Free Will vs Determinism

[Harbal]

And what are you going to apologize for?

I won't know until it becomes necessary.

[Immanuel Can]

Isn't it somewhat common for rubberneckers to slow down and look at a train wreck or an auto accident?

Well, PN discussions do often end up being a pile of twisted something...

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

I was suggesting that it was not "sufficient evidence," and that yes, it is still possible to insist that Determinism is true. But I think that enough snowflakes add up to an avalanche; and we have an avalanche of intuitions, experiences and observable behaviours that imply that free will is real. This is just one, but there are plenty of other manifestations of what clearly appears to be free will, whether it is or isn't.

And at some point, I think we need to explain the avalanche.

Your "avalanche" is naive realism. The feeling of being the originator of one's choices is also a percept. World views fit with survival. When the Free Will world view is really really dysfunctional it will be abandoned.

[Immanuel Can]

Your "avalanche" is naive realism.

Your label is incorrect.

The feeling of being the originator of one's choices is also a percept.

That is ONE of the things it is: it does not tell us whether it's the ONLY thing. After all, Determinism is also a percept, but cannot be ruled out for that reason alone, can it? Well, then...

World views fit with survival.

Then Determinism would be doomed. No one who survives practices it, apparently.

But your saying is not true. Some worldviews do not at all fit with survival. Some are, in fact, self-destructive, nihilistic or so speculative that practitioners do not experience improved survival rates but raised mortality rates.

When the Free Will world view is really really dysfunctional it will be abandoned.

This looks like speculative prophecy on your part, not fact.

There is no reason to suppose that belief in free will will ever somehow become maladaptive, since it's worked so well so far. Determinism, on the other hand, has never been adaptive even for one person: practiced consistently, it conduces only to fatalism, quietism and resignation, stoicism and ultimately, death.

[henry quirk]

The only precepts (rules) bein' foisted up in this thread are...

Thou shall not be free willed.

Thou shall ignore any evidence in conflict with cause and effect.

Thou shall not trust one's own experience or assessments.

Thou shall not view free will favorably.

Thou shall view bio-robotism as favorable.

Thou shall follow...

[Immanuel Can]

The only precepts (rules) bein' foisted up in this thread are...

Thou shall not be free willed.

Thou shall ignore any evidence in conflict with cause and effect.

Thou shall not trust one's own experience or assessments.

Thou shall not view free will favorably.

Thou shall view bio-robotism as favorable.

Thou shall follow...

Ironically, Henry, what's the point of them saying, "Thou shalt" when "thou" cannot actually choose to "shalt" anything.

[henry quirk]

Exactly right.

As I say: crazy folks, or, lyin' folks.

[Arising_uk]

'Free-will' is a hang-up transposed into new clothes from the theists who have/had a problem with their 'God' and 'its' will and the attributes 'it' apparently has, i.e., if their 'God' is omniscient 'it' already knows what you are going to choose so in what way does the believer have a 'free-will'?

At best the language today should be free-choice as its obvious that many things determine one's choice but that we can make a choice is possible. If you want will then you'll have to be doing it without a 'God' at least.

[henry quirk]

Call 'it' what you like (me, I prefer 'agency' [even better, I prefer 'agent {best of all: I prefer me, 'Henry Quirk'}]).

The placeholder is a distraction from the question which simply is:

Does an individual choose, self-direct?

I say yes, I do.

[Immanuel Can]

Call 'it' what you like (me, I prefer 'agency' [even better, I prefer 'agent {best of all: I prefer me, 'Henry Quirk'}]).

The placeholder is a distraction from the question which simply is:

Does an individual choose, self-direct?

I say yes, I do.

Imagine...you're self-directing; and all of this in the face of Determinists who are doing their darnedest to change your mind! They plug in every strategy they know, hoping to arrive at the cocktail of causal influences that will -- not rationally convince, presumably, because that would require your free will, but -- causally oblige you to agree. And none of it is working!

Clearly, either they're doing a very bad job and can't make Determinism work for them, or their whole theory is hokey, or both.

I vote "both."

[Harbal]

Determinists who are doing their darnedest to change your mind!

Do you really think anyone cares that much, apart from you, that is?

[henry quirk]

Harbal.

I care...the subject matters to me...that some folks want to erode the individual, grind him to dust, this matters.

[Harbal]

Harbal.

I care...the subject matters to me...that some folks want to erode the individual, grind him to dust, this matters.

So you believe in free will but some other guy thinks everything is pre determined, how does that hurt you?

[henry quirk]

Some folks actually believe they have no capacity for self-direction, believe themselves to be bio-automation.

They are disturbed but largely harmless folks.

The ones who concern me are the folks who damned well know they are free willed but who carry the banner of determinism...these folks want to erode the individual, turn him into a cog...when conventional thinking has it that a man is mere mechanism, then all manner of things can be done to him, with him.

This is why this subject matters to me.

[Harbal]

Okay, henry, if you think it's important who am I to say it isn't? As far as IC is concerned, I believe all he is interested in is making anyone that disagrees with him feel small and it surprises me that you would ally yourself with him.