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

[pood]

Correction. You could have done otherwise, but you didn’t.

Peacegirl, this is getting you nowhere. Take my advice and present an argument, with premises and a conclusion. As noted, you don’t have to prove your premise “man’s will is not free” unless and until you present an actual argument. Then, if the argument is valid (conclusion follows from premises) we can check to see whether the argument is sound (conclusion follows from premises, AND all the premises are true). Unless you do that, you are going to lose your audience. Note how sharply it has already dropped off.

 

[peacegirl]

A lengthy dissertation on determinism form the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy.

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Causal Determinism
First published Thu Jan 23, 2003; substantive revision Thu Sep 21, 2023

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case.

Casualty in science simply means something does not happen without a cause.

The philosophical question is when we make what we think is a free choice was that choice predetermined. If everything is predestined is a murderer predestined to be a murderer before he or she is even born?

One can easily get tied into metaphysical knots.

Looking back, a murderer was predestined or predetermined to murder, but again, this does not mean that going forward, as the transition to a new environment takes place, that the murderer will continue to murder or that a different set of conditions will cause a repeat of the same behavior. Remember, we are all moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, and when it doesn't give someone satisfaction to hurt others with a first blow because it cannot be justified, the solution is obvious to those who are able to see why.

 

[pood]

Not only can this "freedom" be impossible to prove; it goes against the law of non-contradiction.

No, it does not.

The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle in logic. It states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time1234. For example, if something is true, then the opposite of it is false. This principle is essential for maintaining logical consistency and avoiding contradictions.

The above is correct. It has nothing to do with what you are saying. No one is arguing that you can both do, and not do, something at the same time. Rather, the correct logic is, after you do something, what you did remains contingent (it could have been otherwise, but wasn’t). So this is a complete red herring.

Of course, in quantum logic, which involves superpositions, it seems you CAN both do, and not do something, at the same time. Just like things can be in multiple locations at the same time.

 

[peacegirl]

Correction. You could have done otherwise, but you didn’t.

Peacegirl, this is getting you nowhere. Take my advice and present an argument, with premises and a conclusion. As noted, you don’t have to prove your premise “man’s will is not free” unless and until you present an actual argument.

Please let up David. You want me to present an argument that falsely gives you an edge. I'm not going to do that. If this thread dies, so be it.

Then, if the argument is valid (conclusion follows from premises) we can check to see whether the argument is sound (conclusion follows from premises, AND all the premises are true). Unless you do that, you are going to lose your audience. Note how sharply it has already dropped off.

I already gave you the premises that must be true for this knowledge to be sound. It really doesn't matter to me if I lose an audience that shows absolutely no interest unless I do it their way. I'm doing it in a way that I won't lose the integrity of the proof. Gaps in understanding cause issues not because the author was wrong, but because people wanted to find loopholes which could easily be found if the proof wasn't explained in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Why would I create loopholes just so people could say they were right, therefore he was wrong? They would be disingenuous in their desire to understand.

 

[peacegirl]

Not only can this "freedom" be impossible to prove; it goes against the law of non-contradiction.

No, it does not.

The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle in logic. It states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time1234. For example, if something is true, then the opposite of it is false. This principle is essential for maintaining logical consistency and avoiding contradictions.

The above is correct. It has nothing to do with what you are saying. No one is arguing that you can both do, and not do, something at the same time. Rather, the correct logic is, after you do something, what you did remains contingent (it could have been otherwise, but wasn’t). So this is a complete red herring.

Of course, in quantum logic, which involves superpositions, it seems you CAN both do, and not do something, at the same time. Just like things can be in multiple locations at the same time.

You're getting all mixed up between the quantum world and actual human conduct. I've already proven to you that we can only move in one direction. Your logic is, once again, flawed. I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be (and that includes compatibilism), especially given the fact that having no free will is the answer to the ills that are plaguing us.

 

[pood]

Correction. You could have done otherwise, but you didn’t.

Peacegirl, this is getting you nowhere. Take my advice and present an argument, with premises and a conclusion. As noted, you don’t have to prove your premise “man’s will is not free” unless and until you present an actual argument.

Please let up David. You want me to present an argument that falsely gives you an edge. I'm not going to do that. If this thread dies, so be it.

No, peacegirl, this is childish. I’m not looking for an “edge.” I’m trying to HELP YOU present a coherent case that others can consider. Posting vast walls of copypasta that no one is going to read will get you the same result you’ve gotten everywhere for the past 20 years. If you can’t summarize the argument with clear premises and a conclusion, no one will take you seriously. No one will even participate, as no one is participating right now.

Then, if the argument is valid (conclusion follows from premises) we can check to see whether the argument is sound (conclusion follows from premises, AND all the premises are true). Unless you do that, you are going to lose your audience. Note how sharply it has already dropped off.

I already gave you the premises that must be true for this knowledge to be sound. It really doesn't matter to me if I lose an audience that shows absolutely no interest unless I do it their way. I'm doing it in a way that I won't lose the integrity of the proof. Gaps in understanding cause issues not because the author was wrong, but because people wanted to find loopholes which could easily be found if the proof wasn't explained in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Why would I create loopholes just so people could say they were right, therefore he was wrong? They would be disingenuous in their desire to understand.

Good, so lose your audience.

 

[pood]

Not only can this "freedom" be impossible to prove; it goes against the law of non-contradiction.

No, it does not.

The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle in logic. It states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time1234. For example, if something is true, then the opposite of it is false. This principle is essential for maintaining logical consistency and avoiding contradictions.

The above is correct. It has nothing to do with what you are saying. No one is arguing that you can both do, and not do, something at the same time. Rather, the correct logic is, after you do something, what you did remains contingent (it could have been otherwise, but wasn’t). So this is a complete red herring.

Of course, in quantum logic, which involves superpositions, it seems you CAN both do, and not do something, at the same time. Just like things can be in multiple locations at the same time.

You're getting all mixed up between the quantum world and actual human conduct. I've already proven to you that we can only move in one direction. Your logic is, once again, flawed. I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be (and that includes compatibilism), especially given the fact that having no free will is the answer to the ills that are plaguing us.

Attacking other people’s motives for not agreeing with what you or your author write is absolutely childish, and will get you nowhwere fast, as it has always done.

 

[peacegirl]

Not only can this "freedom" be impossible to prove; it goes against the law of non-contradiction.

No, it does not.

The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle in logic. It states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time1234. For example, if something is true, then the opposite of it is false. This principle is essential for maintaining logical consistency and avoiding contradictions.

The above is correct. It has nothing to do with what you are saying. No one is arguing that you can both do, and not do, something at the same time. Rather, the correct logic is, after you do something, what you did remains contingent (it could have been otherwise, but wasn’t). So this is a complete red herring.

Of course, in quantum logic, which involves superpositions, it seems you CAN both do, and not do something, at the same time. Just like things can be in multiple locations at the same time.

You're getting all mixed up between the quantum world and actual human conduct. I've already proven to you that we can only move in one direction. Your logic is, once again, flawed. I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be (and that includes compatibilism), especially given the fact that having no free will is the answer to the ills that are plaguing us.

Attacking other people’s motives for not agreeing with what you or your author write is absolutely childish, and will get you nowhwere fast, as it has always done.

False accusation! I am not attacking anyone’s motives. I’m just explaining why I cannot leave out gaps that would screw up my presentation.

 

[steve_bank]

All our thoughts are the products of our physical brains. Thoughts are the results of atomic interactions, quantum scale.

There is no mind separate from body.

 

[pood]

False accusation! I am not attacking anyone’s motives. I’m just explaining why I cannot leave out gaps that would screw up my presentation.

“You: I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be …”

It does not BOTHER me (personal motive attack, and ad hom violation of rules), I DON’T AGREE WITH IT. See the difference?

 

[pood]

All our thoughts are the products of our physical brains. Thoughts are the results of atomic interactions, quantum scale.

There is no mind separate from body.

Right, which is just what compatibilists say.

 

[peacegirl]

All our thoughts are the products of our physical brains. Thoughts are the results of atomic interactions, quantum scale.

There is no mind separate from body.

No one is saying it is, although the mind cannot be found as a distinct part of the brain itself.

 

[peacegirl]

False accusation! I am not attacking anyone’s motives. I’m just explaining why I cannot leave out gaps that would screw up my presentation.

“You: I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be …”

It does not BOTHER me (personal motive attack, and ad hom violation of rules), I DON’T AGREE WITH IT. See the difference?

I don't consider that question an ad hominem violation. You know what ad hominens are from ff, and I've had a lot of them used against me. I don't attack people like that. I am just wondering why you believe so strongly in compatibilism when I'm showing you and others why the definition fails. That is not an attack. I was just curious. Is it that you believe that compatibilist free will is the same "free will" that is used in the free will/determinisn debate that has been used down through the centuries? Redefining a word so that it appears consistent is a no no.

Semantic Shift Day, August 31 - REMINDER! Mark your calendar! -

Rejoice, the holiday that all compatibilists “love” is upon us soon! It is the day that all non-existent things can be claimed to exist, in fact the very point of Semantic Shift Day is to re-define the nonexistent! I thought I would post this in the very beginning of the month rather than right...

breakingthefreewillillusion.com

 

[pood]

False accusation! I am not attacking anyone’s motives. I’m just explaining why I cannot leave out gaps that would screw up my presentation.

“You: I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be …”

It does not BOTHER me (personal motive attack, and ad hom violation of rules), I DON’T AGREE WITH IT. See the difference?

I do not consider that an attack. You know what ad hominens are from ff, and you know I don't attack people in that way. I am just wondering why you believe so strongly in compatibilism when I'm showing people why the definition fails. That is not an attack. I'm just curious.

You have not SHOWN anything, you have ASSERTED IT.

An ad hom argument takes the following form: “You disagree with what the author wrote for no good reason, only that you are threatened by it.” That is just what you did, what you did at FF and what you do everywhere you go, and ad hom is a violation of the rules here. Stop doing it.

 

[peacegirl]

False accusation! I am not attacking anyone’s motives. I’m just explaining why I cannot leave out gaps that would screw up my presentation.

“You: I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be …”

It does not BOTHER me (personal motive attack, and ad hom violation of rules), I DON’T AGREE WITH IT. See the difference?

I do not consider that an attack. You know what ad hominens are from ff, and you know I don't attack people in that way. I am just wondering why you believe so strongly in compatibilism when I'm showing people why the definition fails. That is not an attack. I'm just curious.

You have not SHOWN anything, you have ASSERTED IT.

Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is not an assertion. He demonstrates why we cannot move in a direction that offers less satisfaction or dissatisfaction than what the present position offers.

An ad hom argument takes the following form: “You disagree with what the author wrote for no good reason, only that you are threatened by it.” That is just what you did, what you did at FF and what you do everywhere you go, and ad hom is a violation of the rules here. Stop doing it.

I was not saying you disagree with the author for no good reason. Maybe you have a good reason in your way of viewing this topic. It does seem to me that you are conflating two definitions of free will, which is mucking up the proof that free will of any kind does not exist.

 

[pood]

False accusation! I am not attacking anyone’s motives. I’m just explaining why I cannot leave out gaps that would screw up my presentation.

“You: I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be …”

It does not BOTHER me (personal motive attack, and ad hom violation of rules), I DON’T AGREE WITH IT. See the difference?

I do not consider that an attack. You know what ad hominens are from ff, and you know I don't attack people in that way. I am just wondering why you believe so strongly in compatibilism when I'm showing people why the definition fails. That is not an attack. I'm just curious.

You have not SHOWN anything, you have ASSERTED IT.

Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is not an assertion. He demonstrates why we cannot move in a direction that offers less satisfaction or dissatisfaction than what the present position offers.

He does not “demonstrate” anything. In the end he offers what amounts to an empty tautology: I always do what I prefer, because I prefer it.

An ad hom argument takes the following form: “You disagree with what the author wrote for no good reason, only that you are threatened by it.” That is just what you did, what you did at FF and what you do everywhere you go, and ad hom is a violation of the rules here. Stop doing it.

I was not saying you disagree with the author for no good reason. Maybe you have a good reason in your way of viewing this topic. It does seem to me that you are conflating two definitions of free will, which is mucking up the proof that free will of any kind does not exist.

Saying someone rejects an argument because he feels “threatened” by it is ad hom, pure and simple.

 

[peacegirl]

False accusation! I am not attacking anyone’s motives. I’m just explaining why I cannot leave out gaps that would screw up my presentation.

“You: I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be …”

It does not BOTHER me (personal motive attack, and ad hom violation of rules), I DON’T AGREE WITH IT. See the difference?

I do not consider that an attack. You know what ad hominens are from ff, and you know I don't attack people in that way. I am just wondering why you believe so strongly in compatibilism when I'm showing people why the definition fails. That is not an attack. I'm just curious.

You have not SHOWN anything, you have ASSERTED IT.

Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is not an assertion. He demonstrates why we cannot move in a direction that offers less satisfaction or dissatisfaction than what the present position offers.

He does not “demonstrate” anything. In the end he offers what amounts to an empty tautology: I always do what I prefer, because I prefer it.

There is nothing wrong with his observations. I prefer it because it gives me greater satisfaction. Why are you leaving "greater satisfaction" out of your refutation? Your logic is circular, not his. A person doesn't prefer it because he prefers it. He prefers it over any other choice at his disposal. We are also different so what you may prefer may not be what someone else prefers given the same exact situation. Even if you think it's a tautology because of the belief that "what you prefer is what you prefer" is circular does not in any way indicate his demonstration of greater satisfaction has no value.

Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others, especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case presents alternatives that affect choice.

Tautologies Must Not Be Dismissed | Steve Patterson

Trivial. Redundant. Dogmatic. Useless. That’s what people really mean when they say, “Oh, your argument is just a tautology.”

steve-patterson.com

An ad hom argument takes the following form: “You disagree with what the author wrote for no good reason, only that you are threatened by it.” That is just what you did, what you did at FF and what you do everywhere you go, and ad hom is a violation of the rules here. Stop doing it.

I was not saying you disagree with the author for no good reason. Maybe you have a good reason in your way of viewing this topic. It does seem to me that you are conflating two definitions of free will, which is mucking up the proof that free will of any kind does not exist.

Saying someone rejects an argument because he feels “threatened” by it is ad hom, pure and simple.

Have I said that recently? If I did, it wasn't to attack anyone's character, but I do understand why it would be considered an ad hom.

 

[steve_bank]

All our thoughts are the products of our physical brains. Thoughts are the results of atomic interactions, quantum scale.

There is no mind separate from body.

No one is saying it is, although the mind cannot be found as a distinct part of the brain itself.

hTat is what metaphysics is all about, thought abstractions.


The problem is that we are inescapably self referential. We create abstractions to define other abstractions.


Mind is a term we use but can never be precisely and unambiguous;y defined such that all agree. Mind is a product of atomic interaction in the brain, chemical processes.


At the atomic scale there is an uncertainty, probabilities of events. Given the same set of circumstances our neurons may not always fire in the same way.


I had a temporary speech aphasia from a concussion. Fluid build up compressed the speech center and I could not speak. Holes were drilled in my skull to drain the fluid and speech returned.

 

[pood]

False accusation! I am not attacking anyone’s motives. I’m just explaining why I cannot leave out gaps that would screw up my presentation.

“You: I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be …”

It does not BOTHER me (personal motive attack, and ad hom violation of rules), I DON’T AGREE WITH IT. See the difference?

I do not consider that an attack. You know what ad hominens are from ff, and you know I don't attack people in that way. I am just wondering why you believe so strongly in compatibilism when I'm showing people why the definition fails. That is not an attack. I'm just curious.

You have not SHOWN anything, you have ASSERTED IT.

Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is not an assertion. He demonstrates why we cannot move in a direction that offers less satisfaction or dissatisfaction than what the present position offers.

He does not “demonstrate” anything. In the end he offers what amounts to an empty tautology: I always do what I prefer, because I prefer it.

There is nothing wrong with his observations. I prefer it because it gives me greater satisfaction. Why are you leaving "greater satisfaction" out of your refutation? Your logic is circular, not his. A person doesn't prefer it because he prefers it. He prefers it over any other choice at his disposal. We are also different so what you may prefer may not be what someone else prefers given the same exact situation. Even if you think it's a tautology because of the belief that "what you prefer is what you prefer" is circular does not in any way indicate his demonstration of greater satisfaction has no value.

Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others, especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case presents alternatives that affect choice.

Tautologies Must Not Be Dismissed | Steve Patterson

Trivial. Redundant. Dogmatic. Useless. That’s what people really mean when they say, “Oh, your argument is just a tautology.”

steve-patterson.com

An ad hom argument takes the following form: “You disagree with what the author wrote for no good reason, only that you are threatened by it.” That is just what you did, what you did at FF and what you do everywhere you go, and ad hom is a violation of the rules here. Stop doing it.

I was not saying you disagree with the author for no good reason. Maybe you have a good reason in your way of viewing this topic. It does seem to me that you are conflating two definitions of free will, which is mucking up the proof that free will of any kind does not exist.

Saying someone rejects an argument because he feels “threatened” by it is ad hom, pure and simple.

Have I said that recently? If I did, it wasn't to attack anyone's character, but I do understand why it would be considered an ad hom.

Yeah, you said it a few posts up.

Ad hom is not an attack on character or an insult.

 

[peacegirl]

To summarize, what you seem to be saying is that we need a new definition of determinism, not the definition that is traditionally used, which is that a combination of past events combined with the laws of physics cause events to happen without deviation, including human actions. This is the hard determinist position that DBT espouses, that human will is not free because what we do now, is determined by the past. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that we lack free not because of that kind of determinism, but because of a different kind, which is our inner nature which compels us to move in the direction of what we believe to be greater satisfaction, whether it is or not. Is that correct?

You just quoted me without responding.

He was trying to show that we are all part of a deterministic system, even our personal responses. He was not excluding human agency, which you assumed given hard determinism. I did not say it's a different kind of determinism. We either have no free will or we do. All the author was showing was that the word "cause" where nothing causes from the past if the past is no longer here. I don't think DBT would disagree with this tweaking of the definition because it doesn't change the fact that we have no free will. Why do you keep saying at the end "whether it is or not?" Obviously, by saying that it appears you don't believe that we move in this direction always, or that it is an invariable law. Show me where you move toward lesser satisfaction when an option that gives you greater satisfaction is available. Give me an example in your own life.