compatibilism

[Immanuel Can]

I have children, and I have instructed them to attend school.

According to Determinism, neither your decision nor their fear of you actually made them go. They were predestined to go anyway. So it changed nothing.
You fooled yourself and they fooled themselves, but their mental state and yours did not affect the outcome of their bodily arrival at school. It was fated from before the Big Bang, by a causal chain of purely physical events.

You say "They were predestined to go anyway." You're saying that if I hadn't told my children to go to school, another force in the universe would have intervened and forced them to go, because the universe decided at the big bang that they would go regardless?

That is what a Determinist has to believe.

It's certainly not what I believe.

...my decisions and actions fit nicely into the chain of events that made my kids go to school.

"Actions?" Yes, because they are physical. But "decisions"? No such node in the chain of caual events exists. You "decided" no part of the causal chain, according to Determinism. You may have thought you did, but you were wrong. Thinking is not a causal initiator. It's just a phenomenon in the physical-causal chain, and one without efficacy.

If, hypothetically, my refusal to "participate" had disrupted that sequence of events,

Under Determinism, you can't. There is no "hypothetical." Only what was fated to happen ever happens. There are no alternate situations.

[/b][/i] Do you see a contradiction in determinism, some kind of reductio ad absurdum?

Wrong wording. But is it reductional? Yes. Is it absurd? No, but errant.

I know I've asked this before, but I'm not sure if it was you: Are you a skeptic or a denier of science?

Of course not.

Determinism is actually a denial of science: because it holds that all cognition, including science, is not tied to truth but to inevitability, and to an iron causal chain. The reason that scientist X thinks he's found something "true" is only because his "truth-signalling" neurons fired in his brain -- but not because what his experiment showed him was (necessarily) true. It might be true, it might be false, but the neurons still fire. And he has no way to check, because the fact of "allegedly-truth-indicating-neuron-firing" corresponds only to internal physical phenomena, not to truth itself.

That's how Determinists have to say it goes.

[phyllo]

There's no more to be said, then. The reason people (appear to) choose to do X is simply that X is what was predetermined. The "mind" state of the doer is entirely unimportant, in that description. It can change absolutely nothing.

Not correct. We choose to do X and then when it is done, people call it determined/predetermined.

According to Determinism, the "we," that is, the cognitions "we" think we have, is no contributory part of the physical causal chain that makes things happen. Nor is the "accepting" or "non-accepting" at all consequential to the outcome that physics makes happen. And "we" cannot "intervene," because "intervene" implies the interruption of what otherwise would have happened. According to Determinism, it is not possible to "intervene" in physical processes at all; far less, by way of anything instituted by mental ones.

"We" are part of the physical causal chain. These things don't happen without our intervention/participation.

[henry quirk]

You're saying that if I hadn't told my children to go to school, another force in the universe would have intervened and forced them to go, because the universe decided at the big bang that they would go regardless?

Determinism: everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way; every event includin' human events, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

There's no wiggle room. No loophole for even the tiniest choice.

That is: you, BM, had no more say-so about tellin' you kids go to school! than they did in obeyin'.

[phyllo]

According to Determinism, neither your decision nor their fear of you actually made them go. They were predestined to go anyway. So it changed nothing. You fooled yourself and they fooled themselves, but their mental state and yours did not affect the outcome of their bodily arrival at school. It was fated from before the Big Bang, by a causal chain of purely physical events.

This is called The Idle Argument.

Aristotle mentions, as a corollary of the conclusion that everything that happens, happens of necessity, that “there would be no need to deliberate or to take trouble (thinking that if we do this, this will happen, but if we do not, it will not).” (Aristotle, De Interpretatione, 18b31–3)

This thought was spelt out in what was known as “the Idle Argument” (Bobzien 1998, Section 5). It went like this:

If it is fated that you will recover from this illness, then, regardless of whether you consult a doctor or you do not consult a doctor you will recover.

But also, if it is fated that you will not recover from this illness, then, regardless of whether you consult a doctor or you do not consult a doctor you will not recover.

But either it is fated that you will recover from this illness or it is fated that you will not recover.

Therefore it is futile to consult a doctor.

The thought, presumably, is that it is futile, because what you do will have no effect. If so, the reply given by Chrysippus (c280-c206 B.C.E.) to this argument seems exactly right. (Bobzien 1998, 5.2) The conclusion does not follow, because it may have been fated that you will recover as a result of seeing the doctor. The corresponding reply would be equally apt if we substituted “necessary” for “fated”.

Some versions of the argument omit “it is fated that”. (Bobzien 1998, 189). It goes without saying that the corresponding version of Chrysippus’s reply would deal with those versions of the argument.

This is not to say that fatalism does not pose any problem at all for the rationality of deliberation. It is just to say that the Idle Argument does not show that it poses a problem.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/#7

[Harbal]

That is what a Determinist has to believe.

It's certainly not what I believe.

You see this is exactly why I don't understand why people want to attach labels to themselves. Whether you call yourself a Christian, or something ending with "ist", it restricts your ability to think outside a certain set of parameters. Why set yourself boundaries?

[henry quirk]

We choose to do X and then when it is done, people call it determined/predetermined.

These things don't happen without our intervention/participation.

Determinism sez you choose diddly-squat; determinism sez your intervention/participation is just part of a causal chain or chains playin' out as it must.

[BigMike]

...my decisions and actions fit nicely into the chain of events that made my kids go to school.

"Actions?" Yes, because they are physical. But "decisions"? No such node in the chain of caual events exists. You "decided" no part of the causal chain, according to Determinism. You may have thought you did, but you were wrong. Thinking is not a causal initiator. It's just a phenomenon in the physical-causal chain, and one without efficacy.

This is just categorically wrong. Decisions are not made by some spirit or ghost in the machine; decisions are physical. Given input the brain produces output, sometime in the form of physical actions by stimulating muscles, sometimes by stimulating glands to secrete hormones, other times by strengthening or weakening relevant synapses in the brain. It is one hundred percent physical.

I know I've asked this before, but I'm not sure if it was you: Are you a skeptic or a denier of science?

Of course not.

Determinism is actually a denial of science: because it holds that all cognition, including science, is not tied to truth but to inevitability, and to an iron causal chain. The reason that scientist X thinks he's found something "true" is only because his "truth-signalling" neurons fired in his brain -- but not because what his experiment showed him was (necessarily) true. It might be true, it might be false, but the neurons still fire. And he has no way to check, because the fact of "allegedly-truth-indicating-neuron-firing" corresponds only to internal physical phenomena, not to truth itself.

I'm afraid you are a science denier. You must educate yourself on the scientific method. You have completely misunderstood the situation if you believe scientific truths are established because a scientist said so.
You say that "Determinism is actually a denial of science: because it holds that [...] science is [...] tied [...] to inevitability, and to an iron causal chain." And therefore it denies science? I find it hard to believe that someone as intelligent and apparently well-educated as you could ever make such a statement. In my opinion, it reeks of desperation.

[Immanuel Can]

There's no more to be said, then. The reason people (appear to) choose to do X is simply that X is what was predetermined. The "mind" state of the doer is entirely unimportant, in that description. It can change absolutely nothing.

Not correct. We choose to do X and then when it is done, people call it determined/predetermined.

Then Determinism is a fake.

The truth is, as you say, we "choose." And only "when it is done," then people "call" it what it is really not. But you're saying it's a restrospective mistake, not a reality.

"We" are part of the physical causal chain. These things don't happen without our intervention/participation.

If "we" can instigate a causal chain, then Determinism is false.

If "we" cannot instigate a causal chain, but "our" actiivites are merely reflections of, or links in, a chain-already-in-motion, then "we" are merely dumb terminals, not active contributors at all. We are like electrical cords, through which the "electricity" of causality may pass; but we can neither arrest, abate, change nor generate anything of our own, then.

Which is it?

[Immanuel Can]

That is what a Determinist has to believe.

It's certainly not what I believe.

You see this is exactly why I don't understand why people want to attach labels to themselves. Whether you call yourself a Christian, or something ending with "ist", it restricts your ability to think outside a certain set of parameters. Why set yourself boundaries?

"-ists" are just shorthands. When we need to understand a person's perspective quickly, the quickest route is to ask them which they are. And "-ists" are not arbitrary: rightlly understood, they are collocations of necessary and logical consequences of a particular fundamental view.

Such is the case in Determinism. Determinism is simply the "-ism" founded on the belief that all actions in the universe are merely physical-causal.

Ironically, since Determinism is a belief, it's a denial of its own fundamental assumption. By Determinism's lights, it makes no difference WHAT you believe...things will end up as they will end up, anyway.

[Immanuel Can]

...my decisions and actions fit nicely into the chain of events that made my kids go to school.

"Actions?" Yes, because they are physical. But "decisions"? No such node in the chain of caual events exists. You "decided" no part of the causal chain, according to Determinism. You may have thought you did, but you were wrong. Thinking is not a causal initiator. It's just a phenomenon in the physical-causal chain, and one without efficacy.

This is just categorically wrong.

Determinism is categorically false. That's why.

I know I've asked this before, but I'm not sure if it was you: Are you a skeptic or a denier of science?

Of course not.

Determinism is actually a denial of science: because it holds that all cognition, including science, is not tied to truth but to inevitability, and to an iron causal chain. The reason that scientist X thinks he's found something "true" is only because his "truth-signalling" neurons fired in his brain -- but not because what his experiment showed him was (necessarily) true. It might be true, it might be false, but the neurons still fire. And he has no way to check, because the fact of "allegedly-truth-indicating-neuron-firing" corresponds only to internal physical phenomena, not to truth itself.

I'm afraid you are a science denier.

Hogwash. Reread the above.

You must educate yourself on the scientific method.

I know exactly what it is. If you don't, then take your own advice.

...if you believe scientific truths are established because a scientist said so.

You said that...I never did. What I said was the the scientist would never know if he can trust his own mind, if Determinism were true. For his mind would be nothing but a completely causally-inert node in a strictly material-causal chain, with no cause-initiating capabilities of its own.

In other words, your decisions would mean nothing.

[phyllo]

Then Determinism is a fake.

The truth is, as you say, we "choose." And only "when it is done," then people "call" it what it is really not. But you're saying it's a restrospective mistake, not a reality.

There were two problems with what you wrote.

It suggests that we do things because it is predetermined. That's wrong because that's not the motivation for an action.

It also suggests that events which have not happened are already a fixed reality. That's not true of any future event.

If "we" can instigate a causal chain, then Determinism is false.

If "we" cannot instigate a causal chain, but "our" actiivites are merely reflections of, or links in, a chain-already-in-motion, then "we" are merely dumb terminals, not active contributors at all. We are like electrical cords, through which the "electricity" of causality may pass; but we can neither arrest, abate, change nor generate anything of our own, then.

Which is it?

This suggests that the characteristics of the "electrical cord" has no impact on what happens to the electricity. Ultimately leading one to believe that the "cord" does nothing and can simply be removed. In fact, the "cord" is a critical part of the system.

[Harbal]

"-ists" are just shorthands. When we need to understand a person's perspective quickly, the quickest route is to ask them which they are. And "-ists" are not arbitrary: rightlly understood, they are collocations of necessary and logical consequences of a particular fundamental view.

But the "ist" might agree with some particular aspects of the related "ism", but not others. You cannot gain a fair and accurate insight into anyone's perspective by simply pinning the most appropriate seeming "ist" to them.

Such is the case in Determinism. Determinism is simply the "-ism" founded on the belief that all actions in the universe are merely physical-causal.

We know that some are, but I don't see how it can be proven that some are not. I hate the idea that every single event that occurs, right down to each thought in my head, is the result of inevitability, and was determined way back at the beginning of time, but it could be logically argued that that is the case. I feel that it probably isn't, but we can't know to what extent it is or isn't the case, so what sense does it make to have a firm position on it?

Ironically, since Determinism is a belief, it's a denial of its own fundamental assumption. By Determinism's lights, it makes no difference WHAT you believe...things will end up as they will end up, anyway.

Most unprovable beliefs can be ridiculed, including yours, and although the man most skilled at making his opponent look silly might walk away thinking he's won the argument, does it get anyone closer to the truth?

[phyllo]

If we look at Biggus' abortion problem, we can see the issues.

One can only say that Mary is "predetermined" to have an abortion after the abortion has been done.

Prior to that event, any number of events could have prevented the abortion.

-She got hit by a bus on the way to the clinic.

-An anti-abortion bomb threat closed the clinic on that day. The delay led to other events which caused her to change her mind.

-Something happened on the way to the clinic which made her change her mind.

-It turns out that she was never pregnant. The initial test/diagnosis was wrong. An abortion did not get done.

[Immanuel Can]

"-ists" are just shorthands. When we need to understand a person's perspective quickly, the quickest route is to ask them which they are. And "-ists" are not arbitrary: rightlly understood, they are collocations of necessary and logical consequences of a particular fundamental view.

But the "ist" might agree with some particular aspects of the related "ism", but not others.

Well, people can be rationally consistent or irrational, relative to their basic premises. That often happens, because people are sometimes silly or inconsistent creatures. That's life.

What matters, then, is not his agreement or disagreement, but the logical entailments of that original view he has.

So in Determinism, it is fundamental that one must believe that all causes are strictly predetermined. That means that is is impossible for human volition to contribute anything to an outcome.

Even if a professed "Determinist" fails to understand that, the logic of his basic claim requires it.

Such is the case in Determinism. Determinism is simply the "-ism" founded on the belief that all actions in the universe are merely physical-causal.

We know that some are, but I don't see how it can be proven that some are not.

You're proving it right now, as a matter of fact. You're trying to convince. But if Determinism were true, then what my (or your) opinion is on any matter is not within our personal control. It's predecided for us, by material forces, and nothing else.

I hate the idea that every single event that occurs, right down to each thought in my head, is the result of inevitability, and was determined way back at the beginning of time, but it could be logically argued that that is the case.

Not "logically." It would only be "logical" if the first premise is granted. But there's no reason to grant it, and, in fact, every reason not to. For it is evident we are discussing, debating, changing minds, and so on. So the evidence suggests our choices do actually change things. And It's up to the Determinist to show it doesn't -- which, ironically, if he can do, he disproves Determinism, because he's made us change our minds, and it's changed something in the actual world.

When a belief is inherently self-contradicting, which "believing in Determinism" is, then it's the best reason you'll ever have to know it's an error.

Ironically, since Determinism is a belief, it's a denial of its own fundamental assumption. By Determinism's lights, it makes no difference WHAT you believe...things will end up as they will end up, anyway.

Most unprovable beliefs can be ridiculed,

I'm not "ridiculing." I'm summarizing and pointing out the contradictions in the view. That's quite different.

[Harbal]

Well, people can be rationally consistent or irrational, relative to their basic premises. That often happens, because people are sometimes silly or inconsistent creatures. That's life.

What matters, then, is not his agreement or disagreement, but the logical entailments of that original view he has.

So in Determinism, it is fundamental that one must believe that all causes are strictly predetermined. That means that is is impossible for human volition to contribute anything to an outcome.

Even if a professed "Determinist" fails to understand that, the logic of his basic claim requires it.

We know that some events are inevitable, and thus determined; that is undeniable. If you hit your thumb with a hammer it is going to hurt, and that outcome could not have been otherwise. If you recognise that, then you believe in determinism to some extent. Some might think that the current state of every particle in every atom in the universe will have a role in an inevitable chain of events that will cause you to hit your thumb with a hammer next Friday morning at 10 am. Now, at what point between those two views of deterministic outcome would you need to place yourself before earning the title of determinist?

You're proving it right now, as a matter of fact. You're trying to convince. But if Determinism were true, then what my (or your) opinion is on any matter is not within our personal control. It's predecided for us, by material forces, and nothing else.

But I would also know that my trying to convince you, and whether or not I succeeded, was part of that deterministic process.

Not "logically." It would only be "logical" if the first premise is granted. But there's no reason to grant it, and, in fact, every reason not to. For it is evident we are discussing, debating, changing minds, and so on. So the evidence suggests our choices do actually change things. And It's up to the Determinist to show it doesn't -- which, ironically, if he can do, he disproves Determinism, because he's made us change our minds, and it's changed something in the actual world.

When a belief is inherently self-contradicting, which "believing in Determinism" is, then it's the best reason you'll ever have to know it's an error.

That is not a coherent argument, and I'm not going to let you bog me down by trying to unpick it.

I'm not "ridiculing." I'm summarizing and pointing out the contradictions in the view. That's quite different.

Belittling views you don't agree with is part of your style, but you can't "summarise" the entirety of a person's view by simply saying he is an "ist" of some sort. That is just a version of straw manning.