martillo

From Wikipedia: Deinosuchus: "Using more complete remains, it was estimated in 1999 that the size attained by specimens of Deinosuchus varied from 8 to 10 meters (26 to 33 ft) with weights from 2.5 to 5 metric tons (2.8 to 5.5 short tons).[15]" Tyrannosaurus: "The most complete specimen measures up to 12.3–12.4 m (40–41 ft) in length, but according to most modern estimates, Tyrannosaurus could have exceeded sizes of 12.4 m (41 ft) in length, 3.7–4 m (12–13 ft) in hip height, and 10 tonnes (9.8 long tons; 11 short tons) in mass." In a fight of both I would surely bet on the T Rex! And I think Tyrannosaurus could be well adapted to live in grass-flooded areas. Not immersed, I agree now, just leaning his so heavy body on the water and sliding on it pushed by his strong legs and feet. Yes, I can quite "see" them in that lifestyle of a total ape predator on those areas...

Seems you are right in that all happens "chemo-electrically" in a "wet meat computer (aka: brain and nervous system)" but I don't think all I perceive is actually a "post-dictive narrative". There could be a time delay between the real activities of the brain and my perception of them but not in a way that I'm not conscious about what is happening. I'm not just as spectator of what is happening. I find important here now my first post:

I agree...

A free choice would be a choice without any conditions present. That is to match with the dictionaries definition of "free will" something like "the possibility to make choices or decisions without any conditions present". Then I can conclude that actually a "free will" does not exist in reality because always some conditions are present. The possibility to make choices and decisions sometimes does exist but always under certain conditions present.

I must say: "The free will only exists if there is a free choice" Right. Totally sure. Not at all.

Your questions are not precisely asked. You must precisely define first "free will" and when you talk about determination you must specify by what thing(s) you are considering. Then I must answer your questions in the following way: What exist is is the possibilities to make choices/decisions sometimes according to the conditions of the situation. They are determined by the past, the conditions and our thinking. They are determined by the past, the conditions and our thinking. Sometimes we can. Depends if the conditions of the situation allow that. No, is in both. If you don't have the possibility to make choices/decisions then "will", "free will" or whatever you call it does not exist. Of course if you can't act according to your choices/decisions it also not exist. May be there is, I don't know I admit. I don't know how the brain processes language and rationalize about the things. Do you know? Can you explain that for me? I have a clear viewpoint. I'm well answering your questions. Is just that I don't agree with your viewpoint with well founded arguments and you don't like that.

I know neuronal cells can interchange information through electric impulses and chemical neuro-transmitters. Seems you are not considering that if the subject we are considering runs at a small enough velocity the brain have time to transform some quantity of "chemo-electric" information it receives to language, rationalize on it and finally take a choice/decision on some possible action we could perform in consequence. For instance in the given example of discussing here in the forum: at some moment I saw your post but took my time to read it, understand it, rationalize about, google something, drink some soda, elaborate an answer and finally write this answer to you. I don't know exactly how the brain is capable to do all that. May be is all "chemo-electrical", I don't know. As I said some time ago the process of thinking is still a mystery for me. But I know I made some purely rational choices/decisions in that process BEFORE the final decision to post it. In summary quite now I was able to make choices/decisions. Not fine for me. As for now I will try to not mention "will" but just "choices" and "decisions".

Not supernatural at all. I'm just considering the ability of everybody to think before making a choice or decision. As an example I would mention that is on my free will that I decide to discuss here what we are discussing. Nothing force me to do that. I am free to do many other things, may be more productive ones indeed but not, I'm freely preferring to discuss this subject. May be you are not understanding something. I have made a search for the meaning of "will". Actually there's a discrepancy on the meaning between "desire/intention" and "the faculty of choice/decision". Seems when the term is used alone, just "will", it is preferentially associated with "desire/intention" and when associated with free, the "free will", is associated to "choice/decision". In our discussion here I was associating first, "restricted will" and now (as a consequence of @iNow disagreement with the qualifier "restricted") simply just "will" with "the faculty of choice/decision" as in the text of the article I mentioned. I am considering "free will" as associated in dictionaries to the faculty to "take a choice/decision independent of any condition" (my phrasing). If you understand this I will continue answering your comments on your post. If not, I can't continue. I hope everybody else can also understand that. If not please comment what is wrong and how I should proceed using the term "will" or "restricted will" or "free will" if it would be the case. IN SUMMARY: At the inverse: what we are really discussing here is the real possibility of making choices/decisions we can have in the real world sometimes. Please, how we should call that? We all must agree in that, if not impossible to have a discussion...

I have considered the "will" as the possibility to make a choice not the choice I made. When I say "I want..." it is assumed we have already made a possible choice if there was one. Seems you are agreeing in @Eise conception of "will". I'm considering that sometimes we make a choice before deciding what we want. May be here is the knot of all of our discussion... I have found something about that could help in defining things (https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/will-the/v-1) : As traditionally conceived, the will is the faculty of choice or decision, by which we determine which actions we shall perform. As a faculty of decision, the will is naturally seen as the point at which we exercise our freedom of action – our control of how we act. It is within our control or up to us which actions we perform only because we have a capacity to decide which actions we shall perform, and it is up to us which such decisions we take. We exercise our freedom of action through freely taken decisions about how we shall act.

The social laws would be a constraint in the decisions. The laws make we think in the consequences before doing some things and we would have the will to obey them or not. I don't believe in fair ones with the will to lose. Seems there's a confusion in will with intention or desire... That's why we first must agree in the definition of "will" before any further discussion.

No, nobody has "the free will to win". May be they have the free will to decide to compete but not to win. To win is not just a matter of a choice. Is the result of the competition. The social laws does not physically impede people to do something. They impose responsibility on the actions. If we do things we are responsible for the consequences. I think you didn't succeed in demonstrating that.

Our decisions are a result of our thinking capability. Everybody agree we all can think,isn't it? This has nothing to do with the possible dualism soul-body. We have some freedom to act sometimes due to the existence of the "will". If no "will" no freedom at all. No need for a special example. It happens in all cases. "Determined will"? That sounds contradictory. Is you talking about a determined will, not me. Please don't rephrase what I say.

All hunters need to compete with other hunters in nature but they find a way for existing, isn't it? Fighting sometimes happens but even those which would lose still exist. That is not a reason for the T Rex not being an amphibious one. A question: I know about giant crocodiles but I thought that was in the seas. Are you sure so big crocodiles as you mention have existed at the not so deep wetlands? Doesn't seem so.

As I said in the previous post (I was editing when you posted): I would need time to answer your other questions. Too much questions at the same time, you know?

Yes. Not sure which is the point here. You mention determinism, freedom, immortality, moral and God all at the same time. By the way I haven't studied Kant in deep. One thing is the existence of the possibility to make choices, that's the "will". Other thing is what caused our decision in a particular situation considering all the conditions present and the result of our thinking at the time. Different things. I don't understand why you say" we can't make choices"... There are so much philosophers, so much philosophies... May be everyone has some reason. I agree with someones in some things and could disagree in other ones. Not so easy...

Absolutely no, of course. We can imagine that would be the situation of a slave. The slave is not free at all. But that is a matter of rights someone have at some time. this does not mean "will" does not exist in the world. Actually there are no slaves nowadays in general I think. There exist "will" in the world but is not available all times and not for everybody at the same time in practice. The "will" is always constrained by the conditions of the situation. We can say we cannot always make use of it, is not always available, but we can say that "will" does exist in the world.

Glad to agree with Kant and Descartes for instance. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics))

Good point. What matters in this case is that @Eise had in some situation the possibility to make a choice. This means that "will" existed for him. Now, if you want to know what leaded @Eise to have made his choice then you probably must ask @Eise his reasons. That would be another subject. The important thing for us now is that someone has the possibility to make choices at sometimes. This means "will" exist. No. Freedom to act is one thing. Freedom to make a choice is something different.

You didn't follow the discussion appropriately. Now I have got free of those words. What I'm considering at this point is just "will" without qualifiers as @iNow asked: That would be fine for me. I could state then: The "will", defined as "the possibility to make choices", does exist sometimes. Would that be right for you? There would be no "free will" nor "determinism", just "will" does exist sometimes. No, you can choice to be a compatibilist if you want. I'm just pointing out that "will" and "determinism" are mutually exclusive by the definition of them. Is up to you how to deal with this. @Eise and @iNow are talking about redefining "will". I don't think that would be possible. If you can't make choices is not a "will", is something else. That's not free will. That's freedom to act. No opposition to do something. It is not about making a choice which is the definition of "will".

Over-simplifying things is something wrong I admit. Some things have an inherent complexity and trying to over-simplify lead us to misunderstandings and reaching wrong conclusions. But over-complicating things is also not right. In general it is the result of our misunderstanding in something. In relation to our discussion in this thread I think you could be over-complicating some things. Particularly, the definition of "will" or the meaning of "choice" and "decision" which are used in the "will" definitions, not only that mine but also the dictionaries definitions. Here is where the precise meaning of the words and the right definitions become important. The problem I have in our discussion is that we don't agree even in the meaning of some words. This is the reason why I will not be able to continue the discussion.

The real meaning of the words brings some strong headaches sometimes, particularly if we are worried about the truth and the validity of some statements. English is not my natural language and I have some luck because of that. In the try to not make mistakes I'm always reviewing the meaning of the words I'm using and always try to stay with the simplest vocabulary as possible. I always try to express the things also in simple ways to be understood without doubt in what I pretend to say. So I think I can understand if you are complicated with some subject. The discussions in the forum helped me a lot sometimes in clarifying concepts and in the reaching to the right conclusions I needed although they weren't as I originally liked them to be sometimes. I hope you could solve your complications to be able to have clear thoughts. By the way, I always try to not make mistakes but I always make some may be everyday...

I know the T Rex belonged to North America about 68-66 millions years ago. I have mentioned current "Pantanal" region just as an example of how could have been an appropriated region for the T Rex in his days at North America. North America seems to had a more "tropical" clima than nowadays at that age. From "Cretaceous" at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous): "The Cretaceous was a period with a relatively warm climate, resulting in high eustatic sea levels that created numerous shallow inland seas. These oceans and seas were populated with now-extinct marine reptiles, ammonites, and rudists, while dinosaurs continued to dominate on land. The world was ice-free, and forests extended to the poles. During this time, new groups of mammals and birds appeared."

The "Pantanal" region I have mentioned is very lush in vegetation (wikipedia):

Oh, I have misunderstood you. You are a complicated determinist then, like the compatibilists, which at the end admit determinism as valid but giving new meaning to the words (semantics). No agreement at all of course. Another determinist, isn't it? There's no other way. You stay with determinism or with the will. They are mutually exclusive.

So the T Rex living in the wetlands could be not a bad idea afterall. But he definitely could not completely immerse in water for hunting. I think the main advantage in a T Rex being a semi aquatic or amphibious animal is that he could lean his big and heavy body on the water. Could be possible then to think in a T Rex leaning and sliding on shallow waters hiding by some dense vegetation sometimes?