Free will

[Sculptor]

And, it could be argued what was completely pre-'determined' comes about because of 'free will'.

As will 'come-to-light', soon enough.

I won't hold my breath.

We were, and are, NOT waiting for you to.

You crack me up!!

Is that the ROYAL WE??

Of course your majesty..

[bahman]

YES, OBVIOUSLY.

Have you ever been able to choose when you doubted?

YES, OBVIOUSLY.

If I had NOT, then I would have ALREADY OBTAINED ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing that I have WANTED out of Life.

If you have doubt then you could not have a bias toward any option, yet you could decide, therefore you are free.

[bahman]

AND, 'wiki', just like 'you', "bahman", as well as the rest of 'you', adult human beings, STILL have NOT YET worked out and SOLVED, what has been PUZZLING 'you', human beings, for centuries now, (when this was being written). So, OBVIOUSLY, there is some 'thing' Wrong or AMISS here, correct?

Could 'that', what is Wrong or AMISS here, JUST BE the definition/s that 'you', human beings, have been CHOOSING and USING?

Or, is that JUST NOT a possibility, in your OWN 'little worlds'?

My definition is pretty fine and correct.

To WHOM, EXACTLY?

To philosophical community.

What is your definition of free will?

The ABILITY TO CHOOSE.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for asking.

See, with this definition, BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' 'play a part in Life'. With BOTH being ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER, PEFECTLY. And, which REMOVES ANY form of DISAGREEING and DISAGREEMENT. When then ALSO RESOLVES QUESTIONING and the back and forth BICKERING and "ARGUING" that has gone on for too long now, when this was being written.

A computer also has the ability to choose. Have you ever thought of any difference between you and a computer?

Because you are ABLE to choose one, is NEVER in doubt, and has NEVER been DISPUTED by ANY one. Well not that I am YET AWARE OF.

However, it is because of 'your' WANT, which is what EVERY one here that is DISAGREEING or DISPUTING 'you' is QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING 'you' ON and ABOUT.

WHY 'you' WANTED 'that one', (whatever that might be), is what 'you' are being TOLD IS 'the bias'. And, as you have been CONTINUALLY TOLD and INFORMED OF ALSO, it is 'the bias' (the 'want' for 'that one'), which 'you' OBVIOUSLY have, which has just as OBVIOUSLY come from pre-existing conditions that 'you', (or more correctly 'that body') has OBVIOUSLY previously experienced, which is WHY 'that choice' of 'yours' was NOT a 'free-will' choice. That is; going on your OWN definition of 'free will' here.

Do 'you' UNDERSTAND this now?

No, I am able to pick up an option that I don't like which means that I can go against the bias.

BUT you are, OBVIOUSLY, GOING FOR the 'bias', which you LIKE. That is; you LIKE to CHOOSE the option that you think or BELIEVE would PROVE the "other" wrong, and 'you' right. Which WAS done on the HOPE of being ABLE TO back up and support YOUR BELIEF here.

You did NOT 'just choose' the OTHER option for absolutely NO reason AT ALL. 'you' CHOSE the one, which 'you' SUPPOSEDLY do NOT like, to WIN 'the argument' here. 'To WIN' WAS and IS 'your' BIAS here.

No, I have no intention to prove others are wrong and I am right.

The reason WHY 'you' WANT 'to invest', is A 'bias'. Thus, NOT 'free will', according to your OWN definition of 'free will'.

The reason WHY 'you' ended up CHOOSING 'the investment', which 'you' finally did, would have been based on AGAIN, your WANT and thus your 'biases'. Thus, NOT 'free will' AGAIN, according to your OWN definition of 'free will' here.

The SOLE REASON WHY 'you' ended up CHOOSING 'the investment' strategy, literally, of YOUR CHOICE, was BECAUSE 'you' thought or BELIEVED it would be the BEST 'one' for 'you' to OBTAIN MORE monetary gains.

So, YOUR BIASES came into PLAY. Thus, 'determinism' AT WORK here and NOT 'free will', from your OWN definition of 'free will' here.

Do you understand the difference between the situation and the decision?

YES.

Have you been UNDERSTANDING what I have been SAYING and WRITING here?

It is very clear to me that you don't understand the difference.

What 'you' do NOT 'like' IS what 'you' do NOT 'want'. Thus, the DECISION 'you' MAKE on what 'you' do NOT 'like' NOR 'want' here is based on 'determinism' and NOT on 'free will', from your OWN definition of 'free will' here.

Also, and conversely, what 'you' DO 'like' IS what 'you' DO 'want'. Therefore, AGAIN, the DECISION 'you' MAKE on what 'you' DO 'like' AND 'want' here is based on 'determinism' and NOT on 'free will', from your OWN definition of 'free will' here.


PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE for 'us' to LOOK AT and SEE.

Then 'we', AT LEAST, have SOME 'thing' to DISCUSS and, literally, TALK ABOUT.

Read OP.

CHOOSING BETWEEN A OR B, is NOT a REAL ACTUAL EXAMPLE that 'you' have ACTUALLY DONE in Life.

ALSO, I HAD ALREADY REPLIED TO THIS, the FIRST TIME you RESPONDED with that RIDICULOUS REMARK. You OBVIOUSLY ARE IGNORING IT, so here IT is AGAIN.

I REPLIED WITH:

As EXPECTED, 'you' RUN AWAY and/or 'try to' DEFLECT when 'you' are UNABLE TO provide absolutely ANY example AT ALL.

Providing the letters 'A' and 'B' is NOT an EXAMPLE.

I suggest 'you' PROVIDE an ACTUAL EXAMPLE of when 'you' have made an ACTUAL 'unbiased' CHOICE. Until then there is, literally, NOTHING of ANY worth, in your opening post, NOR in the rest of what 'you' wrote here, to LOOK AT and SEE in regards to being able to back up and support what 'you' obviously STEADFASTLY BELIEVE and CLAIM is true.

Have you ever doubted when you wanted to make a decision?

[Dimebag]

What I dislike about Bahman’s example of a free choice is it actually removes any possibility of responsibility. If you make a choice completely at random, that is without any prior motivation, you cannot be held responsible. There was nothing you could have done to make a better choice given the same scenario.

[Age]

Have you ever been able to choose when you doubted?

YES, OBVIOUSLY.

If I had NOT, then I would have ALREADY OBTAINED ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing that I have WANTED out of Life.

If you have doubt then you could not have a bias toward any option, yet you could decide, therefore you are free.

But having 'doubt' could MEAN that I AM BIASED.

As I have SAID ALREADY, UNTIL you PROVIDE an ACTUAL example where you think or BELIEVE that you had absolutely NO bias AT ALL, then we have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to LOOK AT or GO BY.

See, EVERY time I have had 'doubt', then it was CAUSED by a 'bias'.

And, as I POINTED OUT earlier, just HAVING the ABILITY TO DECIDE does NOT FIT IN WITH your OWN definition of 'free will'. That, obviously, IS, and WAS, MY definition of 'free will', and just as OBVIOUS is the Fact that EVERY one HAS the ABILITY TO CHOOSE.

You now just have to PROVIDE an ACTUAL example of where you made a decision, without ANY 'bias' AT ALL, and so PROVE that it is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to DECIDE on an 'option' without ANY 'bias' AT ALL. So far you have NOT PROVED ANY thing like this.

[Age]

My definition is pretty fine and correct.

To WHOM, EXACTLY?

To philosophical community.

Is that the SAME 'philosophical community', which for thousands of years now, has STILL NOT YET solved the 'free will/determinism' CONUNDRUM?

What is your definition of free will?

The ABILITY TO CHOOSE.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for asking.

See, with this definition, BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' 'play a part in Life'. With BOTH being ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER, PEFECTLY. And, which REMOVES ANY form of DISAGREEING and DISAGREEMENT. When then ALSO RESOLVES QUESTIONING and the back and forth BICKERING and "ARGUING" that has gone on for too long now, when this was being written.

A computer also has the ability to choose. Have you ever thought of any difference between you and a computer?

A computer, by itself, is NOT 'able to' CHOOSE. A human being, however, IS.

Also, and by the way, how the human brain ACTUALLY works is NOT that much different AT ALL from EXACTLY how a computer works. But we will come to this at a later date. There are still some more things 'you', human beings, have to be EXPOSED TO, and thus have to LEARN, before we get on to how the 'Mind' and the 'brain' ACTUALLY work.

So, if this did NOT answer your question here for you, then YES I have thought of the differences between 'you', human beings, and computers.

No, I am able to pick up an option that I don't like which means that I can go against the bias.

BUT you are, OBVIOUSLY, GOING FOR the 'bias', which you LIKE. That is; you LIKE to CHOOSE the option that you think or BELIEVE would PROVE the "other" wrong, and 'you' right. Which WAS done on the HOPE of being ABLE TO back up and support YOUR BELIEF here.

You did NOT 'just choose' the OTHER option for absolutely NO reason AT ALL. 'you' CHOSE the one, which 'you' SUPPOSEDLY do NOT like, to WIN 'the argument' here. 'To WIN' WAS and IS 'your' BIAS here.

No, I have no intention to prove others are wrong and I am right.

So, you create threads in a philosophy forum, and explain that you NEED to 'argue' for 'this' or for 'that', or even, "To show that free will is real ...", but now you, laughingly, 'try to' CLAIM that you have absolutely NO 'intentions' AT ALL, to 'prove' "others" are wrong and that 'you' are right.

When 'you', "bahman", WROTE and USED the words, "To show that 'free will' is real ...", then what, EXACTLY, was YOUR 'intention' if NOT to PROVE that what you BELIEVE is true, IS RIGHT, that is if 'you' are NOT here 'trying to' PROVE your CLAIM that 'free will is real', then WHAT is 'your' 'intention' here, EXACTLY, "bahman"?
To show that free will is real

Do you understand the difference between the situation and the decision?

YES.

Have you been UNDERSTANDING what I have been SAYING and WRITING here?

It is very clear to me that you don't understand the difference.[/quote]

But you continually make this CLAIM when "others" OPPOSE your STRONGLY HELD ONTO POSITION and BELIEF. And, it does NOT matter HOW MANY people OPPOSE your CLAIM, NOR how much evidence or proof they PROVIDE to COUNTER your CLAIM, you have ALWAYS BELIEVED, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, that 'you are RIGHT', and the "others are WRONG". As can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout YOUR WRITINGS here.
To show that free will is real

Read OP.

CHOOSING BETWEEN A OR B, is NOT a REAL ACTUAL EXAMPLE that 'you' have ACTUALLY DONE in Life.

ALSO, I HAD ALREADY REPLIED TO THIS, the FIRST TIME you RESPONDED with that RIDICULOUS REMARK. You OBVIOUSLY ARE IGNORING IT, so here IT is AGAIN.

I REPLIED WITH:

As EXPECTED, 'you' RUN AWAY and/or 'try to' DEFLECT when 'you' are UNABLE TO provide absolutely ANY example AT ALL.

Providing the letters 'A' and 'B' is NOT an EXAMPLE.

I suggest 'you' PROVIDE an ACTUAL EXAMPLE of when 'you' have made an ACTUAL 'unbiased' CHOICE. Until then there is, literally, NOTHING of ANY worth, in your opening post, NOR in the rest of what 'you' wrote here, to LOOK AT and SEE in regards to being able to back up and support what 'you' obviously STEADFASTLY BELIEVE and CLAIM is true.

Have you ever doubted when you wanted to make a decision?
[/quote]

I SAID, YES, OBVIOUSLY, BEFORE. So, WHY do you ASSUME I would answer DIFFERENTLY, THIS TIME?

Are you ABLE TO SEE the words I WROTE and USED here?

If yes, then just do what they are ASKING FOR. That is; PROVIDE an ACTUAL EXAMPLE here of when you have, supposedly, made A DECISION, WITHOUT absolutely ANY 'bias' AT ALL.

ONCE AGAIN, WHEN, and IF, you do this, then, and ONLY THEN, we WILL HAVE some 'thing' to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS. UNTIL THEN, what you have SAID, is NOT necessarily True AT ALL. In other words, you have NOT YET SHOWN what you SAID you would. That is; you have NOT YET SHOWN 'free will' IS REAL, from the definition of 'free will' that you HAVE and USE here.

However, there is absolutely NO one who could REFUTE 'free will' EXISTS, nor that 'free will' IS REAL, from the definition I HAVE provided and USED here.

[Age]

What I dislike about Bahman’s example of a free choice is it actually removes any possibility of responsibility. If you make a choice completely at random, that is without any prior motivation, you cannot be held responsible. There was nothing you could have done to make a better choice given the same scenario.

And this is one reason WHY 'that definition' "bahman" used here, and which has been used for centuries, HAS NEVER WORKED, and WILL NEVER WORK.

[bahman]

What I dislike about Bahman’s example of a free choice is it actually removes any possibility of responsibility. If you make a choice completely at random, that is without any prior motivation, you cannot be held responsible. There was nothing you could have done to make a better choice given the same scenario.

A decision is either biased or not, namely a non-free decision or a free decision. The free decision looks random from a third-person perspective but there is this element of wanting from the first-person perspective which makes you responsible for your decision.

[bahman]

YES, OBVIOUSLY.

If I had NOT, then I would have ALREADY OBTAINED ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing that I have WANTED out of Life.

If you have doubt then you could not have a bias toward any option, yet you could decide, therefore you are free.

But having 'doubt' could MEAN that I AM BIASED.

No, if you are biased then you are certain about the situation. You cannot be certain and have doubts at the same time.

As I have SAID ALREADY, UNTIL you PROVIDE an ACTUAL example where you think or BELIEVE that you had absolutely NO bias AT ALL, then we have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to LOOK AT or GO BY.

See, EVERY time I have had 'doubt', then it was CAUSED by a 'bias'.

And, as I POINTED OUT earlier, just HAVING the ABILITY TO DECIDE does NOT FIT IN WITH your OWN definition of 'free will'. That, obviously, IS, and WAS, MY definition of 'free will', and just as OBVIOUS is the Fact that EVERY one HAS the ABILITY TO CHOOSE.

You now just have to PROVIDE an ACTUAL example of where you made a decision, without ANY 'bias' AT ALL, and so PROVE that it is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to DECIDE on an 'option' without ANY 'bias' AT ALL. So far you have NOT PROVED ANY thing like this.

You don't know what you are really talking about. Do you?

[Age]

If you have doubt then you could not have a bias toward any option, yet you could decide, therefore you are free.

But having 'doubt' could MEAN that I AM BIASED.

No, if you are biased then you are certain about the situation.

So, to you, those who are 'biased' that 'God exists' are CERTAIN, about that situation, AND, those who are 'biased' that 'God does NOT exist' are ALSO CERTAIN, about the situation, correct?

And/or are these people NOT 'biased', by THEIR BELIEFS?

You cannot be certain and have doubts at the same time.

So, this would suggest that those who are CERTAIN that 'God exists' do NOT have DOUBTS, at the same time, AND, that those who are CERTAIN that 'God does NOT exist', do NOT have DOUBTS, as the same time, ALSO, correct?

This MEANS that you either are CERTAIN about your answer here, without DOUBT, or you are now DOUBTING your CLAIM here and are NOT certain.

As I have SAID ALREADY, UNTIL you PROVIDE an ACTUAL example where you think or BELIEVE that you had absolutely NO bias AT ALL, then we have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to LOOK AT or GO BY.

See, EVERY time I have had 'doubt', then it was CAUSED by a 'bias'.

And, as I POINTED OUT earlier, just HAVING the ABILITY TO DECIDE does NOT FIT IN WITH your OWN definition of 'free will'. That, obviously, IS, and WAS, MY definition of 'free will', and just as OBVIOUS is the Fact that EVERY one HAS the ABILITY TO CHOOSE.

You now just have to PROVIDE an ACTUAL example of where you made a decision, without ANY 'bias' AT ALL, and so PROVE that it is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to DECIDE on an 'option' without ANY 'bias' AT ALL. So far you have NOT PROVED ANY thing like this.

You don't know what you are really talking about. Do you?

If ONLY 'you' KNEW "bahman". If ONLY 'you' KNEW.

Are you CERTAIN about what you wrote here, WITHOUT DOUBT, or, do you now have DOUBT, and so are NOT certain?

Also, your CONTINUED ATTEMPT at DEFLECTION is NOT helping your case NOR cause here.

WHY do you NOT just PROVIDE one EXAMPLE of when in your WHOLE life WHERE you think or BELIEVE that you have made a CHOICE, WHERE you think or BELIEVE that you have NOT been BIASED, AT ALL?

If you did THIS, then you might be ABLE TO PROVE your CLAIM here. Until THEN you are NOT backing up NOR supporting your CLAIM here.

[Age]

What I dislike about Bahman’s example of a free choice is it actually removes any possibility of responsibility. If you make a choice completely at random, that is without any prior motivation, you cannot be held responsible. There was nothing you could have done to make a better choice given the same scenario.

A decision is either biased or not, namely a non-free decision or a free decision. The free decision looks random from a third-person perspective but there is this element of wanting from the first-person perspective which makes you responsible for your decision.

This could mean one could just say, "I did NOT 'want' to kill that individual", (which they just KILLED), and to you that would be a so-called 'free, or unbiased, decision', which they would NOT be 'responsible' for, the KILLING of 'that individual'.

[bahman]

But having 'doubt' could MEAN that I AM BIASED.

No, if you are biased then you are certain about the situation.

So, to you, those who are 'biased' that 'God exists' are CERTAIN, about that situation, AND, those who are 'biased' that 'God does NOT exist' are ALSO CERTAIN, about the situation, correct?

And/or are these people NOT 'biased', by THEIR BELIEFS?

You cannot be certain and have doubts at the same time.

So, this would suggest that those who are CERTAIN that 'God exists' do NOT have DOUBTS, at the same time, AND, that those who are CERTAIN that 'God does NOT exist', do NOT have DOUBTS, as the same time, ALSO, correct?

This MEANS that you either are CERTAIN about your answer here, without DOUBT, or you are now DOUBTING your CLAIM here and are NOT certain.

We are talking about decisions and not God's existence. But the answer to your question is yes, you cannot have doubt and be certain at the same time.

[bahman]

What I dislike about Bahman’s example of a free choice is it actually removes any possibility of responsibility. If you make a choice completely at random, that is without any prior motivation, you cannot be held responsible. There was nothing you could have done to make a better choice given the same scenario.

A decision is either biased or not, namely a non-free decision or a free decision. The free decision looks random from a third-person perspective but there is this element of wanting from the first-person perspective which makes you responsible for your decision.

This could mean one could just say, "I did NOT 'want' to kill that individual", (which they just KILLED), and to you that would be a so-called 'free, or unbiased, decision', which they would NOT be 'responsible' for, the KILLING of 'that individual'.

No, it does not mean that since you are free.

[Age]

No, if you are biased then you are certain about the situation.

So, to you, those who are 'biased' that 'God exists' are CERTAIN, about that situation, AND, those who are 'biased' that 'God does NOT exist' are ALSO CERTAIN, about the situation, correct?

And/or are these people NOT 'biased', by THEIR BELIEFS?

You cannot be certain and have doubts at the same time.

So, this would suggest that those who are CERTAIN that 'God exists' do NOT have DOUBTS, at the same time, AND, that those who are CERTAIN that 'God does NOT exist', do NOT have DOUBTS, as the same time, ALSO, correct?

This MEANS that you either are CERTAIN about your answer here, without DOUBT, or you are now DOUBTING your CLAIM here and are NOT certain.

We are talking about decisions and not God's existence. But the answer to your question is yes, you cannot have doubt and be certain at the same time.

ONCE AGAIN you have TWISTED and DISTORTED things around HOPING that they will WORK for YOUR ABSOLUTELY FIXED BELIEF here.

NO one said you CAN have doubt AND be certain at the same time.

You SAID, if you are biased then you are certain about the situation.

I just SHOWED that this IS False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. For ANOTHER example, I could be BIASED to go down the left hand fork in the road because I THINK it will be a quicker way to get to my destination, BUT I am certain NOT SURE. So, DOUBT exists WITH this situation.

[Age]

A decision is either biased or not, namely a non-free decision or a free decision. The free decision looks random from a third-person perspective but there is this element of wanting from the first-person perspective which makes you responsible for your decision.

This could mean one could just say, "I did NOT 'want' to kill that individual", (which they just KILLED), and to you that would be a so-called 'free, or unbiased, decision', which they would NOT be 'responsible' for, the KILLING of 'that individual'.

No, it does not mean that since you are free.

TWISTED and DISTORTED BABBLE, AGAIN.