“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[Jarhyn]

No, that's simply how determinism is defined

No, it's you that determine it because A causes b and B causes C, therefore B still caused C (it's a tautology buried in the original premise, in fact).

 

[Jarhyn]

You appear to be agreeing

I appear to be pointing out that when you don't commit a modal fallacy you don't exclude *can't*, merely by expressing "won't".

 

[peacegirl]

No, that's simply how determinism is defined

No, it's you that determine it because A causes b and B causes C, therefore B still caused C (it's a tautology buried in the original premise, in fact).

Nooo! Your logic doesn’t add up!

 

[Jarhyn]

No, that's simply how determinism is defined

No, it's you that determine it because A causes b and B causes C, therefore B still caused C (it's a tautology buried in the original premise, in fact).

Nooo! Your logic is off the wall!

B causes C (observed) therefore B causes C (acknowledged) is not off the wall. It's literally a tautology, one of the most basic forms of logic and least assailable.

 

[peacegirl]

No, that's simply how determinism is defined

No, it's you that determine it because A causes b and B causes C, therefore B still caused C (it's a tautology buried in the original premise, in fact).

Nooo! Your logic is off the wall!

B causes C (observed) therefore B causes C (acknowledged) is not off the wall. It's literally a tautology, one of the most basic forms of logic and least assailable.

It is syllogistic. You missed the steps that DBT clearly explained in his last post.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, that's simply how determinism is defined

No, it's you that determine it because A causes b and B causes C, therefore B still caused C (it's a tautology buried in the original premise, in fact).

Nooo! Your logic is off the wall!

B causes C (observed) therefore B causes C (acknowledged) is not off the wall. It's literally a tautology, one of the most basic forms of logic and least assailable.

It is syllogistic. You missed the steps that DBT clearly explained in his last post

Nope. Won't will never imply can't. Only, when all of an entire class around a general property "don't", is "can't" reified.

 

[pood]

The point of freedom of choice is that you can take any option at any given time a number of options are presented

And you *can* it's just that you *won't*.

You won't because in any instance of 'won't,' it is 'won't' that is determined!

And who or what determined that? You do, obviously.

No, that's simply how determinism is defined. Just as compatibilists define the terms and conditions of the system

Which of course includes thought processes as generated by a brain....just as you have said in the past.

Otherwise you are talking about pre-determinism or fatalism, which has its roots largely, though not exclusively, in religion.

I don’t know if you answered the question and I missed it, but again: Do you agree with fellow hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz improv musician’s composition was “determined in advance,” and not by the composer?

We've been through this. The world, if deterministic (which it is assumed to be by compatibilists), has evolved to the point that a species exists - us - that is capable of writing music, exploring other planets, designing computers, AI, etc, etc, according to all the events and incremental steps that have inevitably brought us to this point in space and time.

The question, specifically, remains: Do you agree with fellow hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz composer’s improv piece was determined in advance? If so, when did this happen, and how did a mindless descriptive process (determinism) compose a jazz improv piece?

 

[Elixir]

when did this happen,

At the BB of course.

and how did a mindless descriptive process (determinism) compose a jazz improv piece?

It didn’t. The BB manifested plasma which manifested hydrogen, which … manifested vertebrates which manifested jazz improv.
It also manifested critters conceiving of deterministic processes. The correspondence of such conception to the rest of manifest reality is indeterminable. Ergo, “free will”.

 

[steve_bank]

No, that's simply how determinism is defined

No, it's you that determine it because A causes b and B causes C, therefore B still caused C (it's a tautology buried in the original premise, in fact).

Nooo! Your logic doesn’t add up!

I am confused, how can you add up logic?

 

[peacegirl]

No, that's simply how determinism is defined

No, it's you that determine it because A causes b and B causes C, therefore B still caused C (it's a tautology buried in the original premise, in fact).

Nooo! Your logic doesn’t add up!

I am confused, how can you add up logic?

It’s a false syllogism.

Commentary: Beware of False Syllogisms | Iowa Agribusiness Radio Network

 

[steve_bank]

If not improvisation what is this thread?

Modern improvisational jazz requires expertise with your instrument, music theory, experience, and knowledge of jazz that came before.

Part of the origins of jazz was uneducated musicians who could not read music who learned by ear standard songs and embellished around the theme.

The thread has antecedents going back thousands of years. Posters on the thread post variations on a theme.

 

[peacegirl]

No, that's simply how determinism is defined

No, it's you that determine it because A causes b and B causes C, therefore B still caused C (it's a tautology buried in the original premise, in fact).

Nooo! Your logic is off the wall!

B causes C (observed) therefore B causes C (acknowledged) is not off the wall. It's literally a tautology, one of the most basic forms of logic and least assailable.

It is syllogistic. You missed the steps that DBT clearly explained in his last post

Nope. Won't will never imply can't. Only, when all of an entire class around a general property "don't", is "can't" reified.

 

[steve_bank]

No, that's simply how determinism is defined

No, it's you that determine it because A causes b and B causes C, therefore B still caused C (it's a tautology buried in the original premise, in fact).

Nooo! Your logic doesn’t add up!

I am confused, how can you add up logic?

It’s a false syllogism.

Commentary: Beware of False Syllogisms | Iowa Agribusiness Radio Network

Does 1 logic plus 1 logic equal 2 logics? Or are you using a metaphor?

 

[peacegirl]

No, that's simply how determinism is defined

No, it's you that determine it because A causes b and B causes C, therefore B still caused C (it's a tautology buried in the original premise, in fact).

Nooo! Your logic is off the wall!

B causes C (observed) therefore B causes C (acknowledged) is not off the wall. It's literally a tautology, one of the most basic forms of logic and least assailable.

It is syllogistic. You missed the steps that DBT clearly explained in his last post

Nope. Won't will never imply can't. Only, when all of an entire class around a general property "don't", is "can't" reified.

We are not talking about general properties that you seem to rely on. Reified means made concrete. The rest of your reasoning fails. The fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise, makes the "free" in compatibilist free will, false on all levels. Here is DBT's response to you which is 100% correct. This does not mean we are being forced by an outside force. But even without undue influence, there is inner necessity which compatibilism leaves out. How can your choice be free when it is impossible to choose B (to shoot a person) when choice A (not to shoot this person) is the preferred option? You have no free choice whatsoever when there are meaningful differences (in your particular circumstances) from which to choose. IOW, you can only move in one direction, the direction that determinism leads you.

'Can't'' just refers to all the things that won't happen because these events were not determined to happen. It's pointless to invoke what does not happen within a system which determines what in fact does happen. Where what does happen, being inevitable, could not have been otherwise.


Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

 

[peacegirl]

No, that's simply how determinism is defined

No, it's you that determine it because A causes b and B causes C, therefore B still caused C (it's a tautology buried in the original premise, in fact).

Nooo! Your logic doesn’t add up!

I am confused, how can you add up logic?

It’s a false syllogism.

Commentary: Beware of False Syllogisms | Iowa Agribusiness Radio Network

Does 1 logic plus 1 logic equal 2 logics? Or are you using a metaphor?

It's misleading. A does not cause C, without the necessary step B in the process that leads to "greater satisfaction."

 

[pood]

The fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise, makes the "free" in compatibilist free will, false on all levels.

Unfortunately, this is not a fact. Contingent (could-have-been-otherwise) propositions are always contingent, even after the fact. They are, in act, necessarily contingent and true at all times — principle of modal fixity. Once again, you fail logic.

 

[Jarhyn]

The fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise, makes the "free" in compatibilist free will, false on all levels.

Unfortunately, this is not a fact. Contingent (could-have-been-otherwise) propositions are always contingent, even after the fact. They are, in act, necessarily contingent and true at all times — principle of modal fixity. Once again, you fail logic.

I really am starting to think that there is a continuum of positions caused by a hierarchy of difficulty in parsing past fallacious forms that determines the differences between libertarian, HD, and compatibilist.

The libertarian and HD both fail at modal logic, with the libertarians additionally failing at dimensional logic, and the compatibilist fails at neither (and may fail at some heretofore unknown manner of logic).

 

[peacegirl]

The fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise, makes the "free" in compatibilist free will, false on all levels.

Unfortunately, this is not a fact. Contingent (could-have-been-otherwise) propositions are always contingent, even after the fact. They are, in act, necessarily contingent and true at all times — principle of modal fixity. Once again, you fail logic.

A contingent property does not mean something could have been otherwise.

contingent​

The adjective contingent can be used to describe something that can occur only when something else happens first. Making money is contingent on finding a good-paying job.

Your choice at this moment whether to eat eggs or cereal for breakfast is contingent on what your brain is considering to help you make this decision. You finally choose eggs. Does this mean you could have chosen cereal? Yes, in theory, but in actuality, no, not after you made the choice to eat eggs. To repeat: Choice is dependent on the antecedents (or the options being considered by your brain state, which you also have no control over). By no means does the option to choose cereal indicate that you "could have chosen cereal" once a choice was made to eat eggs. No determinist says that "necessarily" you must have eggs for breakfast IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE EGGS FOR BREAKFAST. Your participation is included in the decision making, which has been explained to you over and over and over again.

 

[pood]

The fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise, makes the "free" in compatibilist free will, false on all levels.

Unfortunately, this is not a fact. Contingent (could-have-been-otherwise) propositions are always contingent, even after the fact. They are, in act, necessarily contingent and true at all times — principle of modal fixity. Once again, you fail logic.

A contingent property does not mean something could have been otherwise.

That is what it means by definition.

Your choice at this moment whether to eat eggs or cereal for breakfast is contingent on what your brain is considering to help you make this decision.

A contingent proposition (not property) does not refer to “depending on something else.” It means “could have been otherwise.”

You finally choose eggs. Does this mean you could have chosen cereal theoretically? Yes, in theory, but in actuality, no, not after you make the choice.

Wrong as a matter of logic, no matter how many times you repeat this.

To repeat: Choice is dependent on the antecedents (or the options being considered by your brain state, which you have no control over). By no means does this indicate that you "could have done otherwise" once a choice is made.

Yes, it does.

No determinist says that "necessarily" you must have eggs for breakfast IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE EGGS FOR BREAKFAST. Your participation is included in the decision making, which has been explained to you over and over and over again.

No, it is I who explained it to you over and over. Of course YOU are involved in the determinism process! Maybe now DBT will answer if he agrees with the hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz musician’s improv piece was determined in advance, which cuts the musician OUT of the determinism process.

 

[pood]

To rehash old ground for the hard of learning:

A contingently true proposition is true in at least one logically possible world.

All contingent propositions are possibly true, but not all possibly true propositions are contingent. Goldbach’s conjecture is possibly true or possibly false; we do not currently know its truth value. However, if it is true, is necessarily true, and if it is false, it is necessarily false.

Necessarily true propositions are true at all possible worlds. Necessarily false propositions are false at all possible worlds.

A contingently true (could have been otherwise) proposition is always true in at least one possible world. Thus it can never change its modal status to necessarily true.

All this by way of stating the obvious: All contingently true propositions about the past could have been false, they just were not false.