Free will is wholly deterministic

[phyllo]

Can you explain how necessitarianism (or, determinism, if you prefer) isn't, or doesn't have to be, rooted in materialism?

And: required or not, aren't most necessitarians materialists?

A cause makes something happen.

It can be material or immaterial. It's not restricted by the definition.

Immaterial causes can produce material or immaterial effects. Which then become causes for more effects. Which is the chain of events in determinism.

We live in a physical universe and so ultimately immaterial "things" like memories, desires, wants and values are some configuration of neurons, chemicals and electricity in the brain. If you want to think about it at a low level of abstraction. Usually, talking about desires is more useful than talking about the chemical/electrical state of the brain.

It seems to me what you're sayin' is it's all material (ultimately immaterial "things" like memories, desires, wants and values are some configuration of neurons, chemicals and electricity in the brain).

What would be an immaterial cause (A cause makes something happen. It can be material or immaterial.)

You could have determinism in a non-material universe. But that's not the universe we live in. I'm describing determinism in the universe as we experience it.

A determinist will say that desires, wants and values are immaterial but they "reside" within a physical being and require matter to function.

You and IC appear to be saying that desires, wants and values are immaterial and they are independent of a physical body or brain.

That sounds like you can have computer software running without a physical computer. It doesn't work that way, does it?

[henry quirk]

I've always taken materialism to refer to matter, heat, light, electricity etc.

And is there something wrong with looking at the world this way?

Not at all. I don't deny cause & effect. I simply deny man, as libertarian free will, is completely bound by cause & effect.

[henry quirk]

A determinist will say that desires, wants and values are immaterial but they "reside" within a physical being and require matter to function.

That sounds like a roundabout way if sayin' it's all material (ultimately immaterial "things" like memories, desires, wants and values are some configuration of neurons, chemicals and electricity in the brain).

You and IC appear to be saying that desires, wants and values are immaterial and they are independent of a physical body or brain.

My view: man is a irrevocable composite of two very different, but mutually dependent, things. Call it spirit and substance, information and matter, form and matter, or mind and body. Not a soul in a meat car.

That sounds like you can have computer software running without a physical computer. It doesn't work that way, does it?

That's a very good analogy. I've used it myself. No, a hard drive is useless without software, and software is impotent without a hard drive. Together, they form the useful machine we're all accustomed to. But: obviously, while software and hardware form a composite, the two are not synonymous.

Borrowing from myself: the software is information, the hardware is matter. The information gives direction to the matter, the matter constrains the information.

The analogy breaks down, of course, becuz mind is not a program and brain/body is not a hard drive.

My point is: a libertarian free will is this composite, this amalgam. Borrowing from my Christian friend, the free will is in the world but not of the world.

[Sculptor]

I've always taken materialism to refer to matter, heat, light, electricity etc.

And is there something wrong with looking at the world this way?

Not at all. I don't deny cause & effect. I simply deny man, as libertarian free will, is completely bound by cause & effect.

So "man" is unnatural and a magical being?
What about "women"?
What about our near ancestors such as chimps and benobo. Do they get to be magical too?
Where does it end?
Dolphins, rabbits? Bugs Bunny seems really free willy.

[henry quirk]

So "man" is unnatural and a magical being?

I wouldn't say so, no.

What about "women"?

I'll have to keep in mind to say mankind or humans or persons when talkin' with you.

What about our near ancestors such as chimps and benobo. Do they get to be magical too?

There very well may be non-human free wills. Chimps and Bonobos, mebbe.

Where does it end?

Hell if I know.

Dolphins, rabbits? Bugs Bunny seems really free willy.

Dolphins, mebbe; rabbits, probably not. Of course Bugs is a free will...and a rascal.

[Sculptor]

So "man" is unnatural and a magical being?

I wouldn't say so, no.

But you just did.

What about "women"?

I'll have to keep in mind to say mankind or humans or persons when talkin' with you.

So what is your answer?

What about our near ancestors such as chimps and benobo. Do they get to be magical too?

There very well may be non-human free wills. Chimps and Bonobos, mebbe.

Mebbe Shmebee.
Not a great theory of yours is it, when it can't account for other intelligent beings

Where does it end?

Hell if I know.

Well Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh

Dolphins, rabbits? Bugs Bunny seems really free willy.

Dolphins, mebbe; rabbits, probably not. Of course Bugs is a free will...and a rascal.

Are you sure you should be posting here?

[henry quirk]

But you just did.

I can see how your sort might think so, but, no, I didn't.

So what is your answer?

You're a bright boy: figure it out.

Not a great theory of yours is it, when it can't account for other intelligent beings

Actually, it's a great theory: minimal and cautious.

[Flannel Jesus]

Actually, it's a great theory: minimal and cautious.

What makes it cautious?

[Sculptor]

But you just did.

I can see how your sort might think so, but, no, I didn't.

So what is your answer?

You're a bright boy: figure it out.

Twice avoided.
You are fucking clueless

Not a great theory of yours is it, when it can't account for other intelligent beings

Actually, it's a great theory: minimal and cautious.

[henry quirk]

You can't figure out that man, in context, refers to mankind but I'm clueless...

'nuff said

[henry quirk]

What makes it cautious?

Oh, the idea man is a libertarian free will is bold, at least when compared to the conventional view man is just a meat machine.

But sculptor is a putz so I fucked with him (too bad he couldn't get past the obvious so my fuckery fell flat).

[Sculptor]

but I'm clueless...

'nuff said

True
THe distinction was between animaks and humans moron

[Iwannaplato]

Actually, it's a great theory: minimal and cautious.

Minimal and cautious would be to black box the whole free will/determinism issue and just get on with life. And ironically this is not just cautious, but it's also bold.

[henry quirk]

Minimal and cautious would be to black box the whole free will/determinism issue and just get on with life.

Black boxin' is for the incurious and timid. Bein' curious and bold is what getting on with life is all about.

[Iwannaplato]

Minimal and cautious would be to black box the whole free will/determinism issue and just get on with life.

Black boxin' is for the incurious and timid. Bein' curious and bold is what getting on with life is all about.

You're the one who put a priority on being cautious.
But beyond that black boxing is always in the moment and does nothing to stop curiosity. In fact presuming to know things, when you don't, is much more likely to stifle curiosity.
And regardless of whether free will or determinism is the case, I am going to try my damndest to get things to where I want them, every day.