Free will is wholly deterministic

[phyllo]

why in Heaven's name would I want to go against what I want, desire, value and have as goals?

Becuz you choose to deny guaranteed pleasure/satisfaction today in anticipation of a possible better benefit tomorrow; becuz your chosen principles conflict with base desire; becuz you choose to demonstrate (to your child, mebbe) the value of honoring obligations that inconvenience you. I imagine there are as many answers to your question as there are free wills.

So you want "to demonstrate the value of honoring obligations" more than some "base desire".

That's not going against your wants. desires or values. The "demonstration" is your primary desire.

It doesn't show free-will.

[henry quirk]

why in Heaven's name would I want to go against what I want, desire, value and have as goals?

Becuz you choose to deny guaranteed pleasure/satisfaction today in anticipation of a possible better benefit tomorrow; becuz your chosen principles conflict with base desire; becuz you choose to demonstrate (to your child, mebbe) the value of honoring obligations that inconvenience you. I imagine there are as many answers to your question as there are free wills.

So you want "to demonstrate the value of honoring obligations" more than some "base desire".

That's not going against your wants. desires or values. The "demonstration" is your primary desire.

It doesn't show free-will.

And they don't think he's actually a very good guy who will help them and support their interests?

As I say: these voters have voted harder over and over and it got them nowhere. They have no faith in the system except as a waning bulwark against the very folks who are supposed to represent them. They see no alternatives. Trump is sugar in the enemy's gas tank for these voters. They don't care about the man or his fitness for office. He's a Big Middie Finger. And while ORANGE MAN takes heat and riles up the enemy, the enemy is largely leavin' these voters alone.

Why would you do that? You have no values that make the choice to do it better than the choice to not do it? sounds very odd.

As I say elsewhere: becuz (I) choose to demonstrate (to [my] child) the value of honoring obligations that inconvenience. And, I must add, I do so with no guarantee the lesson is takin' root. You may say, I'm doin' what I want to; I say I'm doin' what seems best. Not the same thing at all.

[Iwannaplato]

As I say elsewhere: becuz (I) choose to demonstrate (to [my] child) the value of honoring obligations that inconvenience. And, I must add, I do so with no guarantee the lesson is takin' root. You may say, I'm doin' what I want to; I say I'm doin' what seems best. Not the same thing at all.

Seems best. That is a value laden word. It means what seems best for you and your child. You value your child. You want the best for him. That's motivation based precisely on your wants, values, goals.

You may have other wants, goals , values, but they didn't win out. Just as forces in what most people consider dead matter can overcome other forces. Causes, causes, causes.

You just mentioned another motivation based on your values.

[henry quirk]

You just mentioned another motivation based on your values.

No, I laid out, sparingly, why I choose to deny a base appetite.

Causes, causes, causes.

Yes, me, me, me.

[Immanuel Can]

Seems best. That is a value laden word. It means what seems best for you and your child. You value your child. You want the best for him. That's motivation based precisely on your wants, values, goals.

Wants, values and goals are not material entities. They're descriptors of personal, immaterial motivations. So they don't "cause" things in any mechanical or linear sense; rather, they are elements the person takes into account, weighs as he wishes, and arrives at a decision to act. They require a conscious, deciding person to initiate the action.

So you're trying to use free will elements as an explanation of material causality. You've given away the store, in terms of Determinism. You've accepted that human beings can choose among their various inclinings, whether they involve wants, values or goals...all of which can also contradict one another.

For example, I may have the goal of losing weight, the want for ice cream and the value of general fitness. Or I may have the want for company, the goal of independence and the value of social responsibility. There's no automatic agreement between the three, as to which methods tend to which. I have to arbitrate all such situations, using will.

Worse still, for your case, "best" is essentially a blank placeholder. It doesn't tell us anything the person doesn't decide for himself. So "bestness" cannot be itself a motivation: it's indeterminate, apart from the decision made by a free person. I have to decide what is "best" for a given purpose, in a given situation, arbitrating among my various wishes, desires, values, impulses, twinges of conscience, goals (long and short term), and so on.

[Iwannaplato]

Seems best. That is a value laden word. It means what seems best for you and your child. You value your child. You want the best for him. That's motivation based precisely on your wants, values, goals.

Wants, values and goals are not material entities. They're descriptors of personal, immaterial motivations. So they don't "cause" things in any mechanical or linear sense; rather, they are elements the person takes into account, weighs as he wishes, and arrives at a decision to act. They require a conscious, deciding person to initiate the action.

First of all, your criticism of my point does not fit Henry Q's posts. He was saying he was going against his wants values and goals. But he clearly wasn't. He just had a number of them. Just because we have a number of wants and values does not mean that we are not motivated by our values. And for the reasons I said.

The immaterial argument doesn't work. Unless you want to claim that the immaterial cannot cause anything. Which sounds rather like a physicalist talking to a theist. Or a monist talking to a dualist. You don't justify your declaration that they are not physical. But actually I don't even think that word, physical, has any meaning. The meaning of that word keeps changing. I don't care about substance and find physicalists kinda silly, actually. It just means, if you track it historically, stuff they consider real. So, this exception based on substance has no bite for me.

weighs as he wishes

Wishes are like wants and values. Come on.

So you're trying to use free will elements

Your labelling without justification. The immaterial is free will. Our souls cannot influence our bodies. Our minds cannot influence the physical. The non-corporeal deities and angels can't affect the material. You really wanna take that postion?

as an explanation of material causality. You've given away the store, in terms of Determinism. You've accepted that human beings can choose among their various inclinings, whether they involve wants, values or goals...all of which can also contradict one another.

Sure, some desire or value gets the upper hand. More of us wants/values X, so we don't do Y. As I mentioned in my response to HQ.

For example, I may have the goal of losing weight, the want for ice cream and the value of general fitness. Or I may have the want for company, the goal of independence and the value of social responsibility. There's no automatic agreement between the three, as to which methods tend to which. I have to arbitrate all such situations, using will.

Based on what you value (most, more).

Worse still, for your case, "best" is essentially a blank placeholder. It doesn't tell us anything the person doesn't decide for himself. So "bestness" cannot be itself a motivation: it's indeterminate, apart from the decision made by a free person.

Oh, please. Best is not causal. I am not saying that best is causal. I am saying that he decides what is best due to his values and desires. It is A VALUE JUDGMENT comgin from the values of that person and/or desires of that person. That we are not perfectly unified or worse doesn't change that.

As a side note, again: it seems odd that your free will means that you can go against what you value. Not because you value something else more, but just randomly or perversely.

Why would I want to do something that I don't value. Or value less than some other alternative?

I have to decide what is "best" for a given purpose, in a given situation, arbitrating among my various wishes, desires, values, impulses, twinges of conscience, goals (long and short term), and so on.

Sure and based on your values and desires.

Which is exactly what HQ admitted, not that he seemed to realize it. He named the motivation that led him to decide X and not Y.

If you have no value or desire that decides.YOU HAVE NO CRITERIA TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE VARIOUS WISHES DESIRES, VALUES, IMPULSES, then it's random or perverse.

I don't stifle my urge to hit someone unless a more powerful desire or value suppresses that urge.

Which includes thigns like wanting to do as God says. Which includes wanting to be good. Which includes not wanting to harm. Which includes.....
There are all sorts of leader desires and values that take over.

[henry quirk]

First of all, your criticism of my point does not fit Henry Q's posts.

Yes it does.

Wants, values and goals are not material entities. They're descriptors of personal, immaterial motivations. So they don't "cause" things in any mechanical or linear sense; rather, they are elements the person takes into account, weighs as he wishes, and arrives at a decision to act. They require a conscious, deciding person to initiate the action.

your decisions will come out of your goals, desires, values and affected to some degree by circumstance and what you think the situation is.

You talk of these -- goals, desires, values -- as though they were items I acquire, that are some how apart from me.

I value, I desire, I goal-set. These are things I do.

That's not a direct response to what I wrote. I didn't write about obligations to have a certain reaction to a traumatic event.

You wrote: Given that you have roots, values, temperment, desires, what you choose is caused by what has gone before/what is before in you.

I responded: I am not obligated by biology, psychology, or the laws of physics to fear dogs becuz I was bitten by one. The event informed me, it didn't, necessarily, infirm me. I choose where I stand when it comes to dogs. Not the unfortunate event.

Seems clear to me: what has gone before (a dog bite) is not the cause of what I choose today when it comes to dogs. I am the cause. I can choose to be afraid (to give way to fear of dogs); I can choose not to be afraid (to recognize the fear of dogs as unwarranted).

why in Heaven's name would I want to go against what I want, desire, value and have as goals?

Becuz you choose to deny guaranteed pleasure/satisfaction today in anticipation of a possible better benefit tomorrow; becuz your chosen principles conflict with base desire; becuz you choose to demonstrate (to your child, mebbe) the value of honoring obligations that inconvenience you. I imagine there are as many answers to your question as there are free wills.

"Come out of"? No, that's not the right wording.

No, it's not. I am the cause of my values, my goals, my choices. I am an apprehender and user of history and circumstance, not a conduit for them. My choices come out of, come from, me, not my neurons or genes or childhood or sciatica or taco-shaped mattress or Washington DC or the Devil or God or neuroses or the exchange of heat or the collision of particles or...

I, like everyone and anyone reading this, am a point of creative & causal power. I'm a free will.

Causes, causes, causes.

Yes, me, me, me.

What does?

I do. I'm an active player in the arena history and circumstance form. I choose what aspects of either are worth my consideration. Both can press on me; neither can dictate to me.

*

Our souls cannot influence our bodies

Hylomorphism.

'nuff said.

*

In any event: I concede this point: no sane free will will knowingly or willing go against himself.

I will never concede that, for example, There are all sorts of leader desires and values that take over. becuz that's manure.

As I say...

Free will means that one can choose to do something not only freely in the face of external forces - the gun, societal rules and the like - but also freely in relation to one's own wants, desires, goals, and so on.

No. Libertarian free will (bein' one) means one's choices are not necessarily rooted in history or circumstance. It does not mean one is free of one's self (and why would one want to be?).

I am always at the center of my choices. Choice is not license, nor rootless.

[Immanuel Can]

Seems best. That is a value laden word. It means what seems best for you and your child. You value your child. You want the best for him. That's motivation based precisely on your wants, values, goals.

Wants, values and goals are not material entities. They're descriptors of personal, immaterial motivations. So they don't "cause" things in any mechanical or linear sense; rather, they are elements the person takes into account, weighs as he wishes, and arrives at a decision to act. They require a conscious, deciding person to initiate the action.

First of all, your criticism of my point does not fit Henry Q's posts. He was saying he was going against his wants values and goals. But he clearly wasn't. He just had a number of them. Just because we have a number of wants and values does not mean that we are not motivated by our values. And for the reasons I said.

You don't HAVE to go against any particular one or more of your wishes, hopes, values, goals, conscience, etc., but the point is that you CAN. And in fact, you sometimes are bound to do so, since they often contradict each other. So Henry's right.

Unless you want to claim that the immaterial cannot cause anything.

That's what the Determinist has to claim. I have no need to claim it, nor any need to believe it.

You don't justify your declaration that they are not physical.

Easy. Give me a slice of values. Give me a pound of wish. Show me a beakerful of goals...

You can't. They're immaterial entities, and real, nonetheless.

But the Determinist has to insist that there are not such real things. He has to say that things like goals, values, meanings, wishes, conscience, etc. are only "epiphenomena" of essentially physical processes, and as such, do not figure in any genuine causal explanation.

I don't even think that word, physical, has any meaning.

Sure it does. It just means something that has characteristics like mass, density, extension in space, temperature, and so forth. All physical things do: but immaterial things do not.

So you're trying to use free will elements

Your labelling without justification. The immaterial is free will. Our souls cannot influence our bodies.

...says the mind, inducing the fingers to type furiously, to convince another mind to make the decision to change his behaviour. No part of that is physical...you and I are not together physically at all...and yet, you are using all these "soulish" entities to do what, as a Determinist, you have to believe cannot be done...to change a mind.

as an explanation of material causality. You've given away the store, in terms of Determinism. You've accepted that human beings can choose among their various inclinings, whether they involve wants, values or goals...all of which can also contradict one another.

Sure, some desire or value gets the upper hand.

What arbitrates that?

For example, I may have the goal of losing weight, the want for ice cream and the value of general fitness. Or I may have the want for company, the goal of independence and the value of social responsibility. There's no automatic agreement between the three, as to which methods tend to which. I have to arbitrate all such situations, using will.

Based on what you value (most, more).

Sure: based on what I, me, the thinking entity, the chooser, decides. I have no problem with that.

Worse still, for your case, "best" is essentially a blank placeholder. It doesn't tell us anything the person doesn't decide for himself. So "bestness" cannot be itself a motivation: it's indeterminate, apart from the decision made by a free person.

Oh, please. Best is not causal. I am not saying that best is causal. I am saying that he decides what is best due to his values and desires.

Define "best."

Why would I want to do something that I don't value.

Lots of reasons. Fear, timidity, the presence of contrary incentives, corruption of the conscience, peer pressure... Lots of people go against their values, when other things put them under pressure.

I have to decide what is "best" for a given purpose, in a given situation, arbitrating among my various wishes, desires, values, impulses, twinges of conscience, goals (long and short term), and so on.

Sure and based on your values and desires.

Your explanation is circular: it runs, "The reason people have desires and values is because of their desires and values."

But you've still got the problem: "desire" and "value" are immaterial realities...and despite your protest to the contrary, it's not at all hard to determine what is physical and what is not. Physical things have physical properties, like weight, mass, density, volume, extension, and so on. "Desire" has none. "Values" have none.

[Wizard22]

It is nowhere near most people who call themselves determinists. And Free-will, if it exists, cannot be renounced, or, better put, the renouncing would have no effect. They'd still be free.

That's not my experience. In my experience, Free-Will-ism is a minority belief among thinkers and the general population. Most Americans do not say or believe they have Free-Will, unfortunately. Most people are convinced by Determinism, it seems to me, because of the many reasons and rationales I've outlined. Determinism absolves people of their Shame, Sin, Guilt, Worry, etc. It's a salve. Thus they renounce Free-Will. Sure you can argue they still have it—that Free-Will is not the type of thing or attribute that a living being or entity can possibly reject, but then you join Free-Will-ists in a way, with a type of 'Objective' mindset about the nature of life and behaviors in general.

I think these matters can be simplified. Animals don't need to "take responsibility" for their desires or themselves; Nature does it for them. Animals don't get to, like humans, sit around in comfort all day, contemplating the Nature of Reality, Philosophizing, reading and writing texts from hundreds and thousands of years ago. Animals, instead, must learn "the hard way", the mistakes and negative consequences of their Free-Will. They don't have the luxury of ignoring it, deluding themselves, or wishing it away. Unlike humans, who can believe in lies freely, untruths, and live a full life in doing so...often times not paying the price for it. And that's a luxury, to many Humans, Bliss, selective ignorance, delusional thinking.

Responsibility...when Convenient.

Wait, some parts of life show more free will than others. Free will can't have degrees.

Why not? Doesn't freedom have degrees? If you have more options, more choices, then doesn't that constitute more freedom? How about higher intelligence, imagination, creativity, don't those attributes allow for more freedom?

One could strive for more freedom. One could fight back against external limitations.

But whatever you choose to do is a sign of free will if free will is the case. Every decision, even that of saying yes to a shitty tyrant of a boss. That's free will. There are no moments in a life that are not exuding free will, to the same degree.

I'm convinced...Free-Will it is then!

This is where I think you are the other free willers are confused here.

YOu see free will is a certain attitude and set of actions in relation to authority.

I'm detecting a bit of projection here...is Free-Will only so, with respect to 'authority'? Can a person or animal have Free-Will while isolated and alone, unruled and "uncoerced"?

Determinists can fight for their rights, resist authority, tell their bosses to go fuck themselves without in the slightest way being a hypocrite as a determinist.

George has a lot of free will.

That's a very confused statement.

My favorite moments in my life were when I enacted free will.

That's a very confused statement.

If you choose to knuckle under authority, that's a choice. If we have free will you exhibited as much free will as the guy who ran at the King with a sword.

You seem to view free will as a character trait: he was noble and free will.

Confused.

It's describing something fundamental about our nature and the nature of reality. It may be a correct model. I maybe an incorrect model. But it's not a matter of degree or something some people have or don't have.

It's not a synonym for feisty.

To me, Free-Will entails very large degrees of unpredictability, life and existence which are Non-determined, Un-determinable. Consider olympic athletes, who can perform "the impossible", or Tony Hawk skating, or a Scientist/Physicist/Chemist creating new compounds and substances...consider geniuses of every type and variety, breaking the mold. Consider musical prodigies, creating new sounds, rhythms, melodies. All of these, are unpredictable to the rest of the masses and laymen. All of these represent Free-Will, not that they were "Determined" to do so ahead of time.

It's a Red Herring style of logic. The Determinist can always fall back upon "they were Destined to do so", in any and every argument. So even when proved wrong, their crutch reaffirms their prepositions, and repeats. Determinism cannot be falsified. Meanwhile, Determinists can point to every failed endeavor as "not your Free-Will", "not what you had intended to do". You see...selective-responsibility, as-if only success, glory, and victory are the results of a hypothetically free will.

Great. I'm heading home now. Thanks.

I think you should make alternative lunch plans...

I think he meant yes (he could), not yes (he will).

I'm so relieved that you said this. In the back of my mind - it's embarrassing to admit - I thought it was remotely possible I would not find the lunch I asked for. Oh, the disappointment in the disconfirmation of his magical all powerfulness. But now, regardless of what I find or do not find, I can consider the outcome as fitting his claims.

Though there is magic present here, regardless. For me that is.

I am surprised to find that I think he may actually believe what he said.

How was the Tandoori lunch...delicious?

Here's the kicker. How does Absolutely Free Will revolve around your, or even my, expectations? If AFW should exist, then the proof for you, is that Tandoori lunch. I guess, in future debates, I need to have a slew of Tandoori lunchboxes at my disposal, when heading into the Free-Will v Determinism debates, giving me the edge. When Determinists are in doubt, I arrange a Tandoori lunch delivery at the ready.

Would that then seal the deal? We could finally put this debate to rest, for the Ages? Maybe you'll be convinced, but the other Determinists might have different lunch selections in mind...

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, most people renounce their Free-Will, of course. Why do you think they call themselves Determinists?

It is nowhere near most people who call themselves determinists. And Free-will, if it exists, cannot be renounced, or, better put, the renouncing would have no effect. They'd still be free.

Mind blowing that someone could believe in free will and think that another person can lose their free will just by saying the words "I don't believe in free will" lmao.

The only other place I've heard that idea is in fairy tales for children. "Unicorns only exist as long as someone believes in them. When the last child stops believing, the last unicorn will disappear." It's genuinely absurd lmao. Things that actually exist don't generally require people to believe in them in order to keep existing (don't tell VA that).

Also, consider this: it's the common opinion that free will is required to hold someone morally responsible. You can't hold someone as morally culpable if they don't have free will, right? So... does that mean someone who doesn't believe in free will can't be held morally responsible for anything? Lol, that's a silly little loop hole.

[Iwannaplato]

Our souls cannot influence our bodies

Hylomorphism.

'nuff said.

You didn't understand. IC was claiming that it can't be determinism because the things I said were causes were immaterial.
Now you have supported my position.

When I said what you quoted above, I was mirroring back to him the implicit claim that the immaterial cannot be causal. Which would make his God impotent. I wasn't asserting what you quoted, I was showing him the problem with his argument.
*

In any event: I concede this point: no sane free will will knowingly or willing go against himself.

Right, so he will follow the already present urges, desires, wants and values.

Or for some insane or perverse reason - if there is free will - he decides to ignore himself and do something uncaused.

I will never concede that, for example, There are all sorts of leader desires and values that take over. becuz that's manure.

Yeah, don't say why. Just give it a thumbs up or down.

And really? You don't find yourself with mixed feelings or wants or values and the most important of these ends up winning out. Or as you say, the best?

I'd like to smack that person but also don't wanna that guy in this situation.
Or some other situation leads to you deciding despite misgivings you are going to hit someone.

No, you are always unified. YOu never need to suppress an urge or wrestle with an issue until the strongest desire, want, value leads to the choice you make.

No. Libertarian free will (bein' one) means one's choices are not necessarily rooted in history or circumstance. It does not mean one is free of one's self (and why would one want to be?).

Though I never narrowed it down to history and circumstance. I also include, amongt the causes, desires, wants and values.

I am always at the center of my choices. Choice is not license, nor rootless.

Yeah and one second before that choice the self you are makes a choice based on the state it is in and any outside factors in that moment. The Self has a very big bunch of causes rolling forward in time, but also as built in reactions to and evaluations of what is going on.

[Iwannaplato]

You just mentioned another motivation based on your values.

No, I laid out, sparingly, why I choose to deny a base appetite.

It was not an unmotivated choice. It was based on your values, which are tucked into that word best which indicates the effects of you values in your evaluation of what was best.

Causes, causes, causes.

Yes, me, me, me.

Great, that was compatiblism right there.

[henry quirk]

Now you have supported my position.

Hylomorphism is not materialism.

Right, so he will follow the already present urges, desires, wants and values.

No. He'll choose based on whatever criteria suits him.

I will never concede that, for example, There are all sorts of leader desires and values that take over. becuz that's manure.

Yeah, don't say why. Just give it a thumbs up or down.

I already have: I value, I desire, I goal-set. These are things I do. I am not led by desires or values or goals.

And really? You don't find yourself with mixed feelings or wants or values and the most important of these ends up winning out. Or as you say, the best?

I don't know how your head works, but, no, I don't have mixed feelings. I have options. I pick one.

Or some other situation leads to you deciding despite misgivings you are going to hit someone.

Having, over 60 years, hit a number of folks, I can say, no, i never had misgivings or doubts. I'm not impulsive or doubt-ridden.

you are always unified.

Yes.

YOu never need to suppress an urge or wrestle with an issue until the strongest desire, want, value leads to the choice you make.

No.

Though I never narrowed it down to history and circumstance. I also include, amongt the causes, desires, wants and values.

When I say history & circumstance I mean not only mine. I mean all of it, the history of Reality as it stretches back to the Beginning. As for causes: I am one. As for desires, wants, values: I desire, I want, I value. These are my actions, largely mental or *ahem* immaterial. I choose my actions.

one second before that choice *the self you are makes a choice based on the state it is in and any outside factors in that moment. The Self has a very big bunch of causes rolling forward in time, but also as built in reactions to and evaluations of what is going on.

*That's odd phrasing.

A more accurate statement: I make a choice based on my assessments of what works and what doesn't. Those assessments (my assessings) are based on what I know, what I've learned, and what seems important in the circumstance. The inertia of history presses on me, the laws of physics (how the World works) set my physical boundaries, but I choose, not history, circumstance, or Reality; not my testes, or hypothalamus or pineal; not my genes, or heart, or brain.

[henry quirk]

It was not an unmotivated choice. It was based on your values, which are tucked into that word best which indicates the effects of you values in your evaluation of what was best.

Of course not: I am the ground of my choice. It was based on what I see as germane to the choice.

Great, that was compatiblism right there.

No, that was pure libertarian agent causation (a libertarian free will layin' claim) right there.

[phyllo]

When I said what you quoted above, I was mirroring back to him the implicit claim that the immaterial cannot be causal. Which would make his God impotent. I wasn't asserting what you quoted, I was showing him the problem with his argument.

A problem with IC's argument is that sometimes he is talking for himself and sometimes he is talking for determinists. And that muddles things up.

He will say something like : values are immaterial. (Him talking.)

Then he will say : immaterial things can't be causes. (Him talking for the determinist. Because he has this idea that determinists are materialists.)

It would just be better if he laid out his position and his reasoning for free-will and let the determinists lay out their position and reasoning for determinism.