Free will, freedom from what?

[phyllo]

He left out the third possibility: the free will can change his mind, do differently, in any rewind, but: given that his circumstances in each run thru are the same, why would he?

Which means that the free-will and the determinist are doing exactly the same thing ... picking the "best" choice based on some algorithm.

And the inputs to that algorithm are the current state of the world.

[phyllo]

In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity. The philosophy of action provides us with a standard conception and a standard theory of action. The former construes action in terms of intentionality, the latter explains the intentionality of action in terms of causation by the agent’s mental states and events. From this, we obtain a standard conception and a standard theory of agency.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agency/

[Flannel Jesus]

In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity. The philosophy of action provides us with a standard conception and a standard theory of action. The former construes action in terms of intentionality, the latter explains the intentionality of action in terms of causation by the agent’s mental states and events. From this, we obtain a standard conception and a standard theory of agency.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agency/

And in addition, this overview from wikipedia provides a plethora of uses of the word "agent" that don't require it to "initiate" a chain of causality out of nothing, and many of which are explicitly compatiblist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

ctrl+f search for agent, there's so many there

[phyllo]

Yeah, I don't know where he is getting "initiate".

And is that "initiate from nothing" or "initiate from previous causes" or something else?

[Flannel Jesus]

Yeah, I don't know where he is getting "initiate".

And is that "initiate from nothing" or "initiate from previous causes" or something else?

If I want water, I can stand up and walk downstairs and get some. Did I "initiate" that chain of causality? I personally wouldn't use the word "initiate". My choice to stand up and go get water has causal precedence - the fact that I'm a little bit dehydrated, the fact that I have a preference to stay hydrated, and so on. There were things that preceded my choice that played a huge causal role in my choice. So... yeah I'm with you on that one, I can't be entirely on board with the 'initiate' language -- AND it's clear from many resources that incompatiblist ideas about what it means to be an "agent" don't have a monopoly on how to understand the term "agent".

[henry quirk]

Which means that the free-will and the determinist are doing exactly the same thing

No.

Determinism, in effect, sez we're on a road with no exits and we can do nuthin' but drive up and down it, in a car with a preset speed, that steers itself.

Compatibilism sez, in effect, we're on a road with no exits, in a self-driving car with a preset speed, and we get to turn the interior light on and off.

The free will sez, in effect, screw the road, I'll make my own exit and go muddin'

[phyllo]

Probably what is messing you up the most is the idea that things are "predetermined" and so you think unchangeable.

[henry quirk]

Probably what is messing you up the most is the idea that things are "predetermined" and so you think unchangeable.

No. I think you don't really know what hard determinism (necessitarianism) entails. You mistake it for soft determinism (compatibilism).

[Self-Lightening]

Entropy is another "clock," just as the universal expansion rate is a kind of "clock," that we can rewind back to the starting point.

We could never rewind it all the way back, just as it will never unwind all the way.

You're missing the point. Yes, we can mentally rewind the clock,

Yes, of course I meant rewind mentally...

wind it back by maths, just if I ask you to count backwards, you can do it. If we are at point 10 in entropy, and we know that entropy is moving forward (both of which we can easily verify, of course), then we can count back to the "0" point very easily, too.

My God, you're a simplist... Wind it back "by maths"? "Point 10 in entropy"? You can't be serious.

Fires run out of fuel. Mountains wear down. Automobiles deteriorate. Stars themselves burn out. Paper thrown into the air lands randomly. In these phenomena, and in billions of other ways, we see entropy. In fact, it's probably our best-established natural law, the second law of thermodynamics.

So we know that the Earth had a beginning, though we were not at it. We can even deduce some details about it from our present state. But we know for sure that there was a beginning, and no reasonable or scientific person can deny there was.

None of these things, including the Earth, of course, are the universe.

Well stars and galaxies are:

Stars and galaxies are the universe? "The Galaxy is on Orion's Belt"?

YouTube/Cut Scenes, "Orion's Belt Unlocked: Unveiling the Cosmic Enigma | Men in Black (Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones)"

"Heat death" is a term that applies to the whole universe, not merely to Earth.

Yes, and I'm saying heat death, a.k.a. the Big Chill or Freeze, will never be complete. In that sense, the Big Bang is the "beginning" that never began, even now; and the Big Chill is the "ending" that will never end, even now. Even now, the universe is "banging"—expanding—and "chilling"—being entropized. It will never stop doing either.

Again, you're mistaking what people knew at a given time, from what was true at that same time. The Earth was round before people had telescopes.

Now, if you think there's any evidence that in ancient times, say, iron was sentient, or hydrogen was philosophical and self-aware, I'll happily see your evidence.

Again, "philosophical" and "self-aware" is your straw man.

No, it was your claim. You said they even had consciousness of their own existence: that means they were self-aware.

I suggested they existed to themselves. And I quoted and wrote:

"In philosophy of self, self-awareness is the experience of one's own personality or individuality. It is not to be confused with consciousness in the sense of qualia. While consciousness is being aware of one's body and environment, self-awareness is the recognition of that consciousness."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness

I was talking about consciousness in the sense of qualia. Thus I said "existing to themselves", not "existing to themselves as existing to themselves". The latter is a special case of existing to oneself as something, which rabbits (self-)evidently do.

Did you miss or ignore that?—Rabbits are evidently aware of their bodies as their bodies.

[Immanuel Can]

That is exactly what Determinism requires: that they are not "responding," which would suggest they could have a causal impact, but that rather they are dumb terminals in a chain that precedes them, continues after them, and on which their cognitions, choices and beliefs have zero impact.

I don't how you think cause and effect could work if determinists ignore causes.

It's of no consequence whatsoever, from a Determinist perspective, who ignores or doesn't ignore anything, including all the Determinists themselves. In their view, human beings aren't causal agents but rather total pawns of prior conditions.

Responding is fundamental to cause and effect.

Not according to Determinism. One doesn't have to "respond" at all, and Determinism will say the outcome would have been the same.

The the person you're calling a "determinist" is volitionally altering the causal chain. He's changing things as a result of his own decision. And that's what Determinism holds is impossible for him to do.

His decision is based on previous causes.

"Decision" is not a causal agency, according to Determinism. They have to believe that "decisions" are mere products of prior material conditions, not "responses" or "choices," or anything else like that.

[Immanuel Can]

None of these things, including the Earth, of course, are the universe.

Well stars and galaxies are:

Stars and galaxies are the universe? "The Galaxy is on Orion's Belt"?

Don't be silly. You know exactly what I mean.

The universe is composed of such things...and a whole lot more. And the universe is both expanding and entropic.

...the Big Bang is the "beginning" that never began,

Self-contradiction, and a denial of science.

Did you miss or ignore that?—Rabbits are evidently aware of their bodies as their bodies.

Actually, I thought it was such an absurdity that I chose to ignore it out of charity.

There are two reasons: one, you haven't got, and could never have, any understanding of "rabbit experience" that would allow you to be competent t to make such a claim; and two, it mistakes "aware of body" for "self-aware," which are totally different claims. A paramecium has a rudimentary sense of body, in that it can experience stimuli that impact its outer membrane. But that's nothing to do with it being self-aware. Self-awareness requires the ability for one to conceptualize oneself as existing distinct from other things, so as to objectify and contemplate those other things and/or oneself. If you think rabbits can do that, let's see your evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

Probably what is messing you up the most is the idea that things are "predetermined" and so you think unchangeable.

No. I think you don't really know what hard determinism (necessitarianism) entails. You mistake it for soft determinism (compatibilism).

It's worse than that. He thinks that he can blithely incorporate human volition into his account -- saying, for example, that people "pick" according to what seems "best" to them (his terms) -- without thereby debunking Determinism completely.

Of course, he's wrong. The moment he brings in human volition as determinative, or even as a necessary link in his description, he's denied that Determinism is true.

[promethean75]

1000003300.jpg

[Atla]

Yes, and I'm saying heat death, a.k.a. the Big Chill or Freeze, will never be complete. In that sense, the Big Bang is the "beginning" that never began, even now; and the Big Chill is the "ending" that will never end, even now. Even now, the universe is "banging"—expanding—and "chilling"—being entropized. It will never stop doing either.

Even after you correct him, IC will continue lying that there is scientific evidence for the actual beginning and end of the universe. It's a part of his game.

[Self-Lightening]

Well stars and galaxies are:

Stars and galaxies are the universe? :shock: "The Galaxy is on Orion's Belt"?

Don't be silly. You know exactly what I mean.

The universe is composed of such things...and a whole lot more. And the universe is both expanding and entropic.

The universe, however, is the only thing of its sort, whereas the things it's composed of are not. (I'm using the word "universe" here in its original sense as a Latin loan-translation of the Greek "whole".)

...the Big Bang is the "beginning" that never began,

Self-contradiction, and a denial of science.

Note the quotes, which I added especially for you.

Did you miss or ignore that?—Rabbits are evidently aware of their bodies as their bodies.

Actually, I thought it was such an absurdity that I chose to ignore it out of charity.

There are two reasons: one, you haven't got, and could never have, any understanding of "rabbit experience" that would allow you to be competent t to make such a claim;

Even if it wasn't evident, it's less far-fetched to suppose other beings are subjects than to suppose that they are objects, of which we have inside knowledge whatsoever.

and two, it mistakes "aware of body" for "self-aware," which are totally different claims.

And it was never my claim that they were self-aware now, was it!