, or alternatively incorporate the competing theses to create a new synthesis.

Care to get specific?

[popeye1945]

Reacting to what exactly?

The physical world is causality to all reactionary creatures, whose reactions in turn are registered as causes/changes in the physical world.

[Wizard22]

How would unmotivated action be free-will?

All life is motivated (to survive and reproduce). Only life has a will—will representing motive.

[henry quirk]

I'm getting whiplash here

I feel the same.

Again, I concede that all things bein' the same, Junior will accept the nip thru each run-thru but I ask all things bein' the same (his hunger, his curiosity, his gut tellin' him the nip is a good thing, the availability of the nip) why would he decline it?.

I allow guaranteed in that context (he has no reason to decline, not he can't decline).

Sure, both free willist and determinist observe him accepting the nip thru each run-thru. What each concludes, however, about this observation differs from the other. The two are not on the same page.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm getting whiplash here

I feel the same.

Again, I concede that all things bein' the same, Junior will accept the nip thru each run-thru but I ask all things bein' the same (his hunger, his curiosity, his gut tellin' him the nip is a good thing, the availability of the nip) why would he decline it?.

I allow guaranteed in that context (he has no reason to decline, not he can't decline).

Sure, both free willist and determinist observe him accepting the nip thru each run-thru. What each concludes, however, about this observation differs from the other. The two are not on the same page.

I appreciate the respectful exchange we've had, thank you.

[henry quirk]

According to one strand within classical compatibilism

That highlights this...

no one is on the same page with definitions.