Free will and determinism

[Mark Quayle]

It points to the relative lack of substance to the deterministic position.

Elsewhere you described the deterministic position, with the strawman that determinists claim there is no choice. They do not claim that, as far as I know. You, apparently, think that what determinists DO claim logically (or otherwise) reduces to 'no choice'. But they do not claim that. Some few may, but by far and large, I don't think they do claim that.

So what are you even talking about? Would you say that there is any abstract subject of discussion that doesn't lack substance? What do you mean by 'substance' here? Only that it is (or is not) a useful subject (societally/behaviorally)?

Not about human behavior. We are not entirely rational.

What has that to do with determinism?

That's silly. It suggests you've never chosen not to do something you wanted to do.

Not at all, but we've already discussed this. We always do what we prefer, even if we prefer it for only that moment of decision.

Because it's a "cause of the gaps" argument if you don't. Why should I believe these causes exist for every unique and distinct outcome?

What else would you think --that they just pop into existence on their own? But for what it is worth, the interplay of eons of causes and effects-become-causes-of-further-effects, the myriad causes producing each individual effect, would necessarily produce unique outcomes.

You're getting too wrapped up in a meaningless distinction between cause and effect despite admitting they're basically the same thing.

That's pretty imprecise. Each effect becoming cause does not mean that cause and effect are the same thing. They are not. I am an offspring of my parents, and I produce offspring. Being an offspring is not the same thing as producing offspring, even if the one person, I, am and do both.

I don't know who else's logic you would hope to use.

'Logic' is not a word that can only mean one thing. Many people's logic is not logical. I would hope --uselessly, perhaps-- that my logic is logical. But I see nothing to gain by rejecting a simply logical notion --i.e. determinism. --It doesn't (since you insist on dealing with its application to behavior) claim there is no choice, nor does it even deny personal responsibility for one's choices. We still all choose according to our preferences. And if you disagree with that, ok; we still choose as we do and determinists hold us responsible for our choices.

 

[Fervent]

Elsewhere you described the deterministic position, with the strawman that determinists claim there is no choice. They do not claim that, as far as I know. You, apparently, think that what determinists DO claim logically (or otherwise) reduces to 'no choice'. But they do not claim that. Some few may, but by far and large, I don't think they do claim that.

So what are you even talking about? Would you say that there is any abstract subject of discussion that doesn't lack substance? What do you mean by 'substance' here? Only that it is (or is not) a useful subject (societally/behaviorally)?



What has that to do with determinism?

Not at all, but we've already discussed this. We always do what we prefer, even if we prefer it for only that moment of decision.

What else would you think --that they just pop into existence on their own? But for what it is worth, the interplay of eons of causes and effects-become-causes-of-further-effects, the myriad causes producing each individual effect, would necessarily produce unique outcomes.

That's pretty imprecise. Each effect becoming cause does not mean that cause and effect are the same thing. They are not. I am an offspring of my parents, and I produce offspring. Being an offspring is not the same thing as producing offspring, even if the one person, I, am and do both.

'Logic' is not a word that can only mean one thing. Many people's logic is not logical. I would hope --uselessly, perhaps-- that my logic is logical. But I see nothing to gain by rejecting a simply logical notion --i.e. determinism. --It doesn't (since you insist on dealing with its application to behavior) claim there is no choice, nor does it even deny personal responsibility for one's choices. We still all choose according to our preferences. And if you disagree with that, ok; we still choose as we do and determinists hold us responsible for our choices.

If you took an eyedropper and dripped water on a rock, would you say the water made a choice in running down one face of the rock or another? The issue is one of consistency, since determinists have to deny determinism is true to affirm that choices are made. That determinists almost never take the full measure of their ideas and reject notions of a lack of choice, it is clear that determinists do not really believe what they espouse.

 

[Bradskii]

Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of the determining factors... whether past, present, or future.

That's an nonsensical statement. If you make a choice then the 'determining factors' are (and again, I can't believe that I have to write this out) the factors that determine the choice.

That's okay. You can skip them.
I'll quote what I am referencing.
Freedom of speech is a human right.

Just trying to save you some time.

There are thousands of people who go into the battle field, because of various reasons.
There are thousands who prefer to be with their family, rather than out there facing death, and killing, and seeing dead bodies, and exploding limbs.
People do not always do what they prefer.

You say that people don't do what they prefer to do then give me examples of them doing exactly that. If you don't understand the difference implied between what you want to do and what you prefer to do then this is going to go nowhere pretty quickly.

 

[Bradskii]

That determinists almost never take the full measure of their ideas and reject notions of a lack of choice, it is clear that determinists do not really believe what they espouse.

Why is this still coming up? I've lost count of the number of times different people have emphasised, in clear and concise language that a lack of free will does not mean that you cannot make a choice. Do I really need to give examples? Yes, you do Brad. Well, OK then...

You can do one of two things this afternoon. You can go into the garden, douse yourself with petrol and set yourself alight. OR...you can watch the game on the TV over a cold beer. There are lots of other things you can do as well, but let's look at just those two. Just a shot in the dark, but you'll prefer to do the latter. No coercion. Nobody is going to force you to do one or the other. And your choice will be determined by your knowledge that the former is going to be somewhat painful and likely fatal and the latter is something you'll quite enjoy.

Now you can crank back the extreme nature of one of the choices and maybe say that you might paint the side of the house instead. But you've got to drive into town to buy the paint, it looks like rain, your mate borrowed your ladder and isn't bringing it back for a week and you pulled a muscle in your shoulder yesterday. So again, you end up choosing to watch the game. Because it's what you prefer to do. And what you prefer to do was determined by the antecedent conditions (cold beer, bad shoulder etc).

Now that is applicable to every single decision that you have ever made and ever will make. And I mean every. single. one.

The antecedent conditions determine your choice and the choice that you make will always be the one that you prefer.

 

[Fervent]

Why is this still coming up? I've lost count of the number of times different people have emphasised, in clear and concise language that a lack of free will does not mean that you cannot make a choice. Do I really need to give examples? Yes, you do Brad. Well, OK then...

Asserting something doesn't change the facts. I can't help but notice you didn't answer my question.

You can do one of two things this afternoon. You can go into the garden, douse yourself with petrol and set yourself alight. OR...you can watch the game on the TV over a cold beer. There are lots of other things you can do as well, but let's look at just those two. Just a shot in the dark, but you'll prefer to do the latter. No coercion. Nobody is going to force you to do one or the other. And your choice will be determined by your knowledge that the former is going to be somewhat painful and likely fatal and the latter is something you'll quite enjoy.

"Coercion" isn't the issue...if the outcome is pre-determined on the basis of past conditions, then no choice has been made. That determinists try to weasel around this just highlights that they are not truly determinists. The question is what is motivating the insistence that they are?

Now you can crank back the extreme nature of one of the choices and maybe say that you might paint the side of the house instead. But you've got to drive into town to buy the paint, it looks like rain, your mate borrowed your ladder and isn't bringing it back for a week and you pulled a muscle in your shoulder yesterday. So again, you end up choosing to watch the game. Because it's what you prefer to do. And what you prefer to do was determined by the antecedent conditions (cold beer, bad shoulder etc).

Now that is applicable to every single decision that you have ever made and ever will make. And I mean every. single. one.

The antecedent conditions determine your choice and the choice that you make will always be the one that you prefer.

All you're doing is obfuscating and speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Would the drop of water make a choice or not? Choice only makes sense with freedom to decide, or freedom to do otherwise, or however we want to describe free will. Determinism, by definiton, precludes choice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you took an eyedropper and dripped water on a rock, would you say the water made a choice in running down one face of the rock or another? The issue is one of consistency, since determinists have to deny determinism is true to affirm that choices are made. That determinists almost never take the full measure of their ideas and reject notions of a lack of choice, it is clear that determinists do not really believe what they espouse.

So you continue asserting the strawman. You drive an argument depending on your strawman. It is useless, since the strawman is false.

Or can you demonstrate the logic that concludes that determinism denies choice?

Lol, I just spoke last night with a friend in Pennsylvania, who told me about his no good, very bad, terrible night. He operates a snow plow on the highways, and had driven several miles scattering salt, before he discovered that his spreader had seized up and sheared the shear pin. Worse, the driver before him had bent the plow suspension so that it didn't quite drop as it should. That is what an argument based on a strawman is like. It is plowing right ahead as if there was a proper plow, and as if the plow was down onto the road scraping the ice away.

 

[Bradskii]

"Coercion" isn't the issue...if the outcome is pre-determined on the basis of past conditions, then no choice has been made.

Which choice did you make? Self immolation or cold beer watching the game? Well, we know which one. And you definitely had a choice. But you went with the one you preferred. Which you chose because..? Well, we know that as well. Because one of the antecedent conditions is that you know that being burnt is painful and watching the game with a cold beer is enjoyable.

These Q and A's are easy if we make the decision an easy one. Your mission is to explain how you'd make that choice without that antecedent condition.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot. You've already explained that you don't know. Maybe someone else can try.

 

[Fervent]

So you continue asserting the strawman. You drive an argument depending on your strawman. It is useless, since the strawman is false.

Can the choice a person makes vary?

Or can you demonstrate the logic that concludes that determinism denies choice?

Determinism is the thesis that past conditions dictate exact future actions. The sensation of choice under that paradigm is necessarily an illusion, because the outcome is already determined because of history.

Lol, I just spoke last night with a friend in Pennsylvania, who told me about his no good, very bad, terrible night. He operates a snow plow on the highways, and had driven several miles scattering salt, before he discovered that his spreader had seized up and sheared the shear pin. Worse, the driver before him had bent the plow suspension so that it didn't quite drop as it should. That is what an argument based on a strawman is like. It is plowing right ahead as if there was a proper plow, and as if the plow was down onto the road scraping the ice away.

Expecting consistency isn't a strawman. My statement acknowledges that the majority of so-called determinists try to have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Fervent]

Which choice did you make? Self immolation or cold beer watching the game? Well, we know which one. And you definitely had a choice. But you went with the one you preferred. Which you chose because..? Well, we know that as well. Because one of the antecedent conditions is that you know that being burnt is painful and watching the game with a cold beer is enjoyable.

These Q and A's are easy if we make the decision an easy one. Your mission is to explain how you'd make that choice without that antecedent condition.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot. You've already explained that you don't know. Maybe someone else can try.

It's amazing how you never manage to give a substantive reply and instead have to mischaracterize and plow forward with the same assertions that have been dealt with. Is it a matter of intellectual dishonesty, or do you just have trouble with comprehension?

 

[Bradskii]

It's amazing how you never manage to give a substantive reply and instead have to mischaracterize and plow forward with the same assertions that have been dealt with. Is it a matter of intellectual dishonesty, or do you just have trouble with comprehension?

Making that choice was too difficult? Good grief, I made it as simple as possible so that you'd know it was actually a choice. Everything was explained. The lack of coercion, the antecedent conditions being your knowledge of likely outcomes. It was all there. At least we have finally put to bed the misunderstanding that no free will means no choices.

I'll leave it to someone else to explain how you could make the choice with no prior knowledge of the outcomes.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can you think of a problem where it matters?

Are you seriously suggesting that you would go with option #1?

If so...don't ever offer advice.

No. I told you below what "option" I would go with, and it was neither one of what you presented as though they were the only two.

#1 is how a determinist sees the world and human behavior as well.

Strawman. #1 is only what you think a determinist's thinking logically reduces to.

If it's not about human behavior then why does it insist anything about human behavior and free will?

It's about determinism. But, if you wish to insist that it is about human behavior and not an abstract treatment of free will, enjoy. I might even play along sometimes. You are applying what you take for implications. But the OP is about determinism.

It's your lack of understanding of physics along with your lack of understanding of human behavior.

For what it's worth....it's my lack of understanding regarding those things as well. I just hope you understand that maybe, just maybe, I know slightly more....not enough to be certain, not even enough to be extremely confident, just enough to see a few problems with what you are saying. For example....

How to Prove the Universe Is Not Locally Real

Elegant experiments with entangled light have laid bare a profound mystery at the heart of reality

www.scientificamerican.com

This is theoretical. It's not as if they can show it. But apparently, the math seems to prove it as a possibility. I hate to dump this on you...but apparently, in theory, at the quantum level....something could happen on the other side of the universe and effect something right here....instantly. It really screws with everything you imagine you know about cause and effect. Is that a good example? Want another?

It's a great example! I'm glad you recognize that things we never imagined had effects on certain other things, very well may indeed have effects on them. One scientist (no, I don't remember who) proposes the notion that all things affect everything else. Intriguing.

I don't claim to have any idea which myriad causes result in certain effects. So, how does that mess with what I know about cause and effect? If anything it makes it more sure than ever, as a sound, pervasive principle in nature and logic.

Light goes backwards in time

Physicists today claim that they reached 300 times the speed of light. But don't write off Einstein, and don't hold your breath for a time-travelling Star Trek universe, warns Paul Davies

www.theguardian.com

Maybe sorta in certain circumstances light travels backwards in time.

Fun.

Now, don't try and rewrite this beautiful model you got there. You don't have any PhD in physics and neither do I. We can admit that, can't we?

But the idea that you can reasonably write off free will choices as "impossible" is pretty dumb. The idea is
....not you. You don't know nearly enough about cause and effect, nor do you know enough about the human mind. Neither do I.

Where have I even hinted at writing off free will choices? That would only depend on a definition of "free will" requiring that it somehow is spontaneous, uncaused. I disagree with THAT definition. Is that the definition that you are talking about there?

I say --in fact, I insist-- that one has the freedom to make choices according to his preferences, his inclinations, his desires, or whatever you want to call it. And that in fact he will do so --every time.

But, for what it is worth to you, I agree that I could be wrong. However, it seems prudent to me to go with what lines up logically, instead throwing all conclusions to "whatever works for me", as if "whatever works for me" has always been prudent in the long haul. Are we playing with the behavior theme now?

These are vague descriptions.

Free will....true or not....simply works far far far better than cause and effect.

Not logically, it doesn't. Logically, it is self-contradictory.

Fervent said:
You don't believe what you're saying, otherwise you wouldn't bother trying to argue...because if what you are saying is true, there's no point to argue because the beliefs involved were set prior to your birth. It's impossible to behave as if free will is simply an appearance, so why would you insist upon such a thing rather than taking what you see of it at face value? What is the point of insisting something is true that is impossible to liive consistent with such a belief?
Mark Quayle said:
Ha! Clever. That's kinda like me telling an atheist that they don't believe there is no God

Please check your ego. This isn't about god or the lack of a god. Nobody is going to convince anyone on that either.

The comment was addressed to @Fervent whom I take to be a believer. Further, the comment was given as a parallel to show him what he was trying to do to me. He was assuming not only that he knew what I believe, but also that if I was logical I would have to admit that there is no point to any action on my part, since it is all worked out before hand. Frankly, I think that is, at best, funny. But his argument is built on a strawman.

I didn't say anything there to convince anyone "about god or the lack of a god."

 

[Fervent]

Making that choice was too difficult? Good grief, I made it as simple as possible so that you'd know it was actually a choice. Everything was explained. The lack of coercion, the antecedent conditions being your knowledge of likely outcomes. It was all there. At least we have finally put to bed the misunderstanding that no free will means no choices.

Your inconsistency isn't a "misunderstanding," since all you have done is insist that choice can exist coherently with determinism. Your hypotheticals do nothing to address the issue, they merely divert from the substance of what has been said. If determinism is true, then there are no choices being made only scripts being run. When we put in a prompt for an AI tool it doesn't make choces, it simply generates probabilities and flips switches. Either we can freely choose to alter our course, which is best described as free will, or we are following a path that was already set for us.

Presenting dumb scenarios does nothing to address the objection...but it's not surprising that all you have to offer is distractions and diversons and no substantive reply.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can the choice a person makes vary?

From one moment to the next? Yes, it can vary in the extreme.

Or do you mean, can he equally choose either option? No, he will always choose the option he prefers, at that moment of choice. And that is the only option he always chooses--the one he prefers at that moment of choosing.

And, to hearken back to earlier posts, on uncounted threads, even if a choice is coerced, 'free will' (of sorts) always prevails. One may prefer to give up his wallet over being shot and losing his wallet anyway.

Determinism is the thesis that past conditions dictate exact future actions. The sensation of choice under that paradigm is necessarily an illusion, because the outcome is already determined because of history.

The fact that an outcome is already determined in no way precludes the choice that effects it. The choice is one of a series of many, many, causes, resulting in that outcome.

So far as I have seen, your only 'proof' that it is not so, is the assertion that if an outcome is pre-determined by cause-and-effect, there was no choice resulting in that outcome. That is only assertion. Not proof.

Expecting consistency isn't a strawman. My statement acknowledges that the majority of so-called determinists try to have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Assertion. Unproven.

Your defense in the name of "expecting consistency" likewise depends on the veracity of your strawman. To attempt to shame determinists by characterizing their view as "try[ing] to have it both ways" is vapid, if your strawman upon which it is built has no legs. You need to demonstrate logically, that determinism precludes choice.

 

[Bradskii]

Your inconsistency isn't a "misunderstanding," since all you have done is insist that choice can exist coherently with determinism.

In that post I had to. You keep saying that those on this side of the fence believe that making a choice exhibits free will. It doesn't. I gave you an example. Let's face it, there was only one choice you were going to make. A cold beer as opposed to a fiery death. Your knowledge of what both entailed determined your choice. You preferred one over the other.

Really, what part of that don't you follow? Antecedent conditions. No coercion. A free choice made. A preference expressed. And the antecedent conditions were the reasons you preferred one over the other. All components are there. They all logically follow, one from the other. If we weren't talking about free will, if I just expressed the choice as a means of determining preference then there wouldn't be anyone at all that would express any doubt about any of it. Could I make is simpler? I doubt it, but anyway...

Choice A: Watch the game with a cold beer.
Choice B: Immolate yourself in the back yard.

So there are the choices (there'd be others, but let's just examine those two). You are the person who is going to make the choice. so no problem so far.

You burnt your hand once. It really hurt. You've had a cold beer before and you enjoyed it.

They are the antecedent conditions (there'd be others, but let's just examine those two). This is all pretty obvious so far.

They are what's going to determine your preference.

There's the determination and your preference. You can say the conditions caused it instead if you like. But you're not making a decision in a vacuum. You need information in order to nominate a choice. This is all very logical up to this point.

You make the choice.

There's the 'you'. It was only you. Nobody else was involved. You were free to choose either. There was no coercion. So we have finished.

Now where in that sequence could you possibly have any problem? Nominate any with which you have a problem and tell me exactly what the problem is.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In other words... I want to build muscles, and that determines I go to the gym?
Say I do not go to the gym, but I choose to jog, do squats, pushups, pull ups, etc.

I have plenty of options, don't I, and the freedom to make one choice or other - free will.
The reason has not determined the choice I made. The reason only gave me options - choices. None of which I have to make.

However, because I want to... it is what I prefer, over the choice to not bother, because I feel lazy.
Making the choice I made allows me to reach my objective / goal.... depending, on the choice I freely make.

Do you disagree?

Since I like to butt in, you are conflating two notions. The one is that one has larger, or more constant, general desires and preferences. The other is that one decides, whether contrary to, or according to, those general desires and preferences, at that instant of choosing, they always choose what they at that instant prefer, maybe contrary to, or maybe according to, some desire or preference. You can't argue the latter notion away by proving the former inadequate.

You have no way to prove that you did not HAVE to make the choice you made. You only know what it looks like to you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I understand what you are saying, though this is something I do not agree with.
Why did God regret making Saul king? 1 Samuel 15:10, 11

Off topic. But, I'll play.

The short answer: Anthropomorphism.

 

[Fervent]

From one moment to the next? Yes, it can vary in the extreme.

You're weaseling. It's a straightforward question, and your next statement is tellng.

Or do you mean, can he equally choose either option? No, he will always choose the option he prefers, at that moment of choice. And that is the only option he always chooses--the one he prefers at that moment of choosing.

Just diversion, and trying to have it both ways. Is his path set before the "choice" is made? In what sense is a choice made if only one outcome is possible?

And, to hearken back to earlier posts, on uncounted threads, even if a choice is coerced, 'free will' (of sorts) always prevails. One may prefer to give up his wallet over being shot and losing his wallet anyway.

Coercion is only part of the issue. The question is whether or not the apparent paths are genuine options or if the course is set beforehand. If the outcome is set, then in what sense is a choice made?

The fact that an outcome is already determined in no way precludes the choice that effects it. The choice is one of a series of many, many, causes, resulting in that outcome.

It absolutely does, because if there is only a single possible outcome then there is no choice being made. You're just trying to have your cake and eat it too. It's entirely disingenuos to call a determined outcome a choice.

So far as I have seen, your only 'proof' that it is not so, is the assertion that if an outcome is pre-determined by cause-and-effect, there was no choice resulting in that outcome. That is only assertion. Not proof.

You said yourself, there is only one possible outcome. There is no choice involved, except by whatever is set over the causal chains. Just because you want to be inconsistent and assert that "choice" occurs when there is no real alternative available is nothing more than an inconsistency on your part. And I can't help but notice you never addressed my question about the water droplet on the rock...why is that?

Assertion. Unproven.

Your defense in the name of "expecting consistency" likewise depends on the veracity of your strawman. To attempt to shame determinists by characterizing their view as "try[ing] to have it both ways" is vapid, if your strawman upon which it is built has no legs. You need to demonstrate logically, that determinism precludes choice.

There's no strawman, just reality that you refuse to acknowledge. If you eat a cake, you no longer have cake. If your "decisions" are entirely decided by historical causal chains, you haven't made a choice. You're just a passenger and a puppet. The fact that "determinists" are almost invariably inconsistent on this just shows that determinism is likely not true. So which is it, are all decisions determined before the "choice" is made or are genuine options available when we are presented with choices? Perhaps if you didn't try to have it both ways you wouldn't get "strawmanned" and you'd have a coherent argument.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's clear from the use of language that determinism is a little more difficult to believe than determinists claim.

I must've missed something. How is it "clear from the use of language that determinism is a little more difficult to believe than determinists claim"?

I will grant that the way people talk usually assumes free will choices are absolutely free, but how does that mean determinism is hard to believe? It is, perhaps, hard to admit to, for the self-determinist. But the logic is, as far as I can tell, unassailable.

 

[Bradskii]

In what sense is a choice made if only one outcome is possible?

It's not the case that you have a set of conditions and you know what the choice will be. You'd pick the cold beer over self immolation almost every time. But in most cases we'd have no idea of what the decision is going to be. There literally are multiple options. Multiple choices. It's not the case that you can say 'only one outcome is possible'. All outcomes are possible.

But, and this is the point that you either really don't understand or are intent on ignoring, after the event we can often see what determined the choice. But right up until the choice is made, all bets are on the table. It's only when that final decision is made can we examine the situation and work out what determined it. Because something(s) obviously did.

And this is going to be a waste of my time typing this because the number of people in this forum who have a grasp of hypotheticals is abysmally low. But if we then imagine exactly the same conditions, if we reran the film, then the choice would be exactly the same. There isn't anything outside of the process that id different. Including you. There's no mini-me watching all this unfold and making decisions for you that have no reasons behind them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You're weaseling. It's a straightforward question, and your next statement is tellng.

Just diversion, and trying to have it both ways. Is his path set before the "choice" is made? In what sense is a choice made if only one outcome is possible?

I had thought this was obvious. He chooses from apparent options. Though even that representation is more 'free-will' friendly than is warranted. He actually chooses according to what he prefers, and it is simple as that. It is the self-determinist that insists on independence from causation.

Now how anyone can demonstrate independence from causation I have yet to see, even from minds much better than mine who hold to such notions as middle knowledge

Coercion is only part of the issue. The question is whether or not the apparent paths are genuine options or if the course is set beforehand. If the outcome is set, then in what sense is a choice made?

The outcome is a result of causes, to include the choice, which is a result of causes, all the way back, turtles all the way down, to first cause.

It absolutely does, because if there is only a single possible outcome then there is no choice being made. You're just trying to have your cake and eat it too. It's entirely disingenuos to call a determined outcome a choice.

It's entirely disingenuous to pretend that anyone can choose something without something tipping the balance. Cause.

Even if you want to say that two options are equally possible to be chosen (which I can disprove if empiricism is a worthy indicator here), there still has to be a reason why one thing was chosen over another thing that 'could have been chosen'. Or do you believe in mere chance as directing outcomes?

You said yourself, there is only one possible outcome. There is no choice involved, except by whatever is set over the causal chains. Just because you want to be inconsistent and assert that "choice" occurs when there is no real alternative available is nothing more than an inconsistency on your part. And I can't help but notice you never addressed my question about the water droplet on the rock...why is that?

Where is your proof? You continue with assertions only. The water droplet on the rock was an inane question. How does it apply to this matter?

The question about the water droplet was frankly inane. The water does not choose. It does as gravity causes, and impediments direct. It has no will of its own, unlike the human, who wills with every decision, yet, is no less caused to do as he does than the water does as it does. The added effect-come-cause --will-- is nevertheless acting according to desire, inclinations and preference.

Does that answer your question to your satisfaction? Does the inclusion of the word, "will", change anything this thread has so far produced?

There's no strawman, just reality that you refuse to acknowledge. If you eat a cake, you no longer have cake. If your "decisions" are entirely decided by historical causal chains, you haven't made a choice.

Assertion

You're just a passenger and a puppet.

Assertion, but see above, "will".

The fact that "determinists" are almost invariably inconsistent on this just shows that determinism is likely not true.

Inconsistent how?

So which is it, are all decisions determined before the "choice" is made or are genuine options available when we are presented with choices?

First, prove your assertion. You can't expect a decision from me by the pressuring me with vapor. Prove that "genuine options" from which to choose must all be genuinely possible, as opposed to those not chosen being illusory. But all decisions of the human are dependent on antecedent causes, as I have asserted repeatedly, and which you somehow think yourself to have disproven.

Perhaps if you didn't try to have it both ways you wouldn't get "strawmanned" and you'd have a coherent argument.

Huh? I have been saying that it is you who are presenting a strawman.

My argument, even according to cold logical AI, is entirely coherent, and consistent. It does depend on the assumption that all fact --except first cause, (which I call God)-- is dependent on antecedent cause. If you could find a way to annul that notion, have at it. But so far the effort to do so has fizzled measurably.