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

[pood]

Don't be hung up on the word 'necessary.' You can ignore the word if you like and use words like, fixed, set, causally inevitable.

Let me strengthen the reply I made earlier to this. You CANNOT ignore the word “necessary,” because this is the whole point.
Your substitute words “fixed,” “set,” and “causally inevitable” simply, and illicitly, IMPORT the concept of necessity into them. But these words are not synonyms for necessity. Because of this, as a matter of logic, it can never be the case that I HAD TO do, what I did.

 

[peacegirl]

Inevitable does not mean necessary. Please reread my posts regarding the difference between inevitability and necessity. I am not going to repeat myself. I have already explained this. (This is in reference to peacegirl’s question why inevitability does not mean necessity; I accidentally deleted her comment while responding.)

I believe I know the difference without having to find your post.

It was inevitable that he was going to slip on the black ice when he took a step onto the driveway without taking any precaution. It wasn't necessary that he slip on the black ice if he had known it was there and decided to stay inside until salt was put down.

Yes, and even if he had slipped on the nice, it was not necessary that he do so. No matter what he does or doesn’t do, it is not necessary.

Before the fact, determinism does not say it is necessary that he fall in advance of him falling. Based on the limited knowledge he had of an approaching ice storm (that was not brought to his attention), it made his fall inevitable after taking that first step. Every single move he made that led up to his fall, he was compelled to make it, because there were no antecedents that were competing with his decision to go out on the driveway. He was just moving in the direction of greater satisfaction that all of us do day in and day out. Therefore, he had absolutely no choice but to fall, based on what he knew. If he was given more information, he would have more than likely stayed inside, but this is an imaginary situation, because he did not have that information, so it could not have happened that way.

 

[pood]

It’s not necessary after the fact, either, sorry. I already explained why at least twice.

 

[peacegirl]

Don't be hung up on the word 'necessary.' You can ignore the word if you like and use words like, fixed, set, causally inevitable.

Let me strengthen the reply I made earlier to this. You CANNOT ignore the word “necessary,” because this is the whole point.
Your substitute words “fixed,” “set,” and “causally inevitable” simply, and illicitly, IMPORT the concept of necessity into them. But these words are not synonyms for necessity. Because of this, as a matter of logic, it can never be the case that I HAD TO do, what I did.

At that moment, it was a move away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction to get up and step out onto the driveway. He had no other choice to do otherwise based on his limited knowledge. Therefore, it was necessary that he fall because staying inside wasn't even a consideration. To repeat: determinism does not say it is necessary that you jump off a roof and break your neck. It says that whatever antecedents we use to decide what our next move will be becomes a choice that had to happen (or was necessitated to happen) after the fact, not before. Even though we don't know what the future will bring, it is actually predetermined by all of the experiences that will lead to our ongoing decisions; we just don't know what those decisions will be until we make them.

 

[pood]

Don't be hung up on the word 'necessary.' You can ignore the word if you like and use words like, fixed, set, causally inevitable.

Let me strengthen the reply I made earlier to this. You CANNOT ignore the word “necessary,” because this is the whole point.
Your substitute words “fixed,” “set,” and “causally inevitable” simply, and illicitly, IMPORT the concept of necessity into them. But these words are not synonyms for necessity. Because of this, as a matter of logic, it can never be the case that I HAD TO do, what I did.

At that moment, it was a move away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction to get up and step out onto the driveway. He had no other choice to do otherwise based on his limited knowledge. Therefore, it was necessary that he fall because staying inside wasn't even a consideration.

No, sorry, peacegirl, that is not the meaning of “necessary.” The problem, of course, is that you are using “necessary” in its imprecise and colloquial sense. That is why we have logic, including symbolic logic that dispenses with words altogether, to clear up matters of this sort. English and other languages are notoriously imprecise and ambiguous.

 

[peacegirl]

Don't be hung up on the word 'necessary.' You can ignore the word if you like and use words like, fixed, set, causally inevitable.

Let me strengthen the reply I made earlier to this. You CANNOT ignore the word “necessary,” because this is the whole point.
Your substitute words “fixed,” “set,” and “causally inevitable” simply, and illicitly, IMPORT the concept of necessity into them. But these words are not synonyms for necessity. Because of this, as a matter of logic, it can never be the case that I HAD TO do, what I did.

At that moment, it was a move away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction to get up and step out onto the driveway. He had no other choice to do otherwise based on his limited knowledge. Therefore, it was necessary that he fall because staying inside wasn't even a consideration.

No, sorry, peacegirl, that is not the meaning of “necessary.” The problem, of course, is that you are using “necessary” in its imprecise and colloquial sense. That is why we have logic, including symbolic logic that dispenses with words altogether, to clear up matters of this sort. English and other languages are notoriously imprecise and ambiguous.

You are playing word games. You are trying to make the case that determinism says that something is necessary before it's even done. This is not what determinism states. In reality, there is no compatibilist free will. It's a definition that is not representative of reality whatsoever. The definition compatibilists use is completely and utterly flawed based on a false proposition, and trying to make it appear that there is a mix of freedom and determinism is just plain contradictory.

Don't be hung up on the word 'necessary.' You can ignore the word if you like and use words like, fixed, set, causally inevitable.

Let me strengthen the reply I made earlier to this. You CANNOT ignore the word “necessary,” because this is the whole point.
Your substitute words “fixed,” “set,” and “causally inevitable” simply, and illicitly, IMPORT the concept of necessity into them. But these words are not synonyms for necessity. Because of this, as a matter of logic, it can never be the case that I HAD TO do, what I did.

At that moment, it was a move away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction to get up and step out onto the driveway. He had no other choice to do otherwise based on his limited knowledge. Therefore, it was necessary that he fall because staying inside wasn't even a consideration.

No, sorry, peacegirl, that is not the meaning of “necessary.” The problem, of course, is that you are using “necessary” in its imprecise and colloquial sense. That is why we have logic, including symbolic logic that dispenses with words altogether, to clear up matters of this sort. English and other languages are notoriously imprecise and ambiguous.

Determinism does not say that some action is necessary before it is performed, therefore it is your language that is misconstruing what determinism is. Your mistaken notion that a person who was not an addict and had no OCD could have chosen otherwise, is pure nonsense. And then what? What is the follow up if this is the belief? Punishment, rehabilitation? Tell me what. As hard as it may be to accept, you cannot say that a person who robbed the bank last night was free to choose otherwise at that moment. Why is this important? Because moral responsibility is at the very center of this debate and that is why it matters.

 

[pood]

Determinism and LOGIC does not say some action is necessary AFTER it is performed, either, peacegirl. You know nothing about any of this.

 

[pood]

Perhaps DBT, or peacegirl, or anyone, would like to comment on the following argument, due to Prof. Norman Swartz.

If Paul has one daughter and two sons, then Paul has to have at least one son.

Paul has one daughter and two sons.

Therefore, Paul has to have at least one son.

Is the argument valid? That is, does the conclusion follow from the premises? If so, is the argument sound? Does the conclusion follow from the premises, and are both the premises true?

 

[pood]

Hint: the argument is both invalid and unsound.

 

[pood]

You see, DBT and peacegirl have charged me with playing word games with respect to this discussion, and compatibilism in particular. The exact opposite is true: THEY are playing word games. I am playing LOGIC games.

 

[peacegirl]

You see, DBT and peacegirl have charged me with playing word games with respect to this discussion, and compatibilism in particular. The exact opposite is true: THEY are playing word games. I am playing LOGIC games.

Logic games are even worse than the word games that DPT and myself are not displaying! If your proposition is wrong, everything that follows is wrong. I have said many times that determinism does not state, before the fact, that anything must be chosen before it is chosen. That’s how you are defining it, and it’s not the definition you even agreed upon.

 

[DBT]

You see, DBT and peacegirl have charged me with playing word games with respect to this discussion, and compatibilism in particular. The exact opposite is true: THEY are playing word games. I am playing LOGIC games.

Not so. For the given reasons, your logic and your argument for free will and choice in relation to determinism contradict the conditions of your definition of determinism.

You have a contradiction in your argument.

 

[peacegirl]

You see, DBT and peacegirl have charged me with playing word games with respect to this discussion, and compatibilism in particular. The exact opposite is true: THEY are playing word games. I am playing LOGIC games.

Not so. For the given reasons, your logic and your argument for free will and choice in relation to determinism contradict the conditions of your definition of determinism.

You have a contradiction in your argument.

He just doesn’t see that 1+1 is not 11, but 2. He probably has a block because of the implications as to what it would mean to not have the free will to do otherwise. A person could explain that a circle is round and give tons of examples of what round is. But alas, when it comes time for them to show they understand, they say it’s a square. This is definitely trying my patience. Thanks for being here. I could not continue here without your support.

 

[pood]

You see, DBT and peacegirl have charged me with playing word games with respect to this discussion, and compatibilism in particular. The exact opposite is true: THEY are playing word games. I am playing LOGIC games.

Logic games are even worse than the word games that DPT and myself are not displaying! If your proposition is wrong, everything that follows is wrong. I have said many times that determinism does not state, before the fact, that anything must be chosen before it is chosen. That’s how you are defining it, and it’s not the definition you even agreed upon.

Neither determinism nor logic states that that after something was chosen, it HAD to have been chosen. This is your claim, and it is false as a matter of logic.

 

[pood]

It appears that neither DBT nor peacegirl are going to address the argument about Paul’s son. I wonder why that is?

 

[pood]

Here’s a hint: once the argument about Paul’s son is logically deconstructed, so too is DBT’s argument to hard determinism.

 

[pood]

You see, DBT and peacegirl have charged me with playing word games with respect to this discussion, and compatibilism in particular. The exact opposite is true: THEY are playing word games. I am playing LOGIC games.

Not so. For the given reasons, your logic and your argument for free will and choice in relation to determinism contradict the conditions of your definition of determinism.

You have a contradiction in your argument.

The contradiction is entirely yours, as you will see if you can figure out why the argument about Paul’s son is invalid and unsound. But you have not even tried to figure it out.

 

[pood]

Perhaps DBT, or peacegirl, or anyone, would like to comment on the following argument, due to Prof. Norman Swartz.

If Paul has one daughter and two sons, then Paul has to have at least one son.

Paul has one daughter and two sons.

Therefore, Paul has to have at least one son.

Is the argument valid? That is, does the conclusion follow from the premises? If so, is the argument sound? Does the conclusion follow from the premises, and are both the premises true?

Now let’s look at the argument parallel to the Paul argument, the argument to Hard Determinism (as opposed to determinism, since they are not the same).

If antecedents are x, y, and z, then Paul has to choose Coke
Antecedents are x, y, and z.
Therefore, Paul has to choose Coke.

LIke the Paul argument, and for the same reasons, the argument above, to Hard Determinism, is both invalid and unsound. When the argument is corrected, it becomes the argument to soft determinism (compatibilism).

 

[peacegirl]

Determinism and LOGIC does not say some action is necessary AFTER it is performed, either, peacegirl. You know nothing about any of this.

Stop trying to belittle me Pood. I know much more than you about this subject than you do.

 

[pood]

Determinism and LOGIC does not say some action is necessary AFTER it is performed, either, peacegirl. You know nothing about any of this.

Stop trying to belittle me Pood. I know much more than you about this subject than you do.