Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

[Terrapin Station]

"Either determinism is true or things are equiprobably random" is a false dichotomy, right?

Well, who said that?

It wasn't me, because I haven't talked at all about "equiprobable" anything. I have no idea who you are quoting.

And I note that you ignored most of my message, pretty much as you ignored my three objections to "acausality." How about you respond to the fact that punting to "acausality" is an anti-intellectual and anti-scientific strategy?

But I'm past believing you're going to admit any problem here, including that one, so I think I'll save my breath to cool my porridge.

So in other words, that phenomena would be relatively predictable doesn't imply determinism.

[Immanuel Can]

So in other words, that phenomena would be relatively predictable doesn't imply determinism.

"Predictability" has nothing to do with Determinism. It's not even part of the discussion. Humans hardly ever predict anything right.

Even the most ardent, dyed-in-the-wool, Materialist or Physicalist does not think that all of the material or physical forces governing the universe are actually predictable by human beings.

Now, if you were "Deep Thought," the greatest computer that ever was (mythically) built, or if you were the Supreme Being, then in principle, the Materialist or Physicalist supposition has to be that you'd be able to predict every event that every happens, and account for every event that ever has happened. But since neither you nor I stand in possession of all the data pertaining to every item in the universe, we cannot possibly -- and no one can possibly -- predict what the Determined universe will do.

Prediction? What's that to the point?

But the logically consistent or aspiringly-rational Materialist or Physicalist has to believe that the entire universe is Determined, nonetheless. If not, he would have to incorporate some non-physical, non-material account of cause-and-effect...and in so doing, would have to become a Dualist of some kind.

[Terrapin Station]

"Predictability" has nothing to do with Determinism.

Seriously, what the frick is wrong with you?

You just wrote "As for you, you get up in the morning and brush your teeth, presuming that this will "cause" them to endure better the vicissitudes of plaque damage. You work your garden, presuming that it will grow tomatoes, not chaos or dragons. You act all the time as if causality works"

[Immanuel Can]

"Predictability" has nothing to do with Determinism.

Seriously, what the frick is wrong with you?

You just wrote "As for you, you get up in the morning and brush your teeth, presuming that this will "cause" them to endure better the vicissitudes of plaque damage. You work your garden, presuming that it will grow tomatoes, not chaos or dragons. You act all the time as if causality works"

I didn't say you know all the data that would give you exhaustive power to predict the future; just that you know, as well as anybody else does, that you couldn't get through a single day of your own life acting as if cause-and-effect is not a reality. And you're not at all alone in that. People just don't actually believe in "acausality" either. If they say they do, their actions belie their words.

And as for science, if the world were "acausal," it simply would not work at all. Hypotheses would be unconnected to observations or conclusions. But it does work: certain scientific actions consistently result in the hypothesized results, and that's what makes science worth doing.. The fact that this is only discovered after the fact does not make it less true.

[Terrapin Station]

I didn't say you know all the data that would give you exhaustive power to predict the future

Did I say that?

[Sculptor]

I didn't say you know all the data that would give you exhaustive power to predict the future

Did I say that?

I does not matter since text does not reflect your views.

[uwot]

But the logically consistent or aspiringly-rational Materialist or Physicalist has to believe that the entire universe is Determined, nonetheless.

So which hidden variable theory would she have to subscribe to?

If not, he would have to incorporate some non-physical, non-material account of cause-and-effect...and in so doing, would have to become a Dualist of some kind.

That's not a problem to anyone who understands E=mc2.

[Terrapin Station]

I didn't say you know all the data that would give you exhaustive power to predict the future

Did I say that?

I does not matter since text does not reflect your views.

"Text does not 'reflect' my views" isn't something I agree with. Text doesn't literally have meaning "in it." You have to assign meaning to it. However, it's certainly correlated with the way the author assigns meaning, which would be what "reflecting" someone's views is.

[Sculptor]

Did I say that?

I does not matter since text does not reflect your views.

"Text does not 'reflect' my views" isn't something I agree with..

Not when it suits you no.

[Terrapin Station]

I does not matter since text does not reflect your views.

"Text does not 'reflect' my views" isn't something I agree with..

Not when it suits you no.

The last thing I am is inconsistent. You just don't agree with the views.

[Sculptor]

"Text does not 'reflect' my views" isn't something I agree with..

Not when it suits you no.

The last thing I am is inconsistent. You just don't agree with the views.

If a raqcist law is not racist then what you write is not consistent.

[Terrapin Station]

Not when it suits you no.

The last thing I am is inconsistent. You just don't agree with the views.

If a raqcist law is not racist then what you write is not consistent.

The law can "reflect" racist views. Where did I say anything that contradicts that?

[Sculptor]

The last thing I am is inconsistent. You just don't agree with the views.

If a raqcist law is not racist then what you write is not consistent.

The law can "reflect" racist views. Where did I say anything that contradicts that?

Childish semantics.
And actually wrong. Language is based on usage not your personal preferences.

[Terrapin Station]

If a raqcist law is not racist then what you write is not consistent.

The law can "reflect" racist views. Where did I say anything that contradicts that?

Childish semantics.
And actually wrong. Language is based on usage not your personal preferences.

The law, as text, can't literally be racist. Racism is a belief. Beliefs are mental phenomena and can't be something else. But the law can "reflect" racism--text is obviously correlated to our beliefs. It just can't literally BE belief. Same with meaning. Meaning is the dynamic mental phenomenon of associative thinking. Meaning is the mental act of making those associations, of taking something to denote/connote something else, etc.

As a very loose/casual, metaphorical way of speaking, we sometimes say things like "That law is racist," but that can't be literally true, and when we're doing philosophy, including when we're doing ontology, we steer away from extremely loose, metaphorical ways of speaking about what is the case. We're instead trying to be as precise, literal and accurate as we can be. It's just like when we're very loosely/casually speaking, we say things like "velocity is the same thing as speed," but when we're doing science, we'd better not be using the terms that way.

[Sculptor]

The law can "reflect" racist views. Where did I say anything that contradicts that?

Childish semantics.
And actually wrong. Language is based on usage not your personal preferences.

The law, as text, can't literally be racist. Racism is a belief. Beliefs are mental phenomena and can't be something else. But the law can "reflect" racism--text is obviously correlated to our beliefs. It just can't literally BE belief.

Utter bollocks.
This is a total irrelevance.
By the same token Hitler cannot be literally racist since its only his actions that make him racist.
Mein Kampf cant be racist because it is only paper.
Fuck off and stop wasting time on your stupid literalism.

This is you.

http://viz.co.uk/category/mr-logic/