"Free will was given to man by god."

[RCSaunders]

I am a determinist ...

Then you did not understand that we all choose ...

Bewildering Belinda. Seriously, what you mean by determinist must be something different from what other determinists mean by determinism:

Macmillan Dictionary: "the belief that everything is caused by another event or action and so you are not free to choose what you do" [Emphasis mine]

American Heritage Dictionary: "The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs."

There is nothing wrong with giving words your own personal meaning, so long as, if you expect others to know what you are talking about, you explain that private meaning. No other determinist that I know (I admit I do not travel and the same circles as most determinists) believes that things can be both chosen and determined. The whole point of determinism is that it excludes choice.

If a choice is possible it means it is undetermined, that there is an alternative to any specific action that can be chosen. [A computer program that uses a 'decision tree' to make a 'decision' is not a choice, it is totally determined. When any animal does anything, it could never have done anything else. It's owner's ignorance of what it is going to do does not constitute a choice.]

I know your view is different, and I'm honestly not arguing with it, because I do not know what it is. Now you know my view, perhaps you'll explain how something can be determined and still be a choice. I suspect it is what you mean by, "choice," that is unique.

[Immanuel Can]

There is nothing wrong with giving words your own personal meaning, so long as, if you expect others to know what you are talking about, you explain that private meaning. No other determinist that I know (I admit I do not travel and the same circles as most determinists) believes that things can be both chosen and determined. The whole point of determinism is that it excludes choice.

RC has a point, Belinda.

Determinism means "choice" does not refer to a real thing.

[gaffo]

ok, i'm listening, why don't you think there is a general universal morality underneath cultural mores, which seem "immoral" to the West. (and vise versa WRT to Easterns view of Westerners).

Well, you yourself write...

I grant you there are "immoral" practices in other cultures, female circumscism, stoning, imolation of widows/etc.

and then you write...

but i do not see the folks in those cultures as having morals different than me.

You're going to need to explain that to me. I'm having trouble seeing how you can say stoning is "immoral" if people don't have "different morals than" you.

i doubt they would be ok with incest or rape or murder either.

Oh, there are examples. In Pakistan, revenge-rape is considered a religious and just act. And in Saudi, they'll not just kill you, but toss you off a roof or boil you in oil if you're homosexual. And in Somalia, teenage women are held down by relatives and forcibly circumcised with knives or sharp glass, in order to guarantee their "purity." It's quite an approved practice; and failure to do it is heavily socially stigmatized.

But these examples must be familiar to you, I'm sure.

similar DNA.

Alas, DNA is not an element of morality. There's no genetic markers for right and wrong, or for the belief therein.

Too bad for us all that it's not that easy.

I think DNA make our morality, you do not.

we must agree to disagree on this. we have both made our points, others reading this threat can make theirs from our stated positions/perspectives.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that that puts the emphasis on the Determinist. He owes us to show us Determinism is true. If he can't, then why should we think it, since people are instinctively and universally disposed to act as if it exists.



And he owes us not merely to suggest how it "could be so," since things in a contingent universe "could be" many ways, but that it actually IS so. And how would he do that?

But if so, the free-will proponent surely gets the win. Everybody already acts and believes that what the free-willian believes is true -- and though I have met many convinced Determinists, I have never met even one of them who lived like Determinism was true for him.

logical point - point given.

and maybe you are right - or not? this matter is of no interest to me for prior stated reasons.

but i acknowledge your logic is sound here.

thanks for reply!

My pleasure.

ibid.

[gaffo]

i do not care about the issue - i personally view it as irrelivant, and those that champion freewill as egostisical,

I confess I puzzled over this remark. That's why I did not at first reply to it: I couldn't think of exactly how it could be meant, or how I could appropriately respond to that statement.

For one thing, "egotism" is impossible, in a Deterministic world. It's not immoral there, and it's not something anyone chooses. For there, nobody genuinely chooses anything. Thus belief in free will could neither be bad nor be self-motivated...if Determinism were true.

I also had a hard time imagining how "egotism" could be a motive for saying that one genuinely thought the condition of the universe included free will. That seemed to me to be merely a factual position -- just as Determinism, were it true, would be merely a factual metaphysical claim -- rather than a self-motivated one. And I don't mean to suggest we rule arbitrarily in favour of free will, but only that the whole question does not seem to me obviously motivated by personal considerations.

you are overthinking it/ or i'm underthinking it.

But at length, I kind of guessed why you might think it was plausibly true. May I guess?

Maybe, if one thought that the free will position was unconditional -- that it had to refuse to acknowledge any role at all for things like heredity, environment, indoctrination, learning, and so on -- then one might come to imagine it was a petulant refusal to see the obvious: namely, that things like heredity, environment and education play some role in shaping the decisions of the individual self. And maybe that would look like mere egotism.

But if that's what you were thinking (and I don't say that it was, because I'm still not sure) then I would think it would be a needless worry and a less-than-accurate depiction of why people who believe in free will do so.

correct, that was my mentality on the topic of freewill.

does human will play ANY role in shaping our decisions, however small, or are all our apparent decisions NOTHING BUT the accumulation of our culture, education, learning, environment, and so on.

the opposite extreme - "we are all robots"

And put that way, I don't see how advocating for free will can possibly be arrogant or egotistical.

maybe?

It seems to me that a) it's only intended as a factual metaphysical hypothesis, and b) it does not refuse to acknowledge that a significant role in shaping decisions has to be according to forces outside the self. Rather, it recognizes those things, and incorporates them into its theory.

Have I misunderstood your point? Perhaps.

as i young man i tended to "extremists" views - all/noting - black/white, now older i tend to go middle/moderate on such matters.

and use "horse sense"

where that leaves man in the freewill vs determinism, i leave up to you and others.

i have no answers on the subject, just biases.

[Immanuel Can]

I think DNA make our morality

Can you explain that? How does a sequence in DNA issue in particular moral determinations?

I understand how it issues in physiological features...at least, to some extent. But how does DNA make us moral (or presumably, immoral)?

Well, I think it's pretty clear that that puts the emphasis on the Determinist. He owes us to show us Determinism is true. If he can't, then why should we think it, since people are instinctively and universally disposed to act as if it exists.
And he owes us not merely to suggest how it "could be so," since things in a contingent universe "could be" many ways, but that it actually IS so. And how would he do that? But if so, the free-will proponent surely gets the win. Everybody already acts and believes that what the free-willian believes is true -- and though I have met many convinced Determinists, I have never met even one of them who lived like Determinism was true for him.

logical point - point given.

Fair enough.

Nice talking to you.

[Belinda]

RC Saunders wrote:

I know your view is different, and I'm honestly not arguing with it, because I do not know what it is. Now you know my view, perhaps you'll explain how something can be determined and still be a choice. I suspect it is what you mean by, "choice," that is unique.

Some people claim people originate their choices i.e. they believe in so-called Free Will. Others claim that people don't originate their choices i.e. they believe in causal determinism. in other words choosing is a behaviour;everyone does it and other animals choose too. If you watch a wildlife film you can see animals engaged in making choices,weighing pros and cons so to speak, and few people think other animals have Free Will.

The free will v. determinism debate is about the cause of human choices, not the fact of human choices.

[Belinda]

There is nothing wrong with giving words your own personal meaning, so long as, if you expect others to know what you are talking about, you explain that private meaning. No other determinist that I know (I admit I do not travel and the same circles as most determinists) believes that things can be both chosen and determined. The whole point of determinism is that it excludes choice.

RC has a point, Belinda.

Determinism means "choice" does not refer to a real thing.

There does seem to be a lexical discrepancy . My usage is better than RC's because the standard and traditional expression for religionists and philosophers is 'Free Will' not 'Free Choice'.

The debate is about the origin of human choices. Determinists claim that choices originate in nature . Religionists claim that there is an element of human choices that originates in God i.e. free of natural causes, and the Xian narrative explains how and why God made this exception for hum

My concern is not to claim God does not exist or that the story about the Tree of Knowledge is nonsense(it's not). I am more concerned to show that humans can be free relative to relative to reason and judgement. Humans can't attain perfection in those and they together with the highest level, pure goodness , are not for us supernaturally ontic existants, but are aspirational.

[Dontaskme]

Free will was not given to anything or anyone by anything or anyone.

Free will means free of a chooser.

Choice is always a choiceless choice.

Intention is the rider of the will.

“The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection. The water has no mind to receive their image.”

Consciousness is synonymous with the terminology (water/mind) Consciousness uses and inhabits form to express itself, and form in this sense also includes our bodies. Consequently, taking responsibility for our thoughts is a necessary step in our being able to function effectively in this realm.

Consciousness has no image of itself except in this conception what it mentally conceives via the image it reflects upon itself via intention.

An image is exactly identical to the consciousness in which it is being reflected in. In other words, there is no thing being reflected, and no thing reflecting. All seen images (reflections) are mirages of the imageless.

.

[Immanuel Can]

There is nothing wrong with giving words your own personal meaning, so long as, if you expect others to know what you are talking about, you explain that private meaning. No other determinist that I know (I admit I do not travel and the same circles as most determinists) believes that things can be both chosen and determined. The whole point of determinism is that it excludes choice.

RC has a point, Belinda.

Determinism means "choice" does not refer to a real thing.

My usage is better than RC's because the standard and traditional expression for religionists and philosophers is 'Free Will' not 'Free Choice'.

"Determinism" is the contested term here.

The debate is about the origin of human choices. Determinists claim that choices originate in nature .

No, not that they "originate" only: that they "are nothing but the product of material forces." At no point, under Determinism, does "choice" become, in even a tiny degree, a product of the human volition.

Religionists claim that there is an element of human choices that originates in God

First of all, there's no such thing as a "religionist." There are just many people who have different views. But secondly, only a small minority among those who are called "religious" believe what you suggest. The rest don't.

[Belinda]

Immanuel it's difficult to discuss anything serious when we don't same the same lexicon so I think I'd better leave the discussion for now.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel it's difficult to discuss anything serious when we don't same the same lexicon so I think I'd better leave the discussion for now.

The problem that RC is pointing out is that your lexicon is your own, and doesn't always conform to the standard one. He was just asking that when you depart from normal usage, you indicate the lexical shift to your stipulated term.

That seems fair to me.

But conversation is not mandatory, of course.

[attofishpi]

"Free will was given to man by god." This I often hear from theists. I searched the bible and found no support for this from the word of the supposed god.

So this is inference? Or did I miss something.

Will Guffo or somebody else please tell me where the idea of "free will" emerged in christian thinking, and what Christians use as explanation to it in the bible?

Do you believe man does not have free will?

[Immanuel Can]

"Free will was given to man by god." This I often hear from theists. I searched the bible and found no support for this from the word of the supposed god.

So this is inference? Or did I miss something.

Will Guffo or somebody else please tell me where the idea of "free will" emerged in christian thinking, and what Christians use as explanation to it in the bible?

Do you believe man does not have free will?

Sorry, atto. But to be fair to the Determinist view, he can't think people "believe" things at all.

All ideas can only be inevitable products of a prior chain of causality, not things we "choose" to think, nor things we accept or reject on rational grounds. So there's neither a "believer" nor any "belief": just inevitability. That's how Determinism tells the story, anyway.

Funny that people all still want to argue. Determinism says that that can "change" nothing.

[attofishpi]

Funny that people all still want to argue. Determinism says that that can "change" nothing.

Did you mean, determinism says that MAN can change nothing?

[Immanuel Can]

Funny that people all still want to argue. Determinism says that that can "change" nothing.

Did you mean, determinism says that MAN can change nothing?

Right. As bizarre as that sounds, that's actually the most important point Determinists hope to make you believe.

It means that even man is merely a product of prior cosmic forces. For some reason (a reason that Determinists can never explain), man THINKS his decisions "change" things -- but according to Determinism, this is just an illusion. His "choices" were all foreordained by causal precedents to come out just one way anyway.