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

[peacegirl]

I said that the compatibilist definition of free will fails to make a case because it does not account for inner necessity.

This is unrelated to the point I've been making.

I've been posting in response to peacegirl's original claim that "compatibilism is contradictory, by definition" (a claim which you appear to support).

And your 59% of professional philosophers is an appeal to authority

It's not an appeal to authority. I'm not claiming compatibilism is true because 59% of professional philosophers agree. I'm simply pointing out that it's highly unlikely that compatibilism (as supported by these philosophers) is "contradictory by definition".

Bingo!

What do you mean bingo? Compatibilism is contradictory, by definition. Determinism does not allow for free will because of the obvious; the definition is altered in such a way to make it appear compatible. We could do otherwise, or we could not. It's as simple as that.

That’s exactly why I said DBT does not understand the ad populum, fallacy, just as he does not understand the modal fallacy. Maybe if he would read more closely for comprehension, he would understand where he constantly goes wrong.

He understands quite clearly that appealing to "ad populum", as the antichris did, does not help his argument whatsoever.

On a side note, it's a bit rich for you to accuse others of an appeal to authority when your posts repeatedly contain quotes from what you would presumably believe are authority sources.

Where does he appeal to authority, or me for that matter, other than demonstrating our case in a factual manner?

And not only that, on inspection, it turns out that most of those cherry-picked quotes are directed against libertarian free will and are from people who are compatibilists.

Where are we compatibilists when we are arguing against that very thing? Saying colloquially that we had the free will to do this or that does not make us compatibilists. We are using the term "free will" only to mean "we did this because we wanted to", but this wanting to was not of our own free will. I have explained this to you countless times but it goes in one ear and out the other. The definition of compatibilist free will is nothing other than a semantic shift in definition of what these words actually mean in regard to the free will/determinism debate. It's a sham! Your logic fails every test Pood, but you won't let go even if the truth is staring you in the face.

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.

Determinism | Definition, Philosophers, & Facts | Britannica​

 

[pood]

I said that the compatibilist definition of free will fails to make a case because it does not account for inner necessity.

This is unrelated to the point I've been making.

I've been posting in response to peacegirl's original claim that "compatibilism is contradictory, by definition" (a claim which you appear to support).

And your 59% of professional philosophers is an appeal to authority

It's not an appeal to authority. I'm not claiming compatibilism is true because 59% of professional philosophers agree. I'm simply pointing out that it's highly unlikely that compatibilism (as supported by these philosophers) is "contradictory by definition".

Bingo!

What do you mean bingo? Compatibilism is contradictory, by definition. Determinism does not allow for free will because of the obvious; the definition is altered in such a way to make it appear compatible. We could do otherwise, or we could not. It's as simple as that.

You are simply unwilling, or unable, to read for comprehension. “Bingo” refers to the fact that The AntiChris did NOT commit a fallacy of appeal to authority, and he showed you and DBT WHY he did not. And yes, as I have shown, we COULD do other, than what we did. The pertinent question is, WOULD we do otherwise, UNDER THE EXACT SAME CONDITIONS? You and DBT will always fail to grasp the distinction between “will” and “must” no matter how many times it is explained to you.

That’s exactly why I said DBT does not understand the ad populum, fallacy, just as he does not understand the modal fallacy. Maybe if he would read more closely for comprehension, he would understand where he constantly goes wrong.

He understands quite clearly that appealing to "ad populum", as the antichris did, does not help his argument whatsoever.

NO HE DID NOT commit that fallacy.

On a side note, it's a bit rich for you to accuse others of an appeal to authority when your posts repeatedly contain quotes from what you would presumably believe are authority sources.

Where does he appeal to authority, or me for that matter, other than demonstrating our case in a factual manner?

And not only that, on inspection, it turns out that most of those cherry-picked quotes are directed against libertarian free will and are from people who are compatibilists.

Where are we compatibilists when we are arguing against the very free will compatibilsts are trying to make compatible. This is nothing other than than a semantic shift in definition of what these words actually mean in regard to the free will/determinism debate? It's a sham! Your logic fails every test Pood, but you won't let go even if the truth stares you in the face.

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.

Determinism | Definition, Philosophers, & Facts | Britannica​

What is quoting Britannica other than an appeal to authority? As it happens, the definition they offer is of HARD determinism, and not of determinism. Determinism “entails” nothing of the sort, as I have shown.

 

[peacegirl]

I said that the compatibilist definition of free will fails to make a case because it does not account for inner necessity.

This is unrelated to the point I've been making.

I've been posting in response to peacegirl's original claim that "compatibilism is contradictory, by definition" (a claim which you appear to support).

And your 59% of professional philosophers is an appeal to authority

It's not an appeal to authority. I'm not claiming compatibilism is true because 59% of professional philosophers agree. I'm simply pointing out that it's highly unlikely that compatibilism (as supported by these philosophers) is "contradictory by definition".

Bingo!

What do you mean bingo? Compatibilism is contradictory, by definition. Determinism does not allow for free will because of the obvious; the definition is altered in such a way to make it appear compatible. We could do otherwise, or we could not. It's as simple as that.

You are simply unwilling, or unable, to read for comprehension. “Bingo” refers to the fact that The AntiChris did NOT commit a fallacy of appeal to authority, and he showed you and DBT WHY he did not. And yes, as I have shown, we COULD do other, than what we did. The pertinent question is, WOULD we do otherwise, UNDER THE EXACT SAME CONDITIONS? You and DBT will always fail to grasp the distinction between “will” and “must” no matter how many times it is explained to you.

That’s exactly why I said DBT does not understand the ad populum, fallacy, just as he does not understand the modal fallacy. Maybe if he would read more closely for comprehension, he would understand where he constantly goes wrong.

He understands quite clearly that appealing to "ad populum", as the antichris did, does not help his argument whatsoever.

NO HE DID NOT commit that fallacy.

On a side note, it's a bit rich for you to accuse others of an appeal to authority when your posts repeatedly contain quotes from what you would presumably believe are authority sources.

Where does he appeal to authority, or me for that matter, other than demonstrating our case in a factual manner?

And not only that, on inspection, it turns out that most of those cherry-picked quotes are directed against libertarian free will and are from people who are compatibilists.

Where are we compatibilists when we are arguing against the very free will compatibilsts are trying to make compatible. This is nothing other than than a semantic shift in definition of what these words actually mean in regard to the free will/determinism debate? It's a sham! Your logic fails every test Pood, but you won't let go even if the truth stares you in the face.

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.

Determinism | Definition, Philosophers, & Facts | Britannica​

What is quoting Britannica other than an appeal to authority? As it happens, the definition they offer is of HARD determinism, and not of determinism. Determinism “entails” nothing of the sort, as I have shown.

Who is the authority here? It is the definition used by philosophers in this debate. Could we do otherwise or could we not do otherwise is the central question going back millennium. The definition of free will is defined as "we could do otherwise," whereas determinism says "impossible." That is what we are exploring, Pood. It is the very basis of how we communicate—with language that we can agree upon. You don't get to change the definition of "free will" because it suits your fancy. As I said earlier, you are a closet libertarian.

 

[pood]

FROM OXFORD:

A necessary truth is one that could not have been otherwise. It would have been true under all circumstances. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false. A necessary truth is one that must be true; a contingent truth is one that is true as it happens, or as things are, but that did not have to be true.

See? I can play the appeal to authority game, too.

And picking Coke over Pepsi is a contingent truth, as I have repeatedly demonstrated.

 

[peacegirl]

FROM OXFORD:

A necessary truth is one that could not have been otherwise. It would have been true under all circumstances. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false. A necessary truth is one that must be true; a contingent truth is one that is true as it happens, or as things are, but that did not have to be true.

It is a necessary truth that under the conditions of a no free will environment, we could not do otherwise. This is true under all circumstances Pood. There are no exceptions to this. I used contingency only to mean that each person chooses what gives him greater satisfaction under his particular circumstances, but the necessary truth remains under all conditions and for every single human being on the planet.

See? I can play the appeal to authority game, too.

And picking Coke over Pepsi is a contingent truth, as I have repeatedly demonstrated.

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary. DBT explained that, according to the laws of this universe, what we do is fixed going all the way back to the Big Bang. It's not like the Big Bang caused you to choose Coke over Pepsi, but everything leading up to your birth and subsequent choices thereafter led you to make this particular choice. The issue is that, before a choice is made, you don't know what it will be until you make it. This doesn't change the fact that it's fixed (or predetermined), even if you try your darndest to show me otherwise. Your response to try and show me otherwise is also fixed or part of the causal chain of your life experiences and genetics. You cannot escape the law of your nature because it does not vary or change definition; it is immutable.

 

[pood]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

 

[pood]

\

This doesn't change the fact that it's fixed (or predetermined) …

It’s completely useless to talk to either your or DBT, because you are both uneducable. As has been explained a million times, fixity is not the same thing as necessity, and pre-determined is not the same thing as determined.

 

[peacegirl]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Yes, most definitely I can. It's just another way to explain what cannot be denied. I am basing my decision on contingent determinations, but those contingencies are part of a causal chain that goes back to my birth and even further. This universe is run by laws (including the mankind system) over which we have no control, which is amazing when you think about it because it can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. We could not accomplish this if we had free will, and that's what you are proposing, whether you call it compatibilist free will or libertarianism. It's two sides of the same coin.

 

[pood]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Yes, most definitely I can. It's just another way to explain what cannot be denied. I am basing my decision on contingent determinations, but those contingencies are part of a causal chain that goes back to my birth and even further. This universe is run by laws (including the mankind system) over which we have no control, which is amazing when you think about it because it can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. We could not accomplish this if we had free will, and that's what you are proposing, whether you call it compatibilist free will or libertarianism. It's two sides of the same coin.

You just have no idea what you are talking about.

You cannot logically change “contingent” to “necessary.” “Necessary” truths are necessarily necessarily true, and contingent truths are necessarily contingently true, as I’ve discussed.

The universe is not “run by laws.” The so-called “laws” DEscribe, but do not PREscribe, what happens in the world.

You are wrong on all counts.

 

[peacegirl]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Use of the word "contingent" is fine when it's used in the context of making a decision (i.e., the antecedents), but if you really want to go deeper (which offers more proof that man's will is not free), one's choices are based on necessity going back to when life originated. Most people don't look back in total perspective, but if we could go back in time, we would see that everything that led up to the present moment happened out of necessity based on the motion of life itself, which moves in one direction ONLY (i.e., the direction of greater preference or satisfaction), INCLUDING ONE'S CHOICES. How many more times am I going to have to explain this to you before you get it?

 

[pood]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Use of the word "contingent" is fine when it's used in the context of making a decision (i.e., the antecedents), but if you really want to go deeper (which offers more proof that man's will is not free), one's choices are based on necessity going back to when life originated. Most people don't look back in total perspective, but if we could go back in time, we would see that everything that led up to the present moment happened out of necessity based on the motion of life itself, which moves in one direction ONLY (i.e., the direction of greater preference or satisfaction), INCLUDING ONE'S CHOICES. How many more times am I going to have to explain this to you before you get it?

You can’t “explain” that which is wrong, because then there is nothing to explain.

And that word “necessity,” you still do not know what it means.

 

[peacegirl]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Yes, most definitely I can. It's just another way to explain what cannot be denied. I am basing my decision on contingent determinations, but those contingencies are part of a causal chain that goes back to my birth and even further. This universe is run by laws (including the mankind system) over which we have no control, which is amazing when you think about it because it can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. We could not accomplish this if we had free will, and that's what you are proposing, whether you call it compatibilist free will or libertarianism. It's two sides of the same coin.

You just have no idea what you are talking about.

You cannot logically change “contingent” to “necessary.” “Necessary” truths are necessarily necessarily true, and contingent truths are necessarily contingently true, as I’ve discussed.

Then I'll change it to "necessarily contingently true." If it's contingently necessarily true, it cannot be made to be anything other than what it actually is, not what it could possibly be. You will never concede that your account makes no sense because a person's worldview and the reasons for it are very powerful. You want to believe that you have the free will (in a deterministic system ) to choose other than what you actually do choose. In your flawed logic, anything is possible. There is no way you can ever prove that you could have chosen otherwise or could choose otherwise (present tense) based on what your brain is telling you is the better option. All you are doing is using flawed logic to undermine the reality that having free will (of any kind) and having no free will are utter contradictions. It doesn't matter if 98% of the world believes in compatibilism, that does not make it any truer than the belief that the earth is flat.

The universe is not “run by laws.” The so-called “laws” DEscribe, but do not PREscribe, what happens in the world.

You are wrong on all counts.

No, I'm not. The universe does not prescribe (I've said this many times; it is descriptive) but does follow certain laws. We, as sentient beings, are part of those laws. That was the distinction this author made so as not to confuse people with the idea that we are being forced, against our will, to do anything we don't want to do, but to repeat for the thousandth time, this does not make will free.

 

[pood]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Yes, most definitely I can. It's just another way to explain what cannot be denied. I am basing my decision on contingent determinations, but those contingencies are part of a causal chain that goes back to my birth and even further. This universe is run by laws (including the mankind system) over which we have no control, which is amazing when you think about it because it can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. We could not accomplish this if we had free will, and that's what you are proposing, whether you call it compatibilist free will or libertarianism. It's two sides of the same coin.

You just have no idea what you are talking about.

You cannot logically change “contingent” to “necessary.” “Necessary” truths are necessarily necessarily true, and contingent truths are necessarily contingently true, as I’ve discussed.

Then I'll change it to "necessarily contingently true."

OK, you changed it to “necessarily contingently true,” and in so doing, your have refuted your author’s argument.

If it's contingently necessarily true,

NOTHING is “contingently necessarily true.” There are some propositions whose truth value is unknown, like Goldbach’s Conjecture. But if the conjecture is true, it is necessarily necessarily true, and if it is false, it necessarily necessarily false.

The rest I have already addressed, and I’m not going to waste any breath on.

 

[peacegirl]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Use of the word "contingent" is fine when it's used in the context of making a decision (i.e., the antecedents), but if you really want to go deeper (which offers more proof that man's will is not free), one's choices are based on necessity going back to when life originated. Most people don't look back in total perspective, but if we could go back in time, we would see that everything that led up to the present moment happened out of necessity based on the motion of life itself, which moves in one direction ONLY (i.e., the direction of greater preference or satisfaction), INCLUDING ONE'S CHOICES. How many more times am I going to have to explain this to you before you get it?

You can’t “explain” that which is wrong, because then there is nothing to explain.

And that word “necessity,” you still do not know what it means.

Causal, choice, necessity, compelled, fixed, contingent, predetermined, fatalistic, preordained, foreknowledge, etc. are leading people astray unless each is defined in the clearest possible way. None of these words negate the truth of determinism when it's explained correctly. It's too easy to get caught up in logical cobwebs. Please remember that definitions and propositions mean nothing where reality is concerned, even if they appear valid if they don't square with reality. They are often unsound, which is exactly what is happening in your counter examples.

 

[peacegirl]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Yes, most definitely I can. It's just another way to explain what cannot be denied. I am basing my decision on contingent determinations, but those contingencies are part of a causal chain that goes back to my birth and even further. This universe is run by laws (including the mankind system) over which we have no control, which is amazing when you think about it because it can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. We could not accomplish this if we had free will, and that's what you are proposing, whether you call it compatibilist free will or libertarianism. It's two sides of the same coin.

You just have no idea what you are talking about.

You cannot logically change “contingent” to “necessary.” “Necessary” truths are necessarily necessarily true, and contingent truths are necessarily contingently true, as I’ve discussed.

Then I'll change it to "necessarily contingently true."

OK, you changed it to “necessarily contingently true,” and in so doing, your have refuted your author’s argument.

I have not refuted the author's argument that "contingently true" is "necessarily contingently true" when the word necessary is necessarily true for that particular individual. He had to choose what he did; it was contingently true (and therefore "necessarily" contingently true because he was not free to choose otherwise) based on the determinants that led to his decision. If B (killing someone without justification) offered less satisfaction than A (not killing someone without justification), A was not a free choice. I know, you still don't get it.

If it's contingently necessarily true,

NOTHING is “contingently necessarily true.” There are some propositions whose truth value is unknown, like Goldbach’s Conjecture. But if the conjecture is true, it is necessarily necessarily true, and if it is false, it necessarily necessarily false.

The rest I have already addressed, and I’m not going to waste any breath on.

Who is telling you to waste your breath or keep you here? No one has a gun to your head. You are here because it gives you greater satisfaction than going somewhere else that would give you less satisfaction. You could not do otherwise now that it's done, but you could, based on your frustration that you're losing (which pours salt in the wound), decide to leave in the direction of greater satisfaction. Remember, each moment offers a new set of antecedents that affect choice.

 

[pood]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Use of the word "contingent" is fine when it's used in the context of making a decision (i.e., the antecedents), but if you really want to go deeper (which offers more proof that man's will is not free), one's choices are based on necessity going back to when life originated. Most people don't look back in total perspective, but if we could go back in time, we would see that everything that led up to the present moment happened out of necessity based on the motion of life itself, which moves in one direction ONLY (i.e., the direction of greater preference or satisfaction), INCLUDING ONE'S CHOICES. How many more times am I going to have to explain this to you before you get it?

You can’t “explain” that which is wrong, because then there is nothing to explain.

And that word “necessity,” you still do not know what it means.

Causal, choice, necessity, compelled, fixed, contingent, predetermined, fatalistic, preordained, foreknowledge, etc. are leading people astray unless each is defined in the clearest possible way.

Right, which is exactly what I have done. You’re welcome.

You and DBT are repeatedly confusing and conflating these words.

 

[pood]

\

I have not refuted the author's argument that "contingently true" is "necessarily contingently true" when the word necessary is necessarily true for that particular individual. He had to choose what he did; it was necessarily contingently true because he was not free to choose otherwise.

“Necessarily contingently true” MEANS that he could have chosen otherwise, and that that it is necessarily true he could have done so.

If B (killing someone without justification) offered less satisfaction than A (not killing someone without justification), A was not a free choice. I know, you still don't get it.

Who is telling you to waste your breath or keep you here? No one has a gun to your head. You are here because it gives you greater satisfaction than going somewhere else that would give you less satisfaction. You could not do otherwise now that it's done, but you could, based on your frustration that you're losing (which pours salt in the wound), decide to leave in the direction of greater satisfaction. Remember, each moment offers a new set of antecedents that affect choice.

After 25 years on the internet you still don’t know how to use quote tags.

The bold part is ad hominem, against the rules here, and will be reported to the mods as such.

 

[pood]

You know what, peacegirl? I’m tired of discussing determinism/free will, since I’ve said all I have to say on the matter and because I’m right and you and DBT are wrong. But especially I’m tired of bits like the bolded above in your posts.

On a number of occasions, I’ve said that I was trying to HELP you formulate an argument in the proper way to an audience of skeptics, and you totally ignored my advice. And where is your audience? Gone.

Maybe we can get an audience back by telling them what is in the REST of the book, which I have so far refrained from doing, specifically to try to help you out.

Want me to tell them what’s in the rest of the book? Or will you?

 

[peacegirl]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Use of the word "contingent" is fine when it's used in the context of making a decision (i.e., the antecedents), but if you really want to go deeper (which offers more proof that man's will is not free), one's choices are based on necessity going back to when life originated. Most people don't look back in total perspective, but if we could go back in time, we would see that everything that led up to the present moment happened out of necessity based on the motion of life itself, which moves in one direction ONLY (i.e., the direction of greater preference or satisfaction), INCLUDING ONE'S CHOICES. How many more times am I going to have to explain this to you before you get it?

You can’t “explain” that which is wrong, because then there is nothing to explain.

And that word “necessity,” you still do not know what it means.

Causal, choice, necessity, compelled, fixed, contingent, predetermined, fatalistic, preordained, foreknowledge, etc. are leading people astray unless each is defined in the clearest possible way.

Right, which is exactly what I have done. You’re welcome.

You and DBT are repeatedly confusing and conflating these words.

You are the one using definitions that try to negate the absolute fact that we can only make one choice at each moment of time, and that choice can only be what is believed to be the most preferable. Even if it's tautological, this does not mean it doesn't have major significance. Let's try this: Show me that you are free to shoot someone without any provocation. The reason you could not think of doing this is because you know this person is innocent, and it doesn't satisfy you to hurt him when you cannot justify what you are about to do. Show me where you are not under any compulsion to refrain from taking this person's life. Given the free will compatibilists say you have, you should be able to shoot based on their special kind of free will. According to them, you are not under any compulsion if you have no addiction, no OCD, and no gun to your head. Can't you see that you are compelled, by the laws of your nature, not to hurt this person because it can give you no satisfaction whatsoever under the conditions just described? I don't know how to make this any clearer than this.

 

[pood]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Use of the word "contingent" is fine when it's used in the context of making a decision (i.e., the antecedents), but if you really want to go deeper (which offers more proof that man's will is not free), one's choices are based on necessity going back to when life originated. Most people don't look back in total perspective, but if we could go back in time, we would see that everything that led up to the present moment happened out of necessity based on the motion of life itself, which moves in one direction ONLY (i.e., the direction of greater preference or satisfaction), INCLUDING ONE'S CHOICES. How many more times am I going to have to explain this to you before you get it?

You can’t “explain” that which is wrong, because then there is nothing to explain.

And that word “necessity,” you still do not know what it means.

Causal, choice, necessity, compelled, fixed, contingent, predetermined, fatalistic, preordained, foreknowledge, etc. are leading people astray unless each is defined in the clearest possible way.

Right, which is exactly what I have done. You’re welcome.

You and DBT are repeatedly confusing and conflating these words.

You are the one using definitions that try to negate the absolute fact that we can only make one choice at each moment of time …

Yes, if you mean, “I can’t both choose and not choose Coke, at the same time.” So?

….and that choice can only be what is believed to be the most preferable.

Yeah, I choose what I prefer. OK.

Even if it's tautological, this does not mean it doesn't have major significance. Let's try this: Show me that you are free to shoot someone who has given you no reason. The reason you could not think of doing this is because you know this person is innocent, and it doesn't satisfy you to hurt him when you cannot justify it.

“I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.” Johnny Cash.

Show me where you are not under a compulsion to choose the option of not shooting him rather than shooting him.

Compelled by what? Crickets.

Given the definition of the free will compatibilists say you have, you should be able to shoot him just as easily as not shooting him.

Correct. But given antecedents x, y, z, I will NOT shoot him. It does not follow that I CANNOT shoot him. This is where you and DBT always run off the rails.

According to compatibilists, you are not under a compulsion because you have no addiction, no OCD, and no gun to your head. Can't you see that you are compelled, by the laws of your nature, not to hurt this person because it can give you no satisfaction whatsoever under the conditions just described? I don't know how to make this any clearer than this.

There are no “laws” of my nature.