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

[Iwannaplato]

I mean, why go for the option that fits your needs/desires/priorities less?

I'm missin' your point. If I'm hungry, I can choose to eat or I can choose to, for example, keep workin'.

So, the moment you notice you are hungry, you will make that decision based on your goals, your desire, what food is available and so on.

Those are all causes. You make a choice that fits, then your desires, your goals.....and so on.

A determinist thinks those causes lead inevitably to your choice.
Even if there is free will, why would you choose to go against your own balance of inner causes?

But that just means your desire to work was stronger than your hunger. Yes, the work I'm doin' now is more important fillin' my belly. I weighed the options -- eat or work -- and I chose one. Both press on me so I have to decide which is the priority.

Right you weighed your options: why would you in that moment ever weigh them differently? You have the same 'weighing approach in your brain' at that moment. So, no matter how many times we would run that moment - if we could rewind to that moment, why would you ever weigh your options differently, given the causes present?

I choose. I decide. A person -- an agent -- deliberates (de-liberates himself) and picks his course. The hunger didn't do that. The hungry man did that. The work, or its importance, didn't do that. The working man did that.

The man's desire, priorities, deadlines, and cognitive analysis. All causes. A determinist would say they all lead to the same result, an inevitable result in that moment of choosing. Internal causes are causes. External causes are causes.

All these desires, needs, wants, appetites, priorities are part of the person. It's not I have desires, needs, wants, and priorities; it's I desire, I need, I want, I prioritize. I do these, they aren't done to me.

Sure. But every determinist knows that we all have internal causes. And they also roll forward like dominoes falling in an inevitable chain.

Determinists are not arguing that we have to bend to external causes. They are saying that the sum of internal and external causes - a deadline on your work could be one external cause, another might be the quality of leftovers in the fridge - must inevitably lead to decision/action W1324. In that moment.

Determinism does NOT mean external causes must trump internal causes.

[henry quirk]

Those are all causes.

No, I'm the cause; those are influences.

A determinist thinks those causes lead inevitably to your choice.

Yes, he sees those influences as determiners.

why would you choose to go against your own balance of inner causes?

I don't have inner or exterior causes.

Right you weighed your options: why would you in that moment ever weigh them differently? You have the same 'weighing approach in your brain' at that moment. So, no matter how many times we would run that moment - if we could rewind to that moment, why would you ever weigh your options differently, given the causes present?

All things bein' equal, why would I choose differently? Like I told FJ upthread, just becuz I wouldn't doesn't mean I couldn't.

But every determinist knows that we all have internal causes.

I'm not a determinist. I don't have inner causes.

[Iwannaplato]

All things bein' equal, why would I choose differently? Like I told FJ upthread, just becuz I wouldn't doesn't mean I couldn't.

So you have the pyrric option to choose something you'd like less.

But every determinist knows that we all have internal causes.

I'm not a determinist. I don't have inner causes.

So, what you want, what you have as goals do not cause your behavior and attitudes? You don't start to think of food when you are hungry? You don't express anger when you feel that reaction to someone? What you feel and want doesn't cause your behavior?

What does?

[Flannel Jesus]

All things bein' equal, why would I choose differently? Like I told FJ upthread, just becuz I wouldn't doesn't mean I couldn't.

But, remember, you did say you were guranteed to. You still haven't grappled, at least here in words, with the tension between "I'm guranteed to make a certain choice" and "I could make a different choice".

[popeye1945]

NOTE: The fact that all organisms are reactionary creatures rules out free will.

I don't think anyone, in-thread, says man is not a reactionary creature. What we're saying' is man is not only a reactionary creature. He's also a responsive creature, and an initiating creature. He's a cause, an agent, not an effect or an event.

Well, the above doesn't even make sense, you say he is also a responsive creature, response is reaction. Name me one unmotivated action of humanity, you can't, and a motivated response is reaction. Man is cause only through his reactions in affecting change in his outer world. As you are part of my outer world, I react to you, as you do to me, you are cause to me, as I am cause to you. I don't believe there is a way around this, being a reactionary creature is just being a functional part, and it is part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts, no way around it. The belief in free will is an egocentric delusion, one that promotes ignorance and causes chaos in the world, a misguided orientation to being in and of the earth. The earth is cause, denial is foolishness.

[henry quirk]

But, remember, you did say you were guaranteed to.

You introduced guaranteed. As I say upthread, I allow guaranteed in the context of all things bein' the same, why would I do different?

You still haven't grappled, at least here in words, with the tension between "I'm guranteed to make a certain choice" and "I could make a different choice".

As far as I'm concerned: there's nuthin' to grapple with.

[henry quirk]

response is reaction

Reacting is responding.

Not as I see it, no. A reaction is unthinking, instinctual; a response is driven by intent and consideration. My perspective, however, is as someone who believes himself to be a free will. You, as sumthin' other, see it differently.

Name me one unmotivated action of humanity, you can't

I wouldn't becuz I never claimed such a thing.

and a motivated response is reaction.

See above.

[Flannel Jesus]

You still haven't grappled, at least here in words, with the tension between "I'm guranteed to make a certain choice" and "I could make a different choice".

As far as I'm concerned: there's nuthin' to grapple with.

Yes, for some reason you don't seem to intuit the contradiction many of us see between "x is guaranteed to happen" and "x could possibly not happen".

[henry quirk]

You still haven't grappled, at least here in words, with the tension between "I'm guranteed to make a certain choice" and "I could make a different choice".

As far as I'm concerned: there's nuthin' to grapple with.

Yes, for some reason you don't seem to intuit the contradiction many of us see between "x is guaranteed to happen" and "x could possibly not happen".

And I think you (and those others) are seein' sumthin', that contradiction, that ain't there. You, and them, give a weight to guaranteed I've explicitly denied. We just see things differently (not unlike Popeye and I seein' things differently when it comes to response vs reaction).

[Flannel Jesus]

You, and them, give a weight to guaranteed I've explicitly denied.

What exactly have you explicitly denied?

[henry quirk]

You, and them, give a weight to guaranteed I've explicitly denied.

What exactly have you explicitly denied?

As I say: I allow guaranteed in the context of all things bein' the same, why would I do different?, not as all things bein' the same, I can't do different.

Again: we're seein' things differently (and neither of us seem to be budgin').

[Flannel Jesus]

You, and them, give a weight to guaranteed I've explicitly denied.

What exactly have you explicitly denied?

As I say: I allow guaranteed in the context of all things bein' the same, why would I do different?, not as all things bein' the same, I can't do different.

Again: we're seein' things differently (and neither of us seem to be budgin').

As long as guarantee means "100% chance", which is what your initial wording implied, then everything I'm saying still applies.

[henry quirk]

What exactly have you explicitly denied?

As I say: I allow guaranteed in the context of all things bein' the same, why would I do different?, not as all things bein' the same, I can't do different.

Again: we're seein' things differently (and neither of us seem to be budgin').

As long as guarantee means "100% chance", which is what your initial wording implied, then everything I'm saying still applies.

Other than 100% cash back guarantee and the like, I'm not seein' any on-line definition describing guarantee as 100% chance.

And it wasn't my initial wording, it was yours. I agreed to it, allowed it, within a context.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't know what "it" you're referring to. The "it" I'm referring to was your initial wording, which did imply 100% chance, which is why I subsequently worded it as "guranteed". You agreed with that wording, instead of saying something like "no you misunderstood me".

[Flannel Jesus]

If Willy was the same, perfectly the same, then Willy was not the source of the change.

There would be no change becuz Junior had no reason to choose differently, yes.

This, for the record, was your initial wording. We were talking about a possibility where he chose something different, and instead of continuing to talk about that possibility, YOU said "There would be no change". Not "the possibility of change is low". Right? There's nothing ambiguous about your words here. There would be no change.

That was followed by this exchange:

How so? Compare & contrast, please.

Well, you went from accepting that he could make a different choice, accepting my description of your view: "if we rewound time and found that he made a different choice, that would fit within your world view and your understanding of choice", to now saying definitively and with no hesitation, NO, he would in fact do the same thing every time we rewound. This appears like a change in your approach to me. Have I misunderstood something?

Yeah

Again, another opportunity for you to clarify your position, and you explicitly lean into what I'm saying and agree with it. I say "NO, he would in fact do the same thing every time we rewound" - there's nothing ambiguous about that, no maybe, no possibly, "every time" I said, I don't think I left any room for confusion there - and you responded with agreement.

I may have introduced the specific word "guarantee" -which, again, you could have disagreed with at any time but chose not to - but I didn't introduce the concept of certainty about his choice into this conversation. You did that. "There would be no change", those are your words.