According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[peacegirl]

It turns into a modal fallacy that says necessarily you must choose a certain thing before it is even decided upon, which Pood argues against

There's nothing that prevents a person from choosing something before it must be decided on.

A person can choose something in their mind before acting on their choice. It is the action that, once made, could not have been otherwise.

Humans actually prefer this sort of action specifically because it makes for more responsible, controlled, and smoothly executed decisions.

Of course. I'm not debating that.

You MUST, for instance, do it this way when altering how a reflex would "default" a decision: if you don't decide it long in advance, you cannot do the things that actually make the decision effective.

I'm not talking about how effective a decision is, depending on what went into making that decision. I am talking about how decisions are executed and whether more than one choice could have been made after the fact. The answer is no. Only one decision can be made, whatever it is, at any given moment in time, rendering any other choice at that moment an impossibility. Why? Because it would give less satisfaction under the circumstances. We cannot move against our nature, which is a movement away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction, not from dissatisfaction to greater dissatisfaction.

That said, oftentimes we don't even make some choices until after they were decided otherwise: we might, for instance, find ourselves already having chosen one thing, saying "no, that's not right", putting the thing back, and choosing something else instead.

Other times... We pick both things.

That is called learning from experience, but if the right choice is important to us, we may hesitate before making that choice until we get more information. This hesitation is also a decision in the direction of greater satisfaction. Not all movement requires a conscious choice. I just changed position because my arm was getting numb. I moved away from a position that had grown uncomfortable to a more comfortable position (or away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction), which movement is life.

 

[peacegirl]

It turns into a modal fallacy that says necessarily you must choose a certain thing before it is even decided upon, which Pood argues against

There's nothing that prevents a person from choosing something before it must be decided on.

I want to make clear that when it comes to the most important aspect of this debate, it is the choice that is made that matters. No one cares if you have a thought about killing someone. What matters is if you acted on that thought.

 

[DBT]

As it is the state and condition of a brain - neural architecture, inputs, memory function - that produces thought and action, including will, the notion of free will has no merit. We have thought, we can act, we have will, but it is not free will.

Right.

https://www.sciencesnail.com/philos...t-free-will-freedom-of-choice-but-not-of-will

Given determinism, choice is the wrong word. If determinism is true, decisions are not a matter of choice.

I think the word “choice” is fine to use if it’s understood to mean the ability to contemplate two or more options. I believe the confusion is in the feeling that if we are determined to do what we do. it doesn’t allow for our ability to make our own decisions at all. People may falsely interpret this to mean that a person is not a participant in his own destiny. It becomes a modal fallacy that says necessarily he MUST choose a certain thing, not he will, before the decision is even made, which Pood argues against.

It is true, though, that the word “choice” can be misleading because only one alternative is possible at any given moment, and once made, no other alternative would have been possible. This is because any other option that was considered would have been less preferable in comparison. Our nature dictates that we move away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, not less. I think the word “choice” can be used as long as it is not misinterpreted to mean we have more than one option. Definitions are a serious problem in this debate, causing more confusion than needs be.

The contemplation of an option is not the same as having a realizable option. If determinism is true, what happens must happen as determined, not chosen. Where the decision that is made is necessarily made and not chosen. Which means that it is a decision, but not a choice.

For it to be a choice would require the possibility of any option to be taken at any point in time, but that's not how determinism is defined.

 

[peacegirl]

As it is the state and condition of a brain - neural architecture, inputs, memory function - that produces thought and action, including will, the notion of free will has no merit. We have thought, we can act, we have will, but it is not free will.

Right.

https://www.sciencesnail.com/philos...t-free-will-freedom-of-choice-but-not-of-will

Given determinism, choice is the wrong word. If determinism is true, decisions are not a matter of choice.

I think the word “choice” is fine to use if it’s understood to mean the ability to contemplate two or more options. I believe the confusion is in the feeling that if we are determined to do what we do. it doesn’t allow for our ability to make our own decisions at all. People may falsely interpret this to mean that a person is not a participant in his own destiny. It becomes a modal fallacy that says necessarily he MUST choose a certain thing, not he will, before the decision is even made, which Pood argues against.

It is true, though, that the word “choice” can be misleading because only one alternative is possible at any given moment, and once made, no other alternative would have been possible. This is because any other option that was considered would have been less preferable in comparison. Our nature dictates that we move away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, not less. I think the word “choice” can be used as long as it is not misinterpreted to mean we have more than one option. Definitions are a serious problem in this debate, causing more confusion than needs be.

The contemplation of an option is not the same as having a realizable option. If determinism is true, what happens must happen as determined, not chosen. Where the decision that is made is necessarily made and not chosen. Which means that it is a decision, but not a choice.

For it to be a choice would require the possibility of any option to be taken at any point in time, but that's not how determinism is defined.

You want to stick to your definition (which technically is correct), but it is confusing to people who are not familiar with this subject. No one is claiming that there is any other possibility than the decision that was made. I thought I made that very clear.

 

[pood]

. No one is claiming that there is any other possibility than the decision that was made.

Yes, I am claiming that.

 

[steve_bank]

Now I understand pood.

Pounding sand builds character.

My view is I do not and can not know the universe works. What I know is I have to make decisions which can affect others.

Causal determiner, free will, comparabilism on a national scale does have implications.

The prevailing view is free will. We have responsibility for actions. Civil and criminal law.

I have said that this knowledge increases responsibility. This is why what I am presenting is so invaluable (I realize this thread has other posters with other points of view, but this is my contribution to this thread): how to prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. You are, like everyone else, stuck at the gate. You haven't even considered how the knowledge that man's will is not free and the knowledge that lies behind it overcomes the problems confronting our world, nor have you asked one relevant question. You just keep balking at the claim because you don't believe that war and crime can be eliminated. Surprisingly, not even one person has asked to hear more, even out of plain old curiosity.

If all our actions are causally predetermined then there is no responsibility. If you come up with a new invention it was not your hard wrork it was predestined.

No, you're not right. If you came up with a new invention, you were the inventor, no one else. No one is taking that away from you. What is being taken away is the fact that, because your will is not free, we have to see where it leads, not turn away because we don't like the implications. IOW, this poses a big problem for determinism, for how can we not hold people responsible for what we believe they didn't have to do since their will was free not to do it (i.e., they could have chosen otherwise, which is the theme of free will), or how, if not for threats of punishment do we get people to want to do the right thing by others? Isn't this hurting of others the central issue in this debate? It is not about blue or red shirts, or cereal or eggs for breakfast.

Warning: sarcasm may nit be suitable for all ages.

Not right?

It should be obvious that I am always right and never wrong.

How can you tell I am always right? Because I say so.

Being right all the tie is really a curse. A heavy burden.

 

[peacegirl]

. No one is claiming that there is any other possibility than the decision that was made.

Yes, I am claiming that.

Maybe in some other world that you’ve invented, but not in this one. That’s where you fall off the rails. It really doesn’t matter what your logic is because the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say.

 

[peacegirl]

Now I understand pood.

Pounding sand builds character.

My view is I do not and can not know the universe works. What I know is I have to make decisions which can affect others.

Causal determiner, free will, comparabilism on a national scale does have implications.

The prevailing view is free will. We have responsibility for actions. Civil and criminal law.

I have said that this knowledge increases responsibility. This is why what I am presenting is so invaluable (I realize this thread has other posters with other points of view, but this is my contribution to this thread): how to prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. You are, like everyone else, stuck at the gate. You haven't even considered how the knowledge that man's will is not free and the knowledge that lies behind it overcomes the problems confronting our world, nor have you asked one relevant question. You just keep balking at the claim because you don't believe that war and crime can be eliminated. Surprisingly, not even one person has asked to hear more, even out of plain old curiosity.

If all our actions are causally predetermined then there is no responsibility. If you come up with a new invention it was not your hard wrork it was predestined.

No, you're not right. If you came up with a new invention, you were the inventor, no one else. No one is taking that away from you. What is being taken away is the fact that, because your will is not free, we have to see where it leads, not turn away because we don't like the implications. IOW, this poses a big problem for determinism, for how can we not hold people responsible for what we believe they didn't have to do since their will was free not to do it (i.e., they could have chosen otherwise, which is the theme of free will), or how, if not for threats of punishment do we get people to want to do the right thing by others? Isn't this hurting of others the central issue in this debate? It is not about blue or red shirts, or cereal or eggs for breakfast.

Warning: sarcasm may nit be suitable for all ages.

Not right?

It should be obvious that I am always right and never wrong.

How can you tell I am always right? Because I say so.

Being right all the tie is really a curse. A heavy burden.

Where have I said I was always right? But just because I’m not always right doesn’t make me wrong in this case. That’s poor logic.

 

[steve_bank]

There is so much stress and anxiety with being right all the time.

People keep telling me I am wrong but I know i am right.

I explain but they just don't listen and they are all against me. It is very tiring.

 

[pood]

. No one is claiming that there is any other possibility than the decision that was made.

Yes, I am claiming that.

Maybe in some other world that you’ve invented, but not in this one. That’s where you fall off the rails. It really doesn’t matter what your logic is because the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say.

You can lead peacegirl to water but you can’t make her think.

Any other bromides to share?

 

[peacegirl]

. No one is claiming that there is any other possibility than the decision that was made.

Yes, I am claiming that.

Maybe in some other world that you’ve invented, but not in this one. That’s where you fall off the rails. It really doesn’t matter what your logic is because the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say.

You can lead peacegirl to water but you can’t make her think.

Any other bromides to share?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink is a truism, although it has important implications for the author's two-sided equation. IOW, you can't get someone to do anything they make up their mind not to do, not even God himself, but that does not make their will free. Let that sink in for longer than a millisecond, and just maybe I can move forward. Try to make an effort to understand what is being explained rather than closing yourself off because you don't like what the author has to say.

In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,” which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will, he admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control.

“It’s amazing; all my life I have believed man’s will is free, but for the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”

Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied, but I’m not. The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical doctrine that man’s choices, decisions, and actions are decided by antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his character. According to this definition, we are not given a choice because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do what I make up my mind not to do, as you just mentioned a moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in, can make me do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free, yet nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that? He brought out something I never would have thought of.”

“All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, which is undeniable; however, though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted due to the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because they wanted to, this in no way indicates that their will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’

 

[Jarhyn]

It is the action that, once made, could not have been otherwise

Except that it could have been. The material observation of the possibility of difference is part of what made the option "considered" I the first place.

It's not that it couldn't be otherwise. Merely that it wasn't otherwise.

Only one decision can be made, whatever it is, at any given moment in time

No, only one decision WILL ever be made, whatever it is, at any given moment in time.

We can observe that five minutes ago, you could choose one of many things, and you could have despite the fact you only chose one.

That's the difference between "what we can do" and "what we will do".

But just because I’m not always right doesn’t make me wrong in this case.

So, I would say "then present a valid argument" but that would have you spamming vapid nothingness from your daddy's book all long on promises and short on delivery.

We have been down that road and just gotten vapid trash so far, and I'm not going to be impressed with seeing more of that.

 

[peacegirl]

It is the action that, once made, could not have been otherwise

Except that it could have been. The material observation of the possibility of difference is part of what made the option "considered" I the first place.

It's not that it couldn't be otherwise. Merely that it wasn't otherwise.

No Jaryn. It could not have been otherwise because of the reasons given. Anytime we are deciding between A or B, we can only choose what we believe is better for ourselves, not worse, and not what others judge to be better. You will not budge off of your soapbox, even for a moment, to even temporarily hear me out. Therefore, no matter what proof there is that we don't have free will of any kind, your mind is closed.

Only one decision can be made, whatever it is, at any given moment in time

No, only one decision WILL ever be made, whatever it is, at any given moment in time.

We can observe that five minutes ago, you could choose one of many things, and you could have despite the fact you only chose one.

That's the difference between "what we can do" and "what we will do".

But just because I’m not always right doesn’t make me wrong in this case.

So, I would say "then present a valid argument" but that would have you spamming vapid nothingness from your daddy's book all long on promises and short on delivery.

Why are you belittling me just because he was my father? Tell me why man's will is not free, according to what I explained, and show me where I'm wrong. And don't tell me a person could do otherwise when not only is there no way to prove this, but it has been proven that no "otherwise" is ever possible.

We have been down that road and just gotten vapid trash so far, and I'm not going to be impressed with seeing more of that.

Please don't talk to me anymore. Go find others who will willingly listen to your proof of free will, switches, and autonomous machines.

 

[peacegirl]

As it is the state and condition of a brain - neural architecture, inputs, memory function - that produces thought and action, including will, the notion of free will has no merit. We have thought, we can act, we have will, but it is not free will.

Right.

https://www.sciencesnail.com/philos...t-free-will-freedom-of-choice-but-not-of-will

Given determinism, choice is the wrong word. If determinism is true, decisions are not a matter of choice.

I think the word “choice” is fine to use if it’s understood to mean the ability to contemplate two or more options. I believe the confusion is in the feeling that if we are determined to do what we do. it doesn’t allow for our ability to make our own decisions at all. People may falsely interpret this to mean that a person is not a participant in his own destiny. It becomes a modal fallacy that says necessarily he MUST choose a certain thing, not he will, before the decision is even made, which Pood argues against.

It is true, though, that the word “choice” can be misleading because only one alternative is possible at any given moment, and once made, no other alternative would have been possible. This is because any other option that was considered would have been less preferable in comparison. Our nature dictates that we move away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, not less. I think the word “choice” can be used as long as it is not misinterpreted to mean we have more than one option. Definitions are a serious problem in this debate, causing more confusion than needs be.

The contemplation of an option is not the same as having a realizable option. If determinism is true, what happens must happen as determined, not chosen. Where the decision that is made is necessarily made and not chosen. Which means that it is a decision, but not a choice.

For it to be a choice would require the possibility of any option to be taken at any point in time, but that's not how determinism is defined.

 

[peacegirl]

As it is the state and condition of a brain - neural architecture, inputs, memory function - that produces thought and action, including will, the notion of free will has no merit. We have thought, we can act, we have will, but it is not free will.

Right.

https://www.sciencesnail.com/philos...t-free-will-freedom-of-choice-but-not-of-will

Given determinism, choice is the wrong word. If determinism is true, decisions are not a matter of choice.

I think the word “choice” is fine to use if it’s understood to mean the ability to contemplate two or more options. I believe the confusion is in the feeling that if we are determined to do what we do. it doesn’t allow for our ability to make our own decisions at all. People may falsely interpret this to mean that a person is not a participant in his own destiny. It becomes a modal fallacy that says necessarily he MUST choose a certain thing, not he will, before the decision is even made, which Pood argues against.

It is true, though, that the word “choice” can be misleading because only one alternative is possible at any given moment, and once made, no other alternative would have been possible. This is because any other option that was considered would have been less preferable in comparison. Our nature dictates that we move away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, not less. I think the word “choice” can be used as long as it is not misinterpreted to mean we have more than one option. Definitions are a serious problem in this debate, causing more confusion than needs be.

The contemplation of an option is not the same as having a realizable option. If determinism is true, what happens must happen as determined, not chosen. Where the decision that is made is necessarily made and not chosen. Which means that it is a decision, but not a choice.

For it to be a choice would require the possibility of any option to be taken at any point in time, but that's not how determinism is defined.

Contemplating between A and B sets up the possibility of either option being picked, but that does not mean that either one can be picked in actuality. One of those options is the loser, which means it precludes the possibility that both options are equal in value when there are meaningful differences between them. The only option that can be chosen is the one that offers the greater satisfaction between the two. Choice is an imprecise word and it can be misleading. But people are not going to stop using the word so it must be clarified. Then it should not pose a problem. The average lay person believes that we have free will whenever we can pick this or that or the other without undue persuasion or force. That’s also is the Compatibilists definition of free will. Pure nonsense.

 

[Jarhyn]

It could not have been otherwise because of the reasons given

It could have been otherwise, for exactly the reasons given, reasons which you apparently fail to understand through the idea of "otherwise", namely that "otherwise" doesn't have to exist in the exact same place and time to still be "otherwise".

You will not budge off of your soapbox

I will not budge off of what is verifiably correct, no. If you could provide a reason, I would, but you haven't been doing that.

Therefore, no matter what proof there is that we don't have free will of any kind, your mind is closed.

If you provided proof, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. You didn't. You provided modal fallacies and an ironic inability to understand what makes modal fallacies a thing.

I have at long length discussed what "otherwise" means in the sense of math.

I am wearing a hoodie. My husband is wearing something other than a hoodie. It is otherwise. So the brute fact proves otherwise-ness is possible, through demonstrated non-homogeneous content.

I can even propose and implement whole sets of laws of physics which are otherwise than we experience, and make a whole world where those physics are emulated by our own, and where events unfold in a way different from how they do here.

Even the laws of physics CAN be otherwise. They just generally aren't.

A deeper question might be whether a physics otherwise than here and which cannot be emulated by our physics at all might still be possible, but this gets us into the discussion in math of "inaccessible" numbers and cardinalities.

your nonproof of free will, switches, and autonomous machines

The one thing a brute fact does prove is the possibility of the brute fact.

Thankfully, I have a brute fact before me of switches and relatively autonomous machines.

The question is not whether these things exist or are possible, but of what model or theory accounts for them... And no model which denies autonomy as real or meaningful is going to stand to that brute fact's ability for disproof of counterclaims against it.

Why are you belittling me just because he was my father

Because you can't seem to clear yourself of his ideological biases and ask questions unclouded by respect he does not deserve?

If you wanted to make any sort of impact here you would doubt that pile of what I consider vapid trash as much as we do, with the specific strategies for doubt which we suggest: application of Occam's Razor, taking a few Logical Reasoning courses, and reading every passage with an intent to figure out exactly how and why it is wrong (and in so doing, perhaps recovering some remainder from it, or some large portion of a statement, or occasionally even the whole thing). Maybe take some courses in physics and mechanics.

I strongly recommend reading that book I suggested by Ian Stewart.

When you're done, you can re-write your father's book but without all the vapid bullshit.

And let's be clear here: I would ridicule a Freudian as deeply about their commitment to Freudian dynamics as I do you for your commitment to your daddy; I would ridicule a person who thinks animals broadly evolve according to Lamarck's theory as bending the knee to Daddy Lamarck. I ridicule Calvinists for their devotion to Calvin, and pretty much anyone who takes their philosophy as "whole order" from some principle thinker rather than ala-carte assembly of principles from many people and their own synthesis thereof.

I'm not here to debate with Ion, fanboy to the poets. I'm here to debate and discuss with the actual poets themselves, if any are in attendance.

Please don't talk to me anymore

No, I'll talk to you as I see fit and ridicule your ridiculous beliefs as I see fit.

You have done nothing but preach here since you got here... That and defend abysmal failures at physics.

 

[WAB]

Peacegirl, you have the option to use the ignore function if you choose. I've used it - but it does tend to impede the overall enjoyment of the site.

 

[peacegirl]

It could not have been otherwise because of the reasons given

It could have been otherwise, for exactly the reasons given, reasons which you apparently fail to understand through the idea of "otherwise", namely that "otherwise" doesn't have to exist in the exact same place and time to still be "otherwise".

I didn't realize this would be so hard to get across. DBT, this person can't seem to understand even the simplest demonstration.

You will not budge off of your soapbox

I will not budge off of what is verifiably correct, no. If you could provide a reason, I would, but you haven't been doing that.

What are you talking about? A reason for what?

Therefore, no matter what proof there is that we don't have free will of any kind, your mind is closed.

If you provided proof, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. You didn't. You provided modal fallacies and an ironic inability to understand what makes modal fallacies a thing.

His proof came through astute observation. You are here now because it gives you greater satisfaction than not being here. You may change your mind tomorrow or in the next second, but that doesn't mean you could have done otherwise after choosing to be here. You, as well as everyone else, are part of this natural law, which you cannot outrun or escape. You can't have free will and no free will. That would be like having your cake and eating it too. It cannot be done because one means the cancellation of the other.

I have at long length discussed what "otherwise" means in the sense of math.

Math is one thing, and human relations are quite another. They are not analogous.

I am wearing a hoodie. My husband is wearing something other than a hoodie. It is otherwise. So the brute fact proves otherwise-ness is possible, through demonstrated non-homogeneous content.

Wtf. You are not your husband. We are talking about one individual, YOU, being able to choose otherwise after you have already made your choice. Otherwise-ness is not even part of the discussion when it comes to someone else choosing otherwise. This is a red herring if I ever saw one.

I can even propose and implement whole sets of laws of physics which are otherwise than we experience, and make a whole world where those physics are emulated by our own, and where events unfold in a way different from how they do here.

Even the laws of physics CAN be otherwise. They just generally aren't.

A deeper question might be whether a physics otherwise than here and which cannot be emulated by our physics at all might still be possible, but this gets us into the discussion in math of "inaccessible" numbers and cardinalities.

You're way off track. We are not talking about physics, math, or anything else. We are talking about whether a person could choose other than what he did, in fact, choose, which, number one, you cannot prove, and number two, it is impossible to choose other than what you have chosen in the direction of greater satisfaction or preference. If someone decided not to shoot someone (even though he was given instructions to do it) but, after careful thought, he decided against it, he could not have chosen otherwise at that moment because it would have given him less satisfaction, which would have been an impossibility when a more satisfying option was available. We can only move in the direction that is the greater of two goods, the lesser of two evils, or a good over an evil.

your nonproof of free will, switches, and autonomous machines

The one thing a brute fact does prove is the possibility of the brute fact.

Whatever that means.

Thankfully, I have a brute fact before me of switches and relatively autonomous machines.

I don't care about your switches and your autonomous machines. They don't prove that man has free will. Give it up. The following definition does not grant freedom of the will. You're more confused than ever.

autonomy: freedom from external control or influence; independence:

"the courts enjoy a considerable degree of autonomy"
"economic autonomy is still a long way off for many women"

The question is not whether these things exist or are possible, but of what model or theory accounts for them... And no model which denies autonomy as real or meaningful is going to stand to that brute fact's ability for disproof of counterclaims against it.

You're just playing with words, and making them fit your worldview. Autonomy does not translate to free will. Let me repeat: We get to think, mull over, and base our thoughts on the antecedents to help us make the best decision we can. None of this gives us any space in the chain of events up until the present moment that we could call free will.

Why are you belittling me just because he was my father

Because you can't seem to clear yourself of his ideological biases and ask questions unclouded by respect he does not deserve?

What ideological biases? You never even considered that his observations are spot on. You know nothing about how moral responsibility is increased, and you don't seem to care as long as you hold onto free will, which doesn't exist.

The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs.

If you wanted to make any sort of impact here you would doubt that pile of what I consider vapid trash as much as we do, with the specific strategies for doubt which we suggest: application of Occam's Razor, taking a few Logical Reasoning courses, and reading every passage with an intent to figure out exactly how and why it is wrong (and in so doing, perhaps recovering some remainder from it, or some large portion of a statement, or occasionally even the whole thing). Maybe take some courses in physics and mechanics.

OMG, this is nuts. You are the one that has such a convoluted drawn-out explanation as to why you believe we have free will that most people probably won't admit that they can't follow your reasoning at all, and yet you have the audacity to say that this author's demonstration was too complex.

Occam's Razor is a philosophical principle that suggests that when presented with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, one should prefer the simplest explanation. This principle posits that explanations that require fewer assumptions are generally more likely to be correct. The term is named after the English Franciscan friar and philosopher William of Ockham, although the idea dates back to Aristotle.

I strongly recommend reading that book I suggested by Ian Stewart.

When you're done, you can re-write your father's book but without all the vapid bullshit.

Now now, calm down. I don't need or want your tips on how to rewrite his book. You are the last person I would go to.

And let's be clear here: I would ridicule a Freudian as deeply about their commitment to Freudian dynamics as I do you for your commitment to your daddy; I would ridicule a person who thinks animals broadly evolve according to Lamarck's theory as bending the knee to Daddy Lamarck. I ridicule Calvinists for their devotion to Calvin, and pretty much anyone who takes their philosophy as "whole order" from some principle thinker rather than ala-carte assembly of principles from many people and their own synthesis thereof.

You're once again off in your thinking. This knowledge did not come from just my daddy. He was a voracious reader of literature and philosophy for years. This knowledge didn't come out of thin air. There was no "whole order" next to ala-carte. And I really don't care who you would ridicule. It doesn't prove that what you ridicule is wrong just because Jaryn ridicules it.

I'm not here to debate with Ion, fanboy to the poets. I'm here to debate and discuss with the actual poets themselves, if any are in attendance.

That's a good idea.

Please don't talk to me anymore

No, I'll talk to you as I see fit and ridicule your ridiculous beliefs as I see fit.

They are not beliefs, as you falsely believe. You have no way to respond because you have no understanding of what he wrote. I don't think you can tell me why man's will is not free. You just keep using the word "otherwise" where it doesn't belong, and conclude you won.

You have done nothing but preach here since you got here... That and defend abysmal failures at physics.

And what are you doing? Playing tiddlywinks? You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. This is not going to work. I really hope you stop posting to me. If you are right, it will stand on its own merit and so will mine.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wtf. You are not your husband. We are talking about one individual, YOU, being able to choose otherwise after you have already made your choice. Otherwise-ness is not even part of the discussion when it comes to someone else choosing otherwise. This is a red herring if I ever saw one.

Nope. The point is to demonstrate that one choice doesn't invalidate the still-extisting alternatives, and that alternatives exist as positions, and that even their non-existence in the current moment does not invalidate their existence as alternatives when considered, and when later chosen.

For instance, I go up to the breakfast bar and choose bacon, of the alternatives. I eat the bacon.

Then I go up to the breakfast bar and pick eggs, and I eat those, too.

Then, I walk up and pick up some hash rowns, because why not, but instead I tuck them away to go so they will be an affordable option later.

But I don't grab a salad or a waffle; I don't want the salad and I don't want to wait for a waffle, and technically I would have to pick making a waffle, to make the waffle an alternative for myself, and I don't want to.

All the alternatives remained even after I made my choices, right until I chose to eat them, and then the alternatives vanish in a bit of deliciousness. Except the salad, because I'm rather unhealthy as an eater and don't care enough to do anything about that because something else will probably kill me way earlier.

I don't think you can tell me why man's will is not free

I couldn't tell you why man's will is not free because "man's will" is "free" with respect to having many options.

I won't lie to you and pretend it's not up to you and I and everyone else to work to make good decisions and figure out what good decisions are.

And to be clear, there's no "best decision" about what to want, even if there are known bad decisions. There is no "one" perfect way. There are a lot of mostly compatible ways, and then strictly incompatible ones.

That you are not free to create contradictions? But that would be silly and trivialize existence. There would be no rhyme or reason or sense or song. There would be no joy or love or hate or sadness; there would be and not be everything everywhere all at once. That doesn't sound like fun, it sounds like madness in infinite measure, and every madness that there was and wasn't.

Otherwise can be elsewhere. We can, and often do do otherwise as we did in the past. In fact, doing otherwise than we did in the past is entirely the point of a mind and choices and decisions and learning.

Maybe you will do otherwise this time and just not respond? That would surely be a way to get me to stop responding to you, to simply quit saying stupid shit and ceasing the Ion routine.

 

[bilby]

the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime.

Well, we observe that we can't prevent either war or crime. So your proof fails.