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

[pood]

Libertarians and hard determinists agree that determinism and free will are incompatible. The hard determinist rejects free will. The libertarian rejects determinism.

Yes. And given that Libertarians reject determinism, this puts their version of free will at odds with compatibilism

Correct.

,

The hard determinist says given antecedents x and y, a person MUST do z. The libertarian says given antecedents x and y, a person can and will do whatever the hell he, she, or they wants.

The so called 'hard determinist' is simple an incompatibilist.

Right. So is the libertarian.

The compatiblist accepts both determinism and free will. The compatibilist says that given antecedents x and y, a person WILL (but not MUST!) do z. Could he have done differently? Certainly. But to actually have done differently, antecedents would have been different.

There lies the sticking point. Given determinism, the antecedents cannot be different. As the antecedents cannot be different, there are no alternate actions within such a system.

Of course they could have been different, but they weren’t. There can only be one history.

Which is the point that makes 'had conditions been different' completely irrelevant.

As conditions cannot be different within a deterministic system, where there can only be one history which sets the present state of the system, which in turn sets the future states of the system......there is no point in bringing up ''had conditions been different'' in a debate on compatibilist free will.

Here, as, always, you ignore the fact that we ourselves are part of the deterministic stream, and are presented with an array of choices that are deterministically generated. Basically you are back to the old malarky that the big bang wrote concert symphonies billions of years before they were actually written, an obvious absurdity.

Where without the possibility of alternate actions, there is no choice.

Certainly there is. We make countess choices every single day.

Which means that each and every decision that is made is inevitable.

No, a choice OF SOME KIND is inevitable.

No, the decision that is made is set by past states of the system. That is entailed in your Constant Conjunction, where decision/action B must necessarily follow decision/action A

As I have explained to you to no avail, constant conjunction has nothing to do per se with free will or even determinism for that matter, and Hume was a compatibilist.

That each and every action that happens is inevitable, fixed by antecedents that could possibly have been different.

Sure they could have been different, but weren’t. There is only one history. And this is where “could not have done otherwise” falls apart. Given that there is only one history, “could not have done otherwise” collapses to “did not do otherwise,” which is compatibilism.

They weren't different because the system, as defined by you (constant conjunction) simply does not permit alternate actions.

If it could, it would not be determinism.

“The system,” as you style it (is the system God?) does nothing at all. As previously explained, again to no avail, determinism DESCRIBES how things broadly go, and does not PRESCRIBE, permit, or not permit, anything at all.

 

[pood]

One more time about this “inevitability” business. I am going to suppose by hypothesis that the block universe model is correct, and the future is “already,”:in a manner of speaking, set in stone. And this means are future actions are “already” fixed. They are unavoidable. And, so what? What would it mean to “avoid” our future choices? It would mean I would have to both choose, and not choose them, at the same time, violating the law of non-contradiction. But the fact that they are both inevitable and unavoidable still does not make them NECESSARY. It’s always important to keep modal distinctions in mind, which DBT can’t or won’t do.

 

[steve_bank]

You did not get that I was comparing your quoting your author/guru with Christians quoting the bible?

How is quoting the author, which was meant to help answer your questions, anything comparable to Christians quoting the Bible other than the fact that both were quoted from a source. My source has nothing to do with fundamentalism or theology, yet someone new to this thread may get the wrong impression. Your response was meant to be a put down and you showed a complete disinterest in anything I posted. For what reason, I’ll never know.

Not a put down per se. A dispassionate comparison to illustrate a point at.

You posted many posts copying and pasting your author. When questioned you copy and paste more. No debate and no questions about it you and your your author are absolutely right.

You: My author is revolutionary and once understood will transform the world.

Christians: Jesus was revolutionary and once believed in the world will be transfored,


You and Christians are similar in form , different in content. Religion is philosophy mixed with the supernatural.

Again.

You said once we change to this revolutionary thought no one will be able to exploit another.

Who decides what exploit means in that context? How would it be enfo0rced?

 

[peacegirl]

You did not get that I was comparing your quoting your author/guru with Christians quoting the bible?

How is quoting the author, which was meant to help answer your questions, anything comparable to Christians quoting the Bible other than the fact that both were quoted from a source. My source has nothing to do with fundamentalism or theology, yet someone new to this thread may get the wrong impression. Your response was meant to be a put down and you showed a complete disinterest in anything I posted. For what reason, I’ll never know.

Not a put down per se. A dispassionate comparison to illustrate a point at.

Your point failed.

You posted many posts copying and pasting your author. When questioned you copy and paste more. No debate and no questions about it you and your your author are absolutely right.

I have said many times that this is a new discovery and cannot be explained the way the people here demand. Most discussions center around books already read many times over. The claims that this knowledge can prevent war and crime are so extraordinary that it would be an injustice if I reduced it to few sentences or even an abstract. That would have so many gaps that people would laugh, which would be unfair to the author.

You: My author is revolutionary and once understood will transform the world.

Christians: Jesus was revolutionary and once believed in the world will be transfored,


You and Christians are similar in form , different in content. Religion is philosophy mixed with the supernatural.

Again.

You said once we change to this revolutionary thought no one will be able to exploit another.

Who decides what exploit means in that context? How would it be enfo0rced?

I answered this. Didn't you read my response? An exploitation is a hurt to someone because you're gaining at his expense. You are doing something to them that they don't want done to themselves. No one will be able to justify exploiting anyone under the changed conditions therefore they will get less, not greater, satisfaction. I was trying to explain why this is so, but when I get no apparent interest, then I also lose interest.

 

[steve_bank]

By the way, if you keep using that emoji eventually your face will permanently look like it....

I have nothing else to say.

 

[Crumb]

Have we got to rumpy pumpy yet?

 

[Janice Rael]

I understand you, @peacegirl - more than I can ever type (again).

Bless.

 

[DBT]

So that rules you out as a compatibilist.

No. That just rules you out as understanding what compatibilism is. After all this time, you still don’t.

I know exactly how compatibilist free will is defined.....and it doesn't involve being able to choose any option at any given time.

I'm surprised that I need to point it out at this stage.

Libertarian free will on the other hand....

Libertarian free will says our choices are free of determinism. I don’t say that. Ergo I am not a libertarian.

If you claim that you can in fact choose any one of several options at any given instance, that is to be free of determinism.

If that is what you claim, you are not a compatibilist, you are a Libertarian.

 

[DBT]

Libertarians and hard determinists agree that determinism and free will are incompatible. The hard determinist rejects free will. The libertarian rejects determinism.

Yes. And given that Libertarians reject determinism, this puts their version of free will at odds with compatibilism

Correct.

,

The hard determinist says given antecedents x and y, a person MUST do z. The libertarian says given antecedents x and y, a person can and will do whatever the hell he, she, or they wants.

The so called 'hard determinist' is simple an incompatibilist.

Right. So is the libertarian.

Except they just toss the notion of free will into the mix. When asked how it's supposed to work, the mechanisms and means, they don't know. To have Faith is enough, I guess.

The compatiblist accepts both determinism and free will. The compatibilist says that given antecedents x and y, a person WILL (but not MUST!) do z. Could he have done differently? Certainly. But to actually have done differently, antecedents would have been different.

There lies the sticking point. Given determinism, the antecedents cannot be different. As the antecedents cannot be different, there are no alternate actions within such a system.

Of course they could have been different, but they weren’t. There can only be one history.

Which is the point that makes 'had conditions been different' completely irrelevant.

As conditions cannot be different within a deterministic system, where there can only be one history which sets the present state of the system, which in turn sets the future states of the system......there is no point in bringing up ''had conditions been different'' in a debate on compatibilist free will.

Here, as, always, you ignore the fact that we ourselves are part of the deterministic stream, and are presented with an array of choices that are deterministically generated. Basically you are back to the old malarky that the big bang wrote concert symphonies billions of years before they were actually written, an obvious absurdity.

But I don't ignore that we are a part of the system. I point it out quite regularly. The brain, it's structures and lobes, senses and connections, what it is and does, is inseparable from the system as a whole.

The very reason why there are no alternate choices within a determinstic system.

Where without the possibility of alternate actions, there is no choice.

Certainly there is. We make countess choices every single day.

You are conflating decision making with choice. Decision making and choice are not necessarily related.

Determinism;
If something is not determined to happen at a specific time and place, it cannot happen at that specific time and place regardless of such an event happening at a different time and place, ie, that there are no alternatives in any given instance in time regardless of "what 'can' happen" at some other time or place if that is determined.

Choice on the other hand entails the possibility of taking any one of the options whenever they are presented.

The rest of the post is repeat.

 

[DBT]

One more time about this “inevitability” business. I am going to suppose by hypothesis that the block universe model is correct, and the future is “already,”:in a manner of speaking, set in stone. And this means are future actions are “already” fixed. They are unavoidable. And, so what? What would it mean to “avoid” our future choices? It would mean I would have to both choose, and not choose them, at the same time, violating the law of non-contradiction. But the fact that they are both inevitable and unavoidable still does not make them NECESSARY. It’s always important to keep modal distinctions in mind, which DBT can’t or won’t do.

If the future is fixed, set, unavoidable, the future as fixed, set and unavoidable is inevitable.

Oh, look.

Oxford languages.
in·ev·it·able
[ɪnˈɛvɪtəb(ə)l]
adjective

1. certain to happen; unavoidable:
   "war was inevitable"
   Similar:
   unavoidable
   inescapable
   inexorable
   unpreventable

noun
(the inevitable)

1. a situation that is unavoidable:in·ev·it·able
   [ɪnˈɛvɪtəb(ə)l]
   adjective
   
   1. certain to happen; unavoidable:
      "war was inevitable"
      Similar:
      unavoidable
      inescapable
      inexorable
      unpreventable
   noun
   (the inevitable)
   
   1. a situation that is unavoidable:

 

[pood]

One more time about this “inevitability” business. I am going to suppose by hypothesis that the block universe model is correct, and the future is “already,”:in a manner of speaking, set in stone. And this means are future actions are “already” fixed. They are unavoidable. And, so what? What would it mean to “avoid” our future choices? It would mean I would have to both choose, and not choose them, at the same time, violating the law of non-contradiction. But the fact that they are both inevitable and unavoidable still does not make them NECESSARY. It’s always important to keep modal distinctions in mind, which DBT can’t or won’t do.

If the future is fixed, set, unavoidable, the future as fixed, set and unavoidable is inevitable.

Oh, look.

Oxford languages.
in·ev·it·able
[ɪnˈɛvɪtəb(ə)l]
adjective

1. certain to happen; unavoidable:
   "war was inevitable"
   Similar:
   unavoidable
   inescapable
   inexorable
   unpreventable

noun
(the inevitable)

1. a situation that is unavoidable:in·ev·it·able
   [ɪnˈɛvɪtəb(ə)l]
   adjective
   
   1. certain to happen; unavoidable:
      "war was inevitable"
      Similar:
      unavoidable
      inescapable
      inexorable
      unpreventable
   noun
   (the inevitable)
   
   1. a situation that is unavoidable:

You’ll never get it.

INEVITABLE does not mean NECESSARY.

 

[pood]

If it is true today that tomorrow I will choose Coke over Pepsi, my choice is INEVITABLE. It does not follow, however, that it is NECESSARY. If I can imagine a possible non-actual world at which I choose Pepsi over Coke without bringing about a logical contradiction — and I most certainly can— then my choice is, was, and always will be CONTINGENT, in the sense of could be/could have been otherwise, yet also contingent in the sense of “depending upon” determinism. By contrast, I can imagine no possible world at which bachelors are married without bringing about a logical contradiction. I have explained this before, but the distinction is somehow lost on you. The upshot is, please don’t quote dictionary definitions of inevitable, because they are irrelevant.

 

[peacegirl]

I understand you, @peacegirl - more than I can ever type (again).

Bless.

No you don’t.

 

[pood]

I know exactly how compatibilist free will is defined.....and it doesn't involve being able to choose any option at any given time.

Sure it does. Given antecedents x,y,z, I CAN choose Pepsi — it is within my power to do so — but, in fact, I WON’T do so. I WILL choose Coke. You, otoh, are arguing that given antecedents x,y,z, I CAN’T choose Pepsi, and MUST choose Coke. That is the difference between our positions, and mine is certainly not libertarian. My position is consistent with logic, whereas yours commits a modal fallacy, as I have explained. You conflate MUST and WILL.

 

[peacegirl]

Libertarians and hard determinists agree that determinism and free will are incompatible. The hard determinist rejects free will. The libertarian rejects determinism.

Yes. And given that Libertarians reject determinism, this puts their version of free will at odds with compatibilism

Correct.

,

The hard determinist says given antecedents x and y, a person MUST do z. The libertarian says given antecedents x and y, a person can and will do whatever the hell he, she, or they wants.

The so called 'hard determinist' is simple an incompatibilist.

Right. So is the libertarian.

The compatiblist accepts both determinism and free will. The compatibilist says that given antecedents x and y, a person WILL (but not MUST!) do z. Could he have done differently? Certainly. But to actually have done differently, antecedents would have been different.

There lies the sticking point. Given determinism, the antecedents cannot be different. As the antecedents cannot be different, there are no alternate actions within such a system.

Of course they could have been different, but they weren’t. There can only be one history.

Which is the point that makes 'had conditions been different' completely irrelevant.

As conditions cannot be different within a deterministic system, where there can only be one history which sets the present state of the system, which in turn sets the future states of the system......there is no point in bringing up ''had conditions been different'' in a debate on compatibilist free will.

Here, as, always, you ignore the fact that we ourselves are part of the deterministic stream, and are presented with an array of choices that are deterministically generated. Basically you are back to the old malarky that the big bang wrote concert symphonies billions of years before they were actually written, an obvious absurdity.

It really isn't an absurdity unless you try to make it that way. Everything that happened all the way back to man's origin was exactly how it had to be looking back. WE don't know the future but whatever takes place could not be otherwise, which is the "free will" that is under scrutiny. DBT uses the term "system" which gives the impression that our choices aren't involved, but we are part of the system, which DBT explained. This author only brings up the fact that even though everything we do is beyond our control (because only one choice can be made), nothing can make us do anything against our will. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I think it's hard for people who want to believe that they are responsible for their successes and have enormous pride, are very threatened by determinism because then they can't take all the credit for their accomplishments. Moreover, the belief that those who are not successful are responsible for their failure brings up a false hierarchy that of course puts the "successful" people more deserving of respect and everything good in life, whereas those on the bottom deserve what they get because they could have done otherwise. This is what Robert Sapolsky is very concerned about for good reason. Whatever side one is on is extremely impactful as to how they view themselves and the world around them. The good guys and the bad guys; the good people and the bad, the intelligent ones and the stupid ones...and the list goes on. It just so happens that determinism is true, compatibilism's free will is not even what we are discussing. Deal with it!

Where without the possibility of alternate actions, there is no choice.

Certainly there is. We make countess choices every single day.

Which means that each and every decision that is made is inevitable.

No, a choice OF SOME KIND is inevitable.

No, the decision that is made is set by past states of the system. That is entailed in your Constant Conjunction, where decision/action B must necessarily follow decision/action A

As I have explained to you to no avail, constant conjunction has nothing to do per se with free will or even determinism for that matter, and Hume was a compatibilist.

Appeal to authority. Just because Hume was a compatibilist doesn't make him correct. You can't use his philosophy as a basis for what is true and what isn't.

That each and every action that happens is inevitable, fixed by antecedents that could possibly have been different.

Sure they could have been different, but weren’t. There is only one history. And this is where “could not have done otherwise” falls apart. Given that there is only one history, “could not have done otherwise” collapses to “did not do otherwise,” which is compatibilism.

They weren't different because the system, as defined by you (constant conjunction) simply does not permit alternate actions.

If it could, it would not be determinism.

“The system,” as you style it (is the system God?) does nothing at all. As previously explained, again to no avail, determinism DESCRIBES how things broadly go, and does not PRESCRIBE, permit, or not permit, anything at all.

No one said it prescribes in advance of what a person chooses in the direction of greater satisfaction. The environment just creates conditions that COMPEL a particular choice, one that could not have been otherwise once the choice has been made. There are no parallel universes Pood. I'm sorry if this bothers you.

 

[pood]

No one said it prescribes in advance of what a person chooses in the direction of greater satisfaction. The environment just creates conditions that COMPEL a particular choice, one that could not have been otherwise once the choice has been made. There are no parallel universes Pood. I'm sorry if this bothers you.

These claims do not BOTHER me, peacegirl, nor do they make me angry. I couldn’t care less about them. Please stop the ad homs or I will start reporting your posts.

And a possible non-actual world is not a “parallel universe.” You know nothing about this.

 

[pood]

peacegirl, your M.O. here as everywhere is to claim that everyone who does not agree with your writer’s claims either did not read what he wrote, read them but did not understand them, or else read them and understood them, but reject them because they feel threatened by them. All of this is AD HOMINEM, and against the rules here.

 

[pood]

Have we got to rumpy pumpy yet?

You’re of course free to introduce rumpy pumpy, or anything else from the book (corrupted text ) at any time.

 

[pood]

Wishing Vivisectus were here.

 

[peacegirl]

I know exactly how compatibilist free will is defined.....and it doesn't involve being able to choose any option at any given time.

Sure it does. Given antecedents x,y,z, I CAN choose Pepsi — it is within my power to do so — but, in fact, I WON’T do so. I WILL choose Coke. You, otoh, are arguing that given antecedents x,y,z, I CAN’T choose Pepsi, and MUST choose Coke. That is the difference between our positions, and mine is certainly not libertarian. My position is consistent with logic, whereas yours commits a modal fallacy, as I have explained. You conflate MUST and WILL.