Does the "Free Will" point of view affect morals and character?

[Belinda]

That is not what he is saying.
Nothing is random. Things are unpredictable, being so complex it is hard to predict outcomes. We know this from the most simple throw of the dice. But if we could control all the parameters we could predict with 100% certainly the outcome.
So every choice in the same way, almost impossible to predict from the outside despite it being deterministic.
If randomness was true the universe would be an utterly different place.
We rely on determinism for the earth to go round the sun, and the moon the earth.
The slightest hint of randonmess and we are all screwed.

From dictionary.com

proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:
the random selection of numbers.
Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

All choices are compounded of choice (reasoned) and chance(random). It's because the future is unpredictable that we have to make random guesses mixed in with reasoned judgement. We rely more on guesses when the situation is less urgent. For instance we don't fly aeroplanes unless the probability is high. When we have to make a choice concerning child education we can afford to take larger chances than when we are brain surgeons.


Wizard is correct about probabilities inasmuch as he has explained, although there is more to probability than W has said.

Randomness in making choices would be absolute if absolute Free Will were the case, as reasoned judgment depends on some knowledge of circumstances. But voluntary decisions are never absolutely free of circumstances, not even in the case of the maddest gambler.

No.
There is unpredictable but nothing is random. It does not matter what a dictionary says. The dictionary has many definitions of other fantasy concepts like god. But it is up to us as practicing humans to sort out the weeds and the chaff.
I've never anyone try to deny the concept of freewill by saying that randomness makes it impossible. I have heard the converse - that randomness allows us to steer the "swerve" as Epicurus might has put it.
THere is uncetainly, but only through ignorance of the muliplicity of causality.
Voluntary decisions are determined. They are absolutely not free of any circumstances, as all causal factors determine the sum of the outcomes. Our intentions are just one of a multitude of factors, that does not amount to true randomness, anymore than it can amount to true freedom. Even when we are not compelled by an external force they are still present at hand, and there are many endogenous causal factors that we are unconcsious of. But stuff does not just happen for no cause. We might have our reasons , but that is only half the picture. As we press our choice other factors impinge. This can be as simple as the need to breath or the fact that we do not have the strength to carry something through, or we might find oursleves overstretch physically or mentally.
We are not free, but we can sometimes say we are not forced to act. But it would be a very different world if stuff happened randomly as if there was no cause.

I agree. However I am addressing the question of absolute Free Will.A lot of people believe in absolute Free Will, and this is not only an immoral belief it's also illogical.
I don't think I ever claimed that randomness makes absolute Free Will impossible. I claim that an absolute Free Will choice would be the same as random choice, and therefore it's not free at all. As a matter of fact what frees a chooser is knowledge and wisdom which aid better predictions.

[Sculptor]

From dictionary.com

All choices are compounded of choice (reasoned) and chance(random). It's because the future is unpredictable that we have to make random guesses mixed in with reasoned judgement. We rely more on guesses when the situation is less urgent. For instance we don't fly aeroplanes unless the probability is high. When we have to make a choice concerning child education we can afford to take larger chances than when we are brain surgeons.


Wizard is correct about probabilities inasmuch as he has explained, although there is more to probability than W has said.

Randomness in making choices would be absolute if absolute Free Will were the case, as reasoned judgment depends on some knowledge of circumstances. But voluntary decisions are never absolutely free of circumstances, not even in the case of the maddest gambler.

No.
There is unpredictable but nothing is random. It does not matter what a dictionary says. The dictionary has many definitions of other fantasy concepts like god. But it is up to us as practicing humans to sort out the weeds and the chaff.
I've never anyone try to deny the concept of freewill by saying that randomness makes it impossible. I have heard the converse - that randomness allows us to steer the "swerve" as Epicurus might has put it.
THere is uncetainly, but only through ignorance of the muliplicity of causality.
Voluntary decisions are determined. They are absolutely not free of any circumstances, as all causal factors determine the sum of the outcomes. Our intentions are just one of a multitude of factors, that does not amount to true randomness, anymore than it can amount to true freedom. Even when we are not compelled by an external force they are still present at hand, and there are many endogenous causal factors that we are unconcsious of. But stuff does not just happen for no cause. We might have our reasons , but that is only half the picture. As we press our choice other factors impinge. This can be as simple as the need to breath or the fact that we do not have the strength to carry something through, or we might find oursleves overstretch physically or mentally.
We are not free, but we can sometimes say we are not forced to act. But it would be a very different world if stuff happened randomly as if there was no cause.

I agree. However I am addressing the question of absolute Free Will.
I don't think I ever claimed that randomness makes absolute Free Will impossible. I claim that an absolute Free Will choice would be the same as random choice, and therefore it's not free at all. As a matter of fact what frees a chooser is knowledge and wisdom which aid better predictions.

In other words free will is impossible as that would have to entail a random or arbitrary connection between a situation and an outcome?
Because absolute free will would place us in a siutation where we could somehow be able to overcome our own volition and desire.

Usually random, determined and freedom are three points at opposition.

[Belinda]

No.
There is unpredictable but nothing is random. It does not matter what a dictionary says. The dictionary has many definitions of other fantasy concepts like god. But it is up to us as practicing humans to sort out the weeds and the chaff.
I've never anyone try to deny the concept of freewill by saying that randomness makes it impossible. I have heard the converse - that randomness allows us to steer the "swerve" as Epicurus might has put it.
THere is uncetainly, but only through ignorance of the muliplicity of causality.
Voluntary decisions are determined. They are absolutely not free of any circumstances, as all causal factors determine the sum of the outcomes. Our intentions are just one of a multitude of factors, that does not amount to true randomness, anymore than it can amount to true freedom. Even when we are not compelled by an external force they are still present at hand, and there are many endogenous causal factors that we are unconcsious of. But stuff does not just happen for no cause. We might have our reasons , but that is only half the picture. As we press our choice other factors impinge. This can be as simple as the need to breath or the fact that we do not have the strength to carry something through, or we might find oursleves overstretch physically or mentally.
We are not free, but we can sometimes say we are not forced to act. But it would be a very different world if stuff happened randomly as if there was no cause.

I agree. However I am addressing the question of absolute Free Will.
I don't think I ever claimed that randomness makes absolute Free Will impossible. I claim that an absolute Free Will choice would be the same as random choice, and therefore it's not free at all. As a matter of fact what frees a chooser is knowledge and wisdom which aid better predictions.

In other words free will is impossible as that would have to entail a random or arbitrary connection between a situation and an outcome?
Because absolute free will would place us in a siutation where we could somehow be able to overcome our own volition and desire.

Usually random, determined and freedom are three points at opposition.

Yes that's it.

[popeye1945]

I agree. However, I am addressing the question of absolute Free Will.
I don't think I ever claimed that randomness makes absolute Free Will impossible. I claim that an absolute Free Will choice would be the same as random choice, and therefore it's not free at all. As a matter of fact, what frees a chooser is knowledge and wisdom which aid better predictions.

In other words, free will is impossible as that would have to entail a random or arbitrary connection between a situation and an outcome?
Because absolute free will would place us in a situation where we could somehow be able to overcome our own volition and desire.

Usually random, determined and freedom are three points at opposition.

Yes that's it.

I second it, excellent Sculptor!!

[Sculptor]

Marvelous!!

It is a wonder that we three agree!!

The Three Musketeers of Determinism

[Iwannaplato]

Circumstances don't have a reality of their own without a conscious subject, a circumstance is an evaluation.

Circumstances have no reality with a conscious subject. Circumstances are evaluations.
Conscious subjects evaluate.

How can humans only be reactive?
Other parts of reaity do not exist unless humans (and other organisms, presumably) evaluate.
Evaluate is an active verb. There is nothing there without this evaluating taking place. There is nothing there to react to.
In fact circumstances arose when the first consciousness arose. They were caused by the existence of that consciousness and its evaluation.
Seems very active/proactive.

[Sculptor]

Circumstances don't have a reality of their own without a conscious subject, a circumstance is an evaluation.

Circumstances have no reality with a conscious subject. Circumstances are evaluations.
Conscious subjects evaluate.

How can humans only be reactive?
Other parts of reaity do not exist unless humans (and other organisms, presumably) evaluate.
Evaluate is an active verb. There is nothing there without this evaluating taking place. There is nothing there to react to.
In fact circumstances arose when the first consciousness arose. They were caused by the existence of that consciousness and its evaluation.
Seems very active/proactive.

There is a difference between recognising that come "circumstances" are apprehanded subjectively whilst having "objective" aspect, and thinking that no circumstance ever exist without perception. Circumstnces do not self create on the moment of perception. We can find stuff that is already there. And they certianly have "reality with a conscious subject".

[Iwannaplato]

There is a difference between recognising that come "circumstances" are apprehanded subjectively whilst having "objective" aspect, and thinking that no circumstance ever exist without perception. Circumstnces do not self create on the moment of perception. We can find stuff that is already there. And they certianly have "reality with a conscious subject".

It's not clear to me what popeye means.

[Flannel Jesus]

There is a difference between recognising that come "circumstances" are apprehanded subjectively whilst having "objective" aspect, and thinking that no circumstance ever exist without perception. Circumstnces do not self create on the moment of perception. We can find stuff that is already there. And they certianly have "reality with a conscious subject".

It's not clear to me what popeye means.

I'd hazard a guess that it's how he defines "circumstance". Perhaps a circumstance is the word for a subjective interpretation of the environment you find yourself to him, or something like that.

[Wizard22]

A 'Cause' is a subjective hypothesis of origin of sequences of events, effects, and consequences.

Since it is subjective, and a hypothesis, there are no "Objective Causes" in Nature. Because there is no Objective sense of time. There is no "Universal Origin".

The very act of these hypotheses, "Determining Causes", means that Determination is a subjective process. Determinations (postulating Causes) are estimations of forces in nature.


Because they are estimations, they are not certain. Because they are not certain, they are open to Risk/Error/Flaw/Irrationality and the like.

To Determine a Cause, is always a risk...that you are wrong, inaccurate, fallible, unknowing.

This is the basis of Choice, upon which "Determining Causes" extends from. It is a Choice.


You must act in spite of Not Knowing the future, your subjective errors, your blind-spot, improbabilities, and everything in life.

This is your "Absolute Free-Will" or "Libertine Free-Will" in Action. It is not Re-actionary. It is Pro-active, forward facing, into the future, into the unknown.

[phyllo]

A 'Cause' is a subjective hypothesis of origin of sequences of events, effects, and consequences.

Since it is subjective, and a hypothesis, there are no "Objective Causes" in Nature. Because there is no Objective sense of time. There is no "Universal Origin".

The very act of these hypotheses, "Determining Causes", means that Determination is a subjective process. Determinations (postulating Causes) are estimations of forces in nature.


Because they are estimations, they are not certain. Because they are not certain, they are open to Risk/Error/Flaw/Irrationality and the like.

To Determine a Cause, is always a risk...that you are wrong, inaccurate, fallible, unknowing.

This is the basis of Choice, upon which "Determining Causes" extends from. It is a Choice.


You must act in spite of Not Knowing the future, your subjective errors, your blind-spot, improbabilities, and everything in life.

This is your "Absolute Free-Will" or "Libertine Free-Will" in Action. It is not Re-actionary. It is Pro-active, forward facing, into the future, into the unknown.

Good to know that science is subjective.

[Iwannaplato]

There is a difference between recognising that come "circumstances" are apprehanded subjectively whilst having "objective" aspect, and thinking that no circumstance ever exist without perception. Circumstnces do not self create on the moment of perception. We can find stuff that is already there. And they certianly have "reality with a conscious subject".

It's not clear to me what popeye means.

I'd hazard a guess that it's how he defines "circumstance". Perhaps a circumstance is the word for a subjective interpretation of the environment you find yourself to him, or something like that.

OK, but I'd still like to question how this fits with being only reactive. To subjectively interpret is active. And likely you were in some kind of movement, if only that caused by your breathing and microsaccades/small eye movements, desires are welling up from within your organism. You are actively scanning and creating the circumstances (or co-creating them via interpretation/senses/memory/etc. I don't see that as reactive. That seems active to me.

Even if you are not actually creating the room, you are actively creating the interpretation of the room you are in. You have momentum, needs, desires, curiosity, and so on as part of your organism driving you.

It's not so much that I think he is an antirealist, it's how what he said and has said in earlier posts that I think fits uneasily with only being reactve. And just to be clear: I am not arguing the opposite position that we are only pro-active. I see a mix.

The very circumstances we react to, when we are reacting, we have created, in part, via interpretation.

[Flannel Jesus]

It can be argued that that interpretation is a reactive interaction between the environment and your mind, I guess

Again, I wouldn't choose that wording but I sort of see where he might be coming from

[Iwannaplato]

It can be argued that that interpretation is a reactive interaction between the environment and your mind, I guess

It could be, but then some part of the circumstances was there before you got to it and started interpreting. And not just 'out there' but already triggering you.

Again, I wouldn't choose that wording but I sort of see where he might be coming from

If there are no circumstances without perception, then there is no circumstance affecting you vbefore you are making/creating/interpreting. I think something has to give.

I suppose I have always though there was something off about humans are only reactive. It reminds me of the typical idea of determinism that external causes compel us to do things. But organisms have their own momentum, and in some sense it seems to me what he is saying about circumstances indicates he thinks of it this way also.

Let me come at it another way.

Is the universe as a whole active?

If one thinks it is, that it is changing due to internal flows and causes, then we, as a part of it, are also active. It seems to me the whole thing is active. If the universe is not active, what is it reacting to?

If everything is reactive, then there is no concept active. But it seems to me there is action, there is a propulsion forward, a development. I see us as a part of that.

Note: this is not an argument for free will.

It's against seeing us as passive until stimulated. It may feel that way to our conscious self sometimes, we can sort of pretend that internal causes and flows are not us. But the organism is active, not just reactive.

It seemed to me that since he is saying that circumstances (which seems like another word for experiences at least, if not reality itself) are caused by us, in part or in whole, then we are active.

[Age]

It can be argued that that interpretation is a reactive interaction between the environment and your mind, I guess

It could be, but then some part of the circumstances was there before you got to it and started interpreting. And not just 'out there' but already triggering you.

Again, I wouldn't choose that wording but I sort of see where he might be coming from

If there are no circumstances without perception, then there is no circumstance affecting you vbefore you are making/creating/interpreting. I think something has to give.

I suppose I have always though there was something off about humans are only reactive. It reminds me of the typical idea of determinism that external causes compel us to do things. But organisms have their own momentum, and in some sense it seems to me what he is saying about circumstances indicates he thinks of it this way also.

Let me come at it another way.

Is the universe as a whole active?

But what a 'car' or a 'horse', for example, do as a whole does NOT necessarily mean that the parts, of the whole, do the EXACT SAME 'thing'.

If one thinks it is, that it is changing due to internal flows and causes, then we, as a part of it, are also active.

But even 'changing due to internal flows and causes' MEANS that 'the one, or the whole', IS being 'reactive', and NOT necessarily 'active' AT ALL.

It seems to me the whole thing is active.

What do 'you' mean by 'active' here?

A 'volcano', for example, is 'active' when 'it' is erupting. But, 'the volcano' did NOT 'just erupt' for NO 'reason' AT ALL. The volcano erupted BECAUSE of the 'internal flows and causes', which, literally, CAUSED 'it' to erupt, or REACT.

If the universe is not active, what is it reacting to?

Are 'you' SURE 'you' want to USE the 'active' word here?

'Active' can just mean 'moving' and/or 'changing'. Now, OF COURSE, the Universe is 'active', 'changing', AND 'moving' ALL THE TIME.

And, if the Universe was NOT 'active' in 'this way, then 'It' would NOT be 'reacting' AT ALL.

If everything is reactive, then there is no concept active.

Yes there is. I just GAVE a couple of 'concepts' above here.

But it seems to me there is action, there is a propulsion forward, a development. I see us as a part of that.

OF COURSE there IS 'action', just like there IS 'reaction', just like there IS 'active', and just like there is 'not active'.

So what if there IS 'a propulsion forward, a development' and that 'you' see 'you' as a part of 'that'?

This does NOT mean that ALL of 'that' is just A REACTION, nor just A REACTIVE movement, propulsion forward, a development.

ALL of 'things' JUST HAPPEN, collectively together, as One.

Note: this is not an argument for free will.

WHY NOT.

What 'you' ARE SAYING here could be construed as 'you' ARE SAYING and SUGGESTING that there is NOT necessarily 'determinism', but there IS ACTUALLY 'free will'.

BECAUSE it is 'you' who is 'trying to' SAY and CLAIM here that NOT ALL is 'reactive', which would MEAN that there IS some 'starter', 'beginner', 'actor', or 'free will creator' here, which ONLY "other things" react to.

It's against seeing us as passive until stimulated. It may feel that way to our conscious self sometimes, we can sort of pretend that internal causes and flows are not us. But the organism is active, not just reactive.

What organism?

Do 'you' have 'one' here which 'you' are thinking ABOUT specifically?

Or, are 'you' just referring to ALL 'organisms'?

It seemed to me that since he is saying that circumstances (which seems like another word for experiences at least, if not reality itself) are caused by us, in part or in whole, then we are active.