Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

[Immanuel Can]

...it's about A being able to cause only one possible outcome...

Not at all. No. Can I be more clear?

It's about whether or not we, as individuals, have any causal power of our own, some causal power not merely explicable in terms of pre-existing physical causes. That's what "free will" means: not "multiple possible outcome," but rather "ability to make something happen, using volition."

To illustrate, if I go to the casino and play roulette, I have many, many possible outcomes on the wheel. But I am not at all in control of where the ball lands. I'm still powerless: I cannot "cause" the ball to land on any particular outcome at all, at any particular time. The randomness of the wheel does not empower me; rather, it's a further reason my volition cannot make the ball do anything.

So can you answer now?

I just did.

Your supposition contains a fallacy. I do not agree with the postulate that "outcome" is the hallmark of Determinism: I insist that "causality," the having of one's own power-to-cause is its hallmark. If there's one possible outcome or many, I still have no "free will" if I cannot cause or influence the outcome by means of my choices.

Your move.

[Terrapin Station]

It's about whether or not we, as individuals, have any causal power of our own,

No. The scenario I posted. I'm only talking about that until we actually talk about it. One step at a time or nothing. I said this already. Did you not pay attention to me saying it? Are you not capable of learning?

[Immanuel Can]

It's about whether or not we, as individuals, have any causal power of our own,

No. The scenario I posted. I'm only talking about that until we actually talk about it.

I knew it. It's a fix.

You define Determinism by outcome, then say, "Look, there are multiple outcomes in quantum mechanics, in randommess, so Determinism isn't necessary." And if I don't grant your faulty premise, then you're beaten. Gottit.

Unfortunately for your argument there, Determinism is NOT about there being just "one outcome." And "free will" doesn't mean, "more than one outcome" either. so you're just entirely outside the OP, and outside of the meaning of Determinism.

So that's what you think you've got? Okay. I've seen it.

[Terrapin Station]

It's about whether or not we, as individuals, have any causal power of our own,

No. The scenario I posted. I'm only talking about that until we actually talk about it.

I knew it. It's a fix.

You define Determinism by outcome, then say, "Look, there are multiple outcomes in quantum mechanics, in randommess, so Determinism isn't necessary." And if I don't grant your faulty premise, then you're beaten. Gottit.

Unfortunately for your argument there, Determinism is NOT about there being just "one outcome." And "free will" doesn't mean, "more than one outcome" either. so you're just entirely outside the OP, and outside of the meaning of Determinism.

So that's what you think you've got? Okay. I've seen it.

So first, this in no way prohibits you from answering the question I asked you. You can simply answer re whatever your view is--whether a physicalist must think there's only one possible consequent state or whether they can (consistently with physicalism) think that more than one incompatible consequent state is possible, while noting that in your view, the latter wouldn't amount to something other than determinism. Would that be so difficult?

[Immanuel Can]

So first, this in no way prohibits you from answering the question I asked you.

Yes, it does....at least, if I don't want to be agree to the fallacy it entails.

I can't answer your question without thereby assuming something we both know to be untrue...namely, that Determinism is about outcome, not causality. I don't assume that. Loaded question, therefore.

But if there's no more to your view than that fallacy, I guess we're done with that.

[Immanuel Can]

1. Both imaginary and real share the same nature in the fact both exist. The actual exists. The imaginary exists.

No, the imaginary only "exists" in the mind. The actual "exists" in reality.

2. You are obsessed with differences while I am looking at similarities.

No, I'm noting distinctions you're failing to realize are actually there.

3. Determinism is contradictory as one cannot have the illusion of free will without necessitating a choice between truths necessary for the illusion to occur.

So your dodge is to define everything as real, and since "existing" is defined as including "only in imagination," the mere fact that one has the imaginary preception of free will is supposed to be enough to prove it's real.

I see. It's just equivocation of terms. Nothing more.

4. If equivocating the nature of the word "exists" or "existence" is the problem then no common definition can be observed

Actually, the common definition of "exists" is "exists in reality, " not "exists in imagination only."

5. Epiphenomena require choice.

They do not, actually. Epiphenomena are a sort of "bizarre side effect" of something that is actually real. According to Determinism, they are not in the causal chain at all.

[Terrapin Station]

So first, this in no way prohibits you from answering the question I asked you.

Yes, it does....at least, if I don't want to be agree to the fallacy it entails.

I can't answer your question without thereby assuming something we both know to be untrue...namely, that Determinism is about outcome, not causality. I don't assume that. Loaded question, therefore.

But if there's no more to your view than that fallacy, I guess we're done with that.

The question didn't even use the word "determinism," and again, you can just make clear that you don't consider it to be about determinism.

[henry quirk]

That's only because no one else loves you like I do.

HA!

I have *a creeping infection for you both.

But I'm seeing a therapist, and hoping to get it under control.

*for this...

66353CFC-B60C-4EBC-B655-20AC3701FFE0.jpeg

try this...

A218626F-A09D-4CB1-986B-D4DBEA68632A.jpeg

laser light works wonders, I'm told

[Immanuel Can]

The question didn't even use the word "determinism," and again, you can just make clear that you don't consider it to be about determinism.

My original question was about Physicalism and Determinism. If you were answering with no reference to Determinism, then you weren't answering the question I asked. And you werent' offering anything relevant to the OP above, obviously.

But the thing about asking a question is that you have to accept the answer the other person gave you, and work with it. So if your answer is you don't know what relevance Non-Determinism has to Physicalism, I accept that answer. What else can I do? It is your answer, after all.

Meanwhile, I have answered your question a couple of times now, but evidently it wasn't the answer you wanted. I contest the assumptions upon which your question is premised You may not approve of me so doing. Nevertheless, that's what my answer is. And if I offered another, it would not be mine.

So you can work with it, or you can leave it. But my answer was my answer. If it wasn't yours...well, that's because it came from another person, not you.

[Terrapin Station]

My original question was about Physicalism and Determinism.

I'm explaining a view to you that you do not understand. For you to understand it (and again, I'm not asking your opinion on this, I'm telling you something), I need to go through a number of things systematically.

So you need to address the scenario I presented and answer the question I asked about it. You do that, we move on. Otherwise we never move on and discuss anything. It's just a matter of whether you want to be cooperative or not. Either way is fine with me. <shrug>

The question, by the way, is a yes or no question. Either you think that a physicalist must believe that d, or you say that they can believe something other than d. No matter how ill-constructed you think the question is, and we can discuss this, but I'll only do it systematically--that's the way every single thing is going to go from this point--you can answer either that they must think d or they can think something else.

Just fyi, from this point on, I'm completely ignoring everything you type aside from addressing and answering the scenario/question I asked, and again, that's the way conversation with you will go from this point forward. If you ever address the scenario/answer the question, we'll move on to the next thing, and the same situation will be the case. If I bring up a point or ask a question, I won't move on until you address it and answer the question. Step after step. I have zero interest in letting you ignore stuff and subsequently following you as you avoid things, attempt to divert, etc. For me, a minimum requirement to bother having a conversation with anyone is that they're attentive and cooperative. Saying that you won't or can't cooperate because you don't see what it has to do with something else (the thread overall or whatever) doesn't work. You don't need to see or know that in order to cooperate. Someone cooperative isn't so stubborn about answering a question that seems irrelevant to them.

[Immanuel Can]

My original question was about Physicalism and Determinism.

I'm explaining a view to you that you do not understand. For you to understand it (and again, I'm not asking your opinion on this, I'm telling you something), I need to go through a number of things systematically.

You're missing the point. I've already told you what I think, in answer to your question. I've answered. Repeatedly. You just don't like my answer, apparently. But it's the one you get. If you can't deal with it, okay -- there's not a thing I can do about the fallacy in your scenario. That's for you to fix.

As for your attempt at socratic slowness, I'm a lot quicker than that. If I can read and understand Habermas and Polanyi, then I'm quite confident I am capable of grasping anything you offer me on this subject.

So...take my response or don't. I'm pretty sure I have the answer anyway. You're relying on defining down Determinism. And if that's not so, you can explain...or not...take your pick, because either way, you have my answer.

[Terrapin Station]

You're missing the point. I've already told you what I think, in answer to your question. I've answered. Repeatedly. You just don't like my answer, apparently.

I must have missed it. I apologize if that's the case. In the vein of being cooperative, and since this is very easy to relay, did you answer that physicalists would have to believe d in the scenario I presented (in order to be consistent as physicalists), or could they believe otherwise?

[henry quirk]

TS,

All things bein' the same: A -> B -> C -> D every damn time.

Agree? Disagree?

[Immanuel Can]

You're missing the point. I've already told you what I think, in answer to your question. I've answered. Repeatedly. You just don't like my answer, apparently.

I must have missed it. I apologize if that's the case. In the vein of being cooperative, and since this is very easy to relay, did you answer that physicalists would have to believe d in the scenario I presented (in order to be consistent as physicalists), or could they believe otherwise?

I answered that "outcome" was not the issue: that the Physicalist could believe in randomness of outcomes, and still his view would entail Determinism logically.

Your move.

[Terrapin Station]

TS,

All things bein' the same: A -> B -> C -> D every damn time.

Agree? Disagree?

I have no idea. I don't know what that's referring to. You'd have to explain what you're asking so that I can understand it. What are the letters referring to or what are they variables for, first off? And what does the "->" symbol mean there?

As I said in an earlier post addressed to Immanuel Can: "If you don't understand something about the above scenario and question, I'll be happy to explain it to you. But you just need to be explicit about that so I know what to further explain."