“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[peacegirl]

There is no experiment that can experimentally demonstrate determinism or free will when it comes to making a choice. That makes determinism philosophical speculation not objective fact.

Yes there is.

And that experiment is?

Having a group of people who would create a small community using these principles. There would have to be no government or authority, along with the advance knowledge that there would be no blame or punishment no matter what they do, and there would be no telling anyone what to do because this gives the advance justification to do that very thing. Everyone would also use their standard of living as a basis for their starting salary, so that they would not lose one penny of their purchasing power. This would not be easy to set up, but it could be done. Truly though, there would be no reason to go through this when applying these principles worldwide could prevent war and crime and all of the deaths that go along with it. The skeptics can continue being skeptical, but when this knowledge is rigorously studied as it was meant to, it will be seen that this world is not only possible but inevitable. Why? Because we cannot move in a direction counter to our very nature which is to find ways to improve our world, not destroy it. There is no way we could find greater satisfaction living in an environment where nuclear devastation is just a click away by some tyrant --- where there would be no return to life as we know it --- especially when we now have the ability to prevent it. How long it will take depends on how quickly this knowledge can be confirmed valid and sound...and it will be in time.

 

[steve_bank]

It can work in small homogeneous groups.

A number of communes started in the 60s 70s.

One was The Farm and it is still around. Started by a group of west coast 'hippies'. The back to the land movement.

The Farm (Tennessee) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Farm was established after Stephen Gaskin and friends led a caravan of 60 buses, vans, and trucks from San Francisco on a four-month speaking tour across the US. Along the way, they became a community, lacking only land to put down roots. After returning to California, the decision was made to buy land together. Combining all their resources would finance purchase of only about fifty acres in California. Another month on the road brought the group back to Tennessee, where they checked out various places that might be suitable to settle.[5] They decided on property in Lewis County, about seventy miles south of Nashville.[6] After buying 1,064 acres (4.1 km2) for $70 per acre, the group began building its community in the woods alongside the network of crude logging roads that followed its ridgelines. Shortly thereafter, an adjoining 750 acres (3.0 km2) were purchased for $100 per acre.

From its founding in the 1970s, Farm members took vows of poverty and owned no personal possessions other than clothing and tools, though this restriction loosened as time passed. During that time, Farm members did not use artificial birth control, alcohol, tobacco,[7] or animal products. Many of the early buildings on the Farm were unconventional, ranging from converted school buses to modified 16 x 32 army tents. Over time, larger homes were constructed, each providing shelter for multiple families and single people, often with up to 40 people under one roof. Visitors were also housed in a two-story tent made by sewing two army tents together.

In the early days, Gaskin was considered to be the "abbot of the monastery" and made many of the governmental decisions for the group. His role was eventually taken over by a "council of elders" and then a "board of directors" consisting of some of the most respected and influential members of the Farm community.[5] The Farm formed a non-profit corporation called The Foundation to provide a common financial structure for the community and members contributed their incomes to it. A security crew constantly maintained a welcome center at the entrance gate where all traffic passed through and was logged in.

In the original manifestation of The Farm, all members were believers in the holiness of life, and believed in the reality of a spiritual dimension and in living out universal brotherhood.[7]

The Farm evolved. Initially ot was free love and drugs, pot and psychedelics. Some of the first rules that evolved were if you had sex you were engaged, if the woman got pregnant you were married.

Point being rules to maintain order evolved. The problem is always who and how rules are made, how they are enforced, and how conflicts and disputes are resolved.

https://thefarmcommunity.com/

Israel was fondled on the kibbutz. In the 70s I attended a presentation on campus by an Israeli looking for people to summer on his kibbutz.

Therese systems work when there is uniformity and not a lot of diversity. As long as it is easy to reach a consensus on decisions and problems.

Kibbutz - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A kibbutz (Hebrew: קִבּוּץ / קיבוץ, lit. 'gathering, clustering'; pl.: kibbutzim קִבּוּצִים / קיבוצים) is an intentional community in Israel that was traditionally based on agriculture. The first kibbutz, established in 1910, was Degania. Today, farming has been partly supplanted by other economic branches, including industrial plants and high-tech enterprises.[1] Kibbutzim began as utopian communities, a combination of socialism and Zionism.[2] In recent decades, some kibbutzim have been privatized and changes have been made in the communal lifestyle. A member of a kibbutz is called a kibbutznik (Hebrew: קִבּוּצְנִיק / קיבוצניק; plural kibbutznikim or kibbutzniks), the suffix -nik being of Slavic origin.

In 2010, there were 270 kibbutzim in Israel with a total population of 126,000.[3] Their factories and farms account for 9% of Israel's industrial output, worth US$8 billion, and 40% of its agricultural output, worth over US$1.7 billion.[4] Some kibbutzim had also developed substantial high-tech and military industries. For example, in 2010, Kibbutz Sasa, containing some 200 members, generated US$850 million in annual revenue from its military-plastics industry.[5]
Currently the kibbutzim are organised in the secular Kibbutz Movement with some 230 kibbutzim, the Religious Kibbutz Movement with 16 kibbutzim and the much smaller religious Poalei Agudat Yisrael with two kibbutzim, all part of the wider communal settlement movement.

 

[peacegirl]

It can work in small homogeneous groups.

A number of communes started in the 60s 70s.

One was The Farm and it is still around. Started by a group of west coast 'hippies'. The back to the land movement.

The Farm (Tennessee) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Farm was established after Stephen Gaskin and friends led a caravan of 60 buses, vans, and trucks from San Francisco on a four-month speaking tour across the US. Along the way, they became a community, lacking only land to put down roots. After returning to California, the decision was made to buy land together. Combining all their resources would finance purchase of only about fifty acres in California. Another month on the road brought the group back to Tennessee, where they checked out various places that might be suitable to settle.[5] They decided on property in Lewis County, about seventy miles south of Nashville.[6] After buying 1,064 acres (4.1 km2) for $70 per acre, the group began building its community in the woods alongside the network of crude logging roads that followed its ridgelines. Shortly thereafter, an adjoining 750 acres (3.0 km2) were purchased for $100 per acre.

From its founding in the 1970s, Farm members took vows of poverty and owned no personal possessions other than clothing and tools, though this restriction loosened as time passed. During that time, Farm members did not use artificial birth control, alcohol, tobacco,[7] or animal products. Many of the early buildings on the Farm were unconventional, ranging from converted school buses to modified 16 x 32 army tents. Over time, larger homes were constructed, each providing shelter for multiple families and single people, often with up to 40 people under one roof. Visitors were also housed in a two-story tent made by sewing two army tents together.

Vows of poverty? This is the antithesis of what the economic system will be like. The poor will get rich, and the rich will get richer. No one will be poverty stricken. There will be no rules or authority. The only thing that will control behavior will be one's very own conscience, which will not allow someone to hurt another without a justification, not an external set of rules.

In the early days, Gaskin was considered to be the "abbot of the monastery" and made many of the governmental decisions for the group. His role was eventually taken over by a "council of elders" and then a "board of directors" consisting of some of the most respected and influential members of the Farm community.[5] The Farm formed a non-profit corporation called The Foundation to provide a common financial structure for the community and members contributed their incomes to it. A security crew constantly maintained a welcome center at the entrance gate where all traffic passed through and was logged in.

In the original manifestation of The Farm, all members were believers in the holiness of life, and believed in the reality of a spiritual dimension and in living out universal brotherhood.[7]

The Farm evolved. Initially ot was free love and drugs, pot and psychedelics. Some of the first rules that evolved were if you had sex you were engaged, if the woman got pregnant you were married.

Point being rules to maintain order evolved. The problem is always who and how rules are made, how they are enforced, and how conflicts and disputes are resolved.

https://thefarmcommunity.com/

There are many unconventional communities that could work on a smaller scale with their own set of rules and regulations. This discovery is not communal living.

Israel was fondled on the kibbutz. In the 70s I attended a presentation on campus by an Israeli looking for people to summer on his kibbutz.

Therese systems work when there is uniformity and not a lot of diversity. As long as it is easy to reach a consensus on decisions and problems.

Kibbutz - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A kibbutz (Hebrew: קִבּוּץ / קיבוץ, lit. 'gathering, clustering'; pl.: kibbutzim קִבּוּצִים / קיבוצים) is an intentional community in Israel that was traditionally based on agriculture. The first kibbutz, established in 1910, was Degania. Today, farming has been partly supplanted by other economic branches, including industrial plants and high-tech enterprises.[1] Kibbutzim began as utopian communities, a combination of socialism and Zionism.[2] In recent decades, some kibbutzim have been privatized and changes have been made in the communal lifestyle. A member of a kibbutz is called a kibbutznik (Hebrew: קִבּוּצְנִיק / קיבוצניק; plural kibbutznikim or kibbutzniks), the suffix -nik being of Slavic origin.

In 2010, there were 270 kibbutzim in Israel with a total population of 126,000.[3] Their factories and farms account for 9% of Israel's industrial output, worth US$8 billion, and 40% of its agricultural output, worth over US$1.7 billion.[4] Some kibbutzim had also developed substantial high-tech and military industries. For example, in 2010, Kibbutz Sasa, containing some 200 members, generated US$850 million in annual revenue from its military-plastics industry.[5]
Currently the kibbutzim are organised in the secular Kibbutz Movement with some 230 kibbutzim, the Religious Kibbutz Movement with 16 kibbutzim and the much smaller religious Poalei Agudat Yisrael with two kibbutzim, all part of the wider communal settlement movement.

Kibbutzim work in small groups where everyone plays a part depending on what job they're given. It's a socialistic type of setup. There is nothing wrong with this movement, but it really has nothing to do with this discovery, which can prevent war in the Middle East, believe it or not.

 

[pood]

“I’ll take ‘not’ for $1,500, Ken.”

 

[steve_bank]

My point is people starting communities for one reason or another go back in our' and human sophistry. Philosophical movements. Theosophy and Rosicrucians still exist.

Today in the USA Mennonites and Amish are still around.

The problem as we have today in the USA is who makes the rules, how they are enforced, and how conflicts and problems are resolved.

Everybody just naturally gets along? That is premise of the society in Lost Horizon.

You can find like minded people, buy land, and set up a community as you pl;ease. Unless evryone thinks and acts the same way what happens when somebody sayss no I will not go along with what you say.

Have you read Lost Horizon? It us about a secret utopian society hidden away in the Himalayas.

Lost Horizon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 1937 movie is a study in utopian concepts.

Lakeshore Classic Movies | Lost Horizon (1937) | PBS

Plane crash in the Himalayas leads group of survivors to the secluded land of Shangri-La.

www.pbs.org

 

[peacegirl]

My point is people starting communities for one reason or another go back in our' and human sophistry. Philosophical movements. Theosophy and Rosicrucians still exist.

Today in the USA Mennonites and Amish are still around.

The problem as we have today in the USA is who makes the rules, how they are enforced, and how conflicts and problems are resolved.

Everybody just naturally gets along? That is premise of the society in Lost Horizon.

This movie was fiction. This discovery is not. People don't just get along if there are conflicts. But many conflicts are caused by people not knowing who is in the right and who is in the wrong in terms of striking the first blow. When people know who has the right-of-way when desires conflict, you will see that many disagreements will be reduced to an absolute minimum.

You can find like minded people, buy land, and set up a community as you pl;ease. Unless evryone thinks and acts the same way what happens when somebody sayss no I will not go along with what you say.

How can that happen when no one is going to expect someone to go along with what they say? If there is a conflict, they can be resolved with a lawyer, if necessary, especially if it comes to business contracts, etc. But many conflicts won't even come up.

Have you read Lost Horizon? It us about a secret utopian society hidden away in the Himalayas.

Lost Horizon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 1937 movie is a study in utopian concepts.

Lakeshore Classic Movies | Lost Horizon (1937) | PBS

Plane crash in the Himalayas leads group of survivors to the secluded land of Shangri-La.

www.pbs.org

There have been many communities and cults that have formed through the years, but for you to then conclude that this is just another one of them (dressed as something new) is incorrect.

 

[steve_bank]

I do conclude yours is 'just another one of many past and present'.

Before the reality of the Soviet Union became widely known over here there were those who thought it represented a utopia, even prominent people. On paper the Soviet Union looked good, workers in a workers paradise.

I doubt the one you follow based on whitings ever had to deal with practical human reality.

No mater the system you have the same human beings as they are.

How would your ideal world differ from the USA or any western democracy today?

BTW, I am retired, what's your excuse?

And how woud yiu structure yiur exerntal social ex]ermnt and what is it exactly it woud prove?

What is the detained goal of of a sociall experiment based on your principles? You mentioned behavior modification.

Would you set up an inexpert with volunteers and indoctrijnate them?

 

[peacegirl]

I do conclude yours is 'just another one of many past and present'.

Before the reality of the Soviet Union became widely known over here there were those who thought it represented a utopia, even prominent people. On paper the Soviet Union looked good, workers in a workers paradise.

Maybe it looked good from the outside, but it obviously wasn't good.

Socialist
The Soviet Union was a socialist state governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union12. It was a flagship communist state, and its capital was Moscow. The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, established the world's first communist government after the Russian Revolution of 19173. Communism existed in the Soviet Union until its fall in 19913.

I doubt the one you follow based on whitings ever had to deal with practical human reality.

That is not true. This is the most practical knowledge ever because it is not just an abstract theory. It works on a practical level.

No mater the system you have the same human beings as they are.

It is true that human beings are the same, but the environment will be completely different thereby changing human conduct in a big way.

How would your ideal world differ from the USA or any western democracy today?

This new world would not be democratic, communistic, or socialistic. I know it's hard to imagine how this would be possible, but these forms of government will disappear as the transition to a new way of life begins. Of course, this transition will be a necessary bridge from one world to the other and it will not be forced on anyone.

BTW, I am retired, what's your excuse?

And how woud yiu structure yiur exerntal social ex]ermnt and what is it exactly it woud prove?

It would prove that these principles work by preventing the first blow of hurt from ever being struck. Most heinous crimes are done because there is some form of justification to go ahead with the act. The most difficult part of this change in environment is the removal of anything redolent of blame and all forms of authority. You would think that people would become less responsible, but it does the exact opposite.

What is the detained goal of of a sociall experiment based on your principles? You mentioned behavior modification.

It is a change in behavior, but it isn't like Skinner's operant conditioning that reinforce certain behaviors through the reward system. In fact, just as there will be no punishment, there will be no need for external reward. People will do what they want to do because it brings them personal fulfillment. What they choose to do in life will be their business, without any persuasion from others who, in this world, often have ulterior motives.

Would you set up an inexpert with volunteers and indoctrijnate them?

There is no indoctrination. How can there be when no one is in power. There is no magistrate or king or president or guru. This is what you don't understand. This is not a secret society or a community that is run by a different set of rules.

 

[southernhybrid]

Apparently, it has been determined that this thread regarding determinism will go on for a long time, as some of you are determined to convince others that you know the answer to the question of which is true, hard determinism or soft determinism. And it's been determined that I will no longer participate in this thread in a serious way because it's been determined that I have a sense of humor and this thread needs some mindless humor. So, I am determined to add a little humor to this thread, even if it's determined that others will ignore it, probably because they have no choice. Regardless if my attempt at humor is determined to be corny, or useless, I must present it, due to my uncontrollable determination.

I’ve been trying to solve a complicated maths question to take my mind off my constipation. Today, using only a pencil and sheer determination...I finally worked it out.

Apparently they have determined that diarrhoea is now hereditary...
It’s known to run in jeans.

Ok. Go on. You know you can't help yourselves, or can you? I doubt that will ever be totally determined.

Sorry about that. Oh fuck. I'm not sorry. I couldn't help myself.

The internet is a wonderful thing. It even helps people find jokes or about determinism, assuming they are determined to find some and have enough time to waste.

 

[peacegirl]

Apparently, it has been determined that this thread regarding determinism will go on for a long time, as some of you are determined to convince others that you know the answer to the question of which is true, hard determinism or soft determinism.

Actually, there is no soft determinism. We either have no free will or we do. Soft determinism is just a way to try to fit free will in.

And it's been determined that I will no longer participate in this thread in a serious way because it's been determined that I have a sense of humor and this thread needs some mindless humor. So, I am determined to add a little humor to this thread, even if it's determined that others will ignore it, probably because they have no choice. Regardless if my attempt at humor is determined to be corny, or useless, I must present it, due to my uncontrollable determination.

Humor is a good thing when it's done in a respectful way. The author used comic relief, but he explained that it was not meant to take away from the seriousness of the work.

I’ve been trying to solve a complicated maths question to take my mind off my constipation. Today, using only a pencil and sheer determination...I finally worked it out.

Apparently they have determined that diarrhoea is now hereditary...
It’s known to run in jeans.

Ok. Go on. You know you can't help yourselves, or can you? I doubt that will ever be totally determined.

Sorry about that. Oh fuck. I'm not sorry. I couldn't help myself.

The internet is a wonderful thing. It even helps people find jokes or about determinism, assuming they are determined to find some and have enough time to waste.

Your jokes are silly and they may lighten things up a little. That's okay as long as you don't go overboard. And btw, you could not have done otherwise by not making jokes at that moment. But you also weren't hurting anyone. If you were, you would not have been able to do it, that is, in the new world.

 

[steve_bank]

All the threads on determinism and free will go on for a long time.

It passes the time.

I heard a report thatdeterminism is linked to diabetes and obesity.

 

[steve_bank]

Back to socialism vs communism.

There have been lengthy debates over capitalism, socialism, and communism.. They are contextual and men different things to different people.

The Soviets and Chinese collectivized agriculture and businesses. The state set production requirements and quotas, prices, and worker compensation. No private ownership of the means of production which is Marxism.

Modern economic socialism is a mix of free market capitalism and government controls. Chin calls itself socialist.

To our conservatives socialism means large scale social welfare and programs along with government overseeing business.

Communism no prvate ownership iof means of production, capitalism private ownership of means of production, socialism somewhere in between.

Post WWII France and England were socialist. Private ownership of means of production along with governed ownership of heavy industry like coal. In the Thatcher era Europeans divested of givernmt owned industry because it was infficent and buirdensome.

To some national health care is socialism.

Bernie Sanders is most defiantly a socialist Evertng is free from the state. The democrats are edging towards it, Cortez being a radical.

 

[peacegirl]

Back to socialism vs communism.

There have been lengthy debates over capitalism, socialism, and communism.. They are contextual and men different things to different people.

The Soviets and Chinese collectivized agriculture and businesses. The state set production requirements and quotas, prices, and worker compensation. No private ownership of the means of production which is Marxism.

Modern economic socialism is a mix of free market capitalism and government controls. Chin calls itself socialist.

To our conservatives socialism means large scale social welfare and programs along with government overseeing business.

Communism no prvate ownership iof means of production, capitalism private ownership of means of production, socialism somewhere in between.

Post WWII France and England were socialist. Private ownership of means of production along with governed ownership of heavy industry like coal. In the Thatcher era Europeans divested of givernmt owned industry because it was infficent and buirdensome.

To some national health care is socialism.

Bernie Sanders is most defiantly a socialist Evertng is free from the state. The democrats are edging towards it, Cortez being a radical.

You cannot compare any of these economic systems with the one being presented due to the fact that, under the changed conditions, no one will be hurting others in an effort not to become a loser. This allows a change in how the economy is run that is superior to anything we have seen. As he wrote:

I hope I have made it clear that just as long as man is able to justify hurting others, he is not striking a first blow. Before I demonstrate how this justification is permanently removed by preventing the insecurities that have permeated our economic system and justify the act of self-preservation by whatever means necessary, I will allow you an opportunity to see exactly what happens in a human relation where this justification is already removed. In the next chapter, l shall reveal how all automobile accidents and carelessness must come to a permanent end. Before we move on, I must clarify a very important point. Christ and Spinoza turned the other cheek and paid the consequences because the justification to hurt them was never removed, but I am going to demonstrate how it is now possible to prevent the first cheek from being struck, which renders obsolete the need to turn the other cheek or retaliate. Although Gandhi won freedom for his people and Reverend King won certain civil rights, they accomplished this at great expense. However, all was necessary because we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, over which we have no control because this is God’s law or will. At this point I suggest that you study carefully, once again, Chapter Two, and then discuss it to make certain you understand that if you find any flaw, it exists only in your not understanding the principles, for they are undeniable.

 

[DBT]

It seems that you still fail to understand how determinism works, including your constant conjunction.

So, once again. Given determinism, decisions are made, but seeing that there can be only one option taken at any given instance (constant conjunction, action B must necessarily follow action A, the decision that is made and the action that follows is inevitable. This is not say that you can't make decisions, but that the decision that you make cannot be otherwise.

Why, you ask? Well, as explained time and again, because determinism as you define it to be has no alternate decisions or actions in any given instance as the system evolves without deviation from past to present and future states of the system.

Quote;
''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.''

Typical DBT post, misunderstanding determinism followed by cherry-picking a quote from somewhere or other.

It is not I who misunderstands determinism. Do you not notice that the quote defining determinism was not written by me Yet the quoted definition is exactly what I work with.

Do you not realize that the given description relates to constant conjunction, which you endorsed?

You must know that can quote any number of compatibilist definitions of determinism that are essentially the same.

I think that you want it both ways, a special definition of your own, a form determinism that permits a belief in libertarian free will.

But then, of course, you claim your definition of determinism not only is the correct one, it ipso facto and self-evidently proves HARD determinism — a question-begging argument as I’ve noted. Just ask yourself, if everyone accepts your definition of HARD determinism, why do most academic philosophers say they are SOFT determinists?

Where do you get this stuff from? Certainly not from anything I have said.

Isn't it clear that I am not making up a definition of determinism of my own? It should be. I have quoted and cited these definitions enough times that it should be clear that I have always referred to them as they are defined, including your endorsed constant conjunction, which is essentially the same.

To be clear, the point I’m making is not that soft determinism is true because a majority of academic philosophers think it is — that would be an obvious fallacy. It is that somehow or other, trained philosophers don’t agree with you that the definition of determinism you say everyone uses proves hard determinism — quite the opposite.

Wow, that's way off the mark. The issue is, and always has been, not how determinism is defined but the validity of the compatibalist definition of free will in relation to determinism as it is defined.

And of course there are incompatibalists academic philosophers that out the failure of compatibilism.

Your problem is that you argue for compatibilism, yet insist on the reality of choice when determinism does not permit it, and compatibilists do not include it in their definition of free will.

You, sir, are a Libertarian.

''Some aspiring compatibilists maintain that only humans are judged morally because only they could have acted differently. Those who try this argument must realize that they are not compatibilists at all; they are libertarians. The acceptance of determinism is a defining element of compatibilism. It forbids us to say that evil-doers could have done good if only they wanted to. Well yes, if they wanted to, but they were determined to not want to.''

 

[DBT]

As the saying goes, "what will be, will be" because "IT COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY."

No, as noted, that would be, “what will be, must be.”

What will be, will be" because it couldn't be any other way IS THE SAME THING AS "what will be, must be." You're splitting hairs.

I am not splitting hairs, because OF COURSE it COULD be some other way, it just ISN’T.

No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice.

No, peacegirl, all contingently true propositions remain so even after the fact. Basic logic.

1. In philosophy and logic, contingency refers to propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation nor false under every possible valuation1. A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false1. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false23. The distinction between contingent and necessary statements is one of the oldest in philosophy3. Truth is necessary if denying it would entail a contradiction. A truth is contingent, however, if it happens to be true but could have been false3.

Basic logic, my foot. Logical cobwebs is more like it. It could have been true or false before a choice is made. Contingent just means that our choices are based on previous thoughts, experiences, and events that are pushing us in a particular direction. It certainly doesn't mean that under the same exact conditions, we could have picked a different alternative. It becomes necessarily true or necessarily false only after the act of choosing, not before.

No, the quoted material is exactly correct. And, as I’ve already explained bazillions of times in this and other threads, under compatibilism, we expect that under the EXACT SAME conditions, we would get the EXACT SAME result. However it does not logically follow that the result is NECESSARY.

Not something I made up;

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

''Determinism is an example: it alleges that all the seeming irregularities and spontaneities in the world are haunted by an omnipresent system of strict necessitation.'' - J. W. N. Watkins, "Between Analytic and Empirical," Philosophy, vol. 32, no. 121, p. 114:

 

[peacegirl]

It seems that you still fail to understand how determinism works, including your constant conjunction.

So, once again. Given determinism, decisions are made, but seeing that there can be only one option taken at any given instance (constant conjunction, action B must necessarily follow action A, the decision that is made and the action that follows is inevitable. This is not say that you can't make decisions, but that the decision that you make cannot be otherwise.

Why, you ask? Well, as explained time and again, because determinism as you define it to be has no alternate decisions or actions in any given instance as the system evolves without deviation from past to present and future states of the system.

Quote;
''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.''

Typical DBT post, misunderstanding determinism followed by cherry-picking a quote from somewhere or other.

It is not I who misunderstands determinism. Do you not notice that the quote defining determinism was not written by me Yet the quoted definition is exactly what I work with.

Do you not realize that the given description relates to constant conjunction, which you endorsed?

You must know that can quote any number of compatibilist definitions of determinism that are essentially the same.

I think that you want it both ways, a special definition of your own, a form determinism that permits a belief in libertarian free will.

But then, of course, you claim your definition of determinism not only is the correct one, it ipso facto and self-evidently proves HARD determinism — a question-begging argument as I’ve noted. Just ask yourself, if everyone accepts your definition of HARD determinism, why do most academic philosophers say they are SOFT determinists?

Where do you get this stuff from? Certainly not from anything I have said.

Isn't it clear that I am not making up a definition of determinism of my own? It should be. I have quoted and cited these definitions enough times that it should be clear that I have always referred to them as they are defined, including your endorsed constant conjunction, which is essentially the same.

To be clear, the point I’m making is not that soft determinism is true because a majority of academic philosophers think it is — that would be an obvious fallacy. It is that somehow or other, trained philosophers don’t agree with you that the definition of determinism you say everyone uses proves hard determinism — quite the opposite.

Wow, that's way off the mark. The issue is, and always has been, not how determinism is defined but the validity of the compatibalist definition of free will in relation to determinism as it is defined.

And of course there are incompatibalists academic philosophers that out the failure of compatibilism.

Your problem is that you argue for compatibilism, yet insist on the reality of choice when determinism does not permit it, and compatibilists do not include it in their definition of free will.

You, sir, are a Libertarian.

''Some aspiring compatibilists maintain that only humans are judged morally because only they could have acted differently. Those who try this argument must realize that they are not compatibilists at all; they are libertarians. The acceptance of determinism is a defining element of compatibilism. It forbids us to say that evil-doers could have done good if only they wanted to. Well yes, if they wanted to, but they were determined to not want to.''

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

 

[pood]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

 

[peacegirl]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

There is no such thing as soft determinism. That's like saying you can be a little bit pregnant. We are either determined (have no free will) or not. By your stating that soft determinism is different than hard determinism, you can then bring free will into the equation, which is a false premise. Therefore, it's not valid right off the bat. Secondly, compatibilists are, by definition, libertarians. They believe that if a person's choices are not based on a strong compulsion like OCD or external pressure from an outside source, AND HERE'S THE KICKER: then this person had the free will to do otherwise. That is LIBERTARIANISM in a nutshell. You cannot agree with determinism as it is defined (and as DBT correctly explained) and then try to define free will in a way that isn't contradictory. You just can't do it if you are honest with yourself. YOUR accepted definition of determinism (whether it's this author's correct definition or the standard definition) throws out the ability to do otherwise. The compatibilist definition, therefore, does nothing at all to save their special kind of free will because it is not compatible with determinism in any way, shape, or form.

 

[pood]

All one do at this point is

 

[peacegirl]

All one do at this point is

Decision making and choice are not the same thing.