Evolution and free will

[Age]

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.

But, we are IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPT that the Universe, Itself, is ETERNAL, correct?

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

I KNOW you keep TELLING us this. And, there has been NO DISAGREEMENT, well NOT from me anyway.

The idea of action is an egotistic illusion, giving humanity an unrealistic idea of its powers and it's significance to the world.

Okay, if you say so.

This wrong-headed idea has given us the disaster of climate change and the degradation of the environment in general.

REALLY?

HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

It is humanity's disrespect to its larger self which is its physical environment.

'you', adults human beings, disrespect "your" OWN 'selves', so the Fact that 'you' disrespect other things is also OBVIOUS.

I felt a need to bring the term action into the dialogue simply because there is no other way to discredit the term.

Why not just say there is NO 'action' BECAUSE the Universe is eternal? If you had, then NO one would have asked if you think or BELIEVE there was 'an action', which created or caused the Universe.

[Age]

"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'.



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?



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

If no, then just SAY SO.



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?



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.

Can just ONE of 'you', posters, here explain to me WHY there is the thinking or BELIEVING that it HAS TO BE the case of 'one' OR 'the other'?

I ALREADY KNOW what the answer IS, but I just want to SEE if ANY one else here KNOWS.

Also, just so ALL of 'you' are AWARE, there is NO need for there to be 'one' OR 'the other', AND, in fact, it is NOT a case of 'one' OR 'the other'.

But, then again, this ALL depends on how one DEFINES 'terms', and MEANS 'things', here?

Oh, and by the way, when the Unification of Everything, which is just the Grand Unified Theory, GUT, combined with the TOE, the Theory Of Everything is REVEALED 'It' SHOWS and PROVES how these VERY OLD millennia taken 'one' OR 'the other' discussions were just RIDICULOUS all along.

Unlike most other animals(insofar as we know other animals) men not only react we reflect on our reactions.

To you, are 'women' NOT animals or when you say, "men", do you mean and include 'women' ALSO?

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" .

'Often' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

And, in relation to, 'who', EXACTLY?

Oh, and by the way, here is ANOTHER example of how there can be as many DIFFERENT definitions for some 'terms', like 'free will', as there are people.

[Age]

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.

So, if one USES the term 'free will' DIFFERENTLY than you do, then that USAGE is a MISUSE of the term, correct?

And, the way you USE the term 'free will' is the ONLY TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT way to USE 'that term', correct?

Oh, and be the way, besides THROUGH 'you', where else can one FIND the, maybe one and only, PROPER and ACCURATE way to USE 'terms'?

[Pattern-chaser]

...
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.

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.

I came to this forum hoping to find philosophical discussion. Having read Philosophy Now since its inception, I am disappointed in the almost-complete lack of philosophy, and discussion. Instead, there is conflict, abuse, argument by assertion, and other childishness. I've wasted my (very short) time here; I'm off to find some grown-ups to talk to about philosophy.

Fare well.

[Age]

...
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.

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.

I came to this forum hoping to find philosophical discussion. Having read Philosophy Now since its inception, I am disappointed in the almost-complete lack of philosophy, and discussion. Instead, there is conflict, abuse, argument by assertion, and other childishness. I've wasted my (very short) time here; I'm off to find some grown-ups to talk to about philosophy.

Fare well.

So, which one is it, EXACTLY?

Did you want to find 'philosophical discussion', OR, did you want to talk 'about philosophy'?

What does the word 'philosophy' even mean, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Oh, and by the way, 'you', so-called 'grown up adult human beings, have been discussing a lot of these discussions in this forum for millennia now, without ANY real success AT ALL. So, good luck in finding some 'grown-up' to talk to about 'philosophy'.

[bahman]

The fact that all creatures are reactionary in nature is in direct opposition to the idea of free will. One can choose among choices how one will react to one's environment but one cannot not react, for even a 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.

You didn't answer my question. I am not talking about free will but the feeling of having free will so again why should we have such a feeling if free will is an illusion?

[bahman]

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.

Sorry for that. English is not my first language and my usage of the grant was misleading.

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.

No, we are not talking about how we receive trait free will from evolution. I am actually arguing against materialism. There is no such a thing as the feeling of free will in matter. Materialist claim that consciousness is the result of processes in the brain. The feeling of free will is part of our conscious lives. I am asking why should we receive such a trait, a feeling of free will if free will is an illusion.

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?"

I mean if free will is an illusion why do we have the feeling of free will? The feeling does not have any functioning so why do we have receive such a trait?

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.

But your question contains quite a few unknowns and assumptions. 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...

I am not talking about free will but the feeling of having free will.

[bahman]

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

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

I think that is you that your comments do not make any sense at all and stop learning. You simply say that consciousness has no effect on our lives. Consciousness is the result of the brain process to materialists. This requires nutrition so it is not useful to have a big brain that grants consciousness. In fact, having a big brain becomes a disadvantage when we notice the competition for food.

[bahman]

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

That is simply not true. I have difficulty understanding sometimes but I counter well when I understand you. Do you have the feeling of free will?

[bahman]

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.

It is possible. Any agent who has free will is an uncaused cause. You don't believe in free will so I cannot help you. I believe that you cannot see the link between free will and uncaused cause too.

[popeye1945]

The fact that all creatures are reactionary in nature is in direct opposition to the idea of free will. One can choose among choices how one will react to one's environment but one cannot not react, for even a 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.

You didn't answer my question. I am not talking about free will but the feeling of having free will so again why should we have such a feeling if free will is an illusion?

bahman,

The illusion is what is responsible for the belief in free will, but like the belief in the self it is a highly functional illusion and that may be the reason for belief in both cases.

[Sculptor]

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

That is simply not true. I have difficulty understanding sometimes but I counter well when I understand you. Do you have the feeling of free will?

Define free will

[Sculptor]

The uncaused cause is a being.

Impossible.

It is possible. Any agent who has free will is an uncaused cause. You don't believe in free will so I cannot help you. I believe that you cannot see the link between free will and uncaused cause too.

So you are an uncaused cause??
how much more ridiculous can you get?

[promethean75]

Hoisting yourself up by your own boot straps are ya, bahman?

[CHNOPS]

Sculptor,

I was like them before. I think there are steps or levels or episodes in the intelectual evolution and some people just stays in the same level for a more long time that others.

And I recognize "Age" and "bahman" as if they were me years ago.

Is funny how "Age" talk LIKE this ALL the TIME.

Making emphasis like if we dont understand otherwise

And "bahman", I read him like if he is 15 years old.

I really want to have a conversation where at least one of us learn something new, but I lose interest inmediatly.

Is like if in order to start a real conversation, I must to first kill their ego's. I dont have time for that.


The funny part is that I am not a classic materialist, and I believe there is just one substance in the universe, and we are that, and we are eternals.

I know you dont believe that. But is funny that they believe something like that too, but in order to learn more they need to learn from your point of view more and try to understand their mistakes, even if the root of the knowledge can or not be right.


I dont want to debate with someone that write comments with a lot of ego, like if they know everything and there is nobody who can teach them something new.