"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[Immanuel Can]

I thought you premised it on your first claim, which I considered obviously wrong, and gave a reason why it was.

My claim that you can do whatever you want is "obviously wrong"?

No. As below:
IC: One cannot "opinion" a child into or out of existence.
UV: One can do whatever one pleases.

You cannot "opinion" something unreal to be real, or something real to be unreal.

[Univalence]

Not a good argument. It might turn out that you do that, but it does not suggest others all will, or what the public consensus ought to be.

As you pointed out, people "can" do one thing, but they ought to do another, sometimes. And it policy, it's doubtless the case that some people have successfully murdered and escaped justice. That hardly counts as an argument for a general social policy encouraging murder.

You intentionally miss the point. The point is determinism/control.

If having laws against murder, arresting/convicting murderers and throwing them in prison has no measurable effect on murder rates.
Do you know what that means?

You do not understand the causal variables.
You have no control.
Your policy sucks.
You are just wasting taxes.

[Univalence]

You cannot "opinion" something unreal to be real,

If you can imagine it and it's not in conflict with the limits imposed on you by nature. You can create it.

or something real to be unreal.

The wooly Mammoth was real. Now it's unreal.

[Immanuel Can]

The point is determinism/control.

That's two points, and they aren't even conceptually related.

[Immanuel Can]

You cannot "opinion" something unreal to be real,

If you can imagine it and it's not in conflict with the limits imposed on you by nature. You can create it.

Your rider, "not in conflict with the limits imposed on you by nature" makes the claim unimpressive.

All you've said is, "You can make real anything that nature doesn't prevent you from making real."

Big surprise.

[Univalence]

That's two points, and they aren't even conceptually related.

Yes they are. Having control means I get to determine what happens.

[Univalence]

Your rider, "not in conflict with the limits imposed on you by nature" makes the claim unimpressive.

All you've said is, "You can make real anything that nature doesn't prevent you from making real."

Big surprise.

Well, what do you expect? Miracles?

There's no magic in this universe. Just physics and complexity.

[Immanuel Can]

That's two points, and they aren't even conceptually related.

If I have control I get to determine what happens.

That's not "Determinism." In "Determinism," one does not need "control," because everything is already predetermined. There's no "not-controlled" zone, so you don't have to debate control.

The IEP on this: "Causal determinism (hereafter, simply "determinism") is the thesis that the course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature"

[Univalence]

That's not "Determinism." In "Determinism," one does not need "control," because everything is already predetermined. There's no "not-controlled" zone, so you don't have to debate control.

You are confused.

Demonstration of control falsifies predeterminism.

[Immanuel Can]

That's not "Determinism." In "Determinism," one does not need "control," because everything is already predetermined. There's no "not-controlled" zone, so you don't have to debate control.

You are confused.
Demonstration of control falsifies predeterminism.

The confusion is not mine. See above.

And also, I'm not a Determinist.

[Univalence]

The confusion is not mine. See above.

You seem completely incapable of thinking scientifically,

The IEP on this: "Causal determinism (hereafter, simply "determinism") is the thesis that the course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature"

If this thesis was falsifiable. What would be sufficient evidence to falsify it.

Control is sufficient. If I can affect outcomes - it means that the future is not ENTIRELY predetermined. The destination may be (heat death of the universe) but HOW we get there is up to us.

[Immanuel Can]

The IEP on this: "Causal determinism (hereafter, simply "determinism") is the thesis that the course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature"

If this thesis was falsifiable. What would be sufficient evidence to falsify it.

I am not defending Determinism. I'm just defining it for you, since you mistakenly thought it meant you had control. It does not mean you get to "determine" things; it implies you don't. So it's not actually the word you wanted to use, though you thought it was.

That's all I was showing.

[Univalence]

I am not defending Determinism. I'm just defining it for you, since you mistakenly thought it meant you had control.

You need to stop thinking you can speak for me, or define my meaning for me.

It does not mean you get to "determine" things; it implies you don't. So it's not actually the word you wanted to use, though you thought it was.

That's all I was showing.

Then you need to stop showing and start listening more carefully. It is exactly the word I wanted to use.

Control grants the power of determinism. Demonstration of control (CHOICE!) falsifies predeterminism.

If I have control I get to determine what happens.
I get to determine that tomorrow I am having pancakes for breakfast.
I get to determine that on the 23rd December at 11:37 in the morning there will be tea on my desk.

[Immanuel Can]

I am not defending Determinism. I'm just defining it for you, since you mistakenly thought it meant you had control.

You need to stop thinking you can speak for me.

I wasn't. I was just pointing out that if you used words the wrong way, people were going to misunderstand you. But if you wish to be misunderstood, you may use words any way you please. However, don't be surprised if people start to think you don't know what you mean.

It is exactly the word I wanted to use.

Actually, based on the below, it wasn't.

Control implies determinism.

If I have control I get to determine what happens.

Nope. Not in "Determinism." Under Determinism, your wishes are said actually to be pre-programmed for you, by causal factors in your environment. You have no free will, but you just don't know it. That's "Determinism."

That's why "Determinism" was not the word you wanted.

[Univalence]

I wasn't. I was just pointing out that if you used words the wrong way, people were going to misunderstand you. But if you wish to be misunderstood, you may use words any way you please. However, don't be surprised if people start to think you don't know what you mean.

I explained what I mean. Did you misunderstand?

Nope. Not in "Determinism." Under Determinism, your wishes are said actually to be pre-programmed for you, by causal factors in your environment. You have no free will, but you just don't know it. That's "Determinism."

That's why "Determinism" was not the word you wanted.

Yep. You still continue to misunderstand. The philosophical definition of "determinism" is idiotic. It's untestable/unfalsifiable.
I am using the scientific definition.

The way we test for "control" (e.g DETERMINISM) is by using double-blind studies.

We feed the control group a placebo (e.g DO NOTHING).
We feed the test group some medicine (e.g CHANGE SOMETHING).

Then we see if the outcome was different.

That's quite literally why we call them Treatment and control groups.

So no, my choices are not "pre-determined" because 2000 years ago nobody had the fucking choices given to us by modern medicine.
And the evidence for determinism/control is the fact that human life expectancy has doubled in 2000 years.