Determinists think there's no actual such thing as a "decision."
Please don't tell me what determinists think.
Okay. Then look it up, please. It's a good idea to understand the position in question before deciding how you think it should be defended, isn't it? I've given you good definitions for Compatibilism, all backed by experts and citing the specific people and studies who've generated them; maybe the same should be done for Determinism?
Determinists think there's no actual such thing as a "decision."
Please don't tell me what determinists think.
Okay. Then look it up, please. It's a good idea to understand the position in question before deciding how you think it should be defended, isn't it? I've given you good definitions for Compatibilism, all backed by experts and citing the specific people and studies who've generated them; maybe the same should be done for Determinism?
phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 7:34 pm
Please don't tell me what determinists think.
Okay. Then look it up, please. It's a good idea to understand the position in question before deciding how you think it should be defended, isn't it? I've given you good definitions for Compatibilism, all backed by experts and citing the specific people and studies who've generated them; maybe the same should be done for Determinism?
I don't know if you are capable of being more reasonable.
Is there some particular philosophical goal you think is served by degenerating a discussion about Compatibilism into mere petty insults? Because if there is, I'm not seeing what it is.
Or is it that you think that insulting the speaker is a form of refutation of the idea?
Is there some particular philosophical goal you think is served by degenerating a discussion about Compatibilism into mere petty insults? Because if there is, I'm not seeing what it is.
You act as if you have a monopoly on understanding. As if your ideas about determinism are the only truth about it.
I suggest that you need to have a bit more respect and consideration for the people you are talking to.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 8:12 pm
Okay. Then look it up, please. It's a good idea to understand the position in question before deciding how you think it should be defended, isn't it? I've given you good definitions for Compatibilism, all backed by experts and citing the specific people and studies who've generated them; maybe the same should be done for Determinism?
Could you be any more arrogant?
Could I be any more reasonable?
I think you've not even put in a minimum amount of effort in your suggested definitions at framing them in a way compatibilists, or determinists, themselves would agree with. That's a good litmus test for any provided description or definition of someone else's position.
IC, you keep missing addressing the below, are you resigned to the fact that I am right and you are wrong?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 5:16 pm
The problem for both sides is what to do with two clear facts: 1) that all choices happen within circumstances, or can be influenced by things, but 2) that our powers of making choices seem to us to be so genuine that we all act, all the time, as if Determinism is not the case. And this is the Gordian Knot that Compatibilism tries to cut: it tries to say "Determinism is true, but since we don't know it's true, and since we act like it's not, the two things are "compatible."
But they're not. Either human will makes A difference, or human will makes NO difference. If it makes any difference at all, then the "free will" position is true; if it makes none at all, then Determinism is true.
Your premises are non-sequitur to your conclusion that it's either Determinism or Free-Will with no Compatibilism.
Nobody can refute against the fundamental property of the observable universe, that it operates by deterministic causality. However, humans having free-will within that deterministic universe and having some affect on the causality of the rest of the causality of the deterministic universe does NOT mean compatibilism is not valid.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 5:16 pmSo Compatibilism has no real status or value as an explanation.
Only to you, likely because you don't like the concept of any type of determinism where the universe is concerned since that would conflict with you faith in God and 'His' direction(s).
I can help you on that point as one with understanding of God, but you probably won't want to hear what I have to say.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 5:16 pm
The problem for both sides is what to do with two clear facts: 1) that all choices happen within circumstances, or can be influenced by things, but 2) that our powers of making choices seem to us to be so genuine that we all act, all the time, as if Determinism is not the case. And this is the Gordian Knot that Compatibilism tries to cut: it tries to say "Determinism is true, but since we don't know it's true, and since we act like it's not, the two things are "compatible."
But they're not. Either human will makes A difference, or human will makes NO difference. If it makes any difference at all, then the "free will" position is true; if it makes none at all, then Determinism is true.
Your premises are non-sequitur to your conclusion that it's either Determinism or Free-Will with no Compatibilism.
Nobody can refute against the fundamental property of the observable universe, that it operates by deterministic causality. However, humans having free-will within that deterministic universe and having some affect on the causality of the rest of the causality of the deterministic universe does NOT mean compatibilism is not valid.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 5:16 pmSo Compatibilism has no real status or value as an explanation.
Only to you, likely because you don't like the concept of any type of determinism where the universe is concerned since that would conflict with you faith in God and 'His' direction(s).
I can help you on that point as one with understanding of God, but you probably won't want to hear what I have to say.
How could humans be causally efficacious if the world evolves deterministically?
Sorry bahman, I missed this question.
So human free-will can have affects on the deterministic universe, like when I drive my car into a lamp post and that then falls onto a fundamentalist Christians car. Then the 'Christian' loses his job because he is late to work.
You go one way or the other based on your goals. Or one path looks nicer. Or someone has told you that there is a pot of gold at the end of the right-hand path. Whatever. You made a decision for some reason.
That is what I call it non-free or conditional decision. How could you be free in a decision if you do it for a specific reason? Now think of a fork in a road in which you don't know which one take you to your destination. You don't have any reason to prefer one road over another. Can you choose one of the roads?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 10:37 am
A thermostat cannot function without the mind.
So, when did think start changing? At what point in evolution, say.
The mind has existed since the beginning of time and it will exist forever. This is off-topic but I have an argument for the existence of the mind. You can find it here.
