Philosophy Now Forum

Wizard wrote:

Choice is important because it implies there is a 'right' and 'wrong' way to approach Life, and, Morality, interacting with other people. You can benefit others, or, you can harm them. Without choice, there is no responsibility, and hence no Real morality.

'Choice' is a noun that's abstracted from the verb 'to choose'. The more reason, skills, and knowledge you have at your disposal the more your freedom to choose among options.

Responsibility is most secure when it's not imposed from superiors but is autononous. So-called "Free Will" is anything but free , not autonymous, because it's not based on reason,skills, and knowledge.

Your judgement of right and wrong is most secure when it's based on the most possible reason, skills, and knowledge. The best of all ethics are based on reason, skills, and knowledge, and you can apply that dictum in all spheres of life , including those of Socrates and Jesus, throughout the human past.

How is Free-Will "not based on reason,skills, and knowledge"?

That's exactly what's based on. If you have the ability to reason, then this will inevitably lead one to Free-Will.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 7:55 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 10:09 pm
You're getting a little off track, the concern of the thread is, does the free will point of view affect morals and character. It is concerned with the human condition. From my point of view, the point of view of free will infers human action, when in fact, there is no such thing as human action. Human action and thus free will is a wrong-headed view of being of and in the world. This view of the human condition as free will is a disaster to human relations between individuals and nations.

I don't see how though. Choice is important because it implies there is a 'right' and 'wrong' way to approach Life, and, Morality, interacting with other people. You can benefit others, or, you can harm them. Without choice, there is no responsibility, and hence no Real morality.

I did not say that there were no choices, what I did say was, all responses to the outside world are reactions, not actions. The physical world is the cause of all the reactions of organic life. It is quite impossible to say that one has a choice in a given situation, given the long history of preconditioning of species and individuals, so I am not saying there is a choice either. The one thing that is certain is one cannot, not react to one's environment. Morality and free will are mutually exclusive, free will also would infer human action and there is no such thing as human action there is but human reaction.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 10:09 pm
My point has been that all organisms including humanity are reactionary creatures.

I know, but you haven't clarified to What everything and everyone reacts to. [/quote]

You react to your outside world; the physical environment and people are part of your physical environment thus you react to people. The earth is cause to all reactionary creatures and their reactions are in turn cause as in change to the physical world.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 10:09 pm
If an individual is displeased with another fellow's behaviors and he believes in free will, then it is a total mystery why that individual is behaving as he is. If you understand that the behaviors are reactions to something, then you have a chance of understanding one another. In other words, the belief in free will is a source of great ignorance and the seed of chaos. PS: The rock is the world and is that which reactionary creatures react to, you are in my outer world, which means I will react to you.

Yes, that's precisely the point, free-will represents 'chaos' between creatures, and the world. It seems to me you want to rule out that chaos by claiming that all is reactionary (to what?). It's like a "God of the gaps" fallacy where you're filling in every empty space with Reactivity—that there is always a 'largest' perspective, or beginning of time. [/quote]

It is not really that complicated, all organisms react to the earth and all that is outside yourself. This is what you react to. Evolutionary adaptation is dependent upon all organisms being reactive creatures.

I see that as only half the equation. It's backward. You're looking at the past, not the future. There is Action. There is proactivity. There is a forward movement to life and existence, not just backward into the distant past.
[/quote]

You live in the eternal moment now; everything happens in the now, the earth is now and ever-changing and through reaction species adapt through reaction to that changing world.

By your rationale, we are not "reacting to the physical world", but something larger than it, to the "entire cosmos".

You have not yet indicated what the 'ultimate' reaction is. So I'm beginning to doubt if there even is one?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 9:38 am How is Free-Will "not based on reason,skills, and knowledge"?

That's exactly what's based on. If you have the ability to reason, then this will inevitably lead one to Free-Will.

I've been cranky around this, but let me see if I can explain.

In your version of free will, it sounds like you are talking about valuing freedom, not wanting to be told what to do, perhaps democratic values in general. Wanting to be able to choose what one buys, thinks, reads, who one meets with, assembles with. Freedom of religion or not to be religious.

IOW you see, it seems, someone who believes in free will as someone who would not be happy in a dictatorship or fascism. You seem to have it as a set of values, where one is allowed and also fights for and values having a variety of freedoms.

Free will in a philosophical context is about looking at cause and effect.
Determinists may value and struggle for everything I just described above, and many do, BUT they believe that events are determined, in a cause and effect way.

This doesn't mean they want a religious leader telling them what to do. This doesn't mean they want lots of laws or fascism or anything like that. They could very well join rebels should a country move in that direction.

What they believe, however is at the micro-cause and effect level.

Let's say we have Joe. It's Sunday and Joe apparantly has a lot of options for how to spend his day. To a determinist there is only one possible outcome. Joe's desires, fears, goals, social situation, financial situation - all possible causes internal and external will lead to the one choice that Joe will make. He may mull this over for a while. It may seem like any of a number of choices could be made. But actually those causes, internal to him and external to him, will inevitably lead to what he does. Period

Free will means that he could to A or B or C and none of them is inevitable. IOW regardless of his desires, interests and regardless of external causes, any of a number of things could happen.

Determinists all realize that given the number of factors involved they cannot predict everything, especially with complicated organisms like us.

What most use is deduction to decide their ontology?

If it is not our desires and interests and goals plus external factors, weather, money, where friends are, and do on
that determines what we do, they how do we make a free decision?

And what would that mean?

It would mean we make a decision despite all internal and external causes.

Personally, I don't rule that out. But I understand what determinists and free will people mean.

I think in a philosophical context you are viewing free will as something like freedom loving, which is entirely different.

We are talking about how the universe, us included, function, regardless of what we believe, like and think. Down at a causal level.

Until you can understand the difference I think you will be talking past people here and they you.

If you don't understand the difference I am trying to point out between what you mean by free will and what is meant in philosophy let us know, becuase I think it is fundamental to a better dialogue.

Once you understand I think you will understand what people mean more. It doesn't mean you will agree, but you will understand what people mean by free will and also perhaps not accuse them of disliking freedom in the political and social senses of the word.

Edit: (to popeye)

I understand your argument, but you haven't really convinced me of it or shown any evidence, any 'ultimate' reaction. You seem to kick the can down the road, similar to how Christians keep doing the same when defining God. By your argument, "entire Cosmos" is the same as "God". And that you must have an ultimate belief of some kind, to have an Unmotivated Action. Then, and only then, according to what you've laid out, could there be free-will.

So be it...there is free-will!

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:33 amFree will in a philosophical context is about looking at cause and effect.

I used to think so too...but just read the interaction between Popeye1945 and myself.

There is NO "ultimate reaction". Where is it? When is it? The beginning of time itself? Then and only then, is there free-will? That seems neither reasonable nor rational, to me. At least, I require more explanation and evidence. Show me the empirical evidence for an ultimate reaction. Or, is it a matter of faith, like God?

As for attributing Causes...people fail at this all the time. Two people get in a car accident. They blame each other. They say the other 'caused' it. They disagree. Since you cannot be an Ultimate Judge as to who caused it...sitting in the Judge's seat of the Courtroom, then why should I believe you know what causes what? You have to demonstrate Ability here, correct?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:33 amWhat most use is deduction to decide their ontology?

Yes, but is it convincing or persuasive?

...only up to the point where humans accurately demonstrate that they know the causes and effects of certain physical processes. It depends on the best (ability) that humans have, at a given point in time, in specific circumstances. This is not a generalized phenomenon. Therefore, neither is how free-will ruled out, or in. There too, we must be very, very specific.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:33 amI think in a philosophical context you are viewing free will as something like freedom loving, which is entirely different.

We are talking about how the universe, us included, function, regardless of what we believe, like and think. Down at a causal level.

Until you can understand the difference I think you will be talking past people here and they you.

Have you considered that what "Causes" one person to be, does not "Cause" another?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:33 amIf you don't understand the difference I am trying to point out between what you mean by free will and what is meant in philosophy let us know, becuase I think it is fundamental to a better dialogue.

Once you understand I think you will understand what people mean more. It doesn't mean you will agree, but you will understand what people mean by free will and also perhaps not accuse them of disliking freedom in the political and social senses of the word.

I believe we've only scratched the surface here...say what you will.

I presume everybody likes 'freedom', but define their freedom radically different from one person to the next. This is another large problem.

By Free-Will I mean the human spirit is unbound by Physics itself.

Why?

Because people don't even know what a 'Cause' is. And until a person can show me what a 'Cause' is, I have no reason to believe my will is bound by what you call "microscopic cause and effect". It sounds to me like you are placing a very unnecessary constraint on me, on yourself, without really validating or knowing what it is. You're making the same presumption as popeye1945...that we need to redirect causality to the Greatest possible set, to the entire universe itself, or the beginning of time, before anything can be said.

I don't really accept that. It's not very reasonable. Why must we go back to the Big Bang, in order to accurately and precisely dictate, which of two people caused a car accident???

Or much simpler to state...that people don't even know this in general. So why should I then presume humanity knows "the greatest of all things", when we can't even get a car accident set straight?

Are people bound by the Past?

No, they're not.

...well okay, maybe most people are, because their will is NOT free. But some people, maybe a rare few exceptions, are Unbound. Suffice to say, at least a few human beings have Free-Will. Why? Because some people are not bound by the same 'rules' or "Physics" as others. You might then retort, "Yes but all must follow gravity, magnetic forces, biological reproduction!" and I will disagree with you there too.

There are literally no rules which you can imagine to place upon the human spirit, that could possibly bind it.

Absolute Free-Will. That's what I'm talking about.

Consider the limitations you believe rule out Free-Will.

"You cannot jump 100ft. high"
"You cannot swim to the bottom of the ocean"
"You cannot superman fly to the next solar system"

These are limitations, conjured by your imagination, to prove a logically Negative presupposition. What is your axiom? It's that you're "determined" to make Free-Will impossible. Religious people do this for, as Atheists do this against, God. And because of this, people only ever skirt the edges of what they mean. What is meant, revolves around limitations of an individual person...to believe, to think, to consider, to imagine, to act, to do, etc. All of these limitations, do not represent anybody else, except yourself. And these limitations are very much learned at a young age.

Why? I don't know, maybe life revolves more around Negatives than Positives, focusing on what cannot and never be done, rather than what can possibly be achieved.


So let's stick with a consideration: "A 400 story building can NOT be built", and if it is built, then you might reconsider what you previously knew about Physics, Architecture, Building, Materials, etc. It doesn't seem possible now. It doesn't seem possible to me or you. But does that mean your judgment is objective, for all time? Does that mean that in the year 2800AD, that it may not be possible then? Consider what was impossible to the Medieval peasant in 400AD. Here is the point. What is 'impossible' is purely subjective, and says very little about humanity, the universe, and permanence.

Because at each go of what you consider impossible...time proves you wrong. So your vision is not about the distant past, or the distant future, but merely what people know here and now, which is very little. It's short-sighted.

I don't need to claim to know what is possible for me or you, but that doesn't mean that our limitations apply to others. That what maybe impossible for me, or you, is impossible to another.


I'm more interested in these limitations people impose upon each-other and themselves, under very false presumptions of knowledge that is not yet, or never justified.

A Limitation of your imagination, is the first and final limitation as to what people know to be Physically possible.

Because a person cannot 'see' beyond these self-imposed limitations, a hidden censorship within the psyche, that cripples and clips the wings of human achievement well before it had the chance to mature.

You only ever lived a fraction of a life, because of this. A 99/100th amount of purpose and meaning in life, deprived from you.


If there were to be Injustice in the world, then this would be it.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:36 am Edit: (to popeye)

I understand your argument, but you haven't really convinced me of it or shown any evidence, any 'ultimate' reaction. You seem to kick the can down the road, similar to how Christians keep doing the same when defining God. By your argument, "entire Cosmos" is the same as "God". And that you must have an ultimate belief of some kind, to have an Unmotivated Action. Then, and only then, according to what you've laid out, could there be free will. So be it...there is free will!

Ok, if all organisms were not reactionary creatures how would evolutionary adaptation work, reactions, adaptation of species, the world is cause to all reactionary life forms. Disease is a reaction to the invasion of chemical or biological invaders, to injury, to the unrestrained damage to the organism due to old age, as damage mounts and reactions to them wane as death creeps closer. I am not sure what you are requesting by ultimate reaction there are a multitude of daily moment-to-moment reactions. Ok, Ultimate reaction, how about the creation of apparent reality? The physical world plays biological organisms like an instrument. Its energies alter the organism's sensory organs, and the melody it plays is apparent reality, for apparent reality is the biological reactions to those alterations. Your instincts are nothing but hardwired reactions, instant reaction to the super sign stimulus of immediate dangers. Your biological needs, built-in stimulus to stir you to reaction in quest of fulfilling those needs, reactions to the deprivation of those needs. Your immune system is a reactionary response to the many causes of illness. Will this do? There is more, much much more, but I hope this satisfies. NOTE: The fact that all organisms are reactionary creatures rules out free will.

Wizard wrote:

By Free-Will I mean the human spirit is unbound by Physics itself.

Does "the human spirit" differ in kind or in amount from e.g. the dog spirit, or the oak tree spirit, or the amethyst spirit? The latter are subject to causes and effects and therefore to "Physics".

Al your arguments so far rest on your belief the human spirit is different in kind from any other spirit; or to put it another way, you imply that of all creatures only humans are spirits.

You imply humans are superior to all other living or non-living things.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 12:51 pmOk, if all organisms were not reactionary creatures how would evolutionary adaptation work, reactions, adaptation of species, the world is cause to all reactionary life forms. Disease is a reaction to the invasion of chemical or biological invaders, to injury, to the unrestrained damage to the organism due to old age, as damage mounts and reactions to them wane as death creeps closer. I am not sure what you are requesting by ultimate reaction there are a multitude of daily moment-to-moment reactions. Ok, Ultimate reaction, how about the creation of apparent reality? The physical world plays biological organisms like an instrument. Its energies alter the organism's sensory organs, and the melody it plays is apparent reality, for apparent reality is the biological reactions to those alterations. Your instincts are nothing but hardwired reactions, instant reaction to the super sign stimulus of immediate dangers. Your biological needs, built-in stimulus to stir you to reaction in quest of fulfilling those needs, reactions to the deprivation of those needs. Your immune system is a reactionary response to the many causes of illness. Will this do? There is more, much much more, but I hope this satisfies. NOTE: The fact that all organisms are reactionary creatures rules out free will.

So far your arguments have been that life is only reactionary, life reacts to rocks, rocks react to Earth's gravity, Earth reacts to the Sun, The Solar System Reacts to the Universe. So what does the universe "react" to?

Your infinite regress of causality is pretty much the same as Hard Determinists who claim that there is always a 'prior cause'. So you need to go back to the beginning of time itself, to have a "First Cause".

Like Hard Determinists, this is a constant shifting-the-goal-post fallacy. There's never a real cause, or a real reaction, because there is always something "down the road". There is never evidence, never proof. So your mentality is immune to both criticism and empiricism. In order to have a sound philosophical argument, your assertions must be falsifiable. Since yours are not, there's not much responding I can do...it would be like me trying to convince a Theist that God does not exist, or an Atheist that God does exist. You are set on your premise 'Reaction', your axiom, that you will not doubt no matter what.


I don't see further discourse on this point productive. I'll merely repeat my previous assertions. Life and Existence, is not "only reactive". It is active. It is interactive. The human mind tends to "look backward", at the Past, for proof and certainty. This is how I view your perspective, always looking at the past, not the present, and not the future. Because your argument cannot make rational sense in terms of the "future". Is the Future reacting to the Past? How? Explain it. The Future does not yet exist, so is not Reacting, so there needs to be a Pro-active principle. People believe the Future is not set, not determined, hence Anti-determinism.

The Future is unwritten, but it seems obvious now, that you and other Determinists in this thread, do not believe this. If you did. Then you would not be Hard Determinists. Man would be Active. Man would be a Causal Agent. Man would be, like other lifeforms, able to make Choices.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 8:35 amYou imply humans are superior to all other living or non-living things.

This is your interpretation and perspective, not mine.

Why do YOU believe humans are superior to all other living things?

Earlier in the thread, I made the point about "bird freedom", "fish freedom", "tree freedom", about the relative forms of freedom or "free-will" represented by any and all organisms. Man can't fly like birds can. Birds can't play pianos like man can. Correct?