When I said 'necessitation' I meant causal necessitation. It goes without saying. What else is there?
But that's not what Merriam-Webster meant when they defined "freedom" as including lack of necessitation. The common notion of necessitation does not apply to causal necessitation. Causal necessitation is descriptive and self-fulfilling. All events are reliably caused by something. There are no uncaused events.
But compare that to these uses of necessitation, where the necessity is not absolute: It is necessary that we steer around the curve in order to stay on the road. And yet some people accidentally drive off the road. It is necessary that we get our car inspected each year. And yet some people forget, and get a ticket. It is necessary that we study tonight in order to pass the test tomorrow. And yet some will not study and will fail the test.
In each of those common uses, the necessitation is never causal necessitation, because it is not absolute. To make the matter clearer, let's stick causal necessity in there: It will either be causally necessary that we steer around the curve or it will be causally necessary that we will drive off the road. In either case, causal necessity remains constant. But the necessity of steering around the curve is satisfied in one case, but not the other.
Same with the necessity of getting our car inspected. Whether we get the car inspected or not, what we do will always be causally necessary. In one case the necessity of inspection is met and in the other case it is not met.
Same with the necessity of studying for tomorrow's test. Whatever we choose will be causally necessary, but in one case we will necessarily pass the test and in the other we will necessarily fail.
A determined system necessitates all actions. No exceptions.
Of course.
A necessitated action is by definition not a freely chosen action.
NOOOO! A causally necessary choice may be coerced or unduly influenced, OR, a causally necessary choice may be free of coercion and undue influence, that is, freely chosen!
The fact of causal necessity never changes any other fact.
Of course. Every event is always caused.
Causality determines all events, which in turn cause/shape and form all that follows...
You're anthropomorphizing Causality! Causality never "causes" anything. The notion of causation is used to "describe" the behavior of the actual objects and forces that make up the physical universe, as they interact to bring about events.
ONLY THE ACTUAL OBJECTS AND FORCES CAN BE SAID TO "CAUSE" ACTUAL EVENTS.
For example, we've been discussing the functions of the brain as it decides what the body will do. Causality doesn't decide what the body will do, the brain does.
The actions that are taken are the result of conditions immediately prior to them being taken,
Of course. That's determinism's valid assertion.
therefore not freely chosen.
False! The conditions immediately prior to a deliberate act are reliably produced by the act of deliberation. The act of deliberation chooses what the body's action will be. Deliberation IS the prior cause that necessitates the deliberate action.
If the action was freely chosen, that is, free of coercion and undue influence, then it was inevitably so. If not, then it was inevitably not.
Universal causal necessity/inevitability never changes any of the other facts on the ground.
... It's just a matter of the implications of the given terms: no deviation from whatever is determined.
I haven't required any deviation from the natural course of events in order to explain free will. Free will is when someone decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. Either it will be causally inevitable that we will be free of coercion and undue influence, OR, it will be causally inevitable that we will not be free.
Causal necessity never changes anything.
''Each state of the universe and its events are the necessary result of its prior state and prior events. ("Events" change the state of things.) Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation"). - Marvin Edwards.
Exactly. Either the event will inevitably be one of free will or it will inevitably be one of coercion or undue influence. The fact of causal necessity does not change the fact of free will and it does not change the fact of coercion or undue influence.
The notion that causal necessity eliminates any freedom, outside of "freedom from causal necessity", is clearly a delusion.
References to relative actions do not necessarily relate to free will. We can freely swing our arms, go for a walk, go to the fridge for a drink, take a drive..... freedom of action which does not necessarily equate to freedom of will.
Free will is about choosing what we will do. If we choose to swing our arms, that's free will. If we choose to go for a walk, or go to the fridge, or take a drive, those are all examples of a freely chosen will.
On the other hand, if a gunman hops in your car and tells you to take him to New York or he'll blow your brains out, then that is NOT free will.
As pointed out, there is a distinction to be made between actions performed without restriction or impediment and the notion of free will.
The only act that relates to free will is the act of choosing what we will do.
The issue is the how and why of freely performed actions, ie, that within a determined system, actions that are determined must necessarily proceed without being forced, coerced or restricted.
No. I totally disagree. Within a determined system, if it is determined that the action will be forced, coerced, or restricted, then the act will definitely be forced, coerced, or restricted. That's a key difference between what you and I are saying.
The moon must necessarily orbit the earth without impediment or restriction, the bird if its actions are determined, must fly freely from point A to point B.
Those are not literal truths. The moon has necessarily been impacted by meteors over its history, each impact altering its course in some small way. So, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.
''If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord on the strength of a resolution taken once and for all. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man's illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.'' - Albert Einstein
Einstein is a good example of how an otherwise intelligent person can be sucked into the philosophical paradox. Watching the man and his doings, we observe that he just now decided for himself that he would go for a walk, and that no one forced him to do otherwise.
''Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes. Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X. - Cold Comfort in Compatibilism.
Acting upon a desire to have sex with a woman, in the absence of any constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, is called "rape".
Fortunately, we have the ability to choose what we will do about our desires. That is the distinction between a "want" and a "will". Will constrains want. The want may not be chosen, but the will is definitely chosen.
