compatibilism

[Harbal]

I think a fairer assessment is that some of our decisions may be made that way. But I would also suggest that to say they're ALL made that way, and no other, is far too strong a claim upon which to settle.

Yes, that's what I think.

But that view, the view that attributes causal power to the subconscious, is also is not Determinism. Determinism sticks strictly to the material-causal, or to some other such singular "determinant," like Fate,

Yes, I know that, I was just mentioning it incidentally.

[Immanuel Can]

I think a fairer assessment is that some of our decisions may be made that way. But I would also suggest that to say they're ALL made that way, and no other, is far too strong a claim upon which to settle.

Yes, that's what I think.

But that view, the view that attributes causal power to the subconscious, is also is not Determinism. Determinism sticks strictly to the material-causal, or to some other such singular "determinant," like Fate,

Yes, I know that, I was just mentioning it incidentally.

Fair enough.

So Determinism's a problematic view. It has no account of consciousness or the subconscious in its list of possible causal agents. But it's also quite obvious that we all live, act and proceed as if consciousness (and the subconscious) are real and important things, and that we live amid alternate possibilities, and that our choices matter and change things. Even a self-identified Determinist does.

So it's up to the Determinist to prove we're wrong to do that.

[henry quirk]

You're missin' the point, H.

I also usually miss my thumb when I am hammering.

And some of us have been "hammered" without any thumbs being involved at all.

Many times, though not recently.

[BigMike]

So Determinism's a problematic view. It has no account of consciousness or the subconscious in its list of possible causal agents.

This is due to the fact that "consciousness or the subconscious" are not "possible causal agents".
Following Laplace, it is a hypothesis we do not require. When Napoleon asked him: "You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author [God] of the universe," he replied: "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis."

But it's also quite obvious that we all live, act and proceed as if consciousness (and the subconscious) are real and important things, and that we live amid alternate possibilities, and that our choices matter and change things. Even a self-identified Determinist does.

So it's up to the Determinist to prove we're wrong to do that.

Again, utter nonsense. Determinists are not required to demonstrate the influence of consciousness (or the subconscious) on events. You must first demonstrate that it does and that it, itself, is not caused. Then, perhaps, science would be required to explain how. However, you bear the first burden of proof.

You sound like the Pennsylvania school board (I believe) that rejected gravity because it could not explain how angels could fly. Naturally, the school board should demonstrate that angels exist and can fly before making such a stupid claim.

[Iwannaplato]

So Determinism's a problematic view. It has no account of consciousness or the subconscious in its list of possible causal agents.

Consciousness is certainly causal, if anything is, or it wouldn't be a topic of discussion. We are reacting to an existent phenomenon, so consciousness is part of the causes and effects of the world.

Is it an agent?

Well, pure determinism, it seems to me eliminates all agency. Stuff happens, that's it. Either every phenomenon in determinism is an agent or there are none, since in terms of cause and effect every phenomenon is the same. It has been led to by causes and like a domino sends and effect on to the next thing.

Unless there's a block universe and there's no cause and effects at all.

But my main point is that sometimes consciousness is judged to be a mere witness (epiphenomenalism). If it was only an effect, a kind of side effect, we would never mention it. It would not be cause enough to be noticed.

(this was no me arguing for free will or determinism, just pointing out some of what I think is entailed by determinism, if it is true, and also my opinion on epiphenomenalism)

[Belinda]

So Determinism's a problematic view. It has no account of consciousness or the subconscious in its list of possible causal agents.

Consciousness is certainly causal, if anything is, or it wouldn't be a topic of discussion. We are reacting to an existent phenomenon, so consciousness is part of the causes and effects of the world.

Is it an agent?

Well, pure determinism, it seems to me eliminates all agency. Stuff happens, that's it. Either every phenomenon in determinism is an agent or there are none, since in terms of cause and effect every phenomenon is the same. It has been led to by causes and like a domino sends and effect on to the next thing.

Unless there's a block universe and there's no cause and effects at all.

But my main point is that sometimes consciousness is judged to be a mere witness (epiphenomenalism). If it was only an effect, a kind of side effect, we would never mention it. It would not be cause enough to be noticed.

(this was no me arguing for free will or determinism, just pointing out some of what I think is entailed by determinism, if it is true, and also my opinion on epiphenomenalism)

"Block Universe" is not true of determinism, because the image block universe is that of an object in time and space, such as a stone cube, or a block of wood or concrete.

What is true of determinism is that what happened happened of necessity and could no be otherwise than it was. This definition says nothing of what we rather vaguely refer to as the future.

There may be no future so that Necessity is an open and shut case resembling the stone cube; inert.
However we living men are not faits accomplis but are future -oriented and all our strivings are strivings because we look to the future which we cannot see but must guess at.

[BigMike]

"Block Universe" is not true of determinism, because the image block universe is that of an object in time and space, such as a stone cube, or a block of wood or concrete.

The "Block Universe" adheres technically to the old concept of determinism. However, quantum mechanics is inconsistent with this form of determinism. As I stated roughly a week ago:

True and false. Obviously, the old notion of determinism is no longer valid. Heisenberg stabbed this literal interpretation of determinism in the heart. However, in a modern language, the conservation laws remain valid (even conservation of energy, which for a few years was in serious doubt). Determinism in its amended sense, conformity to conservation principles (which, by the way, are the basis of all physical laws), remains valid.

The concept of a "Block Universe" cannot therefore be taken literally. It should only be used as a visual/mental approximation of space-time and the world contained within it.

[Iwannaplato]

Unless there's a block universe and there's no cause and effects at all.

"Block Universe" is not true of determinism, because the image block universe is that of an object in time and space, such as a stone cube, or a block of wood or concrete.

I said 'Unless there is a block universe....' I don't know what the phrase 'not true of determinism' means. Block universe or eternalism positions are a kind of determinism, though not the causal chain kind, since they do not have time, hence they don't have cause and effect, though they sure are determined.

What is true of determinism is that what happened happened of necessity and could no be otherwise than it was. This definition says nothing of what we rather vaguely refer to as the future.

It doesn't give any details because our perspective is limited. I don't think I mentioned the future. But, in any case, the future would be determined, of course, as well. So, it says that.

There may be no future so that Necessity is an open and shut case resembling the stone cube; inert.
However we living men are not faits accomplis but are future -oriented and all our strivings are strivings because we look to the future which we cannot see but must guess at.

I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing or quite how this relates to what I wrote. We generally don't experience ourselves as fait accomplis but then we would be in determinism. Of course that doesn't logically entail that we should stop striving, though some might react, inevitably, that way.

[Immanuel Can]

So Determinism's a problematic view. It has no account of consciousness or the subconscious in its list of possible causal agents.

This is due to the fact that "consciousness or the subconscious" are not "possible causal agents".
Following Laplace, it is a hypothesis we do not require. When Napoleon asked him: "You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author [God] of the universe," he replied: "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis."

Yeah. Laplace was wrong. Kind of like Napoleon, actually.

But it's also quite obvious that we all live, act and proceed as if consciousness (and the subconscious) are real and important things, and that we live amid alternate possibilities, and that our choices matter and change things. Even a self-identified Determinist does.

So it's up to the Determinist to prove we're wrong to do that.

Determinists are not required to demonstrate the influence of consciousness (or the subconscious) on events.[/quote]
No, that is not what I said. Let's not distort here, Mikey.

Determinists have an obligation to show that the way that everybody on the planet -- including all Determinists -- normally behave is irrational. Because Determinism itself cannot be "lived." No Determinist in the history of the world has been able to live as a Determinist is logically required to.

That's why the burden of proof is on him. He has to show that, in believing that Determinism is the right explanation of reality, he's not merely a hypocrite, liar and/or fool. Because the default condition of life suggests he is one of those, since it is manifest he simply cannot live his creed.

[Immanuel Can]

So Determinism's a problematic view. It has no account of consciousness or the subconscious in its list of possible causal agents.

Consciousness is certainly causal, if anything is, or it wouldn't be a topic of discussion.

What are you admitting when you say it "is causal"? That it is "being caused," or that it is "capable of causing"? Your wording could be understood either way, and I don't want to misrepresent that.

Well, pure determinism, it seems to me eliminates all agency. Stuff happens, that's it.

Correct. Except all Determinism has to be "pure." Any place for things like consciousness, identity, rationality, science, mind, or volition is inherently a denial of Determinism itself.

But my main point is that sometimes consciousness is judged to be a mere witness (epiphenomenalism).

The "epiphenomenal" dodge has been rightly identifited and condemned as a non-explanation.

To say "X is an epiphenomenon" is to say, "X is a thing that springs spontaneously into existence without any causal chain we can explain." That doesn't actually "explain" anything at all. It's just a label signifiying incomprehension.

If it was only an effect, a kind of side effect, we would never mention it. It would not be cause enough to be noticed.

That's near to my point to Mike. How do we all "notice" something that, Determinism tells us, is actually a total delusion, with no grounding in reality?

We all know consciousness exists. We all use logic. We all act, and treat others, as if we and they have a 'mind'. We believe that science enables us to "know" things. We all think we have identity, and we make so many choices every single day that we could not live if we really think choices are not causal.

Because everybody ALREADY takes all these things as given, and cannot live without assuming their reality and acting on them, Determinism has to prove we're just all wrong.

That's where the real burden lies.

[Iwannaplato]

What are you admitting when you say it "is causal"? That it is "being caused," or that it is "capable of causing"? Your wording could be understood either way, and I don't want to misrepresent that.

I'm stating, not admitting. I am saying that it also causes and is not just an effect or epiphenomenon.

To say "X is an epiphenomenon" is to say, "X is a thing that springs spontaneously into existence without any causal chain we can explain." That doesn't actually "explain" anything at all. It's just a label signifiying incomprehension.

Usually it seems that it is caused but not causal, in my reading. That anyone knew to write about it, given that it cannot be causal, seems strange to me.

We all know consciousness exists. We all use logic. We all act, and treat others, as if we and they have a 'mind'. We believe that science enables us to "know" things. We all think we have identity, and we make so many choices every single day that we could not live if we really think choices are not causal.

They think of it as a witness.

Because everybody ALREADY takes all these things as given, and cannot live without assuming their reality and acting on them, Determinism has to prove we're just all wrong.

That's where the real burden lies.

I think the burden lies with those who assert, regardless.

[Immanuel Can]

What are you admitting when you say it "is causal"? That it is "being caused," or that it is "capable of causing"? Your wording could be understood either way, and I don't want to misrepresent that.

I'm stating, not admitting. I am saying that it also causes and is not just an effect or epiphenomenon.

I'm glad I asked. Then we agree.

That anyone knew to write about it, given that it cannot be causal, seems strange to me.

A good point.

We all know consciousness exists. We all use logic. We all act, and treat others, as if we and they have a 'mind'. We believe that science enables us to "know" things. We all think we have identity, and we make so many choices every single day that we could not live if we really think choices are not causal.

They think of it as a witness.

It can't "witness."

"Witnessing" is a cognitive action. It's not "material."

Because everybody ALREADY takes all these things as given, and cannot live without assuming their reality and acting on them, Determinism has to prove we're just all wrong.

That's where the real burden lies.

I think the burden lies with those who assert, regardless.

What they "assert" is very simple: that everything has a material-physical cause. And they must show that's true, even in all the things we find it impossible to live without, like personhood, reason, volition, science and so forth.

[BigMike]

So Determinism's a problematic view. It has no account of consciousness or the subconscious in its list of possible causal agents.

This is due to the fact that "consciousness or the subconscious" are not "possible causal agents".
Following Laplace, it is a hypothesis we do not require. When Napoleon asked him: "You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author [God] of the universe," he replied: "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis."

Yeah. Laplace was wrong. Kind of like Napoleon, actually.

That is, to a large extent, all there is to say about it. You are just a crazy religious extremist who is a threat to society and a burden on it. Blacklisted.

[Immanuel Can]

You are just a crazy religious extremist... who is a threat to society and a burden on it. Blacklisted.

Aaaaaad hominem!

Running with your tail between your legs.

"When rationality fails us, we must resort to cream pies."

[promethean75]

"Running with your tail between your legs?"

I have reason to believe the speaker may have committed the complex question fallacy