Free will and determinism

[Fervent]

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.

So it isn't determined from prior conditions?

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.

As I have repeatedly stated, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either all outcomes are possiible and we freely decide, or only one outcome iis possible and we discover without choosing.

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.

It's not the hypothetiicals that are the problem, it's that you're attempting to have iit both ways.

 

[Fervent]

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

I see you also don't understand what a strawman is, because that would require me mischaracterizing what you are saying and attackng that. I'm not, I'm highlighting an inconsistency in what you are trying to assert, precisely because you try to have it both ways. Choice requires the possibiility of diverting along the path. But determinism clams that everything is already set along a fixed path that cannot be deviated from. So while an illusion of choice may exist, genuine choice is not.

In your case it is an especially heinous position because you're sayng God created people who would inevitably sin and inevitably refuse salvation purely based on the whim of God with no power to do otherwise. Quite a monster, that.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, it's clear that you believe soldiers prefer to get shot at.

Really? Seems rather disingenuous and snarky. Is there a reason for this misrepresentation?

Even if it was a genuine thought, good reason would produce, "No, it isn't because they prefer to get shot at. It is because they prefer to obey orders", or, "...because they have developed a bloodlust", or, "...because they want to protect their country", or some such thing.

 

[Bradskii]

So it isn't determined from prior conditions?

I literally said that all options are possible. We can only know what determined the decision after the decision has been made. And if the choice is made under exactly the same conditions, then it would be exactly the same one. Only then could we comfortably say in that hypothetical event 'there is only one choice'.

I'd then ask you how you could make a different one under exactly the same conditions. But as you've already noted that you don't know, that would be a waste of my time.

As I have repeatedly stated, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either all outcomes are possiible and we freely decide, or only one outcome iis possible and we discover without choosing.

Go back to post 2834 where I've laid out the process in detail. Point out exactly at what point you have a problem and exactly what the problem is.

 

[Fervent]

I literally said that all options are possible. We can only know what determined the decision after the decision has been made. And if the choice is made under exactly the same conditions, then it would be exactly the same one. Only then could we comfortably say in that hypothetical event 'there is only one choice'.

So it's not determined prior to the decision being made? In what way is determinism operating, then?

I'd then ask you how you could make a different one under exactly the same conditions. But as you've already noted that you don't know, that would be a waste of my time.

I've disregarded your hypotheticals because they are red herrings that don't need to be addressed. You're just twistiing yourself into pretzels.

 

[Bradskii]

So it's not determined prior to the decision being made? In what way is determinism operating, then?

It's not possible to know under most circumstances. Cold beer or a fiery death? Yes, it's pretty straight forward (but not definite). You might be able to list some of the determinants after the decision is made. They're obviously there because they'll be the reason you made the choice. Go to that post 2834 and it runs through the process. Tell me exactly what you have a problem with and exactly what that problem is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Then you don't know what determinism is.

I'm sure you have a search engine on whatever you're staring at.

Use it. If you are arguing against free will, you're arguing against choices.

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?

Descriptive accuracy.

What has that to do with determinism?

Are you asking me to teach you about determinism so you can make an argument?

Not at all, but we've already discussed this. We always do what we prefer

False. You think slaves preferred slavery?

What else would you think --that they just pop into existence on their own?

Sigh.

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.

Really? Ok.

Imagine I'm thirsty and go to my fridge and grab a Coca-Cola. As it turns out...I keep 100 exactly the same bottles of coke in the fridge. I guess that means you would need 100 discreet unique causes for each bottles that wouldn't possibly apply to every other bottle.

Otherwise I'd be making a choice wouldn't I? Whatever bottle I take...must have it's unique cause.

Go ahead and list 100 unique causes that wouldn't also apply to every other bottle.

Or just admit this is a dumb idea.

'Logic' is not a word that can only mean one thing.

Look...you either mean logic or you don't.

 

[Fervent]

It's not possible to know under most circumstances. Cold beer or a fiery death? Yes, it's pretty straight forward (but not definite). You might be able to list some of the determinants after the decision is made. They're obviously there because they'll be the reason you made the choice. Go to that post 2834 and it runs through the process. Tell me exactly what you have a problem with and exactly what that problem is.

That's not an answer to my question. I'm not talking about knowledge but of metaphysical reality. You say all options for any given choice are genuine possibilities, but what do you mean by that? Is there one pre-determined decision that only becomes clear that it was always going to be that decision after the fact, or do we genuinely make decisions among real possibilities that are open to us? Not what we are aware of, but factually.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not the case that you have a set of conditions and you know what the choice will be.

Because determinism fails to describe anything well.

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.

Oh ok...so it's entirely useless in describing human behavior because it requires free will choices to happen first lol.

Good job.

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.

Oh ok...in a scenario where we can rewind time and watch the same thing twice....it will happen twice! Magical!

 

[Bradskii]

Is there one pre-determined decision that only becomes clear that it was always going to be that decision after the fact, or do we genuinely make decisions among real possibilities that are open to us?

There is only the one. But you have no idea what it is, so you are actually making a genuine choice. If you were Laplace's demon then you'd know what every decision would be. You're not so the choice is a genuine one.

Go to 2834 and there's the process. Tell me where you think there is a problem.

 

[Fervent]

There is only the one. But you have no idea what it is, so you are actually making a genuine choice. If you were Laplace's demon then you'd know what every decision would be. You're not so the choice is a genuine one.

There's a pretty major wrinkle in your description, then. Because simply lacking knowledge of what the choice is doesn't make me the one who decides, as you have descriibed it we would only be witnesses to choices set in motion before we were ever born, before our parents were born, before there was a human being at all. You claim to believe that, but it's impossible to actually live as if iits true which s why you try to defend it with ridiculous hypothetical scenarios rather than wrestling wth the logical entailments. I am still left with one question, which is why someone would try to convince themselves of such a thing when it is impossible to live as if it is true?

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is only the one. But you have no idea what it is, so you are actually making a genuine choice.

How can you choose something that you don't know at all?

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's a pretty major wrinkle in your description, then. Because simply lacking knowledge of what the choice is doesn't make me the one who decides, as you have descriibed it we would only be witnesses to choices set in motion before we were ever born, before our parents were born, before there was a human being at all. You claim to believe that, but it's impossible to actually live as if iits true which s why you try to defend it with ridiculous hypothetical scenarios rather than wrestling wth the logical entailments. I am still left with one question, which is why someone would try to convince themselves of such a thing when it is impossible to live as if it is true?

I suspect a warm fuzzy of undeserved superiority is involved.

 

[Bradskii]

There's a pretty major wrinkle in your description, then. Because simply lacking knowledge of what the choice is doesn't make me the one who decides...

I meant that you don't know all the antecedent condions that determine your decision. The simple proximate ones might be obvious. You prefer a cold beer to burning alive. But the number of them are effectively infinite. It's why I gave you a simple and obvious choice as an example.

Yet again, the process is laid out in the post 2834. If you have a problem with any part of it then point it out specifically.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

Well if you're insisting upon it's truth....why can't you act as if it were true?

It's about determinism.

No...it's not.

Determinism doesn't describe anything...it simply insists you aren't making free will choices.

It's a great example! I'm glad you recognize that things we never imagined had effects on certain other things

This is exactly why I didn't want to share it....you're not even close to understanding.

I don't claim to have any idea which myriad causes result in certain effects.

Then determinism doesn't describe anything.

Where have I even hinted at writing off free will choices?

When you argued a deterministic position.

Apparently you decided this was a good idea with no clue about what you are saying.

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.

Sure slaves were slaves because they desired to be slaves. That's why determinism is absent of morality.

But, for what it is worth to you, I agree that I could be wrong.

You are.

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

I don't think you have a good grasp of logic but anyway...

In what way is it logically contradictory?

 

[Mark Quayle]

So it's not determined prior to the decision being made? In what way is determinism operating, then?

From the POV of mere naturalism, determinism means only that all things are determined by whatever came *logically 'before' via the chains of causation. (*Not necessarily temporally before). From the POV of Theists of all sorts, it also implies that the ONE who made all this determined everything that came to pass as first cause (the beginning of the chains of causation).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then you don't know what determinism is.

I'm sure you have a search engine on whatever you're staring at.

Use it. If you are arguing against free will, you're arguing against choices.

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." --wiki determinism at DuckDuckGo

"determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did."

Determinism | Definition, Philosophers, & Facts | Britannica

Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot decide or act otherwise than they do.

www.britannica.com

I see nothing in these definitions that mentions arguing against choices.

Descriptive accuracy.

ok, if you say so

Are you asking me to teach you about determinism so you can make an argument?

sigh

False. You think slaves preferred slavery?

No. It seems you are avoiding the point. The slaves preferred obedience to the consequences of disobedience.

Sigh.



Really? Ok.

Imagine I'm thirsty and go to my fridge and grab a Coca-Cola. As it turns out...I keep 100 exactly the same bottles of coke in the fridge. I guess that means you would need 100 discreet unique causes for each bottles that wouldn't possibly apply to every other bottle.

No. I would not need them. The fact that the 100 'identical' bottles are each individual bottles testifies to the fact that they are each unique in some way. THAT is enough to recognize that there are at least 100 unique causes for their individuality. Or do you have 50 pair of drunk eyes?

Otherwise I'd be making a choice wouldn't I? Whatever bottle I take...must have it's unique cause.

Of course you'd be making a choice. So what? And yes, each bottle has its unique cause, not to mention its causes it has in common with the 99 other bottles.

Go ahead and list 100 unique causes that wouldn't also apply to every other bottle.


Or just admit this is a dumb idea.

NOW you have a problem with descriptive accuracy?

Look...you either mean logic or you don't.

Yes. You seem a bit exasperated with the several uses of the word, 'logic'.

I'm sure you have a search engine on whatever you're staring at. Use it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well if you're insisting upon it's truth....why can't you act as if it were true?

I am. How not?

No...it's not.

Determinism doesn't describe anything...it simply insists you aren't making free will choices.

Nevertheless, it is the subject of the OP.

This is exactly why I didn't want to share it....you're not even close to understanding.

Oh well that ends well.

Then determinism doesn't describe anything.

Strange it should draw such visceral reactions.

When you argued a deterministic position.

Descriptive accuracy demands only concise definition. Not implications. You are trying to get across the implications you think mitigate validity of the position. That is not definition.

Apparently you decided this was a good idea with no clue about what you are saying.

There's a strange argument. (Neverminding that the dictionary doesn't agree with you.)

Sure slaves were slaves because they desired to be slaves. That's why determinism is absent of morality.

Now you introduce another off-topic trail? Morality is not the subject of the OP

You are.



I don't think you have a good grasp of logic but anyway...

"I'm sure you have a search engine on whatever you're staring at. Use it."

Ana the Ist said:
"Free will....true or not....simply works far far far better than cause and effect."
Mark Quayle said:
Not logically, it doesn't. Logically, it is self-contradictory.

In what way is it logically contradictory?

Free-will (of your apparent definition) assumes non-causation. 1) Apparently you think you make decisions out-of-the-blue, "in a vacuum", without anything driving your decisions. That is not possible. Something stirred you, something influenced you, and at the least, something offered you options from which to choose. You may have played a part in that, but it was not just you. 2) If nothing caused your decision, unless you, then you have invoked causation by mere chance, which is self-contradictory. 'Chance', by definition, can determine nothing in particular.

 

[Fervent]

I meant that you don't know all the antecedent condions that determine your decision. The simple proximate ones might be obvious. You prefer a cold beer to burning alive. But the number of them are effectively infinite. It's why I gave you a simple and obvious choice as an example.

Yet again, the process is laid out in the post 2834. If you have a problem with any part of it then point it out specifically.

This is non-responsive, which isn't surprising given your track record. If your thesis were true, then your belief would be inevitable based on conditions that were in place long before you, or any humans at all, were alive. In order to live in accordance with such a belief, you would have to recognize that you don't make choices but instead merely observe as a passenger as routines are carried out. It's an impossible belief to live as if it were true, so why try? What's supposed to be gained?

 

[Fervent]

From the POV of mere naturalism, determinism means only that all things are determined by whatever came *logically 'before' via the chains of causation. (*Not necessarily temporally before). From the POV of Theists of all sorts, it also implies that the ONE who made all this determined everything that came to pass as first cause (the beginning of the chains of causation).

This appears to be some doublespeak. What does it mean to be "logically before" but not temporally before, in the context of choice and determinism? Either our "choices" are set by some prior condition(be that inviolable physical laws or the decree of some superbeing) or we may choose freely what path we'll take. Arguing for determinism necessitates denying authentic choice and instead renders 'choices" illusory.