Free will and determinism

[Jo555]

I apologize for not replying sooner. I read your previous posts to me, but I've been involved in free will arguments before, and they inevitably become tedious and wearisome. I read your posts and considered them, but it's the same unsupportable assertions over and over.

Do you not see that whether Proctor chooses A or B, all you're doing is labeling his choice after the fact? If he chooses A, that was "first order". If he chooses B, that was "first order". You are like the world's worst magician, who can only tell me what card I'm holding after he's seen the face of the card. I'm not impressed.

Eww, Eww, right arm raised. Can I give it a go?

After getting lost in the forest more than once i think I'm getting fairly proficient in the lingo. So I'm going to attempt to do a KJV to NLT version translation, so to speak.

Although, i do expect and welcome correction on my translation if I got it wrong.

Me thinks first order would be the greater desire / preference he had that influenced his choice.

You don't know what the first order is until someone makes that choice, unless they tell you.

Yes?

 

[Jo555]

I live in a delusional bubble that people care about what I have to say, but it's my happy place.

 

[Chesterton]

Why would I need to be able to predict what he prefers? It could be one or the other. It's entirely his choice. It has nothing whatsoever to do with free will. The only reason that the difference between 'want' and 'prefer' needs to be explained is because people have been conflating them. One would think that it was obvious. Apparently not.

There's no difference between want and prefer. If I want tea more than coffee, it's because I prefer tea over coffee. If I prefer tea, it's because I want tea. If I want it's because I prefer, if I prefer it's because I want. Same thing.

 

[Bradskii]

There's no difference between want and prefer. If I want tea more than coffee, it's because I prefer tea over coffee. If I prefer tea, it's because I want tea. If I want it's because I prefer, if I prefer it's because I want. Same thing.

Therein lies your problem. We need to be specific about terms.

'I want coffee' is just me saying what I desire right now.
'I prefer coffee' is me saying that I like coffee better than the other option. It literally expresses a choice. That you want coffee as opposed to tea.

Prefer: like (one thing or person) better than another or others; tend to choose.
Want: have a desire to possess or do (something).

They are plainly different. And they are being used as such. So what you want isn't necessarily what you prefer. If they meant the same thing, if there was no difference, then saying 'I want to go to Paris, but I prefer going to Rome' would make no sense. It obviously makes sense and the meaning is quite clear.

 

[Jo555]

There's no difference between want and prefer. If I want tea more than coffee, it's because I prefer tea over coffee. If I prefer tea, it's because I want tea. If I want it's because I prefer, if I prefer it's because I want. Same thing.

I believe it is because you have choices. I can have two wants, but i will have a preference between the two.

It's like that first and second order thingy.

Your preference is the first order want, and the option you didn't choose second order want.

By golly i think I'm getting pretty proficient in this. But it can make your head do that 360 exorcist thing.

Is there a priest in the house?

 

[Bradskii]

I believe it is because you have choices. I can have two wants, but i will have a preference between the two.

Egg...zactly.

 

[Jo555]

By seeing Bradskii's reply, I see I got it right. And scout's honor, I didn't cheat.

Am i the only one impressed with me?

Does Google count as cheating? First time I used him tonight though. Really.

Ok, carry on. Going to relax a bit in my bubble.

 

[Fervent]

I'm being extremely specific. The cause of you doing something is the reason why you did it. The reason why something happened. What determined the choice that you made. This is basic English. It can't be put any plainer than that.

You may think you're being specific, but you're relying on multiple types of causes and conflating them. The reason I do something is a cause in the sense of final causes, but final causes are not determinants. Determinants are efficient causes, which in the case of choosing what I prefer is my intention.

You can't say nothing caused it and then, in the very same sentence, tell me what caused it.

In my opinion coffee tastes better than Earl Grey. That was the reason I just had coffee rather than Earl Grey. That I think it tastes better was the cause of me deciding to make a coffee rather than a cup of Earl Grey.

I mean, what is difficult to understand about that last paragraph? Tell me where it causes you a problem.

Again, you're conflating meanings of the word "cause"...your arguments show a lack of understanding of these sorts of things probably because a lack of exposure to philosophical semantics and traditional metaphysical discussions beginning with Aristotle's four causes.

 

[Bradskii]

You may think you're being specific, but you're relying on multiple types of causes and conflating them. The reason I do something is a cause in the sense of final causes, but final causes are not determinants.

You can pick any one of the 4 causes and include them. You build a shelter because it's raining. The shelter is the final cause. Why did you build it? To protect yourself from the rain. The material cause is that it's wooden. Why did you chose wood? Because it's the handiest material around. The efficient cause is you building it. Why did you do it? Again, as protection. The formal cause is the shape. Why build it that shape? To keep off the rain.

I could care less how you describe each cause. They are all antecedent conditions.

Determinants are efficient causes, which in the case of choosing what I prefer is my intention.

You have two choices. Build a shelter or not. Your decision is that you prefer to build one (you choose one of the options). The reason for that will be one of the determining factors.

Why do I need to explain this?

Again, you're conflating meanings of the word "cause"...

Here's the wording again.

'In my opinion coffee tastes better than Earl Grey. That was the reason I just had coffee rather than Earl Grey. That I think it tastes better was the cause of me deciding to make a coffee rather than a cup of Earl Grey.'

Tell me exactly where you think there's a problem.

 

[Jo555]

You may think you're being specific, but you're relying on multiple types of causes and conflating them. The reason I do something is a cause in the sense of final causes, but final causes are not determinants. Determinants are efficient causes, which in the case of choosing what I prefer is my intention.

Again, you're conflating meanings of the word "cause"...your arguments show a lack of understanding of these sorts of things probably because a lack of exposure to philosophical semantics and traditional metaphysical discussions beginning with Aristotle's four causes.

You mean it gets more complicated? Just when i thought i was taking three steps forward.

Who is this Aristotle anyway and can we have him locked up for disturbing the peace?

Appears tonight's lesson is to differentiate between causes.

I'm open.

 

[Jo555]

You can pick any one of the 4 causes and include them. You build a shelter because it's raining. The shelter is the final cause. Why did you build it? To protect yourself from the rain. The material cause is that it's wooden. Why did you chose wood? Because it's the handiest material around. The efficient cause is you building it. Why did you do it? Again, as protection. The formal cause is the shape. Why build it that shape? To keep off the rain.

I could care less how you describe each cause. They are all antecedent conditions.

You have two choices. Build a shelter or not. Your decision is that you prefer to build one (you choose one of the options). The reason for that will be one of the determining factors.

Why do I need to explain this?

Here's the wording again.

'In my opinion coffee tastes better than Earl Grey. That was the reason I just had coffee rather than Earl Grey. That I think it tastes better was the cause of me deciding to make a coffee rather than a cup of Earl Grey.'

Tell me exactly where you think there's a problem.

I was thinking along the same lines, but in my head it went like this:

A cause, is a cause, is a cause. How important is it to differentiate between causes in regards to the OP.

But it didn't stop there. Then i said, "Well, if we can put what we want in an orderly fashion, is it fair not to differentiate between causes?"

I just didn't feel that the difference between causes was important to the OP, but what do I know? Getting that spaced out feeling again so it truly is time to take my leave tonight.

Mark missed all the fun.

Have fun.

 

[Fervent]

You can pick any one of the 4 causes and include them. You build a shelter because it's raining. The shelter is the final cause. Why did you build it? To protect yourself from the rain. The material cause is that it's wooden. Why did you chose wood? Because it's the handiest material around. The efficient cause is you building it. Why did you do it? Again, as protection. The formal cause is the shape. Why build it that shape? To keep off the rain.

I could care less how you describe each cause. They are all antecedent conditions.

No, final causes aren;t antecedent conditions. They're teleological. The only antecedent is the efficient cause, all other causes are either contemporaneous or future-oriented. Determinism requires every event have an entirely sufficient historic efficient cause, which leaves no room for intentional agency. Conflating the 4 causes and putting them all under the umbrella of deterministic causes is just sloppy semantics.

 

[Chesterton]

Therein lies your problem. We need to be specific about terms.

'I want coffee' is just me saying what I desire right now.
'I prefer coffee' is me saying that I like coffee better than the other option. It literally expresses a choice. That you want coffee as opposed to tea.

Prefer: like (one thing or person) better than another or others; tend to choose.
Want: have a desire to possess or do (something).

They are plainly different. And they are being used as such. So what you want isn't necessarily what you prefer. If they meant the same thing, if there was no difference, then saying 'I want to go to Paris, but I prefer going to Rome' would make no sense. It obviously makes sense and the meaning is quite clear.

So now you've introduced the word "like". It's all the same. You just keep trying to use semantics as sleight of hand. And no, "I want to go to Paris, but I prefer going to Rome" does not make sense.

I believe it is because you have choices. I can have two wants, but i will have a preference between the two.

Egg...zactly.

Yes you can have two or more choices, and you may (or may not) make a choice between the two.

 

[Fervent]

You mean it gets more complicated? Just when i thought i was taking three steps forward.

Who is this Aristotle anyway and can we have him locked up for disturbing the peace?

Appears tonight's lesson is to differentiate between causes.

I'm open.

The most important two are final causes and efficient causes, final causes have to do with the purpose or end goal. They're reasons and ends and require intention and evaluation. Efficient causes are mechanical cause and effect relationships, ie do this, that happens. In this conversation it matters which kind we're talking about because the entire question depends on whether human decisions are entirely determined by historic conditions in a mechanical fashion.

 

[Bradskii]

You mean it gets more complicated? Just when i thought i was taking three steps forward.

Who is this Aristotle anyway and can we have him locked up for disturbing the peace?

Appears tonight's lesson is to differentiate between causes.

I'm open.

Super quick primer (I think it's an AI version from Google):

• Material Cause:
  The raw material or substance from which something is made. (Example: the wood used to make a chair)
• Formal Cause:
  The form, pattern, or design that defines a thing's essence. (Example: the blueprint for a chair)
• Efficient Cause:
  The agent or force that brings about the change or creation of something. (Example: the carpenter who builds the chair)
• Final Cause:
  The purpose or goal for which something exists. (Example: the purpose of a chair is to provide seating)
  

Key difference:

• Four Causes: A comprehensive explanation of a thing's existence by analyzing different aspects of its creation and purpose.
  
  
• Cause and Effect: A simpler relationship where one event directly leads to another.

So...Jim is homeless because his house burnt down. Why is he homeless? What is the cause of him having no home? What determined that he's living on the street? Well, the simple cause and effect answer is 'Because his house burnt down'. Now if you're really keen you can bring to the table the 4 causes as noted above.

Material cause: Well, the house was wooden so it burnt quickly.
Formal cause: It was designed that way because it was the cheapest option and Jim didn't have much money.
Efficient cause: That would be the builder who built the house.
Final cause: It was built as a home for Jim.

They add a little more information as to why the house burnt down - it was designed as being wooden as opposed to concrete. We know why it was built - Jim lived in it, but we knew that already. What we don't know is why it burnt down. The efficient cause for that. Do we need that info? Not really. Do we need any of that info? Not really. Because all we are interested in is that Jim is homeless so we're looking for the simple cause and effect reason for that.

And the cause was...his house burnt down.

 

[Bradskii]

So now you've introduced the word "like". It's all the same.

Do you want to use a different word? I kept it as simple as I could. To want something is to desire something. Then say 'I desire coffee more than I desire tea'. So I then prefer coffee. There's no sleight of hand going on. The two terms are patently different.

You just keep trying to use semantics as sleight of hand. And no, "I want to go to Paris, but I prefer going to Rome" does not make sense.

It doesn't? You're kidding me...

I used that example because I literally booked some flights last week. I wanted to go to Paris because it's a gorgeous city and we might have taken the opportunity to go to the UK from there to visit family. But I preferred going to Rome because it's more convenient for the places we want to visit. I said pretty much the exact thing to my daughter when she asked about our trip. What she most definitely didn't say was 'Uh? Sorry, but that does not make sense'.

 

[Chesterton]

Do you want to use a different word? I kept it as simple as I could. To want something is to desire something. Then say 'I desire coffee more than I desire tea'. So I then prefer coffee. There's no sleight of hand going on. The two terms are patently different.

It doesn't? You're kidding me...

I used that example because I literally booked some flights last week. I wanted to go to Paris because it's a gorgeous city and we might have taken the opportunity to go to the UK from there to visit family. But I preferred going to Rome because it's more convenient for the places we want to visit. I said pretty much the exact thing to my daughter when she asked about our trip. What she most definitely didn't say was 'Uh? Sorry, but that does not make sense'.

You wanted to go to both Paris and Rome. You made a choice. Yes, you preferred one over the other, but all you're saying is that you made a choice.

 

[Bradskii]

I was thinking along the same lines, but in my head it went like this:

A cause, is a cause, is a cause. How important is it to differentiate between causes in regards to the OP.

A cause by definition results in something happening. That's all that determinism actually is. One thing causes another.

Why is Jim homeless (the effect)? Because his house burnt down (the cause). And that's it. But do we need go any deeper? Well, we can if we like.

Why did it burn (the effect)? Because it was made out of wood (the cause).
Why was it built that way (the effect)? Because it was designed that way (the cause).
Why did the builder build it like that (the effect)? Because he followed the design (the cause).

 

[Bradskii]

You wanted to go to both Paris and Rome. You made a choice. Yes, you preferred one over the other, but all you're saying is that you made a choice.

Yes, that's exactly what I did. I wanted to do one but I preferred to do the other. I mean...where is the difficulty in understanding that?

 

[Fervent]

A cause by definition results in something happening. That's all that determinism actually is. One thing causes another.

Nope, determinism goes quite a bit further. It claims that every act of human will is actually nothing more than the result of a fully sufficient historical event or events. It's not enough for there to simply be antecedent conditions that influence choices, it requires that those antecedent conditions are the sole sufficient explanation for those choices.