Free will is wholly deterministic

[Skepdick]

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.

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

[Age]

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.

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

If you can NOT UNDERSTAND what I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT here, then so be it.

your complete LACK OF ABILITY to just back up and support YOUR CLAIM here is SEEN as being ABSOLUTE PROOF that what you CLAIM is ACTUALLY just False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

Now, if you can NOT COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND this Fact, then I suggest you EITHER CHANGE, so you CAN, or just REMAIN EXACTLY as you ARE. Either way is PERFECTLY FINE with me.

[Harbal]

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

What, like with the, "I'm a policeman", fiasco?

[bahman]

When I chose to commit a crime, or not commit a crime I make a decision. The decision is based on a nexus of causalities which include all antecedent conditions including my motivation, volition, physical and mental needs, education, socialization, experience ad infinitem. It might be difficult for another to predict my choice. But that choice can only make sense if it is the sum of those causalities, the things that make me who I am. There are laws that might deter me, or encourage me. but it is not free in an absolute sense that I am free of the deterministic condition of the universe, the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment. It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine, I make the choice. Free will is illusory, such choices are determined or would be meaningless. I am that agent of determinism compatible with causality and the exercise of my will.

But apparently, God gives us free will. And about that, we have no choice, because he insists upon it. Unless you are a Calvinist, then you don't.

Does anyone care to refute this?

The title of the thread is wrong! Free will by definition is the ability to choose between at least two options unimpeded. Cause and effect make a chain of causality which means that we are dealing with one option at any given time. A deterministic system cannot evolve further when it faces options. You are able to choose between two options unimpeded therefore you are free.

[Sculptor]

When I chose to commit a crime, or not commit a crime I make a decision. The decision is based on a nexus of causalities which include all antecedent conditions including my motivation, volition, physical and mental needs, education, socialization, experience ad infinitem. It might be difficult for another to predict my choice. But that choice can only make sense if it is the sum of those causalities, the things that make me who I am. There are laws that might deter me, or encourage me. but it is not free in an absolute sense that I am free of the deterministic condition of the universe, the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment. It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine, I make the choice. Free will is illusory, such choices are determined or would be meaningless. I am that agent of determinism compatible with causality and the exercise of my will.

But apparently, God gives us free will. And about that, we have no choice, because he insists upon it. Unless you are a Calvinist, then you don't.

Does anyone care to refute this?

The title of the thread is wrong! Free will by definition is the ability to choose between at least two options unimpeded. Cause and effect make a chain of causality which means that we are dealing with one option at any given time. A deterministic system cannot evolve further when it faces options. You are able to choose between two options unimpeded therefore you are free.

No.
The point is that we are often freely faced with two or more options. And at that moment in time, the choice we freely make is wholly determined by what and who we are as individuals. It is determined by what we want, need, or feel at that moment.
If it were any other way, then it would not be our choice, but capricious.

It is my experience that only really intelligent people are capable of understanding this. All others thrash about with childish and or magical solutions to preserve their naive attitudes.

[Skepdick]

What, like with the, "I'm a policeman", fiasco?

Right!

I am still waiting for you to prove that I am not a policeman.

[bahman]

When I chose to commit a crime, or not commit a crime I make a decision. The decision is based on a nexus of causalities which include all antecedent conditions including my motivation, volition, physical and mental needs, education, socialization, experience ad infinitem. It might be difficult for another to predict my choice. But that choice can only make sense if it is the sum of those causalities, the things that make me who I am. There are laws that might deter me, or encourage me. but it is not free in an absolute sense that I am free of the deterministic condition of the universe, the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment. It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine, I make the choice. Free will is illusory, such choices are determined or would be meaningless. I am that agent of determinism compatible with causality and the exercise of my will.

But apparently, God gives us free will. And about that, we have no choice, because he insists upon it. Unless you are a Calvinist, then you don't.

Does anyone care to refute this?

The title of the thread is wrong! Free will by definition is the ability to choose between at least two options unimpeded. Cause and effect make a chain of causality which means that we are dealing with one option at any given time. A deterministic system cannot evolve further when it faces options. You are able to choose between two options unimpeded therefore you are free.

No.
The point is that we are often freely faced with two or more options.

My point is that all options cannot be real in a deterministic world.

And at that moment in time, the choice we freely make is wholly determined by what and who we are as individuals. It is determined by what we want, needs, or feel at that moment.

That is what I call it non-free decision.

[Harbal]

What, like with the, "I'm a policeman", fiasco?

Right!

I am still waiting for you to prove that I am not a policeman.

I assumed you already knew.

[Flannel Jesus]

No.
The point is that we are often freely faced with two or more options. And at that moment in time, the choice we freely make is wholly determined by what and who we are as individuals. It is determined by what we want, need, or feel at that moment.
If it were any other way, then it would not be our choice, but capricious.

I agree with your take and perspective here in bulk, but I think you've missed what this guy is saying.

He's saying, how can you talk about being faced with a "choice" in a deterministic world? He's saying what kind of choice is it if you couldn't really have chosen otherwise?

I think that's an important question to answer, even if I inevitably disagree with his take, because the meaning of the word "choice" itself is a little bit tricky in these scenarios.

[Wizard22]

determined by what and who we are as individuals. It is determined by what we want, need, or feel at that moment.

This is a different argument than the OP, by the way.

So what is an "individual"?

[Wizard22]

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?

You should use less CAPITALIZATION and 'parentheses'. Save grammatic modifications for when they're really important, use it sparsely.

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'?

Everybody in philosophy is argumentative. You have points to make, beliefs, like everybody else. You should become aware of your own intentions.

[Sculptor]

No.
The point is that we are often freely faced with two or more options. And at that moment in time, the choice we freely make is wholly determined by what and who we are as individuals. It is determined by what we want, need, or feel at that moment.
If it were any other way, then it would not be our choice, but capricious.

I agree with your take and perspective here in bulk, but I think you've missed what this guy is saying.

He's saying, how can you talk about being faced with a "choice" in a deterministic world? He's saying what kind of choice is it if you couldn't really have chosen otherwise?

I think that's an important question to answer, even if I inevitably disagree with his take, because the meaning of the word "choice" itself is a little bit tricky in these scenarios.

No I think I know what "the guy" is saying. He missed the obvious (I thought) irony of the statement.
The fact is that we are often faced with choices, and we make choices. Whether or not you belief in "radical free will" of determinism that is a fact. The question really is; HOW are those choices made.
As long as no one is holding a gun to your head the choice is "free", but given the same moment in time, with all things being equal that choice can only have one result: the one you chose given X set of conditions.

It is my view that philosophy needs to proceed from known and accepted terminology. We make choices all the time. It's what is happening in our brains when we make that choice is that is important.
A determinist needs not abandon worlds like choice, selection, and influences, freely. It's simply the case that a determined choice is compatible with "free will", in which the chooser is not exogenously compelled by another.

[Wizard22]

As long as no one is holding a gun to your head the choice is "free",

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Your original argument was that people are restrained by countless factors. Now your argument is that "only a gun to your head" means you're not free.

So which is it?

[Flannel Jesus]

As long as no one is holding a gun to your head the choice is "free",

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Your original argument was that people are restrained by countless factors. Now your argument is that "only a gun to your head" means you're not free.

So which is it?

You're equivocating. You think "restrained by factors" like preferences and such is equivalent to "not free", while he does not. So for him there's no "which is it", because he doesn't equivocate those things.

[Wizard22]

He just said it, Flannel. Pay attention to what he actually claims.

He just said "only a gun to your head".