We ought to embrace free will

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Nietzsche got it right. Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual. Whatever free will could be (I have no idea, I've never seen it pointed to. I can't see how believing in it or not affects hard wired morality in the slightest), it's up against that.

[Belinda]

One person's constraint is other's liberation.

Being constrained oneself contaminates the evidence.

Ms. Belinda, I invite you to clearly express what you think is the meaning of these two stand-alone statements, because the words are simple, everyday language ...

unlike this
https://pimaopen.pressbooks.pub/introph ... key-terms/

If you hold beliefs before you evaluate the evidence you are biased i.e. "constrained".

Everyone is " constrained" i.e. biased, because it's impossible to live completely alone with no input from others in any way. When we evaluate we normally try to be as objective as we possibly can, which includes being aware of our own biases i.e. "constraints".
According to the glossary of terms in the excellent link you posted , my claim is that all we know is a posteriori. The exceptions , a priori exceptions, are mathematics and classical logic which are grand tautologies.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Whether we have free will or not, we ought to act as though we do. As long as there is any possibility of free will whatsoever, then we ought to embrace free will over determinism. Determinism seems amoral because it undermines the possibility of responsibility for our actions. And responsibility ought to be weighed according to how egregious or not an action is. Such responsibility cannot realistically be applied to a deterministic system. There ought to be no excuses for some acts.

We absolutely don't, it's absolutely meaningless. There absolutely are no oughts. There is absolutely no possibility of absolutely free will whatsoever.

I am responsible for my actions regardless. I will account for them. Not yours. Not you. Nobody else makes me think and feel what I think and feel, but me. I am no less responsible, no more excusable for my in/actions due to determinism than the illusion of free will. I will reap what I sow, I will pay my dues one way and another. Because I am aware. My shame is determined. I am not free of it. I am not a sociopath. It is determined that I will not do many evil things because people know who I am, because I will get caught. I am not free of consequence. My will is not free, thank Christ.

I can understand why people helplessly do heinous acts. And gun them down.

[Belinda]

Whether we have free will or not, we ought to act as though we do. As long as there is any possibility of free will whatsoever, then we ought to embrace free will over determinism. Determinism seems amoral because it undermines the possibility of responsibility for our actions. And responsibility ought to be weighed according to how egregious or not an action is. Such responsibility cannot realistically be applied to a deterministic system. There ought to be no excuses for some acts.

We absolutely don't, it's absolutely meaningless. There absolutely are no oughts. There is absolutely no possibility of absolutely free will whatsoever.

I am responsible for my actions regardless. I will account for them. Not yours. Not you. Nobody else makes me think and feel what I think and feel, but me. I am no less responsible, no more excusable for my in/actions due to determinism than the illusion of free will. I will reap what I sow, I will pay my dues one way and another. Because I am aware. My shame is determined. I am not free of it. I am not a sociopath. It is determined that I will not do many evil things because people know who I am, because I will get caught. I am not free of consequence. My will is not free, thank Christ.

I can understand why people helplessly do heinous acts. And gun them down.

Gary : "if there is any possibility of free will whatever----". I suppose Gary means that a teeny tiny wee sliver of free will is sufficient to create human freedom and responsibility. Rather like a tiny teeny bit of peanut will kill someone who is allergic to peanuts.

But Gary, nobody has ever established how big this free will thing is anyway, so your supposition is redundant.

Gary I guess you have spent most of your life as a believer in Cartesianism so much so you take Cartesianism for granted. When I read your posts I sense a thinker struggling against the burden of Cartesianism.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

One person's constraint is other's liberation.

Being constrained oneself contaminates the evidence.

Ms. Belinda, I invite you to clearly express what you think is the meaning of these two stand-alone statements, because the words are simple, everyday language ...

unlike this
https://pimaopen.pressbooks.pub/introph ... key-terms/

If you hold beliefs before you evaluate the evidence you are biased i.e. "constrained".

Everyone is " constrained" i.e. biased, because it's impossible to live completely alone with no input from others in any way. When we evaluate we normally try to be as objective as we possibly can, which includes being aware of our own biases i.e. "constraints".
According to the glossary of terms in the excellent link you posted , my claim is that all we know is a posteriori. The exceptions , a priori exceptions, are mathematics and classical logic which are grand tautologies.

Classic axioms, self evident truths, can be held without more evaluation than their consilience.

I don't feel that logical deductions from axioms are necessarily (grand) tautologies.

The factiest fact I know evaluated, that I'm constrained by, is the eternal infinity of mediocre nature.

[popeye1945]

The engine of creation is imperfection. The physical world is imperfect, and biology adapts to the ever-changing, imperfect world. Picture a large room filled with roulette wheels spinning, ever spinning. The imperfect numbers must come to relate to the numbers of the other roulette wheels, and something like a becoming arises when imperfect alignments create happenstance. The chances of free will in an imperfect cosmos, an imperfect world, and an imperfect biology are nonsense, but the relations among imperfections is our reality. All imperfect organisms are reactionary organisms, ever adapting to an imperfect, changing world. As reactionary creatures, we are not unlike the rest of the animal world in that the one thing an organism cannot not do is not react to its environment. So, there is no such thing as human action; there is but human reaction. Does the human organism have choices? It seems so, but that would be alien to the reality we live in, that of imperfect reactions that, through happenstance, decide the future of the moment we live in. Play with this for a while, it is common knowledge that there is no such thing as perfection, if it were a reality, adaptations to the imperfect changing world would be quite impossible. Remember, all human behaviours are motivated and motivation spells reaction, not action. If free will were recognized as an illusion, it would increase humanity's compassion for the struggles of life while still needing to control the imperfect behaviours of what we call the criminal element.

[Belinda]

The engine of creation is imperfection. The physical world is imperfect, and biology adapts to the ever-changing, imperfect world. Picture a large room filled with roulette wheels spinning, ever spinning. The imperfect numbers must come to relate to the numbers of the other roulette wheels, and something like a becoming arises when imperfect alignments create happenstance. The chances of free will in an imperfect cosmos, an imperfect world, and an imperfect biology are nonsense, but the relations among imperfections is our reality. All imperfect organisms are reactionary organisms, ever adapting to an imperfect, changing world. As reactionary creatures, we are not unlike the rest of the animal world in that the one thing an organism cannot not do is not react to its environment. So, there is no such thing as human action; there is but human reaction. Does the human organism have choices? It seems so, but that would be alien to the reality we live in, that of imperfect reactions that, through happenstance, decide the future of the moment we live in. Play with this for a while, it is common knowledge that there is no such thing as perfection, if it were a reality, adaptations to the imperfect changing world would be quite impossible. Remember, all human behaviours are motivated and motivation spells reaction, not action. If free will were recognized as an illusion, it would increase humanity's compassion for the struggles of life while still needing to control the imperfect behaviours of what we call the criminal element.

Popeye, have you studied Taoism?

I am happy to say I enjoyed your post !

[popeye1945]

The engine of creation is imperfection. The physical world is imperfect, and biology adapts to the ever-changing, imperfect world. Picture a large room filled with roulette wheels spinning, ever spinning. The imperfect numbers must come to relate to the numbers of the other roulette wheels, and something like a becoming arises when imperfect alignments create happenstance. The chances of free will in an imperfect cosmos, an imperfect world, and an imperfect biology are nonsense, but the relations among imperfections is our reality. All imperfect organisms are reactionary organisms, ever adapting to an imperfect, changing world. As reactionary creatures, we are not unlike the rest of the animal world in that the one thing an organism can not do is not react to its environment. So, there is no such thing as human action; there is but human reaction. Does the human organism have choices? It seems so, but that would be alien to the reality we live in, that of imperfect reactions that, through happenstance, decide the future of the moment we live in. Play with this for a while, it is common knowledge that there is no such thing as perfection, if it were a reality, adaptations to the imperfect changing world would be quite impossible. Remember, all human behaviors are motivated, and motivation spells reaction, not action. If free will were recognized as an illusion, it would increase humanity's compassion for the struggles of life, while still needing to control the imperfect behaviors of what we call the criminal element.

Popeye, have you studied Taoism?

I am happy to say I enjoyed your post!

Hi Belinda,

No, I haven't studied Taoism; I just spend a great deal of time alone. lol!! Well, thank you, Belinda. I enjoy reading yours as well!!

[Belinda]

The engine of creation is imperfection. The physical world is imperfect, and biology adapts to the ever-changing, imperfect world. Picture a large room filled with roulette wheels spinning, ever spinning. The imperfect numbers must come to relate to the numbers of the other roulette wheels, and something like a becoming arises when imperfect alignments create happenstance. The chances of free will in an imperfect cosmos, an imperfect world, and an imperfect biology are nonsense, but the relations among imperfections is our reality. All imperfect organisms are reactionary organisms, ever adapting to an imperfect, changing world. As reactionary creatures, we are not unlike the rest of the animal world in that the one thing an organism can not do is not react to its environment. So, there is no such thing as human action; there is but human reaction. Does the human organism have choices? It seems so, but that would be alien to the reality we live in, that of imperfect reactions that, through happenstance, decide the future of the moment we live in. Play with this for a while, it is common knowledge that there is no such thing as perfection, if it were a reality, adaptations to the imperfect changing world would be quite impossible. Remember, all human behaviors are motivated, and motivation spells reaction, not action. If free will were recognized as an illusion, it would increase humanity's compassion for the struggles of life, while still needing to control the imperfect behaviors of what we call the criminal element.

Popeye, have you studied Taoism?

I am happy to say I enjoyed your post!

Hi Belinda,

No, I haven't studied Taoism; I just spend a great deal of time alone. lol!! Well, thank you, Belinda. I enjoy reading yours as well!!

There is a reason (re your post quoted) I asked if you had studied Taoism.

[popeye1945]

Popeye, have you studied Taoism?

I am happy to say I enjoyed your post!

Hi Belinda,

No, I haven't studied Taoism; I just spend a great deal of time alone. lol!! Well, thank you, Belinda. I enjoy reading yours as well!!

There is a reason (re your post quoted) I asked if you had studied Taoism.

What was the reason you asked if I had studied Taoism?

[Belinda]

Hi Belinda,

No, I haven't studied Taoism; I just spend a great deal of time alone. lol!! Well, thank you, Belinda. I enjoy reading yours as well!!

There is a reason (re your post quoted) I asked if you had studied Taoism.

What was the reason you asked if I had studied Taoism?

The engine of creation is imperfection.
is why

[popeye1945]

There is a reason (re your post quoted) I asked if you had studied Taoism.

What was the reason you asked if I had studied Taoism?

The engine of creation is imperfection.
is why

An old teaching is it. In a kind of convoluted way, imperfection could be thought of as perfection if nothing works outside the concept of imperfection. Thanks for the heads up, it would be worth my while to see how Taoism treats it.

[Belinda]

What was the reason you asked if I had studied Taoism?

The engine of creation is imperfection.
is why

An old teaching is it. In a kind of convoluted way, imperfection could be thought of as perfection if nothing works outside the concept of imperfection. Thanks for the heads up, it would be worth my while to see how Taoism treats it.

Indeed so. If you are into symbolism the simple YinYang symbol pictures "imperfection could be thought of as perfection".

Taoism is naturalistic , and is a good fit for your idea about our base in biology.It's rather nice you have fallen into Taoism without studying it a book

[popeye1945]

The engine of creation is imperfection.
is why

An old teaching is it. In a kind of convoluted way, imperfection could be thought of as perfection if nothing works outside the concept of imperfection. Thanks for the heads up, it would be worth my while to see how Taoism treats it.

Indeed so. If you are into symbolism the simple YinYang symbol pictures "imperfection could be thought of as perfection".

Taoism is naturalistic and is a good fit for your idea about our base in biology. It's rather nice that you have fallen into Taoism without studying it in a book

I'll look into it, Belinda, and thank you again for the heads-up. It's a well-developed theme, I take it.