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

[Wizard22]

Is Man's freedom, free-will, fundamentally and categorically different than other creatures, other species? Of course it is.

Start with writing, text, literacy. How many other animals can do that? This should be common sense. Everybody agrees about this, right?

[Flannel Jesus]

Is Man's freedom, free-will, fundamentally and categorically different than other creatures, other species? Of course it is.

Start with writing, text, literacy. How many other animals can do that? This should be common sense. Everybody agrees about this, right?

Not at all, almost nobody agrees that libertarian free will is based on ability. Very very few people would suggest that, because Michael Jordan can jump higher than me, that means he has more libertarian free will than me.

[Wizard22]

Libertine Free-Will is not based on jumping, correct.

So which ability is it based on? What can Man do that no other animal can?

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not interested in quizzes. Why don't you tell me what you think?

[Belinda]

You 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?

Birds, fishes, and trees can fly, swim, and grow in soil because they are anatomically and physiologically adapted to do so. So- called "Free Will" is neither anatomical nor physiological. So-called 'Free Will' has no anatomical or physiological presence, but is a superstition akin to a ghost.

[Belinda]

You 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?

Birds, fishes, and trees can fly, swim, and grow in soil because they are anatomically and physiologically adapted to do so. So- called "Free Will" is neither anatomical nor physiological. So-called 'Free Will' has no anatomical or physiological presence, but is a superstition akin to a ghost.

I doubt if you comprehend what Free Will is, but you confuse Free Will with freedom.

[Wizard22]

I'm not interested in quizzes. Why don't you tell me what you think?

I have less belief now than previously that Determinists can engage the concept of free-will.

[Wizard22]

I doubt if you comprehend what Free Will is, but you confuse Free Will with freedom.

You just defined free-will as "superstition", and now claim that I don't comprehend it.

Don't you see that as a problem?

[Wizard22]

I can only empathize with Henry and Age in this thread, two others who believe in Free-Will.

If you disbelieve the idea, then there's only so much I can do, to convince a Determinist, somebody who admittedly "doesn't want to believe it" that it exists.

Again this is the same as Theists convinced out of God, or Atheists convinced into God. If your mind is set from the start, then a discussion or argument, really can't be had. We are monologuing, not dialoguing. In order to conduct Philosophy, both positions need to be unknown from the start. You need to doubt your 'Deterministic' belief. Since Determinists are unwilling to do this, for many reasons which I will get into, then yes, free-will will seem like a 'superstition' to you.



You've never been free in your life. I know that's a difficult thing to accept. It was difficult for me too, when I was not free in my young life. But, I fought for my freedom. I gained my free-will. Not everybody will. Not everybody is supposed to have a free-will, perhaps.

Maybe it's "fate", it's "determined" that most of humanity stay Un-free. Limited in most ways. Domesticated, like caged animals.

Only ever drinking the slop that your trusted-TV reporter, your authorities and "experts", fill into your ears. That's your truth, your "freedom".



Philosophy means that you can doubt your premises. I don't see any Determinists in this thread, doing that. Maybe it's a physical or mental inability. Maybe it's an Attachment. Maybe people would rather give their lives up, and die, before disbelieving their God. Maybe it's the same attachment to belief, as one has with their Divinity.

[Wizard22]

Notice how I can doubt my premise, maybe there's free-will and maybe they're not.

But YOU cannot doubt YOURS.

This was just shown by how Popeye1945 keeps moving the goalposts with regard to life being Reactive. Reactive to what? To rocks. To the earth. To the sun. To the solar system. To a black hole. To the entire Universe, he said "cosmos". So does this then mean that the entire Cosmos, is not Reactive? That's the logical implication here. Will Popeye concede the point, or, "the cosmos is also reactive"? To what? Another cosmos? A yet larger context? An "outside the universe"?

Or to the Causalists...everything is a prior Cause, okay and before that? And before that? And before that? Let's get in our time machines and head back to the Beginning of the Universe. First Cause? Is there one? According to what Determinists state, what you admit believing, yes there is "The Big Bang".

So only at the point of the Big Bang can a person have free-will, because then, and only then, would you be able to 'defy physics' in such a way as to have a Free Will.


These are your arguments, not mine.

[Wizard22]

This is what YOU believe, NOT me.

[Wizard22]

I think the most challenging aspect of Free-Will is that it is a freeing principle. It 'undoes' lies, deceit, false beliefs, untruths, everything. It unties the circular-reasoning that people fall into daily. It's a scary prospect, something feared. Because people trust in their Authorities, Experts, Peers, and don't want to necessarily be 'free' from all these. Because freeing the will, is something dangerous. I think this is subconsciously and unconsciously recognized.

It's dangerous to be free. It's safe to be unfree. It's easier to believe in lies, than to have your belief-system burned away entirely, and left with nothing. It's easier to believe in a lie, than it is to believe in Nothing at all.

Anybody who ventures onto a path of freedom, knows what the consequences are. You must begin to think for "yourself". What is your self? What is your individuality? Do you have any? Are any of your beliefs unique? Did you make any of them? Or was it not, that all your beliefs you inherited? From your parents, your grade school teachers, your friends, your family, your foes, your society, the text and literacy that you learned, your history. Can you even question any of it? How much? Can you question your God, your Christianity, your Jewishness, your Islam, your Prophet?

Can you question your Humanity?


No. Fact is, the mast brundt of humanity cannot. There's a type of compulsion to follow rather than to set yourself apart, or worse, to lead. Because becoming independent, or, a leader, means that you must have some degree of Freedom. You must have a free-will. The buck stops with YOU. You can try to blame others, but within you, you know better, and there's nobody to blame but yourself. Nobody but you, to hold you up.

When I mean free-will, I mean exactly that, Free. Will.

It's no longer something I expect other people to understand, or even want to understand. Frankly, most people ought to return to their television set, cable news, PRONTO! Quick!

Before you learn something.

[Flannel Jesus]

I can only empathize with Henry and Age in this thread, two others who believe in Free-Will.

If you disbelieve the idea, then there's only so much I can do, to convince a Determinist, somebody who admittedly "doesn't want to believe it" that it exists.

Again this is the same as Theists convinced out of God, or Atheists convinced into God. If your mind is set from the start, then a discussion or argument, really can't be had. We are monologuing, not dialoguing. In order to conduct Philosophy, both positions need to be unknown from the start. You need to doubt your 'Deterministic' belief. Since Determinists are unwilling to do this, for many reasons which I will get into, then yes, free-will will seem like a 'superstition' to you.



You've never been free in your life. I know that's a difficult thing to accept. It was difficult for me too, when I was not free in my young life. But, I fought for my freedom. I gained my free-will. Not everybody will. Not everybody is supposed to have a free-will, perhaps.

Maybe it's "fate", it's "determined" that most of humanity stay Un-free. Limited in most ways. Domesticated, like caged animals.

Only ever drinking the slop that your trusted-TV reporter, your authorities and "experts", fill into your ears. That's your truth, your "freedom".



Philosophy means that you can doubt your premises. I don't see any Determinists in this thread, doing that. Maybe it's a physical or mental inability. Maybe it's an Attachment. Maybe people would rather give their lives up, and die, before disbelieving their God. Maybe it's the same attachment to belief, as one has with their Divinity.

I don't see you doubting your premises, I see you as even more certain of your stance than every determinist you speak to

"there's only so much I can do, to convince a Determinist" these aren't the words of someone interested in a conservation, this is someone interested only in spreading their conclusion

[Wizard22]

Is choice evidence of Free-Will or not?

If it's not, then what is freedom except a delusion?

I have not yet heard any Determinists legitimize this as though it's physically impossible for animals to make choices. Living organisms, animals, do make choices. That's not an illusion. "But how do you know what the alternative choice was?" Because given the exact same conditions, people can choose differently. This is the crux of the argument thus far, "exact same conditions". Existence knows no exactness, no perfect repetitions. Every second moves life "forward" to the next. Life is always changing.

So no two decisions or choices are ever the same, nor need they be.


Choice is proved by ability. An Olympic athlete can high jump over 6 feet height. A regular person cannot 'choose' to do that.

Choice is based on what people actually do. Choice is an Action, not a Re-action.

[Wizard22]

Choice is a "forward" movement in time, not a backward movement.

This is why it is an Action, not a Re-action.