Why Free Will does not Exist

[Willamena]

the definition of foretell According to the definition of "foretell," I foretold what I would do, and those were correct foretellings of what I would do. And the only plausible explanation for those series of events is not that I am psychic about the future but because those were voluntary acts that I chose to perform.

You are welcomed to present any definitions you have about "ownership". When you do, I will assure you that I own my voluntary acts.

You do, indeed.

 

[Nous]

You do, indeed.

The demonstrable distinction between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements is that a person can foretell the performance of the former. And the only rational explanation for that fact is not that a person becomes intermittently psychic but because we choose to perform those acts--we will those acts. One does not need to add any flippy ideas about "ownership" to these facts.

 

[Willamena]

The demonstrable distinction between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements is that a person can foretell the performance of the former. And the only rational explanation for that fact is not that a person becomes intermittently psychic but because we choose to perform those acts--we will those acts. One does not need to add any flippy ideas about "ownership" to these facts.

An example of involuntary movement is when a doctor hits a patient on the knee with a reflex hammer, and the knee moves. Neither the doctor, who expects a reflex, nor the patient, who doesn't, can foresee what the actual outcome will be. The doctor might predict that his patient is healthy, and anticipate a positive reflex, but that's not necessarily what he is going to get. The doctor's action (hitting the patient's knee) is voluntary, the patient's (reflex or none) is not.

No intermittent psychic abilities necessary.

 

[Nous]

An example of involuntary movement is when a doctor hits a patient on the knee with a reflex hammer, and the knee moves. Neither the doctor, who expects a reflex, nor the patient, who doesn't, can foresee what the actual outcome will be. The doctor might predict that his patient is healthy, and anticipate a positive reflex, but that's not necessarily what he is going to get. The doctor's action (hitting the patient's knee) is voluntary, the patient's (reflex or none) is not.

No intermittent psychic abilities necessary.

Are you trying to suggest that something I said here is not true:

The demonstrable distinction between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements is that a person can foretell the performance of the former. And the only rational explanation for that fact is not that a person becomes intermittently psychic but because we choose to perform those acts--we will those acts. One does not need to add any flippy ideas about "ownership" to these facts.​

?

If you are trying to suggest that any sentence there is not true, then quote it and demonstrate its error.

 

[Willamena]

Are you trying to suggest that something I said here is not true:

The demonstrable distinction between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements is that a person can foretell the performance of the former. And the only rational explanation for that fact is not that a person becomes intermittently psychic but because we choose to perform those acts--we will those acts. One does not need to add any flippy ideas about "ownership" to these facts.​

?

If you are trying to suggest that any sentence there is not true, then quote it and demonstrate its error.

Sort of. All I'm saying is...

The demonstrable distinction between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements is that a person can foretell the performance of the former.

Foretelling is not a factor in volition. Neither the doctor nor the patient could predict the outcome of tapping the knee with the reflex hammer, yet the doctor acted with volition and the patient did not.

And the only rational explanation for that fact is not that a person becomes intermittently psychic but because we choose to perform those acts--we will those acts.

No intermittent psychic event is needed to explain volition, at all. By anyone.

 

[Nous]

Foretelling is not a factor in volition. Neither the doctor nor the patient could predict the outcome of tapping the knee with the reflex hammer, yet the doctor acted with volition and the patient did not.

Wow, you are just so out there. This sentence--

The demonstrable distinction between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements is that a person can foretell the performance of the former.​

--does not imply that a person can foretell someone else's willful acts or someone else's involuntary bodily movements. After all, I did make it clear that the ability to foretell one's voluntary acts is due to the fact that we choose to perform those voluntary acts.

So, I'll restate that sentence so you can be clear:

The demonstrable distinction between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements is that a person can foretell his/her own performance of the former.

You don't dispute that, do you?

 

[Willamena]

Wow, you are just so out there. This sentence--

The demonstrable distinction between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements is that a person can foretell the performance of the former.​

--does not imply that a person can foretell someone else's willful acts or someone else's involuntary bodily movements. After all, I did make it clear that the ability to foretell one's voluntary acts is due to the fact that we choose to perform those voluntary acts.

It's not a foretelling if it's just fulfilling a promise. You've either a certain outcome, or you don't. Foretelling is the prediction.

So, I'll restate that sentence so you can be clear:

The demonstrable distinction between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements is that a person can foretell his/her own performance of the former.

You don't dispute that, do you?

Yes. I have been all along.

 

[Willamena]

Fulfillling a promise is but one act of volition. It exemplifies volition, but it doesn't characterize volition.

Volition or will, for a person, is essential self-determination of events. 'Self' is the idea that, with this mind, this conglomeration of sensory inputs, ideas, interpretations, predictions, designs, imaginings, feelings, and opinions that compose a unique world-view, there is a core something, a driver of the body-vehicle, a puppetmaster pulling strings, a ghost in the machine, something greater than the sum, and that whether it survive death or not, like a cup that has the capacity to be filled, it has capacity to 'bring about.' It brings about ideas, it brings about events: the instigation of relation, the stubbornness of belief, the perfection of mathematics, the timeliness of birth, the nobility of leadership, the propriety of care, the rule of law, the decomposition of truth, the safety of institution, the solidity of companionship, and the fluidity of culture. For all that mankind has done, he owns up to every bit of it. He owns it. Without owning it, there is no essence.

 

[Nous]

Fulfillling a promise is but one act of volition.

So in other words, you don't have any alternative explanation for the facts that I (1) stated what I would do in the future, and (2) did exactly what I foretold I would do. You agree that those acts cannot only be accounted for as an example of voluntary and willful acts. Right?

And you have not shown that I have used the word "foretell" in any erroneous way. Correct? the definition of foretell

 

[Willamena]

So in other words, you don't have any alternative explanation for the facts that I (1) stated what I would do in the future, and (2) did exactly what I foretold I would do. You agree that those acts cannot only be accounted for as an example of voluntary and willful acts. Right?

And you have not shown that I have used the word "foretell" in any erroneous way. Correct? the definition of foretell

The alternative explanation is that "the facts" describe a promise, rather than a foretelling.

 

[Nous]

The alternative explanation is that "the facts" describe a promise, rather than a foretelling.

Notice how you don't answer the simple questions I ask or address what I've actually said.

Correcting my typo, I said:

So in other words, you don't have any alternative explanation for the facts that I (1) stated what I would do in the future, and (2) did exactly what I foretold I would do. You agree that those acts cannot only be accounted for as an example of voluntary and willful acts. Right?​

Thus, I asked whether you have have any alternative explanation than this explanation: those acts can only be accounted for as an example of voluntary and willful acts. Right?

How about answering that question?

I also asked:

And you have not shown that I have used the word "foretell" in any erroneous way. Correct? the definition of foretell​

How about addressing that question?