Evolution and free will

[Sculptor]

But a feeling of free will cannot do anything unless it has a causal effect, in another word free will has to be real.

Not ontic and absolute free will, but the feeling of free will is real. It's a real feeling, as you and I can attest to.This feeling affects cerebral choices in the sense that its opposite, powerlessness, would render us ineffectual and we would die.


Deterministic idea? What does that even mean?

The claim that God is a deterministic idea means that God is the uncaused cause of all events bar none. This is what is meant by the metaphor of God as the ground of being.

The uncaused cause is a being.

Impossible.

[popeye1945]

[Posted in response to Age]

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will. Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. If an organism must be motivated, the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment, and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.
Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will. Too many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

Taking a broad view, your words suggest a determined universe. In that sense, your universe is static, in the sense that there is never any action, never anything unexpected or unplanned. It is all predicted and predictable. The creation of the universe, however that came about, is the Original Cause. All subsequent events follow unavoidably from this Cause. Is that a reasonable interpretation of your words, and your position?

Each reaction is a cause as each cause is a reaction, if we could know of a first cause then all that followed would be a chain reaction the complexity of which would make it impossible to know if anything is determined but common sense tells us that all organisms are reactive creatures to the physical world just as the world is a reaction to the cosmos. Survival depends upon biological reaction to the larger reality of the physical world we are functional aspects of that greater whole. Our knowledge of our given situation is very limited but free will is not a rational conclusion. Even the diseases organisms are subject to are reactions to physical injury, chemical or biological intrusion of the body and we have a reactive immune system to deal with intrusions of most kinds. Humanity has as yet not accomplished its own self control, and it looks very much that this will be its demise. In the face of such complexity little is solid knowledge, but most assuredly free will could never be our reality.

[Age]

The fact that all creatures are reactionary is in direct opposition to the idea of free will.

WHY?

What is the EXACT 'idea' of 'free will, to you?

One can choose among choices how one will react to one's environment but one cannot not react, for even considered inaction is a reaction to the environment. The environment is cause to all reactionary organisms, just as their reactions cause to the outer world and its fellows.

And what EXACTLY is the point, which you would like to make here?

Age,

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will.

"popeye1945",

I asked you to inform us of what exactly is the 'idea' of 'free will' to you. So, before you TELL us that if all organisms are reactive creatures, then 'that' "trashes the idea of free will", how about you TELL us about what, EXACTLY, is the 'idea' of 'free will'? Is that fair enough?

In case you are NOT YET AWARE, 'your idea' of 'free will' is NOT necessarily the 'same idea' of 'free will' that "others" have or hold. So, until you explain to us what YOUR 'idea' of 'free will' is I, for one, have absolutely NO idea of what 'idea' of 'free will' is, EXACTLY, which you CLAIM here is ALREADY 'trashed' by your claim that IF all organisms are reactive creatures, then THAT 'idea' of 'free will' IS 'trashed'.

Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction.

I will make this LOUD and CLEAR. To me, the 'idea' of 'free will' does NOT 'infer' ANY thing. To me, 'free will' (or the 'idea' of 'free will') refers to a VERY SPECIFIC 'thing'.

Now, you claim here that there is ABSOLUTELY NO such thing as human action, which, to me, I infer that you are claiming that absolutely EVERY thing that humans do is just a 'reaction'. But this leaves me to then wonder if there is ANY such thing as 'action' AT ALL. To you, is there ANY such thing as 'action'?

If yes, then WHERE, WHEN, and WHAT is 'that action'?

But if there is absolutely NO 'action' anyway, then WHY even bring 'it' into a discussion/argument?

If an organism must be motivated the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.

Is there ANY 'thing', to you, that IS 'an action'?

If no, then just SAY SO.

Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will.

Thank you for FINALLY informing us of what the 'idea' of 'free will' means, or refers to, to you.

Now, if 'free will' infers the above here, to you, then, OBVIOUSLY, there is NO such thing as 'free will', to you.

End of story.

However, would you like to explain to us if there is/was 'an action' AT ALL?

And, if, to you, there is/was NO 'action' AT ALL, then you do agree and accept that the Universe is eternal, correct?

If no, then would you like to explain the CONTRADICTION and INCONSISTENCY here?

To many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

When people have or hold the 'idea' of 'free will', which you do here, then this way of LOOKING AT and SEEING things here occurs.

[Age]

I think "Age" and "bahman" are people who stop learning.

I am continually learning HOW and WHEN 'you', people, STOP learning.

I see too much ego in theirs comments that make me dont answer.

People SEE 'things', which sometimes are NOT even 'there'. This is BECAUSE of the BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS that they CURRENTLY have or hold onto.

If you would like to bring absolutely ANY thing out in the OPEN, which you SEE here, for us to LOOK AT and SEE, ALSO, then we can have a PROPER DISCUSSION. Until then, there is absolutely NOTHING backing and supporting YOUR VIEW here. Well not from my perspective in regards to me anyway.

Also, I see that the reason you do NOT just answer OPENLY and Honestly is because you are afraid to or because you would just CONTRADICT "yourself", which you do not want to do.

[Age]

Why does evolution grant such a feeling, having free will, if it is an illusion?

Evolution is a passive and mindless process, without volition, or the ability to "grant" anything. Also, it seems to me there is a huge abstract gap between evolution and free will, to the extent that it's difficult to see any clear connection between them.

Free will is absolutely unnecessary in a deterministic world so why should we have it? No need to say that our world is not always deterministic because of the existence of options.

OK, then I won't. If we have free will, then it doesn't matter if you think it "unnecessary", does it? But you ask anyway, "why should we have it?"

The trouble with "why" questions is that they can only be answered if their context is completely known and understood. Completely. If the context is fully known and understood, then the answer to the "why" question is obvious; it follows directly from the question and its context.

EXTREMELY GREAT and WISE observation 'you' have made here "pattern-chaser".

But your question contains quite a few unknowns and assumptions.

A BIG ASSUMPTION is 'this world' is a SOLELY 'deterministic world'.

As for what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, then this is KNOWN, and NOT UNKNOWN AT ALL, well to me anyway.

Do we have it (free will)? What is it? I.e. what is it that "free will" gives us freedom to do, and what are we not free to do, even if we do have free will? Those will do to be going on with...

To me;

Human beings have 'free will'.

What 'free will' is, is just the ability to choose.

What 'free will' gives human beings is the ability to choose. NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS. 'Free will' gives human beings this FREEDOM, TO CHOOSE.

What human beings are NOT 'free' to do is TO CHOOSE from things that are NOT YET KNOWN. For example, human beings were NOT, in the days when this was being written anyway, 'free' to 'choose' to 'time-travel' (as it was misinterpreted wrongly) because they had NOT YET, back then, obtained the knowledge to 'choose' from this soon to become option.

See, 'free will' only allows human beings to CHOOSE from the knowledge that they have already gathered and obtained. So, human beings are 'limited' in this way. Human beings, obviously, can NOT 'choose' from thoughts/knowledge, which does NOT YET exist within 'them'. But, as evolution NEVER STOPS, human beings keep LEARNING and so keep GATHERING and OBTAINING more and more knowledge/thoughts.

[Age]

[Posted in response to Age]

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will. Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. If an organism must be motivated, the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment, and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.
Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will. Too many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

Taking a broad view, your words suggest a determined universe. In that sense, your universe is static, in the sense that there is never any action, never anything unexpected or unplanned. It is all predicted and predictable. The creation of the universe, however that came about, is the Original Cause. All subsequent events follow unavoidably from this Cause. Is that a reasonable interpretation of your words, and your position?

BUT, there can NOT be 'a creation' of the Universe if there is ONLY 'reaction' and absolutely NO 'action'.

[Age]

I see too much ego in theirs comments that make me dont answer.

Yes, I see ego, anger, contempt and ill-will, personal insults, and so on.

I could say I see stupidity, fear, superiority complex, strong hostility, disrespect, abuse, and more, in your comments. BUT, without providing absolutely ANY thing, which backs up and supports my views, then, REALLY, I am saying and doing absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

If you do NOT provide absolutely ANY thing backs up and supports your view here, which you OBVIOUSLY have NOT YET, then 'it' exists within 'you' or within 'your' IMAGINATION, ONLY.

And, the VERY REASON WHY you do NOT provide absolutely ANY evidence NOR proof here is BECAUSE absolutely NONE exists.

More to the point, I see no philosophy.

If I was to ask you, what does the word 'philosophy' even mean, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Then, would you answer and CLARIFY this?

If no, then WHY NOT?

If yes, then JUST DO IT.

I'm puzzled that the moderators here don't, er, moderate such behaviour.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Just because you made the CLAIM that you see 'such behavior', this does NOT mean 'such behavior' EXISTS. And, the FACT that you HAVE NOT and WILL NOT provide ANY supporting evidence for what you CLAIM to 'see', is just MORE supporting PROOF that what you 'see' does NOT even exist anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the reason WHY most posters are STILL HERE in this forum is because this IS a relatively 'free of speech' website. Just about ANY thing can be said and written and it will NOT be moderated.

Does this forum even have (active) moderators?

Again, if it did, then most of us would not still be here.

Now, are you BRAVE enough to provide absolutely ANY thing, which MIGHT back up and support YOUR CLAIMS and VIEWS here? Or, are you going to keep HIDING BEHIND your CLAIMS ONLY, and, laughably, 'try to' gain support from "others" by writing the way you just did here?

[Age]

I see too much ego in theirs comments that make me dont answer.

Yes, I see ego, anger, contempt and ill-will, personal insults, and so on. More to the point, I see no philosophy. I'm puzzled that the moderators here don't, er, moderate such behaviour. Does this forum even have (active) moderators?

Yes there is moderation.
But you will find it quite open minded.
Death threats are out!
Anger and contempt is regarded as normal cut and thrust.

And, SOME PERCEIVED 'anger and contempt' exists ONLY, within some people only, from just seeing some words written with capitalized letters, which, actually, is MORE absurd and ludicrous than it actually sounds.

[Age]

I think "Age" and "bahman" are people who stop learning.

I see too much ego in theirs comments that make me dont answer.

In my experience Age does not read, or cannot read what he does not like to hear.

Would be prepared to provide an example of where I have, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT read, or have NOT read, what I, SUPPOSEDLY, do not like to here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

What is STOPPING you from providing ANY actual support for YOUR VIEW and CLAIM here?

Oh, and by the way, I SEE posters here NOT reading and NOT SEEING what I am actually WRITING, and MEANING. Even though I write some words with capitalized letters, in order to actually EMPHASIZE those words.

Bahman has zero ability to counter, but he does read what you write, but may fail to understand some points.

[Age]

The claim that God is a deterministic idea means that God is the uncaused cause of all events bar none. This is what is meant by the metaphor of God as the ground of being.

The uncaused cause is a being.

Impossible.

AGREE.

The so-called "uncaused cause" is just an ATTEMPT by those so-called "scientists" and/or "religious" people who ASSUME or BELIEVE that the Universe BEGAN.

Which, by the way, is an IMPOSSIBILITY, logically AND empirically/physically, to even just BEGIN WITH.

[Age]

[Posted in response to Age]

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will. Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. If an organism must be motivated, the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment, and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.
Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will. Too many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

Taking a broad view, your words suggest a determined universe. In that sense, your universe is static, in the sense that there is never any action, never anything unexpected or unplanned. It is all predicted and predictable. The creation of the universe, however that came about, is the Original Cause. All subsequent events follow unavoidably from this Cause. Is that a reasonable interpretation of your words, and your position?

Each reaction is a cause as each cause is a reaction, if we could know of a first cause

There could NEVER be a so-called "first cause". So, you could NEVER know of some Wrongly PRESUMED "first cause".

then all that followed would be a chain reaction the complexity of which would make it impossible to know if anything is determined but common sense tells us that all organisms are reactive creatures to the physical world just as the world is a reaction to the cosmos.

And what is the 'cosmos' a 'reaction' to, EXACTLY?

Survival depends upon biological reaction to the larger reality of the physical world we are functional aspects of that greater whole. Our knowledge of our given situation is very limited but free will is not a rational conclusion.

'Free will' is NOT a 'rational conclusion' BECAUSE 'your idea' of 'free will' is just plain old IRRATIONAL, itself.

Even the diseases organisms are subject to are reactions to physical injury, chemical or biological intrusion of the body and we have a reactive immune system to deal with intrusions of most kinds. Humanity has as yet not accomplished its own self control, and it looks very much that this will be its demise. In the face of such complexity little is solid knowledge, but most assuredly free will could never be our reality.

OF COURSE YOUR VERY OWN definition of 'free will' could NEVER be 'our', 'your', NOR A 'reality'.

See, what is here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of WHERE and WHEN has or holds a VIEW or BELIEF of some thing, for example, 'free will' does NOT exist, AND THEN just goes out to "FIND" 'that', which will back up and support that one's currently HELD BELIEF or ASSUMPTION.

Which is just ANOTHER 'reactionary' process commonly known as CONFIRMATION BIAS.

[popeye1945]

WHY?

What is the EXACT 'idea' of 'free will, to you?


And what EXACTLY is the point, which you would like to make here?

Age,

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will.

"popeye1945",

I asked you to inform us of what exactly is the 'idea' of 'free will' to you. So, before you TELL us that if all organisms are reactive creatures, then 'that' "trashes the idea of free will", how about you TELL us about what, EXACTLY, is the 'idea' of 'free will'? Is that fair enough?

In case you are NOT YET AWARE, 'your idea' of 'free will' is NOT necessarily the 'same idea' of 'free will' that "others" have or hold. So, until you explain to us what YOUR 'idea' of 'free will' is I, for one, have absolutely NO idea of what 'idea' of 'free will' is, EXACTLY, which you CLAIM here is ALREADY 'trashed' by your claim that IF all organisms are reactive creatures, then THAT 'idea' of 'free will' IS 'trashed'.

Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction.

I will make this LOUD and CLEAR. To me, the 'idea' of 'free will' does NOT 'infer' ANY thing. To me, 'free will' (or the 'idea' of 'free will') refers to a VERY SPECIFIC 'thing'.

Now, you claim here that there is ABSOLUTELY NO such thing as human action, which, to me, I infer that you are claiming that absolutely EVERY thing that humans do is just a 'reaction'. But this leaves me to then wonder if there is ANY such thing as 'action' AT ALL. To you, is there ANY such thing as 'action'?

If yes, then WHERE, WHEN, and WHAT is 'that action'?
But if there is absolutely NO 'action' anyway, then WHY even bring 'it' into a discussion/argument?

If an organism must be motivated the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.

Is there ANY 'thing', to you, that IS 'an action'?

If no, then just SAY SO.

Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will.

Thank you for FINALLY informing us of what the 'idea' of 'free will' means, or refers to, to you.

Now, if 'free will' infers the above here, to you, then, OBVIOUSLY, there is NO such thing as 'free will', to you.

End of story.

However, would you like to explain to us if there is/was 'an action' AT ALL?

And, if, to you, there is/was NO 'action' AT ALL, then you do agree and accept that the Universe is eternal, correct?

If no, then would you like to explain the CONTRADICTION and INCONSISTENCY here?

To many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

When people have or hold the 'idea' of 'free will', which you do here, then this way of LOOKING AT and SEEING things here occurs.

Age,

No, there is no such thing as action there is cause and effect and this is the motor that runs the show. All creatures being reactive to the higher reality of the physical world react to it and when they do, this is experienced as cause in the physical world and the physical world then reacts in the form of changing its nature in some incremental degree/s The idea of action is an egotistic illusion, giving humanity an unrealistic idea of its powers and it's significance to the world. This wrong-headed idea has given us the disaster of climate change and the degradation of the environment in general. It is humanity's disrespect to its larger self which is its physical environment. I felt a need to bring the term action into the dialogue simply because there is no other way to discredit the term.

[popeye1945]

WHY?

What is the EXACT 'idea' of 'free will, to you?


And what EXACTLY is the point, which you would like to make here?

Age,

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will.

"popeye1945",

I asked you to inform us of what exactly is the 'idea' of 'free will' to you. So, before you TELL us that if all organisms are reactive creatures, then 'that' "trashes the idea of free will", how about you TELL us about what, EXACTLY, is the 'idea' of 'free will'? Is that fair enough?

In case you are NOT YET AWARE, 'your idea' of 'free will' is NOT necessarily the 'same idea' of 'free will' that "others" have or hold. So, until you explain to us what YOUR 'idea' of 'free will' is I, for one, have absolutely NO idea of what 'idea' of 'free will' is, EXACTLY, which you CLAIM here is ALREADY 'trashed' by your claim that IF all organisms are reactive creatures, then THAT 'idea' of 'free will' IS 'trashed'.

Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction.

I will make this LOUD and CLEAR. To me, the 'idea' of 'free will' does NOT 'infer' ANY thing. To me, 'free will' (or the 'idea' of 'free will') refers to a VERY SPECIFIC 'thing'.

Now, you claim here that there is ABSOLUTELY NO such thing as human action, which, to me, I infer that you are claiming that absolutely EVERY thing that humans do is just a 'reaction'. But this leaves me to then wonder if there is ANY such thing as 'action' AT ALL. To you, is there ANY such thing as 'action'?

If yes, then WHERE, WHEN, and WHAT is 'that action'?
But if there is absolutely NO 'action' anyway, then WHY even bring 'it' into a discussion/argument?

If an organism must be motivated the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.

Is there ANY 'thing', to you, that IS 'an action'?

If no, then just SAY SO.

Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will.

Thank you for FINALLY informing us of what the 'idea' of 'free will' means, or refers to, to you.

Now, if 'free will' infers the above here, to you, then, OBVIOUSLY, there is NO such thing as 'free will', to you.

End of story.

However, would you like to explain to us if there is/was 'an action' AT ALL?

And, if, to you, there is/was NO 'action' AT ALL, then you do agree and accept that the Universe is eternal, correct?

If no, then would you like to explain the CONTRADICTION and INCONSISTENCY here?

To many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

When people have or hold the 'idea' of 'free will', which you do here, then this way of LOOKING AT and SEEING things here occurs.

Age,

No, there is no such thing as action there is cause and effect and this is the motor that runs the show. All creatures being reactive to the higher reality of the physical world react to it and when they do, this is experienced as cause in the physical world and the physical world then reacts in the form of changing its nature in some incremental degree/s The idea of action is an egotistic illusion, giving humanity an unrealistic idea of its powers and it's significance to the world. This wrong-headed idea has given us the disaster of climate change and the degradation of the environment in general. It is humanity's disrespect to its larger self which is its physical environment. I felt a need to bring the term action into the dialogue simply because there is no other way to discredit the term.

[Belinda]

Age,

As already stated, if all organisms are reactive creatures, that trashes the idea of free will.

"popeye1945",

I asked you to inform us of what exactly is the 'idea' of 'free will' to you. So, before you TELL us that if all organisms are reactive creatures, then 'that' "trashes the idea of free will", how about you TELL us about what, EXACTLY, is the 'idea' of 'free will'? Is that fair enough?

In case you are NOT YET AWARE, 'your idea' of 'free will' is NOT necessarily the 'same idea' of 'free will' that "others" have or hold. So, until you explain to us what YOUR 'idea' of 'free will' is I, for one, have absolutely NO idea of what 'idea' of 'free will' is, EXACTLY, which you CLAIM here is ALREADY 'trashed' by your claim that IF all organisms are reactive creatures, then THAT 'idea' of 'free will' IS 'trashed'.

Free will infers human action, and there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction.

I will make this LOUD and CLEAR. To me, the 'idea' of 'free will' does NOT 'infer' ANY thing. To me, 'free will' (or the 'idea' of 'free will') refers to a VERY SPECIFIC 'thing'.

Now, you claim here that there is ABSOLUTELY NO such thing as human action, which, to me, I infer that you are claiming that absolutely EVERY thing that humans do is just a 'reaction'. But this leaves me to then wonder if there is ANY such thing as 'action' AT ALL. To you, is there ANY such thing as 'action'?

If yes, then WHERE, WHEN, and WHAT is 'that action'?
But if there is absolutely NO 'action' anyway, then WHY even bring 'it' into a discussion/argument?

If an organism must be motivated the very term motivation spells reaction. One is always in reaction to the larger reality of the physical environment and biological evolution is possible by the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures.

Is there ANY 'thing', to you, that IS 'an action'?

If no, then just SAY SO.

Free will to me infers unmotivated cause or human action which is quite impossible, the environment is the cause and organisms are reactionary to that cause, thus, no free will.

Thank you for FINALLY informing us of what the 'idea' of 'free will' means, or refers to, to you.

Now, if 'free will' infers the above here, to you, then, OBVIOUSLY, there is NO such thing as 'free will', to you.

End of story.

However, would you like to explain to us if there is/was 'an action' AT ALL?

And, if, to you, there is/was NO 'action' AT ALL, then you do agree and accept that the Universe is eternal, correct?

If no, then would you like to explain the CONTRADICTION and INCONSISTENCY here?

To many people when puzzled at the actions of their fellows seem to think their actions came out of nowhere, rather than asking themselves what is that individual reacting to.

When people have or hold the 'idea' of 'free will', which you do here, then this way of LOOKING AT and SEEING things here occurs.

Age,

No, there is no such thing as action there is cause and effect and this is the motor that runs the show. All creatures being reactive to the higher reality of the physical world react to it and when they do, this is experienced as cause in the physical world and the physical world then reacts in the form of changing its nature in some incremental degree/s The idea of action is an egotistic illusion, giving humanity an unrealistic idea of its powers and it's significance to the world. This wrong-headed idea has given us the disaster of climate change and the degradation of the environment in general. It is humanity's disrespect to its larger self which is its physical environment. I felt a need to bring the term action into the dialogue simply because there is no other way to discredit the term.

I too favour determinism. Unlike most other animals(insofar as we know other animals) men not only react we reflect on our reactions. This reflective ability which often leads to self control and all manner of self sacrifice, or sometimes to excessive self indulgence, is what is often referred to as "Free Will" .

[popeye1945]

Belinda.

It is a misuse of the term, but then the term is nonsense anyway. As far as reflection goes this is common to all creatures, it is a matter of degree rather than of kind.