Free will is wholly deterministic

[Age]

When two things correlate, that does not tell us about causality. Check the link.
That would only be a problem if we already had convinced ourselves, without any evidence at all, that all there was in the universe were material phenomena.


Actually, they are physical. Light is measurable in "lumens." Energy is measured in "joules." Both are quantifiable and physical.

In what units are "thoughts" and "consciousness" and "experience" measured?

But you're still not even mentioning the other problem: why are you arguing, since nobody can change their mind? Are you really expecting that an immaterial property called "reasons" acting on "consciousness" is going to produce a physical effect called "change" or "new belief" in a brain-state? If so, you have no deterministic account behind you on that.

Why do you not answer the questions like an honest person?

Which question have I not answered?

The one where you were asked, 'If they are not "material" then how do they interact with the "material" world?'

And where is your answer to mine?

Which question did "sculptor", allegedly, NOT answer?

[Age]

I offered you the chance.
Take it or leave it.
Leaeve it of fuck off the thread

I already took it.

You asked for refutations - the implication of Newcomb's paradox is a refutation.

Read it. Understand it. Or don't.

Newcomb's so-called 'paradox' is in relation to just those people who want MORE money. Which, by the way, OBVIOUSLY has absolutely NOTHING to do with what has been written here so far.

Unless, OF COURSE, you WANT to SHOW and PROVE otherwise.

[Wizard22]

the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision

Who made this so-called "Law" of Cause and Effect?

You???

ANyone care to refute?

Too easy, peanut head, it took me less than a minute.

Care to try again?

[Skepdick]

I offered you the chance.
Take it or leave it.
Leaeve it of fuck off the thread

I already took it.

You asked for refutations - the implication of Newcomb's paradox is a refutation.

Read it. Understand it. Or don't.

Newcomb's so-called 'paradox' is in relation to just those people who want MORE money. Which, by the way, OBVIOUSLY has absolutely NOTHING to do with what has been written here so far.

Unless, OF COURSE, you WANT to SHOW and PROVE otherwise.

Newcomb’s paradox uses money/placing bets as a demonstrative tool to draw attention to the disconnect between theoretical expectations and practical outcomes.

It’s not about money.
It is relevant to the OP.

If you don’t see the relevance - read it again and again until you do.

[Age]

I already took it.

You asked for refutations - the implication of Newcomb's paradox is a refutation.

Read it. Understand it. Or don't.

Newcomb's so-called 'paradox' is in relation to just those people who want MORE money. Which, by the way, OBVIOUSLY has absolutely NOTHING to do with what has been written here so far.

Unless, OF COURSE, you WANT to SHOW and PROVE otherwise.

Newcomb’s paradox uses money as a demonstrative tool.

OBVIOUSLY.

It’s not about money.

So, it is ABOUT 'those' who WANT money. OTHERWISE that STUPID so-called 'paradox' would NOT be "UNDERSTOOD".

Read it again. Till you understand why it is relevant to the OP.

I suggest that YOUR INABILITY to EXPLAIN 'things' here, AT ALL, let alone SIMPLY, SHOWS that you REALLY do NOT UNDERSTAND 'it' WELL ENOUGH.

If you don’t see the relevance - read it until you do.

If you do NOT SEE and UNDERSTAND the POINT I AM MAKING here, then I suggest you do SOME 'thing' UNTIL you DO.

And, if you do NOT YET KNOW what TO DO, then the POINTS I HAVE BEEN MAKING here are BEING WILL PROVED True.

Also, the fact that you can NOT just SAY and WRITE 'the alleged relevance' SHOWS and PROVES MORE than you YET REALIZE.

[Skepdick]

Newcomb's so-called 'paradox' is in relation to just those people who want MORE money. Which, by the way, OBVIOUSLY has absolutely NOTHING to do with what has been written here so far.

Unless, OF COURSE, you WANT to SHOW and PROVE otherwise.

Newcomb’s paradox uses money as a demonstrative tool.

OBVIOUSLY.

It’s not about money.

So, it is ABOUT 'those' who WANT money. OTHERWISE that STUPID so-called 'paradox' would NOT be "UNDERSTOOD".

Read it again. Till you understand why it is relevant to the OP.

I suggest that YOUR INABILITY to EXPLAIN 'things' here, AT ALL, let alone SIMPLY, SHOWS that you REALLY do NOT UNDERSTAND 'it' WELL ENOUGH.

If you don’t see the relevance - read it until you do.

If you do NOT SEE and UNDERSTAND the POINT I AM MAKING here, then I suggest you do SOME 'thing' UNTIL you DO.

And, if you do NOT YET KNOW what TO DO, then the POINTS I HAVE BEEN MAKING here are BEING WILL PROVED True.

Also, the fact that you can NOT just SAY and WRITE 'the alleged relevance' SHOWS and PROVES MORE than you YET REALIZE.

Age.


[Mindless invective redacted by iMod]

[Harbal]

But even if you are perfectly conscious of your choice and think it is made freely then there is still the question of what is causing your consciousness to be such as it is.

Yes, I see what you mean, but I can't imagine where to start looking for the answer to that question. I believe we are still nowhere near figuring out what consciousness actually is, and how it comes about.

YET some of 'us' have ALREADY ARRIVED AT the CONCLUSION, and ANSWER.

Yes, I know you have said what consciousness is, but it didn't really explain anything.

[Harbal]

I think it's a question of how much, if any, free will we have.

I found that by FINDING OUT what the two words 'free will' were ACTUALLY MEANING, or are ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, far more SUFFICIENT, and SATISFYING.

For example if one was to ask the question, 'How much 'free will' do we have?' I would wonder, what does that one even mean by 'free will'?

So, what do the words 'free will' even MEAN, or even REFER TO, to you, EXACTLY "harbal"?

The term, "free will", could vary in meaning, but in this instance I suppose I mean being in total conscious control of our actions.

It has been shown that many of the decisions we believe we make consciously have already been made at a deeper lever in our psyche (or whatever they call it) beforehand. It just feels like it was a conscious decision.

But NOT ALL, right?

I don't know.

I don't like the thought of not having any free will at all, but it seems that could be the case.

WHY, what about those decisions that are 'consciously made'?

Oh, and by the way, 'this', REALLY, has NOTHING AT ALL to do with, ACTUAL, 'free will' anyway.

Well that depends on what you mean by "free will", and what I mean by it.

[Age]

Newcomb’s paradox uses money as a demonstrative tool.

OBVIOUSLY.

It’s not about money.

So, it is ABOUT 'those' who WANT money. OTHERWISE that STUPID so-called 'paradox' would NOT be "UNDERSTOOD".

Read it again. Till you understand why it is relevant to the OP.

I suggest that YOUR INABILITY to EXPLAIN 'things' here, AT ALL, let alone SIMPLY, SHOWS that you REALLY do NOT UNDERSTAND 'it' WELL ENOUGH.

If you don’t see the relevance - read it until you do.

If you do NOT SEE and UNDERSTAND the POINT I AM MAKING here, then I suggest you do SOME 'thing' UNTIL you DO.

And, if you do NOT YET KNOW what TO DO, then the POINTS I HAVE BEEN MAKING here are BEING WILL PROVED True.

Also, the fact that you can NOT just SAY and WRITE 'the alleged relevance' SHOWS and PROVES MORE than you YET REALIZE.

Age.

Fuck off.

ONCE AGAIN, I will suggest that if one can NOT back up and support their BELIEFS or CLAIMS, BEFORE they make them known publicly, then it would be better for them to HOLD their BELIEFS and CLAIMS private.

[Age]

Yes, I see what you mean, but I can't imagine where to start looking for the answer to that question. I believe we are still nowhere near figuring out what consciousness actually is, and how it comes about.

YET some of 'us' have ALREADY ARRIVED AT the CONCLUSION, and ANSWER.

Yes, I know you have said what consciousness is, but it didn't really explain anything.

It was NOT meant to.

If one REALLY wants EXPLANATIONS, then OBVIOUSLY they will SEEK them out.

[Age]

I think it's a question of how much, if any, free will we have.

I found that by FINDING OUT what the two words 'free will' were ACTUALLY MEANING, or are ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, far more SUFFICIENT, and SATISFYING.

For example if one was to ask the question, 'How much 'free will' do we have?' I would wonder, what does that one even mean by 'free will'?

So, what do the words 'free will' even MEAN, or even REFER TO, to you, EXACTLY "harbal"?

The term, "free will", could vary in meaning,

What do you mean by 'could' vary in meaning?

The term, 'free will', DOES vary in meaning. It all depends on 'the observer'. As absolutely EVERY 'thing' is relative TO 'the observer'.

but in this instance I suppose I mean being in total conscious control of our actions.

Besides the word 'actions' here not being the EXACT 'right' word, if we look PAST 'this', then 'one' would have to ALWAYS be FULLY AWARE, and thus CONSCIOUS, OF ALL of the 'thinking' AND 'emotions' that are occurring within the body to be IN TOTAL CONSCIOUS CONTROL of the 'behavior' of 'the body'.

It has been shown that many of the decisions we believe we make consciously have already been made at a deeper lever in our psyche (or whatever they call it) beforehand. It just feels like it was a conscious decision.

But NOT ALL, right?

I don't know.

So, do you think that;

1. 'It has been shown that ALL of the decisions we believe we make consciously have already been made at a deeper level', OR,

2. 'It has been shown that MANY of the decisions we believe we make consciously have already been made at a deeper level'?

I don't like the thought of not having any free will at all, but it seems that could be the case.

WHY, what about those decisions that are 'consciously made'?

Oh, and by the way, 'this', REALLY, has NOTHING AT ALL to do with, ACTUAL, 'free will' anyway.

Well that depends on what you mean by "free will", and what I mean by it.

VERY, VERY True.

AND, if and when 'you' or 'I' are discussing 'free will' with "others", then it ALSO depends on what 'they' mean by 'free will' and what 'you' and/or 'I' mean by 'free will'.

Also, and by the way, this phenomena applies TO and WITH EACH and EVERY word that is being USED.

See, 'it' all depends on what one MEANS when they SAY and USE A word. Again, this is because absolutely EVERY 'thing' is relative TO 'the observer'.

Which, by the way, EXPLAINS WHY 'you', human beings, have been bickering, quarreling, disagreeing, fighting, 'arguing', and even KILLING each "other" for millennia now, hitherto when this is being written. And, from looking AT the way 'you', human beings, ARE STILL interacting with each "other" in this forum 'you', people, WILL CONTINUE on the EXACT SAME trajectory.

[Wizard22]

VERY, VERY True.

AND, if and when 'you' or 'I' are discussing 'free will' with "others", then it ALSO depends on what 'they' mean by 'free will' and what 'you' and/or 'I' mean by 'free will'.

Age has simultaneously the worst argumentative style, but makes the best argumentative points, out of the philosophical hobbyists around here.

Yes, this is correct, Free-Will is subjective and dependent upon the User. If a person has no Free-Will, then they usually believe and argue as such. Therefore, it's most likely of all, that most people simply don't have Free-Will. But some others, Do have it. This can be compared to something like 'privilege'. Some people have it—others do not. Some people are intelligent—others are not.

Some people are Free, have Free-Will.

Others are not, and do not.

[Skepdick]

OBVIOUSLY.


So, it is ABOUT 'those' who WANT money. OTHERWISE that STUPID so-called 'paradox' would NOT be "UNDERSTOOD".


I suggest that YOUR INABILITY to EXPLAIN 'things' here, AT ALL, let alone SIMPLY, SHOWS that you REALLY do NOT UNDERSTAND 'it' WELL ENOUGH.


If you do NOT SEE and UNDERSTAND the POINT I AM MAKING here, then I suggest you do SOME 'thing' UNTIL you DO.

And, if you do NOT YET KNOW what TO DO, then the POINTS I HAVE BEEN MAKING here are BEING WILL PROVED True.

Also, the fact that you can NOT just SAY and WRITE 'the alleged relevance' SHOWS and PROVES MORE than you YET REALIZE.

Age.

Fuck off.

ONCE AGAIN, I will suggest that if one can NOT back up and support their BELIEFS or CLAIMS, BEFORE they make them known publicly, then it would be better for them to HOLD their BELIEFS and CLAIMS private.

Can I back up everything I say? Yes. Do I want to? No.

Open google or ChatGPT and type "Implications of Newcomb's paradox" you lazy wanker.

[Age]

VERY, VERY True.

AND, if and when 'you' or 'I' are discussing 'free will' with "others", then it ALSO depends on what 'they' mean by 'free will' and what 'you' and/or 'I' mean by 'free will'.

Age has simultaneously the worst argumentative style,

THANK YOU for 'this'.

Now 'this' is some 'thing' that I can REALLY LEARN and GROW FROM.

So, WHAT is 'it', EXACTLY, about the way I 'argue', which makes 'it' 'the worst'?

AND, HOW, EXACTLY, could I IMPROVE?

but makes the best argumentative points, out of the philosophical hobbyists around here.

Yes, this is correct, Free-Will is subjective and dependent upon the User. If a person has no Free-Will, then they usually believe and argue as such. Therefore, it's most likely of all, that most people simply don't have Free-Will. But some others, Do have it. This can be compared to something like 'privilege'. Some people have it—others do not. Some people are intelligent—others are not.

Some people are Free, have Free-Will.

Others are not, and do not.

I would 'argue' otherwise, but I do have THE WORST 'argumentative style', right?

Also, could this then mean that 'this' is because I am NOT 'argumentative', and whereas people who have THE BEST 'argumentative style' are 'argumentative'? Or does it NOT work 'this way' when in relation to 'this'?

[Age]

Age.

Fuck off.

ONCE AGAIN, I will suggest that if one can NOT back up and support their BELIEFS or CLAIMS, BEFORE they make them known publicly, then it would be better for them to HOLD their BELIEFS and CLAIMS private.

Can I back up everything I say? Yes. Do I want to? No.

WHY?

Are you AFRAID or SCARED of some 'thing'?

Or, is there some OTHER reason you, supposedly, do NOT want to back up everything you say?

Open google or ChatGPT and type "Implications of Newcomb's paradox" you lazy wanker.

Done it. AND, as I SAID ABOVE STILL STANDS.

Which, by the way, can NOT BE REFUTED.