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

[DBT]

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.

Now you're playing dirty Pood. Is it because you have nothing else?

This shows how clueless you are. I have deliberately AVOIDED introducing all the ridiculous twaddle in the (corrupted) text in order to give you a FAIR SHOT at introducing posters here to your “two-sided equation (is there another kind?)” You have squandered that chance. Also “is it because you have nothing else?” is AD HOM and a violation of the rules here.

There is no twaddle in this book David. The people there turned it into lulz which can be done to anyone if that's the goal. Everything was taken out of context and used for laughter. If that's what you think, why did you invite me here? To prove he was wrong? You have proved no such thing. It is backfiring on you and that's why you're pissed.

OK, that’s enough. I already told you I was trying to help you present your main argument — not that I AGREE with it (I do not) — but I was trying to give you a fair chance with a new group, because I felt sorry for you. Also, you just committed yet another ad hom. Are you having trouble comprehending what a rule violation is?

I did not attack you. I asked you if that's why you are pissed. Look Pood, I cannot go from a free for all to a completely restricted forum that doesn't allow me to open my mouth. I did not insult anyone. I am not a mean-spirited person. But I will say that if people are in disagreement, there is something they don't understand just like a person who says that 1+1=11 doesn't understand. You've said such hurtful things in ff to keep the charade going, it's laughable that you are using a comment of mine that isn't even an insult, against me. If you consider that an AD HOM, and you want to use this ridiculous reason to get me banned, go for it.

An AD HOM is not (necessarily) an INSULT. You are tossing ad homs all over the place.

I know what an ad hom is. It's using a person's character as a reason to dismiss an argument. I will continue to say people don't agree because they don't understand. They can shut me up by banning me if they want. I'm not staying here much longer anyway.

I'm bending my own rules a bit here, but just to be clear—you’re not getting banned for anything you’ve said in this discussion. How do I know? I’m the Administrator. I really hope you stick around and avoid getting pulled into a debate about the forum's rules (which, ironically, is against the rules—glances at Pood). I’ve found your opinions to be thoughtfully expressed, and that’s exactly what this forum is for (clears throat—yes, even the contentious debates).

When I first joined this community years ago, I was shocked by how willing people were to challenge my beliefs down to the last detail. It was off-putting at first, but if you give this place time, you'll come to appreciate how much we all learn about ourselves and from one another.

Carry on.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I’m so use to being a target (for whatever reason), your friendly comment feels like an aberration.

Some folks tend to get defensive of their faith.

 

[Crumb]

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that. I was just thinking the more salacious parts of the Revolution in Thought™ would liven up this thread a bit. Freewill vs. determinism is such a boring conversation.

I agree, but the REALLY best parts, like JC (not to be confused with Jesus Christ) were left on the cutting-room floor by peacegirl. But we know who the True Steward of the Authentic Text is.

Jesus makes an appearance in the Authentic Text? I had no idea. I guess I'm a heathen in more ways than one.

 

[Crumb]

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that. I was just thinking the more salacious parts of the Revolution in Thought™ would liven up this thread a bit. Freewill vs. determinism is such a boring conversation.

To you it may be, because you don't understand why having no free will (which is a fact) is the foundation as to why we can change the trajectory our planet is on, with positive results. I think that's more important than you trying to make this another freethought forum.

It doesn't matter whether we agree with you about having no free will. You have not shown any reason to believe that any positive results would follow from people believing this. You and "The Author" just assert naïve things and expect people to believe you. And tha some reason pick the most skeptical places on the internet to try and recruit followers. Go find some spiritual/woo woo spaces and maybe you can find someone gullible enough.

Whether something is seen a positive or negative has no bearing on whether something is true. Reality doesn't care. The universe doesn't care.
...

Of course. In my second sentence I was trying to refer to her weird idea that if people believed in her version of determinism that they would magically stop stealing, murdering, etc. This is a more interesting claim than just a determinism rehash.

 

[DBT]

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that. I was just thinking the more salacious parts of the Revolution in Thought™ would liven up this thread a bit. Freewill vs. determinism is such a boring conversation.

To you it may be, because you don't understand why having no free will (which is a fact) is the foundation as to why we can change the trajectory our planet is on, with positive results. I think that's more important than you trying to make this another freethought forum.

It doesn't matter whether we agree with you about having no free will. You have not shown any reason to believe that any positive results would follow from people believing this. You and "The Author" just assert naïve things and expect people to believe you. And tha some reason pick the most skeptical places on the internet to try and recruit followers. Go find some spiritual/woo woo spaces and maybe you can find someone gullible enough.

Whether something is seen a positive or negative has no bearing on whether something is true. Reality doesn't care. The universe doesn't care.
...

Of course. In my second sentence I was trying to refer to her weird idea that if people believed in her version of determinism that they would magically stop stealing, murdering, etc. This is a more interesting claim than just a determinism rehash.

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.

The difference is negligible, and never mind context. So negligible that it makes no difference to the point that an inevitable event (determined) entails the 'impossibility of a contrary order or condition.'


necessity;

c : impossibility of a contrary order or condition.

So, yes, I think I do get it.

 

[DBT]

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.

How words are defined in relation to the context in which they are used is relevant.

Where determinism - as defined - has no possibility of ' it could have been otherwise.'


necessity; c : impossibility of a contrary order or condition.


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,

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that. I was just thinking the more salacious parts of the Revolution in Thought™ would liven up this thread a bit. Freewill vs. determinism is such a boring conversation.

I agree, but the REALLY best parts, like JC (not to be confused with Jesus Christ) were left on the cutting-room floor by peacegirl. But we know who the True Steward of the Authentic Text is.

Jesus makes an appearance in the Authentic Text? I had no idea. I guess I'm a heathen in more ways than one.

Jesus Christ is mentioned in his books. What's your point?

Christ also received incursions of thought from this same principle, which compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew what they were doing, and he could not stop them even by turning the other cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective. But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep an open mind and proceed with the investigation.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

How words are defined in relation to the context in which they are used is relevant.

Where determinism - as defined - has no possibility of ' it could have been otherwise.'


necessity; c : impossibility of a contrary order or condition.


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,

DBT, you are correct. I'm responding to Pood's post as well. I hope you don't mind.

Pood, definitions are important. They either reflect reality or they don't. If they don't, they are just words. Imagining a non-actual world without bringing up a logical contradiction does not mean that you could have chosen another option at that precise moment, or that it's actually possible, therefore the fact that there was no logical contradiction in your non-actual world means absolutely nothing. It comes down to pure imagination. FYI, no one here is saying that our choices aren't contingent on antecedent events, which is the reason why only one choice can occur based on those contingencies. Life is pushing us to move. Whether we are contemplating our options or whether we are just going to brush our teeth, which does not require making a decision, life is constantly compelling us to move from dissatisfaction to satisfaction, not dissatisfaction to dissatisfaction. Even if we choose the lesser evil, we are still moving in the direction of "greater" satisfaction than what the previous position offered. Again, you wouldn't move at all if you were satisfied. DBT isn't saying that we don't base our choices on contingent events (correct me if I'm wrong DBT; I don't want to speak for you), and neither am I, but the fact that we base our choices on our history, environment, and heredity doesn't give us a choice whatsoever. If you analyze the facts, you will see that there is no room for free will of any kind. It becomes a logical contradiction. Even if your premise is valid according to basic logic, it certainly isn't sound.

 

[DBT]

You are most welcome to have your say. I'm glad you do.

 

[pood]

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that. I was just thinking the more salacious parts of the Revolution in Thought™ would liven up this thread a bit. Freewill vs. determinism is such a boring conversation.

I agree, but the REALLY best parts, like JC (not to be confused with Jesus Christ) were left on the cutting-room floor by peacegirl. But we know who the True Steward of the Authentic Text is.

Jesus makes an appearance in the Authentic Text? I had no idea. I guess I'm a heathen in more ways than one.

No, I said the politely phrased “JC,” sometimes rendered “J, JC,” is NOT to be confused with Jesus Christ. If you need further guidance, please consult, at FF, ChuckF, who is the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

 

[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.

Now you're playing dirty Pood. Is it because you have nothing else?

This shows how clueless you are. I have deliberately AVOIDED introducing all the ridiculous twaddle in the (corrupted) text in order to give you a FAIR SHOT at introducing posters here to your “two-sided equation (is there another kind?)” You have squandered that chance. Also “is it because you have nothing else?” is AD HOM and a violation of the rules here.

There is no twaddle in this book David. The people there turned it into lulz which can be done to anyone if that's the goal. Everything was taken out of context and used for laughter. If that's what you think, why did you invite me here? To prove he was wrong? You have proved no such thing. It is backfiring on you and that's why you're pissed.

OK, that’s enough. I already told you I was trying to help you present your main argument — not that I AGREE with it (I do not) — but I was trying to give you a fair chance with a new group, because I felt sorry for you. Also, you just committed yet another ad hom. Are you having trouble comprehending what a rule violation is?

I did not attack you. I asked you if that's why you are pissed. Look Pood, I cannot go from a free for all to a completely restricted forum that doesn't allow me to open my mouth. I did not insult anyone. I am not a mean-spirited person. But I will say that if people are in disagreement, there is something they don't understand just like a person who says that 1+1=11 doesn't understand. You've said such hurtful things in ff to keep the charade going, it's laughable that you are using a comment of mine that isn't even an insult, against me. If you consider that an AD HOM, and you want to use this ridiculous reason to get me banned, go for it.

An AD HOM is not (necessarily) an INSULT. You are tossing ad homs all over the place.

I know what an ad hom is. It's using a person's character as a reason to dismiss an argument. I will continue to say people don't agree because they don't understand. They can shut me up by banning me if they want. I'm not staying here much longer anyway.

I'm bending my own rules a bit here, but just to be clear—you’re not getting banned for anything you’ve said in this discussion. How do I know? I’m the Administrator. I really hope you stick around and avoid getting pulled into a debate about the forum's rules (which, ironically, is against the rules—glances at Pood). I’ve found your opinions to be thoughtfully expressed, and that’s exactly what this forum is for (clears throat—yes, even the contentious debates).

When I first joined this community years ago, I was shocked by how willing people were to challenge my beliefs down to the last detail. It was off-putting at first, but if you give this place time, you'll come to appreciate how much we all learn about ourselves and from one another.

Carry on.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I’m so use to being a target (for whatever reason), your friendly comment feels like an aberration.

Some folks tend to get defensive of their faith.

Says the true believer in the Calvinist God simply renamed Hard Determinism.

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that. I was just thinking the more salacious parts of the Revolution in Thought™ would liven up this thread a bit. Freewill vs. determinism is such a boring conversation.

I agree, but the REALLY best parts, like JC (not to be confused with Jesus Christ) were left on the cutting-room floor by peacegirl. But we know who the True Steward of the Authentic Text is.

Jesus makes an appearance in the Authentic Text? I had no idea. I guess I'm a heathen in more ways than one.

No, I said the politely phrased “JC,” sometimes rendered “J, JC,” is NOT to be confused with Jesus Christ. If you need further guidance, please consult, at FF, ChuckF, who is the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

This will backfire on you Pood. Using FF to somehow discredit me because you have nothing else to defend your position is a red herring. The twisting of a serious book to make it unrecognizable is more about Chuck and his motivation to make more lulz than anything else. He has accused me of so many things that are outright lies, if anyone here believes this garbage, I will not respond to them.

 

[pood]

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that. I was just thinking the more salacious parts of the Revolution in Thought™ would liven up this thread a bit. Freewill vs. determinism is such a boring conversation.

I agree, but the REALLY best parts, like JC (not to be confused with Jesus Christ) were left on the cutting-room floor by peacegirl. But we know who the True Steward of the Authentic Text is.

Jesus makes an appearance in the Authentic Text? I had no idea. I guess I'm a heathen in more ways than one.

Jesus Christ is mentioned in his books. What's your point?

No, peacegirl. Your author’s “JC” does not refer to Jesus Christ.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Now you're playing dirty Pood. Is it because you have nothing else?

This shows how clueless you are. I have deliberately AVOIDED introducing all the ridiculous twaddle in the (corrupted) text in order to give you a FAIR SHOT at introducing posters here to your “two-sided equation (is there another kind?)” You have squandered that chance. Also “is it because you have nothing else?” is AD HOM and a violation of the rules here.

There is no twaddle in this book David. The people there turned it into lulz which can be done to anyone if that's the goal. Everything was taken out of context and used for laughter. If that's what you think, why did you invite me here? To prove he was wrong? You have proved no such thing. It is backfiring on you and that's why you're pissed.

OK, that’s enough. I already told you I was trying to help you present your main argument — not that I AGREE with it (I do not) — but I was trying to give you a fair chance with a new group, because I felt sorry for you. Also, you just committed yet another ad hom. Are you having trouble comprehending what a rule violation is?

I did not attack you. I asked you if that's why you are pissed. Look Pood, I cannot go from a free for all to a completely restricted forum that doesn't allow me to open my mouth. I did not insult anyone. I am not a mean-spirited person. But I will say that if people are in disagreement, there is something they don't understand just like a person who says that 1+1=11 doesn't understand. You've said such hurtful things in ff to keep the charade going, it's laughable that you are using a comment of mine that isn't even an insult, against me. If you consider that an AD HOM, and you want to use this ridiculous reason to get me banned, go for it.

An AD HOM is not (necessarily) an INSULT. You are tossing ad homs all over the place.

I know what an ad hom is. It's using a person's character as a reason to dismiss an argument. I will continue to say people don't agree because they don't understand. They can shut me up by banning me if they want. I'm not staying here much longer anyway.

I'm bending my own rules a bit here, but just to be clear—you’re not getting banned for anything you’ve said in this discussion. How do I know? I’m the Administrator. I really hope you stick around and avoid getting pulled into a debate about the forum's rules (which, ironically, is against the rules—glances at Pood). I’ve found your opinions to be thoughtfully expressed, and that’s exactly what this forum is for (clears throat—yes, even the contentious debates).

When I first joined this community years ago, I was shocked by how willing people were to challenge my beliefs down to the last detail. It was off-putting at first, but if you give this place time, you'll come to appreciate how much we all learn about ourselves and from one another.

Carry on.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I’m so use to being a target (for whatever reason), your friendly comment feels like an aberration.

Some folks tend to get defensive of their faith.

Says the true believer in the Calvinist God simply renamed Hard Determinism.

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that. I was just thinking the more salacious parts of the Revolution in Thought™ would liven up this thread a bit. Freewill vs. determinism is such a boring conversation.

To you it may be, because you don't understand why having no free will (which is a fact) is the foundation as to why we can change the trajectory our planet is on, with positive results. I think that's more important than you trying to make this another freethought forum.

It doesn't matter whether we agree with you about having no free will. You have not shown any reason to believe that any positive results would follow from people believing this. You and "The Author" just assert naïve things and expect people to believe you. And tha some reason pick the most skeptical places on the internet to try and recruit followers. Go find some spiritual/woo woo spaces and maybe you can find someone gullible enough.

Whether something is seen a positive or negative has no bearing on whether something is true. Reality doesn't care. The universe doesn't care.
...

Of course. In my second sentence I was trying to refer to her weird idea that if people believed in her version of determinism that they would magically stop stealing, murdering, etc. This is a more interesting claim than just a determinism rehash.

It is important that we understand why will is not free because it is what lies behind this hermetically sealed door that opens the floodgates of knowledge that was never before understood.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

“What is this theory?”

“You see, Mr. Johnston, most people believe consciously or unconsciously that man’s will is free.”

“What’s that? Did I hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell me that man’s will is not free?”

“That is absolutely right, Mr. Johnston. I don’t believe it; I know this for a mathematical fact. My discovery lies locked behind the door marked ‘Man’s Will is Not Free,’ just like the invariable laws of the solar system were concealed behind the door marked ‘The Earth is Round’ — until some upstart scientist opened it for a thorough investigation.”

“I have always believed it to be free, but what difference does it make what I think; the will of man is certainly not going to be affected by my opinion, right?”

“That part is true enough (do you recall the comparison), but if the will of man is definitely not free, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery; consequently, it does make a difference. The opinion of our ancestors that the earth was flat could never change its actual shape, but just as long as the door marked ‘The Earth Is Round’ was never opened thoroughly for an investigation by scientists capable of perceiving the undeniable but involved relations hidden there, how were we ever to discover the laws that allow us now to land men on the moon?”

“Your door was opened many times through the years by some of the most profound thinkers and never did they come up with any discoveries to change the world.”

“It is true that determinism was investigated by people who were presumed profound thinkers, but in spite of their profoundness, none of them had the capacity to perceive the law that was hidden there. Most people do not even know it is a theory since it is preached by religion, government, even education as if it is an absolute fact.”

“I don’t know what it is you think you have discovered but whatever it is, as far as I personally am concerned, it cannot be valid because I am convinced that man’s will is free. Thank you very much for coming out but I’m not interested in discussing this matter any further.” And he would not let me continue.

<snip>

In reality, we are all the result of forces completely beyond our control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are able to see for the very first time how it is now within our power to prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into existence. Although Spinoza did not understand the full significance of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting the opposite principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ by refusing to defend himself against his sister or blame her for cheating him out of his inheritance. Neither he nor his sister had a free choice because she was willing to cheat to get what she wanted, while he was willing to be cheated rather than hold her responsible. Spinoza made matters worse for himself financially, but at that moment of time he had no free choice because it gave him greater satisfaction to let her cheat him out of what he was entitled to by law. Both of them were moving in the direction of what gave them satisfaction. Spinoza’s sister had no understanding of this knowledge, nor did the world at that time, although Spinoza himself knew that man’s will is not free. Consequently, he allowed others to hurt him with a first blow by turning the other cheek. He was excommunicated from the synagogue while being God-intoxicated, which seems to be a contradiction. You would think that a person would be thrown out for being an atheist, but not for being a God-intoxicated man. The fact that I know God is a reality doesn’t intoxicate me. I know that the sun is also a reality, but when the heat gets unbearable, should I jump for joy? There is no comparison between Spinoza and myself. He was a gentle man, I am not. He refused to blame his sister for stealing what rightfully belonged to him because he was confused and believed she couldn’t help herself. I, on the other hand, would never advocate turning the other cheek when someone can get the advantage by not turning it. He excused her conduct, but if someone tried to take what belonged to me, I’d fight him tooth and nail. If an aggressive country should start a war before this knowledge is released, it is only natural that we fight back with everything we’ve got. Turning the other cheek under these conditions could lead to further harm, which is why most people reject the pacifist position. How is it humanly possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ I personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human conduct. Most of mankind are compelled, for greater satisfaction, to move in this direction. Therefore, it should be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is not free. It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us, something that investigators like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule. The fact that man’s will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. If you sock me, I might get greater satisfaction in socking you back. However, once man understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for hurting me. Until this knowledge is understood, we will be compelled to continue living in the world of free will; otherwise, we would only make matters worse for ourselves.

 

[pood]

Some folks tend to get defensive of their faith.

The difference between faith-based hard determinism, and rational soft determinism is this: The hard determinist says antecedents NECESSITATE (modal fallacy) that I do x; the soft determinist says I do x because I want to, and I want to because of antecedents.

 

[peacegirl]

Some folks tend to get defensive of their faith.

The difference between faith-based hard determinism, and rational soft determinism is this: The hard determinist says antecedents NECESSITATE (modal fallacy) that I do x; the soft determinist says I do x because I want to, and I want to because of antecedents.

This is just a play on words and the confusion with definition. It doesn’t change the fact that what you want to do is determined by laws over which you have no control. That is exactly what DBT expressed.

 

[DBT]

Some folks tend to get defensive of their faith.

The difference between faith-based hard determinism, and rational soft determinism is this: The hard determinist says antecedents NECESSITATE (modal fallacy) that I do x; the soft determinist says I do x because I want to, and I want to because of antecedents.

It appears that you don't understand the implications of what you just said. If what you want is determined by antecedents, what you want is not a matter of free will. What you want is fixed by antecedents.

 

[DBT]

Some folks tend to get defensive of their faith.

The difference between faith-based hard determinism, and rational soft determinism is this: The hard determinist says antecedents NECESSITATE (modal fallacy) that I do x; the soft determinist says I do x because I want to, and I want to because of antecedents.

This is just a play on words and the confusion with definition. It doesn’t change the fact that what you want to do is determined by laws over which you have no control. That is exact what DBT expressed.

Yep.

 

[peacegirl]

Some folks tend to get defensive of their faith.

The difference between faith-based hard determinism, and rational soft determinism is this: The hard determinist says antecedents NECESSITATE (modal fallacy) that I do x; the soft determinist says I do x because I want to, and I want to because of antecedents.

It appears that you don't understand the implications of what you just said. If what you want is determined by antecedents, what you want is not a matter of free will. What you want is fixed by antecedents.

Exactly! I really dont get what is so hard to understand!

 

[peacegirl]

Some folks tend to get defensive of their faith.

The difference between faith-based hard determinism, and rational soft determinism is this: The hard determinist says antecedents NECESSITATE (modal fallacy) that I do x; the soft determinist says I do x because I want to, and I want to because of antecedents.

It appears that you don't understand the implications of what you just said. If what you want is determined by antecedents, what you want is not a matter of free will. What you want is fixed by antecedents.

I'm trying to explain to Pood that what we want (i.e., what is preferred) is fixed but only after a decision is made based on whatever antecedents were mulled over to determine our next choice. It's not like there is one cause that spits out one outcome. I think that's what people get confused over; this direct cause/effect relationship that cannot be traced back to one determinant. There are many antecedents based that are used in the decision-making process, but we can't see the direct causal relationship in human decision-making in the same way we can see something that has a direct cause. When we strike a match and start a fire, that is a direct causal relationship. I'm trying to explain to every compatibilist or libertarian out there that the purpose of contemplation is to analyze the pros and cons of a given situation. We are free to do that when nothing external is standing in our way (which word can be used in that context), but it's not the external that gives us no free choice; it's the internal. Based on our analysis, we choose [what we believe at the time] is the best option in the direction of greater satisfaction. If we find out that it wasn't the best choice, we change it the next time a similar situation presents itself, but this future time is not what is under discussion, which Pood brings up in his effort to support compatibilst free will. I have said countless times that determinism is not prescriptive. It doesn't set a fixed choice in advance as if to say that a particular choice must be made before it's even made, which I don't believe anyone here is saying. That is where one's consent is part of the deterministic process. But this does not change the fact that after WE make our choice, it could not have been otherwise. It's not a two-way street. We can only go in one direction. God knew what he was doing. I hope you know by now that the author used the word God as a metaphor to mean the laws that govern our universe.

 

[pood]

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that. I was just thinking the more salacious parts of the Revolution in Thought™ would liven up this thread a bit. Freewill vs. determinism is such a boring conversation.

I agree, but the REALLY best parts, like JC (not to be confused with Jesus Christ) were left on the cutting-room floor by peacegirl. But we know who the True Steward of the Authentic Text is.

Jesus makes an appearance in the Authentic Text? I had no idea. I guess I'm a heathen in more ways than one.

No, I said the politely phrased “JC,” sometimes rendered “J, JC,” is NOT to be confused with Jesus Christ. If you need further guidance, please consult, at FF, ChuckF, who is the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

This will backfire on you Pood. Using FF to somehow discredit me because you have nothing else to defend your position is a red herring. The twisting of a serious book to make it unrecognizable is more about Chuck and his motivation to make more lulz than anything else. He has accused me of so many things that are outright lies, if anyone here believes this garbage, I will not respond to them.

Peacegirl, if you have further questions or concerns about the Authentic Text, please consult ChuckF at the FF Help Desk. You will need to make an appointment, though; there is a backlog of requests for information on The Boohog Corollary, the Surreptitious Aphrodisiac Theorem, The Ur-Penis, and suchlike topics of importance.