compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

By pure chance I started listening to a lecture on YouTube by one of my favourite thinkers, and I think he sort of touches on this question, maybe... loosely.

https://youtu.be/2JsKwyRFiYY

At around 42 minutes in, he talks about a network of chemical reactions "breaking free" to become the precursor to life. When I heard this, I thought of you!

Don't skip to it though, you gotta have the whole context, and this dude is saying some fascinating stuff, I think you'll enjoy it.

And at 50 minutes, he starts talking about the beginnings of what I would describe as the mental processes we call "free will".

And at 55 minutes or so he talks about "autonomy" in his world view, and how we might view ourselves and our free will while knowing that we are composed of matter that "follows laws".

If you want a grasp on compatibilism, and an answer to your question, and you have an hour to spare, I feel like this lecture has a lot of value for you.

[BigMike]

Imagine a black box with two switches on the left (the input) and a single lightbulb on the right (the output). You don't know what's inside, but you do know that the inputs are connected to the output bulb in some way and that the black box has a battery inside. The light bulb will turn on or off depending on which input switches are on or off. The battery allows the bulb to be on of off even if both input switches are off.

In this case, there are only four ways to set the input switches (both on, both off, only the first on, only the second on), and the state of the light bulb depends only on those four conditions. When the switches are in a certain way, like when both are on, the light bulb acts the same way every time. This is because it is hardwired to do so.

It has been proven that no matter how the black box responds to its input, it can be replicated exactly by putting logic gates, such as "a OR b" and "NOT c", in the right order. In this sense, the "black box" is a logic machine.

Adding, say, a billion more input switches and a lot more output bulbs would make the black box a lot more complicated, but it would still be a logic machine that could be replaced by logic gates.

There are billions of sensory cells that send on-or-off information to the brain via a web of neurons. The brain then sends signals out to about 600 muscles to contract and a few glands to secrete hormones, etc. The brain is at any point in time also a logic machine, no different from the black box. The only difference is that as we learn, the connections in our brains change, so some responses will change over time.

Your actions and what you think of as your values, morals, wants, etc. are all the result of how your brain works logically.

Your will can't change the way signals move through your brain, so it can't change what you do. And therefore, you have no free will.

If you think you have free will, you have to show me that your "free will" can reorganize atoms (psychokinetically, without "touching" them) and change the way your brain works so that it does what you want it to do.

[iambiguous]

Yet another "general description intellectual contraption" about...about me of course.

LOL, I followed the format of your post about me and FJ.. See how these things go? And I think it is utterly bizzarre that you saw that response as intellectual. I just copied your post and pointed out what I think is obvious on a concrete level about what you were doing and we were doing. I know it's bad when other people do what you do. I've never understood why it's bad when we do it and not when you do. But I know you think it's bad.

Okay, in regard to Mary and Jane what do you think is "obvious" in regard to compatibilism? I must have missed that post. Or I don't remember it.

My interest in compatibilism revolves around the extent to which technical philosophical arguments regarding free will can be made applicable to actual human behaviors. And since some argue that determinism is compatible with moral responsibility why not go right to the top: abortion.

And that's a perfectly reasonable interest. It's not as if I think you shouldn't have that interest.

That plus my main interest [in turn] revolves around bringing conclusions reached about compatibilism down out of the intellectual clouds and noting their relevance to situations like abortion...or regarding any other conflicting goods such that, if we do possess free will, than holding someone morally responsible takes on a whole other meaning. As opposed to a world where Mary was not able to not abort Jane. Yes, Mary could have opted to give birth to Jane. Somehow that can be substantiated. What, philosophically, ethically, are we to make of that?

How come you are fractured and fragmented about everything except the psychology of people you disagree with or who don't focus on topics the way you want? There you just present a unified front.

Not sure what you mean here. I am as much fractured and fragmented regarding my own psychology as I am others. The closest I have come to understanding why I think I am the way I am revolves around this...

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest." John Fowles

The provocative, polemical part of myself here, in particular.

As for this...

Why are you so confident about your beliefs about what goes on in other people's minds my motives and psychology, even to the point where you refuse to believe their sense of what is going on in their minds?

Somehow you solved the problem of other minds.

...again, that's your iambiguous, not mine. i don't recognize myself in that way at all.

Me, personally, the determinism free will issue does not affect the way I view concrete decisions (re:abortion).

What could possibly be more important than pinning down whether or not what we think, feel, say and do we think, feel, say and do of our own volition? Given that neither philosophers nor scientists are really certain about it one way or the other. Unless that's changed. If so, link me to it.

I've said this before. I don't know if we have free will or determinism. I see problems with both positions.

Me too. Only in a manner I still don't grasp, you seem considerably less fractured and fragmented than "I" am in regard to these Big Questions and in regard to "I" in the is/ought world. And, as I have noted before, since I respect your intelligence, I'm curious as to how you have managed not to become as splintered as I am.

Tonight I was working with a theater group. There's one guy in the group who is so senstive to pressure or 'pressure' from others that even asking him if he wants to be in the next performance is considered (by some others who helped him through a breakdown) to be a potential threat to his mental health. It put me in a weird position. I needed to know as director. Do I ask him? How much weight do I put into these people's estimates of his vulnerability? How do I weigh this against my/our need to move forward in planning? I decided I had to ask, but I put it in a kind of I'm assuming you still want to wait to perform and that's fine, just let me know if you change your mind. To me, a fairly sensitive person myself, that seemed like no pressure. Not what others thought, but I went with my gut.

There you go. No free will and you're off the hook, free will and the consequences might be significant. Here though I insert dasein. You did what your gut told you because existentially your life unfolded along a particular trajectory such that you were predisposed to go in this direction rather than another. And had your life been very different [for any number of reasons] starting from the day you were born, you might have gone in another direction. The Benjamin Button Syndrome. So, given that, is there a way for philosophers using the technical tools at their disposal to come up with the optimal choice to make?

How do my thoughts on free will and deteminism affect my decision making? Zero as far as I can tell. Perhaps better put: I did not consider that issue. I don't think I have a clear stand on it. I certainly think that my actions have effects. Sometimes my thinking is fairly deterministic. Sometimes it's not.

Okay, but here I merely note that this part...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

...is ever and always a factor in discussions like this. It's just that, compelled or not, we all react to it differently. The part [again] I root in dasein. You know, after the click, anyway.

If I read a proof tomorrow that convinced me we had free will (and explained what that meant) or I read one that proved determinism (or indetermism which offers nothing to people beleiving in free will) would this change my behavior. I can't see how. Hard to know. But I see no reason for it. Next week faced with a similar issue and a close deadline, I won't suddenly have a new way of dealing with this guy.

That doesn't work for me. I'd still have no way of knowing if either proof was as a result of my having free will. How could I demonstrate it one way or the other? Even the scientists that think they do have to bring it back to this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

And then bring it back to a definitive understanding of the existence of existence itself. Back to Rummy's "...But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

Again, given this...

https://youtu.be/m2YJ7aR25P0

...where does the "human condition" here on Earth fit into it? Though again existentially each of us reacts even to that in very different ways. Some shrug it off, others are entirely hooked on the mystery of it all.

If you can show me how in a deterministic world this is bad, let me know. And not in the abstract. Not because it is wrong, but because it would lead to bad things. Be specific. And, of course, I could always blame all the causes before me for my way of thinking. What could the determinist say to that? But that's just snotty.

In a determinist world as some understand it bad and good are entirely interchangeable. How could they not be if everything that we do we could never have freely opted not to. Only if determinism is, in fact, the case, we are smack dab in the middle of it typing and reading words that could never have been otherwise. The surreal Flatworld predicament. The brain attempting to explain itself by assuming that the dream world "reality" and the waking world reality are two different things.

Well, what if they are not?

What do you think? Do you think I should be more concerned about finding a resolution to free will vs determinism? Would it change things for you if you saw a proof that one or the other was the case? What would you do if you had that proof? Would you change your speech? How? Be specific, please. You can explain how you would handle Mary's abortion if you knew that answer each way. Concrete. What would be wrong with acting like people are responsible? What would it change if you KNEW!!

Again, the part that interest me is not in what we think, feel, say and do but in how compatibilists reconcile determinism with responsibility pertaining to anything that we think, feel, say and do. The part where even if they attempt to they were never able not to attempt to. The part where whatever they argue they were never able not to argue.

And what are you on about in relation to Plato...he's a philosophical realist? He wasn't. But maybe that's what the italics meant. Was it sarcastic? aimed at whom or what?

Let's Google it: https://www.google.com/search?q=was+pla ... s-wiz-serp

Different takes of course. But, again, as I always say, "we'll need a context".

[Iwannaplato]

Okay, in regard to Mary and Jane what do you think is "obvious" in regard to compatibilism? I must have missed that post. Or I don't remember it.

I didn't say anything was obvious about Mary and Jane being obvious in relation to compatiblism. I pointed out what I thought was obvious about what you were doing, by parodying the post where you were critical of me and FJ. It's obvious you were doing this, since, well, the post is right there. Your post, the one I parodied. What we were doing was also obvious. You didn't like it and implied we were doing something wrong. Don't make this more complicated than it was.

My interest in compatibilism revolves around the extent to which technical philosophical arguments regarding free will can be made applicable to actual human behaviors. And since some argue that determinism is compatible with moral responsibility why not go right to the top: abortion.

And that's a perfectly reasonable interest. It's not as if I think you shouldn't have that interest.

That plus my main interest [in turn] revolves around bringing conclusions reached about compatibilism down out of the intellectual clouds and noting their relevance to situations like abortion...or regarding any other conflicting goods such that, if we do possess free will, than holding someone morally responsible takes on a whole other meaning. As opposed to a world where Mary was not able to not abort Jane. Yes, Mary could have opted to give birth to Jane. Somehow that can be substantiated. What, philosophically, ethically, are we to make of that?

Right, so what do you think would happen if someone could prove that she had free will or could prove that she didn't? You seem to find it problematic if someone here does not bring this down to the ground. They should be, it seems according to you, demonstrate something about Mary's situation. It seems from reading the above quote of yours and other quotes, that you think it makes a difference to the situation and perhaps how you would view it and act if you knew that determinism or free will was the case or if somehow free will was compatible with determinism. Where did you get that impression? What did difference would it make? How might it help you feel less fractured and fragmented? With specifics....

Well, if I know that the universe is determined, then I will do X or I will view Mary as Y, and thus I will feel less fractured because of Z. These actions and views being concrete and specific. Likewise with Free Will or Compatiblism.

Take us through the Mary situation and tell us what differences you think it would make if you, personally, viewed determinism or free will as the case, or a compatiblist combination?

How come you are fractured and fragmented about everything except the psychology of people you disagree with or who don't focus on topics the way you want? There you just present a unified front.

Not sure what you mean here. I am as much fractured and fragmented regarding my own psychology as I am others. The closest I have come to understanding why I think I am the way I am revolves around this...

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest." John Fowles

The provocative, polemical part of myself here, in particular.

As for this...

Why are you so confident about your beliefs about what goes on in other people's minds my motives and psychology, even to the point where you refuse to believe their sense of what is going on in their minds?

Somehow you solved the problem of other minds.

...again, that's your iambiguous, not mine. i don't recognize myself in that way at all.

OK, well when someone tells me my motivations and I notice that this person does this with some regularlity, tell people why they do things or what they are feeling, and even though he knows this is not what they would say, this person is making a claim to having some direct access to other minds.

You present yourself as being torn between different philosophical positions on a range of issues including the main one in this thread. You see other people as being certain and you are often critical of this certainty.

But here you are acting as if you are psychic or know other people's minds and can dismiss their takes on their own motivations, for example.

So, on this issue you are fairly objectivist. How did you develop this certainty about what is going on in other people's minds?

If you still don't understand, no worries. What I am most interested in is how you see resolving this issue leads to concrete changes in how you would deal with an abortion situation.

Me, personally, the determinism free will issue does not affect the way I view concrete decisions (re:abortion).

What could possibly be more important than pinning down whether or not what we think, feel, say and do we think, feel, say and do of our own volition? Given that neither philosophers nor scientists are really certain about it one way or the other. Unless that's changed. If so, link me to it.

Thank you. There you have clearly expressed that this is an important issue and resolving it is important.

Tell me how in relation to the Mary system, please.

What concrete and specific differences would it make in that situation?
What actions would change for you?
What attitude would you have in relation to Mary that you don't have now?
Let's say it is the day you are going to meet Mary, the day she is going to the clinic.
What specific differences are there that you see? (given that you see resolving this as so important.)

I don't see myself acting differently if, just before going to sleep, I read the overwhelmingly perfect argument that convinces me utterly - and I see it has also convinced a long list of experts from many fields.

Run through this for us. And then if you think the changes KNOWING would make in you are ones that all rational people should have also. IOW what concrete changes would resolving this issue lead to in you AND (a second issue) do you think others should also be influenced this way. That they should be compelled to feel and act more like X and Y.

This issues is very important to. You seem incredulous that it could be viewed otherwise

What could possibly be more important than pinning down whether or not what we think, feel, say and do we think, feel, say and do of our own volition?

So, it would see like you think all or many would be changed in down to earth ways or SHOULD be and should share your sense of the importance.

What do you see knowing which is true (free will or determinsim or the combination compatibilism is true) would lead to? And why is it so wrong that I do not think it would change how I would act and think of others?

Would I treat the guy in my theater group differently? Should I if I knew?

[Iwannaplato]

Oh. I was unaware that you only wanted responses from philosophers. I'm merely a mathematician. Sorry about that.

And again. I never said I only wanted responses from philosophers. I was clearly making a case that when most people talk about free will they are not saying that their choices have no internal causes. They are not talking about free will the way you do, the way I do and they way philosophers do.

1) but those aren't philosophers. They are not necessarily taking a stand on free will in the way a philosopher would. IOW if you kept asking them, to follow the reasons why they did X, because they felt Y, I doubt most of these people - many religious - would end up finding causes for everything they do. They think of free will as not being controlled by what is outside them, at least entirely. They aren't taking an ontological stand, for the most part. Most of the people you are describing.

and in my previous response to you...

They, the conservatives in his articles, are not actually arguing that there are no causes for their choices. Ask them. Ask them if their values and experiences and desires and morals didn't lead to the actions.

So, any responses to the points I made?
viewtopic.php?p=623510#p623510

[popeye1945]

Oh. I was unaware that you only wanted responses from philosophers. I'm merely a mathematician. Sorry about that.

And again. I never said I only wanted responses from philosophers. I was clearly making a case that when most people talk about free will they are not saying that their choices have no internal causes. They are not talking about free will, the way you do, the way I do and the way philosophers do.

1) but those aren't philosophers. They are not necessarily taking a stand on free will in the way a philosopher would. IOW if you kept asking them, to follow the reasons why they did X, because they felt Y, I doubt most of these people - many religious - would end up finding causes for everything they do. They think of free will as not being controlled by what is outside them, at least entirely. They aren't taking an ontological stand, for the most part. Most of the people you are describing.

and in my previous response to you... They, the conservatives in his articles, are not actually arguing that there are no causes for their choices. Ask them. Ask them if their values and experiences and desires and morals didn't lead to the actions.

So, any responses to the points I made?
viewtopic.php?p=623510#p623510
[/quote]

If an individual's values, experiences, desires and morals cause them to move it is a reaction not action. All organisms are reactionary creatures thus there is no agent of free will, freedom of action. It is quite impossible for an organism not to react to its environment for that is the way it functions in the world. One has a choice of reactions at best to any given situation, but the physical world is cause to all organisms. Morality and free will are mutually exclusive! The psychopath comes closer than most to acting out of his center in the way of free will.

[Iwannaplato]

If an individual's values, experiences, desires and morals cause them to move it is a reaction not action.

That doesn't contradict the specific point I made about what most conservatives mean when they say free will. They would and do own up to internal causes. It doesnt matter if you view them as ultimately being reactions. All that matters in context is that THEY admit to causes.

All organisms are reactionary creatures thus there is no agent of free will, freedom of action.

I wasn't arguing in favor of free will.

It is quite impossible for an organism not to react to its environment for that is the way it functions in the world. One has a choice of reactions at best to any given situation, but the physical world is cause to all organisms. Morality and free will are mutually exclusive! The psychopath comes closer than most to acting out of his center in the way of free will.

You seem to be a determinist. There are no degrees of being determined in determinism. Further determinism and morality are mutually exclusive. There are just acts, or reactions. Stuff happens. A boulder dislodging and rolling downhill is no more or less moral than anyone doing anything.

But regardless, you've missed the context, and so the meaning, of my post.

[BigMike]

There are just acts, or reactions. Stuff happens. A boulder dislodging and rolling downhill is no more or less moral than anyone doing anything.

The idea of "actions and reactions" is often referred to as Newton's Third Law of Motion and states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This law is a fundamental concept in physics and is considered to be scientifically valid. However, in recent years, the term "interactions" has become more widely used to describe the transfer of momentum, energy, or other physical quantities between objects. This is because the term "interactions" is more general and can encompass a wider range of physical phenomena, including those that are not easily described by the idea of "actions and reactions."

In the field of psychology and human behavior, the idea of "actions and reactions" can be misleading because human behavior is often more complex than a simple cause-and-effect relationship. Human behavior is influenced by a variety of factors, including personality, emotions, motivations, social context, and cognitive processes. The structure and function of the human brain's neuronal network play a crucial role in shaping human personality, emotions, motivations, social context, and cognitive processes by influencing the way different regions of the brain communicate with one another.

Therefore, it may be more accurate to view human behavior as a result of "interactions" rather than "reactions." For example, instead of saying that a person reacted to a situation in a certain way, it might be more accurate to say that the person interacted with the situation in a certain way, taking into account the various factors that influenced their behavior. This view recognizes that human behavior is not simply the result of a single cause, but is shaped by the complex interplay of many factors.

[Iwannaplato]

There are just acts, or reactions. Stuff happens. A boulder dislodging and rolling downhill is no more or less moral than anyone doing anything.

The idea of "actions and reactions" is often referred to as Newton's Third Law of Motion and states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This law is a fundamental concept in physics and is considered to be scientifically valid. However, in recent years, the term "interactions" has become more widely used to describe the transfer of momentum, energy, or other physical quantities between objects. This is because the term "interactions" is more general and can encompass a wider range of physical phenomena, including those that are not easily described by the idea of "actions and reactions."

In the field of psychology and human behavior, the idea of "actions and reactions" can be misleading because human behavior is often more complex than a simple cause-and-effect relationship. Human behavior is influenced by a variety of factors, including personality, emotions, motivations, social context, and cognitive processes. The structure and function of the human brain's neuronal network play a crucial role in shaping human personality, emotions, motivations, social context, and cognitive processes by influencing the way different regions of the brain communicate with one another.

Therefore, it may be more accurate to view human behavior as a result of "interactions" rather than "reactions." For example, instead of saying that a person reacted to a situation in a certain way, it might be more accurate to say that the person interacted with the situation in a certain way, taking into account the various factors that influenced their behavior. This view recognizes that human behavior is not simply the result of a single cause, but is shaped by the complex interplay of many factors.

I think this is better aimed at popeye. I haven't taken a stand on the reaction vs. actions issue, though interactions sounds better to me.

[Belinda]

There are just acts, or reactions. Stuff happens. A boulder dislodging and rolling downhill is no more or less moral than anyone doing anything.

The idea of "actions and reactions" is often referred to as Newton's Third Law of Motion and states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This law is a fundamental concept in physics and is considered to be scientifically valid. However, in recent years, the term "interactions" has become more widely used to describe the transfer of momentum, energy, or other physical quantities between objects. This is because the term "interactions" is more general and can encompass a wider range of physical phenomena, including those that are not easily described by the idea of "actions and reactions."

In the field of psychology and human behavior, the idea of "actions and reactions" can be misleading because human behavior is often more complex than a simple cause-and-effect relationship. Human behavior is influenced by a variety of factors, including personality, emotions, motivations, social context, and cognitive processes. The structure and function of the human brain's neuronal network play a crucial role in shaping human personality, emotions, motivations, social context, and cognitive processes by influencing the way different regions of the brain communicate with one another.

Therefore, it may be more accurate to view human behavior as a result of "interactions" rather than "reactions." For example, instead of saying that a person reacted to a situation in a certain way, it might be more accurate to say that the person interacted with the situation in a certain way, taking into account the various factors that influenced their behavior. This view recognizes that human behavior is not simply the result of a single cause, but is shaped by the complex interplay of many factors.

The more that a man responds to circumstances from a single motivation such as passion, or calculation, the less he responds to interaction of circumstances. The converse is that the more he responds to interaction the less he responds to a singular motivation such as obsession, passion, or calculation. This leads to political ethics; responses that are motivated by complex interaction are more ethical than responses motivated by obsession, passion, or calculation.

[iambiguous]

Your actions and what you think of as your values, morals, wants, etc. are all the result of how your brain works logically.

Your will can't change the way signals move through your brain, so it can't change what you do. And therefore, you have no free will.

Back again to how far he takes this. Does it include his brain compelling him to post this? Was he ever able to opt not to post it? Or opt for a different conclusion? Does it include my brain compelling me to react to the post in the only manner in which I am able to? If yes to both then then how is anything that we argue in our posts here not essentially interchangeable. Someone might argue that others ought to argue the same thing as they do...but only because they were never able not to argue this.

That's the part -- click -- that puzzles me.

If you think you have free will, you have to show me that your "free will" can reorganize atoms (psychokinetically, without "touching" them) and change the way your brain works so that it does what you want it to do.

Again...

You think you have free will.
You think you do not have free will.

Same thing. If your brain lacks free will then how is what you either think or do not think merely but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality? The laws of nature making absolutely no exceptions.

Unless, of course, re either God or the evolution of matter in a No God world into living matter into conscious matter into you and I here on Earth is "somehow" the exception.

Think that it is? Okay, demonstrate it.

[Flannel Jesus]

Back again to how far he takes this. Does it include his brain compelling him to post this? ... Does it include my brain compelling me to react to the post in the only manner in which I am able to?

This is a language confusion. You're using the terms "him" and "his brain", or "me" and "my brain" as separate things.

In physical materialism, you ARE your brain. You brain isn't compelling you, your brain IS you.

If yes to both then then how is anything that we argue in our posts here not essentially interchangeable. Someone might argue that others ought to argue the same thing as they do...but only because they were never able not to argue this.

You bring this idea up a lot but you haven't made much sense of it. Why are words meaningless in determinism but not indeterminism? What about randomness existing makes words meaningful?

[BigMike]

Your actions and what you think of as your values, morals, wants, etc. are all the result of how your brain works logically.

Your will can't change the way signals move through your brain, so it can't change what you do. And therefore, you have no free will.

Back again to how far he takes this. Does it include his brain compelling him to post this? Was he ever able to opt not to post it? Or opt for a different conclusion? Does it include my brain compelling me to react to the post in the only manner in which I am able to? If yes to both then then how is anything that we argue in our posts here not essentially interchangeable. Someone might argue that others ought to argue the same thing as they do...but only because they were never able not to argue this.

That's the part -- click -- that puzzles me.

If you think you have free will, you have to show me that your "free will" can reorganize atoms (psychokinetically, without "touching" them) and change the way your brain works so that it does what you want it to do.

Again...

You think you have free will.
You think you do not have free will.

Same thing. If your brain lacks free will then how is what you either think or do not think merely but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality? The laws of nature making absolutely no exceptions.

Unless, of course, re either God or the evolution of matter in a No God world into living matter into conscious matter into you and I here on Earth is "somehow" the exception.

Think that it is? Okay, demonstrate it.

The concept of determinism suggests that the course of events in the world is predetermined by past events and natural laws, leaving no room for free will. This means that our choices and actions are not truly ours, but rather a result of prior circumstances.

However, our interactions with others have a direct impact on their (and our) future. For instance, when we communicate with someone, what we say becomes a part of their past and may influence their future actions. After all, as stated in the paragraph above, "the course of events in the world is predetermined by past events". The more consistent exposure to certain ideas, the greater the possibility of affecting their behavior. This is how education aims to continually shape our perspectives, and consequently our actions.

Though we cannot change what we do in the present, persistent learning and growth can shape what we do in the future. You appear resistant to this fact, at least for the time being.

[Immanuel Can]

The concept of determinism suggests that the course of events in the world is predetermined by past events and natural laws, leaving no room for free will. This means that our choices and actions are not truly ours, but rather a result of prior circumstances.

Correct, so far.

However, our interactions with others have a direct impact on their (and our) future.

But given Determinism, this is not possible.

Our "interactions" are, themselves, nothing but the inevitable products of "past events and natural laws," (to use your wording), and so are all the effects to follow. There is no "may," however; there is only one outcome, no "possibilities". The only thing that can ever happen is the one thing that follows strictly from the "past events and natural laws."

"Ideas," being non-material, or being also nothing but an product of "past events and natural laws," do not make variable the chain of cause and effect, nor produce any "possibilies." And so "education" is either just a link in the chain, or is nothing at all to the chain. We cannot "learn" in a real sense, so as to change anything, nor can we "grow" in any way not physically predetermined. We only fool ourselves when we think we do those things. What is really going on is nothing but "past events and natural laws" doing their thing.

And there is only one "shape" the future can ever have: whatever one thing is the automatic product of "past events and natural laws."

So it is quite understandable that your interlocutor would be "resistant" to your claim that Determinism can have space in it for things like "possibilities" or "maybes," that it can meaningfully include "learning or education," or that the future can have different "shapes" as a result.

Determinism is a single train-track, with no deviations. And whatever goes on in people's heads either fails to make any change in what is predetermined to happen, or only acts as a non-variable link in the inevitable causal chain. That's what the theory requires.

So does Compatibilism, though it irrationally implies that so long as we don't know Determinism is functioning, it's compatible with free will -- the old mistake of confusing epistemology with ontology.

[Flannel Jesus]

The concept of determinism suggests that the course of events in the world is predetermined by past events and natural laws, leaving no room for free will. This means that our choices and actions are not truly ours, but rather a result of prior circumstances.

Correct, so far.

However, our interactions with others have a direct impact on their (and our) future.

But given Determinism, this is not possible.

Determinism is a single train-track, with no deviations. And whatever goes on in people's heads either fails to make any change in what is predetermined to happen, or only acts as a non-variable link in the inevitable causal chain. That's what the theory requires.

To me, that's what he means when he says "our interactions with others have a direct impact on their (and our) future." -- he means that bold text. Just because it's part of a non variable link of casualty doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact. An impact, itself, is literally part of a chain of casualty.

When a rock hits the moon and creates a crater, that event had an impact, literally. And even if the event was fully deterministic, the impact is still real, and the consequences of it are still real.