henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 12:08 pm
I assumed the replay was just that: a replay wherein it was all shiny & new again for the thief and me. I didn't take it that I remembered the first play thru.
So... that's called determinism. Or if we are to use your label - it's called necessitarianism.
Same situation. Same events. Same inputs to all variables/equations -> same result every time.
Non-determinism is Same situation. Same events. Same inputs to all variables/equations -> different result every time.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 12:08 pm
Knowing the replay is a replay changes things considerably. If I know the thief is gonna be there I may not. Or I may meet him with my shotgun, or...
New information broadens my choices (it doesn't, of course, dictate them).
Great, it sounds like you've switched to being a determinist now
We can positively say that you are one confused "free will"...
That's one aspect part of determinism.
Another aspect, of determinism, is that actions are based entirely on the existing conditions.
That is the part that HQ and others here deny. They claim that their actions come existing condition and from some sort of internal "volition".
One could say that if you always act the same way in the same conditions, then your actions must be based entirely on those conditions and that no other "volition" is required.
But apparently that is not so.
As they say ... "they are influenced but not determined by the conditions"
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 12:08 pm
I assumed the replay was just that: a replay wherein it was all shiny & new again for the thief and me. I didn't take it that I remembered the first play thru.
So... that's called determinism. Or if we are to use your label - it's called necessitarianism.
Same situation. Same events. Same inputs to all variables/equations -> same result every time.
Non-determinism is Same situation. Same events. Same inputs to all variables/equations -> different result every time.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 12:08 pm
Knowing the replay is a replay changes things considerably. If I know the thief is gonna be there I may not. Or I may meet him with my shotgun, or...
New information broadens my choices (it doesn't, of course, dictate them).
Great, it sounds like you've switched to being a determinist now
We can positively say that you are one confused "free will"...
That's one aspect part of determinism.
Another aspect, of determinism, is that actions are based entirely on the existing conditions.
That's the exact same aspect just covered.
The "all things being equal" aspect.
The "ceteris paribus" aspect.
phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 12:46 pm
That is the part that HQ and others here deny. They claim that their actions come existing condition and from some sort of internal "volition".
I guess you missed the part where HQ disagreed with himself. Where he claimed that given the exact same circumstances he would make the exact same choice.
Which is the same as saying the circumstances determine his choice.
phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 12:46 pm
One could say that if you always act the same way in the same conditions, then your actions must be based entirely on those conditions and that no other "volition" is required.
But apparently that is not so.
As they say ... "they are influenced but not determined by the conditions"
Whatever that means.
It means they are confused about who or what they are.
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Sep 04, 2023 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 11:43 amIf the exact same situation were repeated then you would react in the same way.
All things bein' equal: why would I choose to do differently?
Indeed. Because altimately you are determined at that moment to act in exactly that way.
QED Compatibilism is true.
Bein' a libertarian free will mean I choose. It means I am informed (instead of directed or determined) by history and circumstance. My choice is meaningful exactly becuz it's my choice.
Upon what you are informed about, determines what you will choose.
QED compatibilism is true.
And thus was have a perfect bland of the needs of science (things following the laws of nature) and what we think of as our "freedom".
Necessitarianism is machine works, devoid of meaning. It's blind cause and effect.
Well not even you know what your neurones are doing.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 1:07 pm
Indeed. Because altimately you are determined at that moment to act in exactly that way.
QED Compatibilism is true.
Only way you get to arrive at that conclusion is if moral obligation is seen as an objective and inescapable causal force.
I was determined to act that way because I am morally compelled to act in this manner.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 12:10 pm
So... that's called determinism. Or if we are to use your label - it's called necessitarianism.
Same situation. Same events. Same inputs to all variables/equations -> same result every time.
Non-determinism is Same situation. Same events. Same inputs to all variables/equations -> different result every time.
Great, it sounds like you've switched to being a determinist now
We can positively say that you are one confused "free will"...
That's one aspect part of determinism.
Another aspect, of determinism, is that actions are based entirely on the existing conditions.
That's the exact same aspect just covered.
The "all things being equal" aspect.
The "ceteris paribus" aspect.
phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 12:46 pm
That is the part that HQ and others here deny. They claim that their actions come existing condition and from some sort of internal "volition".
I guess you missed the part where HQ disagreed with himself. Where he claimed that given the exact same circumstances he would make the exact same choice.
Which is the same as saying the circumstances determine his choice.
phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 12:46 pm
One could say that if you always act the same way in the same conditions, then your actions must be based entirely on those conditions and that no other "volition" is required.
But apparently that is not so.
As they say ... "they are influenced but not determined by the conditions"
Whatever that means.
It means they are confused about who or what they are.
I suppose they want/need to say that they are the origin of their decisions and actions.
They don't want to feel like they are only reacting, that they are compelled by circumstances, that they are not themselves in control.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 1:07 pm
Well not even you know what your neurones are doing.
Well, I know that the neurons in my brain fire in such a way that my fingers type the phrase "I have free will". What choice do I have?
Oh yeah... I guess the neurons in my brain could've fired in such a way that I choose to type "I have no free will".
74th time's the charm... Philosophy's tail chasing is dumb.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 10:36 amAre you free to act when a thief puts a gun on your head and asks you to open your safe?
Yes. You can choose to comply or refuse,
Based on your assessment of the outcomes, and that is determined by who you are and your situation. Consdierations such as how smart are you , and how much do you love the money.
If the exact same situation were repeated then you would react in the same way. Determinism means acting meaingfully.
to do as you're told or to to fight back. What you don't have is a guarantee things will work out in your favor. Of course, the thief has no guarantee things will work out in his favor either.
The point being - if you were free you would not open the safe.
WHY?
The safe might be EMPTY.
'adult human beings', BACK THEN, REALLY WERE so VERY NARROWED or CLOSED in their perspectives, that 'they' VERY RARELY could SEE the WHOLE Big Picture and ACTUAL Truth OF 'things'.
They claim that their actions come existing condition and from some sort of internal "volition".
No. I say I can be informed by history and circumstance but am never determined by them. I say I choose.
One could say that if you always act the same way in the same conditions, then your actions must be based entirely on those conditions and that no other "volition" is required.
One can also say all things bein' equal: why would I choose to do differently?
"they are influenced but not determined by the conditions"
I say I am informed by history and circumstance, not determined by history and circumstance.
he claimed that given the exact same circumstances he would make the exact same choice.
No. I asked all things bein' equal: why would I choose to do differently?
Which is the same as saying the circumstances determine his choice.
No. As I say: compelled not to and chooses not to may net the same result, but the start is entirely different.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 11:59 amyou and Bahman are talking about freedom and not free will.
I disagree. Free will (bein' one) is synonymous with with bein' a free man.
The ontology and the practical are part & parcel.
Well, the example of someone holding a gun to you and telling you to do something is confused. It has nothing to do with the ontology of free will vs. determinism. Determinists are not arguing that we can rule out fighting back or any other option.
Freedom isn't the practical side of free will. There are different categories. It's a category conflation.
Find me a determinist here who will say that if someone points a gun at you, you cannot fight back or refuse to do what they say.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 2:13 pm
Find me a determinist here who will say that if someone points a gun at you, you cannot fight back or refuse to do what they say.
Yes, this is a confusion that sends to happen a lot in these conversations. It's similar to the idea that "if determinism is true then no one can change their minds" - that's not a consequence of determinism, change happens all the time in determinism. Hell, determinism is ABOUT change.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 2:13 pmFreedom isn't the practical side of free will.
Again: I disagree. How can a free man (one who chooses to self-direct, self-rely, and be self-responsible) be anything other than a free will? How can a free will not be able to self-direct, self-rely, and be self-responsible?
the example of someone holding a gun to you and telling you to do something is confused
It's not my example.
edited for clarity
Last edited by henry quirk on Mon Sep 04, 2023 3:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 2:13 pm
Find me a determinist here who will say that if someone points a gun at you, you cannot fight back or refuse to do what they say.
Find me a determinist here who will say that you will do anything other than what your programming makes you do.
Fight OR flight.
Those who are programmed for fight - will.
Those who are programmed for flight - will.
