compatibilism

[BigMike]

Or are you another "free will determinist" like BigMike?

Oh dear. He has returned, revealing once more his inability to comprehend that, unlike billiard balls, people can remember and acquire knowledge, and the implications of this fact.

[phyllo]

What is a "free will determinist"?

It can't be the same as compatibilist. So what is it?

[BigMike]

What is a "free will determinist"?

It can't be the same as compatibilist. So what is it?

According to him, determinists who claim they can remember, learn, and therefore act based on what they've learned, admit to having free will.

[phyllo]

Memory does not contradict the "laws of nature". And learning is just acting based on the contents of memory.

It doesn't seem to be particularly problematic.

[BigMike]

Memory does not contradict the "laws of nature". And learning is just acting based on the contents of memory.

It doesn't seem to be particularly problematic.

This is what I've been attempting to convey to him. However, he has a mental obstruction or something that hinders his intellectual comprehension. In the end I just had to foe-list him.

[Iwannaplato]

What is a "free will determinist"?

It can't be the same as compatibilist. So what is it?

According to him, determinists who claim they can remember, learn, and therefore act based on what they've learned, admit to having free will.

'Learn' has positive connotations. It is a subset of being affected by what happens to you interacting with your tendencies (genetics + earlier causes). How do you determine if it was 'learning' or any one of all the other types of determined processes that do not have positive connotations? How do you know that your conclusions came from learning as opposed to emotional needs? If the answer is, well I examined the process I used to come to that conclusion, the problem is your evaluation is also caused. You might have done it well, you might not, and the same causes that can skew the first process, can and often do, as far as I can see, skew the evaluation process.

Anyone arguing that we cannot learn, I think, is backing a poor argument. But anyone asserting they know that their processes were learning and not something else without the positive connotations is also claiming some transcendent view of themselves, outside determined causation.

Once you acknowledge you are compelled to reach a certain conclusion and compelled also to think it is correct, you should also know that you cannot possibly be objective about this. Your thinking and all the qualia making your conclusions seem correct are all utterly determined.

Again, I am not saying that you must be wrong or that some thinkers can't be better than others. But humility should cast a really strong pall over the proceedings.

My point is that using the verb 'learn' implies that your/our conclusions are rational and we can judge them that way, accurately that is. But a belief in determinism should make us very wary of anything even close to certainty.

If you or Phyllo now want to say that believing in free will entails fallibility also or the like, you are missing the point. If your belief entails X, it doesn't change matters if some other belief entails X. That's another topic. Further, it's not fallibility I am pointing out. What I am pointing out is that belief in determinism entails an inability to know exactly why we decide what we decide, because that evaluation is itself utterly determined (pardon the redundancy of 'utterly'). It had to seem like it was learning rather than a conclusion based on some psychological need, for example.

This is not part of an argument for free will nor am I a proponent of free will. I have a lot of trouble with free will arguments also. But, since they are more nebulous and I am unclear what they would entail, I tend to criticize them less. Though I do criticism them. I think what is entailed by determinism is easier to point out, though not easy.

[iambiguous]

Okay, if you don't have free will as some understand it, then your "FFS" emotional reaction here is no less embedded in the only possible reality. And somebody could have not told you what they did and you could have not observed anything other than what your brain wholly in sync with laws of matter compelled you to observe. There can be no true errors as the libertarians encompass them because there can be no wrong observation and wrong reasoning. At least not in the sense that they are wrong because you did have the option to get them right but fucked up.

Are we [compelled or not] on the same page here in regard to that? Or are you another "free will determinist" like BigMike?

That "libertarian" standard for right/wrong doesn't make sense because even people with free-will could not be wrong.

Click.

You're kidding me, right? Yes, in a bona fide free will world, you can of your own volition get something wrong. You can argue that the MAGA Republicans succeeded in ushering in a massive red wave in Tuesday's elections here in America and now have an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate.

You'd be wrong but...but what if we lived in a wholly determined universe? What does it mean to be wrong about something that you were never able to be right about? The election, the election results and the individual reactions to the results unfold in the only possible reality. Just as this very exchange between us here does.

If a person with free-will has the option to select between right or wrong answers then he will always select the right one unless he is being deliberately deceptive. But in fact, he does not have the option because he doesn't know what the right answer is.

But there is a right answer in regard to the election results. And someone in a free will world might get it wrong because he or she might be ignorant of the right answer. Or maybe they convince themselves that the whole election process was Biden/Trump all over again. Overall, the votes were a sham and their guys really won.

Here is an example for you:

Joe has free-will but he doesn't know how to multiply numbers. He thinks 6x7=43.

Therefore when asked to answer what is 6x7? he replies with 43.

He does not have the option of answering with the correct answer 42 because he cannot do the math.

He is in the same position as determinist Andy who also thinks 6x7=43. Joe is equally limited by this ability and experience.

This shows that right and wrong cannot be based on the option to "get it right".

In this example, right and wrong is based on being consistent with the mathematical system.

Again, I'll be the first to admit that, sure, maybe your thinking here is more reasonable than mine. But we definitely think about it differently.

From my perspective, in a free will world, Joe, of his own volition, thinks 6 x 7 = 43. But if, of his own volition, he had a mastery of arithmetic, he'd know and say that it was 42.

Now, in a wholly determined universe as I understand it, he could say that it equaled 43 or 6.99 or, 1,833, or -10,549.

But what he could not do is to opt to say it was anything other than what his brain compelled him to say it was.

Ontological: I exist out in a particular world understood in a particular way. But how does that fit into the reason existence itself exists?
Teleological: does my individual existence have any essential, ultimate meaning and purpose?
Deontological: is there a way for me to know how I ought to behave when interacting with others?

Find someone who wants to go down that path. It's not me.

In other words, given a free will world, in my view, you don't have a clue as to how to respond to what I note here intelligently.



Note to others:

Give it a shot. Note how, in a free will world, my assessment of these "ologically words" are not a reasonable path to go down.

[iambiguous]

Or are you another "free will determinist" like BigMike?

Oh dear. He has returned, revealing once more his inability to comprehend that, unlike billiard balls, people can remember and acquire knowledge, and the implications of this fact.

With BigMike, I have grappled futilely to understand just what he means by determinism.

As noted above and on his own thread...

He's a determinist, but does he include his own posts here as inherently, necessarily in sync with the only possible material reality? It doesn't appear so. Why? Because he'll often make this distinction between thinking/choosing wisely [like he does] and thinking/choosing foolishly [like those who don't think/choose as he does].

In my view, a rather typical Big Mike "intellectual contraption" assessment:

This means that the options should be able to be "transitively" ranked from least to most preferred. When I say "transitively," I mean that if you have two choices, one of them is at least as good as the other. When x is at least as good as y, we say x ≥ y. Transitivity means that if x ≥ y and y ≥ z, then x ≥ z. This allows the ordering to take place. Hence, you use the same operation to choose between three or any number of choices, not just two. You wouldn't be able to choose without this. When there is a tie, the goal changes to breaking the tie. You could use "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe," or flip a coin, or you could do something else.

To which I responded:

Whereas as I am far more interested myself in how thinking like this is applicable to Mary aborting Jane. The part where determinism, as understood by him, pertains to moral responsibility.

If he has ever gone there, I missed it.

And this:

And there's the BigMike here who [to me] seems to argue precisely that [about determinism] himself. But then there's also the "free will determinist" BigMike who seems to differentiate wise posts [his] from unwise posts [posts that fail to agree entirely with his].

That's the BigMike I'm grappling to understand given either an inherently fated/destined, wholly determined world or one in which both he and I "somehow" did acquire free will when "somehow" lifeless matter evolved into living matter that "somehow" evolved into us.

Now, alas, I'm in yet another one of henry's "penalty boxes". BigMike need not be concerned at all anymore with the points I raise.

On the other hand, the particularly fierce fulminating fanatic objectivists have been reacting to me like this for years. They know what is at stake for their precious "my way or the highway" Self when I get into their head.

[BigMike]

'Learn' has positive connotations. It is a subset of being affected by what happens to you interacting with your tendencies (genetics + earlier causes). How do you determine if it was 'learning' or any one of all the other types of determined processes that do not have positive connotations? How do you know that your conclusions came from learning as opposed to emotional needs? If the answer is, well I examined the process I used to come to that conclusion, the problem is your evaluation is also caused. You might have done it well, you might not, and the same causes that can skew the first process, can and often do, as far as I can see, skew the evaluation process.

Anyone arguing that we cannot learn, I think, is backing a poor argument. But anyone asserting they know that their processes were learning and not something else without the positive connotations is also claiming some transcendent view of themselves, outside determined causation.

Once you acknowledge you are compelled to reach a certain conclusion and compelled also to think it is correct, you should also know that you cannot possibly be objective about this. Your thinking and all the qualia making your conclusions seem correct are all utterly determined.

Again, I am not saying that you must be wrong or that some thinkers can't be better than others. But humility should cast a really strong pall over the proceedings.

My point is that using the verb 'learn' implies that your/our conclusions are rational and we can judge them that way, accurately that is. But a belief in determinism should make us very wary of anything even close to certainty.

If you or Phyllo now want to say that believing in free will entails fallibility also or the like, you are missing the point. If your belief entails X, it doesn't change matters if some other belief entails X. That's another topic. Further, it's not fallibility I am pointing out. What I am pointing out is that belief in determinism entails an inability to know exactly why we decide what we decide, because that evaluation is itself utterly determined (pardon the redundancy of 'utterly'). It had to seem like it was learning rather than a conclusion based on some psychological need, for example.

This is not part of an argument for free will nor am I a proponent of free will. I have a lot of trouble with free will arguments also. But, since they are more nebulous and I am unclear what they would entail, I tend to criticize them less. Though I do criticism them. I think what is entailed by determinism is easier to point out, though not easy.

Thank you for communicating your view so precisely. It demonstrates how "learn" can be used in a variety of contexts. However, it appears that you are not satisfied with either the opinion of the majority or your own.

You appear to want a completely deterministic explanation of how people learn, which is closer to my own definition of learning (which, incidentally, I stole from Nobel laureate Eric R. Kandel's book "In search of memory").

Let me attempt to be as clear as you are when I use the terms "learn" and "learning," particularly when arguing against free will.

I'm not referring to the fact that most students use "learning" and "studying" interchangeably, which reflects our subjective perception of the process. As I use the term, "learning" is determined at the molecular level.

A few months ago, I went out of my way to provide a thorough explanation to Immanuel Can. I stated the following at the time, and I still believe it:

Immanuel does not understand how memory and learning works at the molecular level. He doesn't know how dopamine and serotonin (both of which are neurotransmitters as well as hormones) cause catalytic subunits to break off of protein kinase A enzymes in the axon terminals causing, in the first instance, an increased influx of Ca++ ions upon the arrival of action potentials.

The increased number of Ca++ ions stick to more neurotransmitter vesicles causing them to dock to and fuse with the neuron's inside walls, opening a channel to the synaptic cleft into which the vesicles' contents are emptied. That process, aided by the increased Ca++ influx, is what strengthens the synapse in the short term. This is how short term memory works.

As the catalytic subunits break down and disappear, however, the short term memory fades. However, repeated dopamine and serotonin stimuli cause, by chance, that sooner or later one of the subunits floats all the way up to the neuron's soma, where the cell's nucleus is. It enters the nucleus, where the cell's DNA is, and turns on a gene there that via an mRNA produces a protein that causes the growth of new axon terminals. This strengthens the synaptic connection permanently, or at least until its owner reaches old age or gets a neurological disease of some kind. Long term memory, thus established, will, of course, change the flow of nerve signals and affect future behavior.

The hardwired logic in the brain thus finds better ways for the organism to meet its needs. This improved response pattern is what we, from the outside, view as the person making better decisions.

I hope this helps Mr. Can to understand a little better, or at least give him some clues as to what he may want to study closer. He needs to advance beyond his current level of understanding.

[phyllo]

Click.

You're kidding me, right? Yes, in a bona fide free will world, you can of your own volition get something wrong. You can argue that the MAGA Republicans succeeded in ushering in a massive red wave in Tuesday's elections here in America and now have an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate.

You need to think about why you are wrong in a free-will world.

You'd be wrong but...but what if we lived in a wholly determined universe? What does it mean to be wrong about something that you were never able to be right about? The election, the election results and the individual reactions to the results unfold in the only possible reality. Just as this very exchange between us here does.

You need to think about what "never able to be right" means.

Again, I'll be the first to admit that, sure, maybe your thinking here is more reasonable than mine. But we definitely think about it differently.

From my perspective, in a free will world, Joe, of his own volition, thinks 6 x 7 = 43. But if, of his own volition, he had a mastery of arithmetic, he'd know and say that it was 42.

If you had a mastery of arithmetic then you would not be wrong unless you are being deceptive or you are distracted or drunk or impaired in some similar way. But the same is true for the determinist.

Now, in a wholly determined universe as I understand it, he could say that it equaled 43 or 6.99 or, 1,833, or -10,549.

The answer depends on the mistaken method he uses to make the calculation. Same as for the free-will guy.

But what he could not do is to opt to say it was anything other than what his brain compelled him to say it was.

This shows that you did not understand anything about what I said about the options available to the free-will guy.

In other words, given a free will world, in my view, you don't have a clue as to how to respond to what I note here intelligently.

In my own words, I'm only interested in some parts of philosophy.

I'm not interested in responding to this.

[iambiguous]

Click.

You're kidding me, right? Yes, in a bona fide free will world, you can of your own volition get something wrong. You can argue that the MAGA Republicans succeeded in ushering in a massive red wave in Tuesday's elections here in America and now have an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate.

You need to think about why you are wrong in a free-will world.

You're wrong because you are ignorant of the actual truth. Or you're wrong because of your own free will you opted for the incorrect answer.

Why would someone who believed "the MAGA Republicans succeeded in ushering in a massive red wave in Tuesday's elections here in America and now have an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate" be wrong in your free will world?

You'd be wrong but...but what if we lived in a wholly determined universe? What does it mean to be wrong about something that you were never able to be right about? The election, the election results and the individual reactions to the results unfold in the only possible reality. Just as this very exchange between us here does.

You need to think about what "never able to be right" means.

Note to others:

Again, what truly powerful insight on his part am I missing here? In a world where my brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compels me to think what I do -- what I must -- about everything?

Him too though.

So, yeah, he's off the hook.

Again, I'll be the first to admit that, sure, maybe your thinking here is more reasonable than mine. But we definitely think about it differently.

From my perspective, in a free will world, Joe, of his own volition, thinks 6 x 7 = 43. But if, of his own volition, he had a mastery of arithmetic, he'd know and say that it was 42.

If you had a mastery of arithmetic then you would not be wrong unless you are being deceptive or you are distracted or drunk or impaired in some similar way. But the same is true for the determinist.

You mean Joe, right?

And, again, if -- click -- you want to believe that Joe of his own volition chose to master arithmetic so that of his own volition he'd know that 6 X 7 = 42 and not 43 is the same as Joe being compelled to say that 6 X 7 = 43...fine with me.

Now, in a wholly determined universe as I understand it, he could say that it equaled 43 or 6.99 or, 1,833, or -10,549.

The answer depends on the mistaken method he uses to make the calculation. Same as for the free-will guy.

Except the free will guy opted to be proficient at arithmetic so that his method would not be mistaken. Meanwhile the wholly determined guy was never able to opt for any other method but the one that his brain compelled him to.

Thus...

But what he could not do is to opt to say it was anything other than what his brain compelled him to say it was.

This shows that you did not understand anything about what I said about the options available to the free-will guy.

Or this shows that you are compelled by your own brain to understand only that which you were never able to not understand.

Then [for both of us] back to this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Come on, phyllo, some of us may not use those words but almost all of us are familiar with them in regard to our own lives.

Ontological: I exist out in a particular world understood in a particular way. But how does that fit into the reason existence itself exists?
Teleological: does my individual existence have any essential, ultimate meaning and purpose?
Deontological: is there a way for me to know how I ought to behave when interacting with others?

In other words, given a free will world, in my view, you don't have a clue as to how to respond to what I note here intelligently.

In my own words, I'm only interested in some parts of philosophy.

I'm not interested in responding to this.

Fine, given a free will world, we can just allow others here to make of what they will regarding that answer.

[phyllo]

You're wrong because you are ignorant of the actual truth.

And you're ignorant of the truth because you never had a life experience which gave you the truth or gave you a technique for deriving the truth.

Your experiences determine your ability to answer correctly.

Again, what truly powerful insight on his part am I missing here? In a world where my brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compels me to think what I do -- what I must -- about everything?

Same here.

You're "never able to be right" simply because your life experiences have not given you the right answer.

And, again, if -- click -- you want to believe that Joe of his own volition chose to master arithmetic so that of his own volition he'd know that 6 X 7 = 42 and not 43 is the same as Joe being compelled to say that 6 X 7 = 43...fine with me.

Except the free will guy opted to be proficient at arithmetic so that his method would not be mistaken. Meanwhile the wholly determined guy was never able to opt for any other method but the one that his brain compelled him to.

Here you recognize that the free-will guy can't will himself into knowing the right answer. You see a limitation on free-will and volition which puts him into essentially the same boat as the determined guy.

So to solve that problem, you shift to a previous time when he can use his free-will to master mathematics.

But let me suggest to you that people are forced to learn the multiplication tables by their schools and/or their parents when they were children. IOW, the ability to multiply has not been freely chosen but rather it has been pushed onto the child. And if the parent or school has no interest in that sort of learning, then the child will grow up not knowing how to multiply numbers.

Their ability to answer correctly is determined by their life experiences.

[iambiguous]

You're wrong because you are ignorant of the actual truth. Or you're wrong because of your own free will you opted for the incorrect answer.

Why would someone who believed "the MAGA Republicans succeeded in ushering in a massive red wave in Tuesday's elections here in America and now have an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate" be wrong in your free will world?

And you're ignorant of the truth because you never had a life experience which gave you the truth or gave you a technique for deriving the truth.

Your experiences determine your ability to answer correctly.

Sigh...?

As though the experiences one has in a life they are able to opt freely to react to more or less insightfully, is the same as the experiences one has in a life where both the experiences and the reactions unfold in the only possible reality...are the same.

Then, even in a free will world, this part: https://youtu.be/6Zp7dq6b2PI

All of the countless variables that come together in our interactions with others that we are scarcely even aware of...and have virtually no control over.

But few think about that too deeply, right? The implications for their own lives are just too...problematic?

Again, what truly powerful insight on his part am I missing here? In a world where my brain wholly in sync with the laws of mattercompels me to think what I do -- what I must -- about everything?

Him too though.

So, yeah, he's off the hook.

Same here.

You're "never able to be right" simply because your life experiences have not given you the right answer.

Of course, that's what the hard determinists will insist upon. Only they'd suggest further that what you deem to be either the right or the wrong answer is just another experience that is completely beyond your control. Just as their own suggestion is.

And, again, if -- click -- you want to believe that Joe of his own volition chose to master arithmetic so that of his own volition he'd know that 6 X 7 = 42 and not 43 is the same as Joe being compelled to say that 6 X 7 = 43...fine with me.

Except the free will guy opted to be proficient at arithmetic so that his method would not be mistaken. Meanwhile the wholly determined guy was never able to opt for any other method but the one that his brain compelled him to.

Here you recognize that the free-will guy can't will himself into knowing the right answer. You see a limitation on free-will and volition which puts him into essentially the same boat as the determined guy.

Right. Joe, of his own volition in a free will world, figured that mastering arithmetic might be a valuable skill to acquire in regard to his interactions with others. So, having chosen to master it, he knows for certain that if he is to receive 7 shipments of 7 gold bars from Jim over the course of the next 7 days, he will end up with 49 gold bars. But if he had decided of his own free will not to master Arithmetic and thinks that 7 X 7 = 51, he counts 49 gold bars, thinks Jim is ripping him off and blows Jim away.

If, however, he had chosen to master arithmetic, Jim would still be around.

Whereas the wholly determined Joe...from the cradle to the grave...figures only what his wholly determined brain compels him to figure. So, if he does shoot Jim, Jim was always -- fated? destined? -- to be a goner either way.

What's the difference?

So to solve that problem, you shift to a previous time when he can use his free-will to master mathematics.

What problem? For the hard determinists, the past, the present and the future are no less intertwined in the only possible reality. One solves all problems like actors in a movie do. By doing exactly what they are told to do by the director. Only the director is no less scripted by the laws of matter themselves, right?

Well, unless, of course, you are a "free will determinist" like BigMike. Then the future "somehow" becomes more problematic.

But let me suggest to you that people are forced to learn the multiplication tables by their schools and/or their parents when they were children. IOW, the ability to multiply has not been freely chosen but rather it has been pushed onto the child. And if the parent or school has no interest in that sort of learning, then the child will grow up not knowing how to multiply numbers.

Their ability to answer correctly is determined by their life experiences.

Right. And who or what exactly forces the schools and the parents to be interested in teaching the kids? Then back to all of the experiences they have interacting socially, politically and economically out in a particular world understood in a particular way historically and culturally. Then back to the evolution of life itself on Earth. Then all the way back to the definitive explanation for how and why life on Earth fits into the existence of existence itself.

Your God, perhaps?

Or is that just the part your brain compels you not to be interested in "philosophically"?

[phyllo]

As though the experiences one has in a life they are able to opt freely to react to more or less insightfully, is the same as the experiences one has in a life where both the experiences and the reactions unfold in the only possible reality...are the same.

They are not the same?

How are they different?

What problem?

The problem that free-will doesn't help when you are asked to solve a math problem.

And if it doesn't help there, then when does it help? When does it kick in? Which situations are you using free-will and why only in those and not in all situations?

Why do you have to shift back to freely opting to master math? How is that point more special?

One solves all problems like actors in a movie do. By doing exactly what they are told to do by the director.

What director? Who? Who is making them do stuff?

[iambiguous]

Sigh...?

As though the experiences one has in a life they are able to opt freely to react to more or less insightfully, is the same as the experiences one has in a life where both the experiences and the reactions unfold in the only possible reality...are the same.

Then, even in a free will world, this part: https://youtu.be/6Zp7dq6b2PI

All of the countless variables that come together in our interactions with others that we are scarcely even aware of...and have virtually no control over.

But few think about that too deeply, right? The implications for their own lives are just too...problematic?

They are not the same?

How are they different?

Back to Mary and Jane. In a free will world, Mary decides of her own volition to change her mind and not to abort Jane because a friend of her own volition talks her out of it.

Jane is around today to talk about it.

In a wholly determined world where Mary aborts Jane, every material variable/factor comes together only as it must...resulting in Jane being aborted only as she must be.

Jane is not around today to talk about it. Ask her about the difference.

Then how we [compelled or not] think about that differently.

Only I'm not insisting that how I think about is more reasonable than how you or others think about it. Why? Because I'm still stumped in being unable to explain this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

While, uh, you're not?

Here you recognize that the free-will guy can't will himself into knowing the right answer. You see a limitation on free-will and volition which puts him into essentially the same boat as the determined guy.

Right. Joe, of his own volition in a free will world, figured that mastering arithmetic might be a valuable skill to acquire in regard to his interactions with others. So, having chosen to master it, he knows for certain that if he is to receive 7 shipments of 7 gold bars from Jim over the course of the next 7 days, he will end up with 49 gold bars. But if he had decided of his own free will not to master Arithmetic and thinks that 7 X 7 = 51, he counts 49 gold bars, thinks Jim is ripping him off and blows Jim away.

If, however, he had chosen to master arithmetic, Jim would still be around.

Whereas the wholly determined Joe...from the cradle to the grave...figures only what his wholly determined brain compels him to figure. So, if he does shoot Jim, Jim was always -- fated? destined? -- to be a goner either way.

What's the difference?

The problem that free-will doesn't help when you are asked to solve a math problem.

Huh? Joe having free will resulted in Jim still being around. Like Jane. For Jim, of course, the solution was free will.

And if it doesn't help there, then when does it help? When does it kick in? Which situations are you using free-will and why only in those and not in all situations?

What, you think I'm suggesting that, even given free will, I can demonstrate when free will "kicked in" in the human brain when lifeless matter "somehow" evolved into living matter "somehow" evolved into conscious matter "somehow" evolved into us?

You're the one who seems to "shrug" that part away as something that doesn't interest you philosophically.

Why do you have to shift back to freely opting to master math? How is that point more special?

Well, that's the point, the determinists argue. If you do, you had to because you are never able not to.

For the hard determinists, the past, the present and the future are no less intertwined in the only possible reality. One solves all problems like actors in a movie do. By doing exactly what they are told to do by the director. Only the director is no less scripted by the laws of matter themselves, right?

Well, unless, of course, you are a "free will determinist" like BigMike. Then the future "somehow" becomes more problematic.

What director? Who? Who is making them do stuff?

Well, for some here it's God, of course. And, miraculously enough, they are even able to "somehow" reconcile God's omniscience with human autonomy.

Then those pantheist who make the universe itself God. Whatever that means...teleologically?

For determinists, it's the laws of matter -- nature.

Though, again, come on, whatever that means, right?