Free will is wholly deterministic

[phyllo]

The "argument" becomes merely a node in a much longer chain of "antecedent conditions." That means that the reason the argument exists at all is not because it's rational or realistic, but rather because it is whatever its "antecedent conditions" have predetermined that it would be. We can't even suppose it is a rational thing: "antecedent conditioning" could generate in us all kinds of beliefs and arguments about things that are absurd, unreal and non-existent, or delusory. There's no longer a way of judging that, since "antecedent conditions," and not rationality, are the generators of the pattern of argument and belief.

I don't know how you would account for unrealistic, irrational, absurd, non-existant, delusional ideas in your free-will world without referring to "antecedent conditions".

Obviously all those ideas are present in the world so they require a free-will explanation. Unless you want to say that they are proof that the world is deterministic.

"Antecedent conditions" made me believe in unicorns and leprechauns. What more can I say about that?

This just seems to say that people with free-will would not believe in unicorns and leprechauns.

How is that possible?

If a trusted source told you that unicorns and leprechauns exist, then ...

[Skepdick]

Determinism cannot recognize any "would have" states. For Determinism, there is only what DID happen. There are no hypothetical or alternate states.

Hardly. It doesn't impose any such restrictions.

Yes, it does. You can still imagine them, just as you say; but Determinism means they can't be real....and they could never have been realized...since "antecedent conditions" define the limits of the possible.

And the "antecedent conditions" say nothing about it being impossible to imagine alternative timelines. Or deluding yourself into thinking that you are bringing about the "chosen" one.

An excellent illustration of the point I made to you: that Determinism allows no tests for truth, and is scientifically unfalsifiable and unverifiable, because it's a reductional explanation that can always be revised to "explain away" all objections.

No different to non-determinism. Which explains the reification of any particular time line (from all the possible ones) with the "power of will".

Determinists insist that "people" can't actually "believe." Rather, antecedent conditions shape their particular cognitions for them.

Could you get determinism on the line so we can ask it what it does and doesn't insist? You seem to have appointed yourself as its spokesman.

Except that, as Henri points out, while every person in history has lived as if free will were real, no person in the history of the world has succeeded in living in utter compliance with Determinism.

How could you tell? No "free will" in history has ever done anything other than what they have done. Seems like they are coping with determinism just fine.

To be a consistent Determinist would mean to give up all volition, all thought of alternatives, all choices, all dreams of what 'could be,' and all projects, and even all actions, and to surrender completely to the fatalism of "antecedent conditioning."

It's perfectly consistent to have dreams you can't realize. I dream of teleportation and faster than light travel. Physics says "no".

And that would quickly result in death, obviously.

Only if it's determined to result in death...

So every person is compelled, by the very nature of being, to behave as if free will is a reality and Determinism is a falsehood.

That's pretty telling of what's right, actually.

Determinism/non-determinism. Is just modes of self-expression.

Nothing to do with truth.

[Sculptor]

Not according to Determinism. According to Determinism,

please cite!

I'm not making an "appeal to authority." I'm using logic. Determinism requires that "antecedent conditions" explain everything. You said so yourself, in fact.

What you are saying is that "DETERMINISM" (whatever stupid twisted view of that might be) says this that or that other.
Clearly there is no entity "determinism" and what "IT" says.
So yes you are making an appeal to a standardised position. But you cannot find anyone who holds themsleves to accept determinism with an idiotic viewpoint that you think they ought to have.
So like so much else in your posts you are just blowing it out of your arse, or politiely making yet another straw man, as per fucking usual.
You have held a twisted view of determinism so long you think that is what it has to be.

[Immanuel Can]

That's not a coherent question. You might as well speak of "deterministic or non-deterministic" mathematics, or the "accountancy of dancing". Logic is a system of relations of propositions, not a particular proposition.

It's a coherent question, alright.

No, actually; it isn't.

Determinism is a set of propositions. Logic is a characterization of the relations between propositions.

Just as mathematics is not a particular list of numbers (like the numbers 2, 5, 21 and 1,000, but not 3, 55 and 651), so logic is not a particular set of propositions. Mathematics is a description of relations among ALL numbers. Logic is a practice of properly relating ANY set of propositions.

[Immanuel Can]

please cite!

I'm not making an "appeal to authority." I'm using logic. Determinism requires that "antecedent conditions" explain everything. You said so yourself, in fact.

What you are saying is that "DETERMINISM" (whatever stupid twisted view of that might be) says this that or that other.
Clearly there is no entity "determinism" and what "IT" says.

You're struggling with the metaphor, "says"? That's a little rudimentary.

But okay. Let's put it this way, to help you out: the belief that Determinism is true logically commits the believer to certain other beliefs.

[Sculptor]

I'm not making an "appeal to authority." I'm using logic. Determinism requires that "antecedent conditions" explain everything. You said so yourself, in fact.

What you are saying is that "DETERMINISM" (whatever stupid twisted view of that might be) says this that or that other.
Clearly there is no entity "determinism" and what "IT" says.

You're struggling with the metaphor, "says"? That's a little rudimentary.

But okay. Let's put it this way, to help you out: the belief that Determinism is true logically commits the believer to certain other beliefs.

PUt up or shut up

[Immanuel Can]

What you are saying is that "DETERMINISM" (whatever stupid twisted view of that might be) says this that or that other.
Clearly there is no entity "determinism" and what "IT" says.

You're struggling with the metaphor, "says"? That's a little rudimentary.

But okay. Let's put it this way, to help you out: the belief that Determinism is true logically commits the believer to certain other beliefs.

PUt up or shut up

That response doesn't even make sense.

[Skepdick]

That's not a coherent question. You might as well speak of "deterministic or non-deterministic" mathematics, or the "accountancy of dancing". Logic is a system of relations of propositions, not a particular proposition.

It's a coherent question, alright.

No, actually; it isn't.

Determinism is a set of propositions. Logic is a characterization of the relations between propositions.

Just as mathematics is not a particular list of numbers (like the numbers 2, 5, 21 and 1,000, but not 3, 55 and 651), so logic is not a particular set of propositions. Mathematics is a description of relations among ALL numbers. Logic is a practice of properly relating ANY set of propositions.

And you left out all the ways in which logic and determinism are the same.

Not least of all that they both impose limits on one's freedom.

[Immanuel Can]

It's a coherent question, alright.

No, actually; it isn't.

Determinism is a set of propositions. Logic is a characterization of the relations between propositions.

Just as mathematics is not a particular list of numbers (like the numbers 2, 5, 21 and 1,000, but not 3, 55 and 651), so logic is not a particular set of propositions. Mathematics is a description of relations among ALL numbers. Logic is a practice of properly relating ANY set of propositions.

And you left out all the ways in which logic and determinism are the same.

Because they're not.

Not least of all that they both impose limits on one's freedom.

That's merely trivial. So do football pitches, guardrails, cautions on prescriptions, and one's parents. As I said earlier, freedom is never absolute. But it is real.

[Skepdick]

That's merely trivial. So do football pitches, guardrails, cautions on prescriptions, and one's parents. As I said earlier, freedom is never absolute. But it is real.

Sounds about as trivial as any limits imposed by God.

[Immanuel Can]

That's merely trivial. So do football pitches, guardrails, cautions on prescriptions, and one's parents. As I said earlier, freedom is never absolute. But it is real.

Sounds about as trivial as any limits imposed by God.

I was referring to the fact of a superficial similarity of any kind. Your interpretation is purely gratuitious.

[Sculptor]

You're struggling with the metaphor, "says"? That's a little rudimentary.

But okay. Let's put it this way, to help you out: the belief that Determinism is true logically commits the believer to certain other beliefs.

PUt up or shut up

That response doesn't even make sense.

Where do you live? Under a bush?

"put up or shut up"
You've never head the phrase?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... or-shut-up

[Immanuel Can]

PUt up or shut up

That response doesn't even make sense.

"put up or shut up"
You've never head the phrase?

Sure. But it's nonsensical here, because it has no evident application to anything previously said. It's out-of-context.

[Immanuel Can]

The "argument" becomes merely a node in a much longer chain of "antecedent conditions." That means that the reason the argument exists at all is not because it's rational or realistic, but rather because it is whatever its "antecedent conditions" have predetermined that it would be. We can't even suppose it is a rational thing: "antecedent conditioning" could generate in us all kinds of beliefs and arguments about things that are absurd, unreal and non-existent, or delusory. There's no longer a way of judging that, since "antecedent conditions," and not rationality, are the generators of the pattern of argument and belief.

I don't know how you would account for unrealistic, irrational, absurd, non-existant, delusional ideas in your free-will world without referring to "antecedent conditions".

Easily. Free will is not a denial of some "antecedent conditions." It's a denial that those "antecedent conditions" are the exclusive source of answers as to why things happen -- i.e. a denial of Determinism, not of "antecedents."

Obviously all those ideas are present in the world so they require a free-will explanation.

Determinism cannot explain anything with reference to "free will," or to any "will" at all. It can only appeal to "antecedent conditions."

"Antecedent conditions" made me believe in unicorns and leprechauns. What more can I say about that?

This just seems to say that people with free-will would not believe in unicorns and leprechauns.

No, but Determinists could. Because they believe that the only reason people form beliefs is because of "antecedent conditions," they have no reason to trust any of the pronouncements of science or of their own minds.

Why do we believe the earth is round, or gravity works, or that the Sun moves? They have to say, "antecedent conditions" make us believe it. Just that. They can't say "reason" makes us believe it, or "the facts" do. Why do we do science? "Antecedent conditions" made us do science. It wasn't because science leads to good answers, or because science is true. Why do I believe anything? "Antecedent conditions," not truth or rationality account for my believing things...all this nonsense is what follows from supposing Determinism.

No wonder, then, that nobody ever succeeds in living as if Determinism were true.

[LuckyR]

The "argument" becomes merely a node in a much longer chain of "antecedent conditions." That means that the reason the argument exists at all is not because it's rational or realistic, but rather because it is whatever its "antecedent conditions" have predetermined that it would be. We can't even suppose it is a rational thing: "antecedent conditioning" could generate in us all kinds of beliefs and arguments about things that are absurd, unreal and non-existent, or delusory. There's no longer a way of judging that, since "antecedent conditions," and not rationality, are the generators of the pattern of argument and belief.

I don't know how you would account for unrealistic, irrational, absurd, non-existant, delusional ideas in your free-will world without referring to "antecedent conditions".

Easily. Free will is not a denial of some "antecedent conditions." It's a denial that those "antecedent conditions" are the exclusive source of answers as to why things happen -- i.e. a denial of Determinism, not of "antecedents."

Obviously all those ideas are present in the world so they require a free-will explanation.

Determinism cannot explain anything with reference to "free will," or to any "will" at all. It can only appeal to "antecedent conditions."

"Antecedent conditions" made me believe in unicorns and leprechauns. What more can I say about that?

This just seems to say that people with free-will would not believe in unicorns and leprechauns.

No, but Determinists could. Because they believe that the only reason people form beliefs is because of "antecedent conditions," they have no reason to trust any of the pronouncements of science or of their own minds.

Why do we believe the earth is round, or gravity works, or that the Sun moves? They have to say, "antecedent conditions" make us believe it. Just that. They can't say "reason" makes us believe it, or "the facts" do. Why do we do science? "Antecedent conditions" made us do science. It wasn't because science leads to good answers, or because science is true. Why do I believe anything? "Antecedent conditions," not truth or rationality account for my believing things...all this nonsense is what follows from supposing Determinism.

No wonder, then, that nobody ever succeeds in living as if Determinism were true.

Exactly. In the Determinist's universe "thinking" or "pondering" is an illusion, it is merely the unimportant feeling associated with the inevitable conclusions anyone will arrive at based on their brain-state the nanosecond before their "decision" was "made".

Essentially the text of Hamlet was assured by the exact way that the Big Bang unfolded 13.8 billion years ago (as was this post). Theoretically possible, of course but not only inconsistent with the entirety of human experience, but also just ridiculous sounding on it's face.