Thank you for letting me know. Now, I know something about your subjectivity - the fact that you agree with me about it.

You are very welcome TS. So is it the speech act or language which makes subjectivity to objectivity? We are communicating via writing on the keyboard and internet. But if we were in the same room, we would be conversing in ordinary language for sharing the subjectivity.

I don't think anything can turn our subjectivity into objectivity. When two people see the same thing e.g. a rose, and confirm to each other that they are both seeing the rose, then they may think that their perceived rose is part of an objective reality but it is not necessarily so. They could both be plugged into the same simulation which has a rose in it!

I agree with you.

Thank you.

:blush: :pray:

Regardless of what the hard determinism or constraints were, if someone came into your house, stole everything of your valuables, then you will morally accuse and legally punish the wrong doer, even if he says to you, that he was programmed to steal your valuables by his DNA, and he had no choice, and the wrong doings were the results of determinism and inherent constraint. Would you not? — Corvus

I am not sure if you answered this question.

Sorry, I hadn't noticed your question until now as I am suffering from depression and CPTSD and consequently my concentration is poor. The answer to your question is: no, I would not. I let my kidnapper, my rapist, the thieves who stole our belongings, and the murderers of my relatives and my best friend get away with their crimes. I think what all living things did in the past, what all living things are doing in the present and what all living things will do in the future are all according to hard determinism.

:worry: :fear: No need for apology my friend.
There seem to be definitely element of determinism in life. In fact every events in the past are under the hard determinism. No one can change the past.

Some events in the future are also under the HD e.g. old age, deaths - we know them for sure, but cannot change them. Only some actions and events at present and future are in the realm of freewill e.g. drinking coffee instead of tea, reading instead of going for a walk etc.

Thank you Corvus. Even drinking coffee instead of tea or reading instead of going for a walk is not free from hard determinism. Our preferences and the resultant choices are products of hard determinism.

then accessing God would be by being that nature, your true nature, that living breathing organism. Be-ing a human creature, accepting that reality, as opposed to what we spend the vast majority of our time doing, creating our own reality becoming a human "god." — ENOAH

That sounds like Buddhism. Could it be right?

To incorporate the Abrahamic tradition, the former is the tree of life, the latter is the tree of knowledge. — ENOAH

Which sphere in the Tree of Life depicts morality?

Our preferences and the resultant choices are products of hard determinism. — Truth Seeker

Could it not be your judgement which takes place always after your decisions on the choices? You are thinking them all as hard determinism, because you always reflect on them after the events, at which you cannot change them anymore from the view point of your reflections on them? Surely before the decisions, you had freewill to choose?

Our choices are determined by the effects of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. We are never free from these groups of variables. If you had the genes of a banana tree would you be posting messages in this forum? If your zygote was baked in an oven instead of being nurtured in your mother's womb would you be reading these words? If your zygote was deprived of all the nutrients from your time in the womb to the present day, would you have come this far? If you didn't experience learning English, would you be able to read these sentences? No. You would not. Your present is the result of your past.

No. You would not. Your present is the result of your past. — Truth Seeker

Should we not trace the most immediate causes for our actions? If we go too far back for accounting the causes, then we might have to go back to the big bang for as the cause for every events taken place since the start of universe. It wouldn't be very meaningful.

For my freewill to decide to drink water now instead of coffee is that because I wanted to drink water, not because my DNA was not banana's DNA, or the universe happened, or I was born.

The reason I could read your post in English was because I got email that you have replied to my post, and I decided to read it (which is the most immediate cause for the action), not because I was born, studied to read in English, didn't have DNA of banana, or the universe started 500 billion years ago.

I could have chosen not drink anything at all, or could have drank a cola, but I chose to drink water because I wanted to. I could have gone to bed instead of reading your post in English, but I decided to read it. I had my freewill at the time. Now it is past the moments, I no longer have the freewill. Those events are now under the hard determinism. But for my future and present actions, I still have my freewill to exercise as I want and desire.

Would you agree? Or is my point not quite making sense? :)

I could have chosen not drink anything at all, or could have drank a cola, but I chose to drink water because I wanted to. — Corvus

You wanting to is determined. This ignores the objection.

I could have gone to bed instead of reading your post in English, but I decided to read it. — Corvus

No, you couldn't have. It was not open to you to decide anything but what the preceding history of hte Universe determined you to decide.

The moral deliberation of someone is not free from variables he or she did not choose i.e. genes, environments since conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, experiences from the womb to the present. We don't have free will. We have determined and constrained will. This is why no biological being is morally culpable. — Truth Seeker

All design under glaze -- as a potter would say.

"We don't have free will" has become the unscratchable design in topics like this. The misconception of this idea of free will has lead to the kind of arguments like yours. "Lacking free will", if that's even true, is not synonymous with lacking conscious volition. Deliberation is a human activity. Please consult Aristotle and Descartes. We are not automatons that has a few moves in a very limited capacity.

What does a will even mean to you?

I could have chosen not drink anything at all, or could have drank a cola, but I chose to drink water because I wanted to. — Corvus

How did you settle finally upon the so called decision to drink water? You say you wanted to.

Did your body receive organic triggers driving you to feel what we call thirsty, in turn sending triggers to your mind, which has been conditioned over time so precisely, that the particular organic feeling, triggered in Mind, the exact chain of Signifiers which habitually code the final Signifier, I want water?

Or was there an environmental trigger first, you saw an image of water on the screen, triggering in Mind, the exact sequence of Signifiers which habitually code the final Signifier, I want water?

Or to prove this suggestion wrong, are you now going to get up and spontaneously drink a glass of water? To prove this wrong.

No, you couldn't have. It was not open to you to decide anything but what the preceding history of hte Universe determined you to decide. — AmadeusD

Deliberation is a human activity. — L'éléphant

And each incidence of deliberation is determined by the previous. Which is determined by its reasons. Which are determined by previous states of affairs, which consist in previous deliberations and reasons.

This is not avoidable without some novel element interloping.

I disagree because it's a domino effect starting from the beginning of the universe to the present. If you remove any of the dominos from the trail of dominos the chain of causation breaks.

I agree.

Yes, we have conscious volition, but this volition is not free from determinants and constraints. My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints.

I agree.

I agree.

I disagree because it's a domino effect starting from the beginning of the universe to the present. If you remove any of the dominos from the trail of dominos the chain of causation breaks. — Truth Seeker

For example, if your partner (husband or wife) cheated you, then would you say that he / she cheated because he / she was born, and had DNA for cheating? Your partner had to cheat because the cheating was done under the determinism and constraint, that he or she couldn't be faithful. Therefore, he / she is not morally culpable?

Would you not take into account the fact, and the fact only that your partner cheated you regardless of what the domino effect of the cause for the cheating was in concluding he / she is morally culpable for the cheating?

You wanting to is determined. This ignores the objection. — AmadeusD

It looks determined after the event, but before the event I was able to decide to want and choose what I wanted. Or sometimes I don't want something, but I still choose something with no wanting or thinking at all. If this is the case, then why is it determined?

We make choices every second. Some of the choices are unconscious e.g. the heart rate, and some of the choices are conscious e.g. choosing to cheat or not cheat on a partner. All of the choices are determined and constrained by the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. We are never free from the variables that determine and constrain our choices. I don't assign culpability to anyone because no one is actually culpable. This is why I chose the "No one" option on the "Who is morally culpable?" poll in the first post in this thread. We are born inevitably, we live inevitable lives, and then we die inevitable deaths. Everything is proceeding in the only way it can.

This has become a pointless discussion.

In a way, everything is pointless. I have never asked anyone to agree with me about anything and I never will. I have my thoughts and you have yours. If you had my genes, my environments from conception to the present, my nutrients from conception to the present, and my experiences from the womb to the present you would be typing these words where and when I am typing these words. If I had your genes, your environments from conception to the present, your nutrients from conception to the present, and your experiences from the womb to the present, I would be doing what you are doing in the present. The same goes for everyone else. We are all puppets controlled by the strings of variables.

To incontrovertibly prove that hard determinism is true, I would need to create a universe that has identical starting conditions and laws of physics and let it run for as long as the universe we are in has run to see if events unfold exactly as they did in this universe. As I can't create an identical universe or access data from another universe, I can't prove it incontrovertibly. However, I am almost certain that it is true - as my conclusion is based on experiments and observations carried out in this universe.

As I can't create an identical universe or access data from another universe, I can't prove it incontrovertibly. However, I am almost certain that it is true - as my conclusion is based on experiments and observations carried out in this universe. — Truth Seeker

It sounds like you are making choices and decisions on your beliefs and the world views. Some will say that even the hardest determinism is chosen via freewill of the believer. Hence this argument seems it has no resolution.

I am not going to say your view is wrong like some other folks would do. Your view is just different from some others and mine, and it is good to know that.

I don't have any problem with other people having different views from me. In fact, I prefer it. Diversity of all kinds makes the world much more interesting than it would be if everyone were identical. Have you carried out experiments to test the effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences on living things? I have. The arbiter of truth is evidence. My conclusion follows from the evidence.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks.