Philosophy Now Forum

Mistavega wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:06 am For the longest I’ve been a determinist and I’ve seem to have liberated myself by reasoning in the following way. I’m going to be a bit redundant but I’m merely setting up the argument against determinism.

I guess you could say I was determined to be free.

So determinism is the view that there is no free will, basically everything is caused by antecedent conditions. Determinism states that choice is an illusion, basically if you knew the causal chain behind the choices you’ve made you would quickly see that your choices aren’t of your own violition, but merely a causal sequence of events that you did not create.

So, say I was confronted with choice B or choice not B. Determinism would say any choice I made between those two was already determined, it was not possible for me to pick anything other then what I was going to pick. If this is true, then it means it was not logically possible for me to pick anything other then what I did in fact pick. For if I could choose something other then what was determined then determinsm would be false.

So what’s the issue? I would say that determinism implies logical necessity. If there is only one way I can choose then, then it’s not logically possible for me to choose anything other then what I infact chose?

So what’s the problem with that?

The problem with that is if determinism is true, there’s no such thing as logical possibility, everything that comes from determinism is logically necessary. But that’s obviously false just based on the mere fact that I can conceive of choosing “Not B” means that it’s logically possible. If determinism is true how can you conceive of ANY logical possibilities if it’s logically necessary?

I think based on the fact we can conceive multiple possibilities makes us free and our world not logically necessary.

What do you think?

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:27 pm In physics there is a causal chain of events. Nothing internal to the object can change the chain of events. So every physical object is bound to it's past chain and the chain of other objects it contacts.

Mistavega wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:06 am For the longest I’ve been a determinist and I’ve seem to have liberated myself by reasoning in the following way. I’m going to be a bit redundant but I’m merely setting up the argument against determinism.

I guess you could say I was determined to be free.

So determinism is the view that there is no free will, basically everything is caused by antecedent conditions. Determinism states that choice is an illusion, basically if you knew the causal chain behind the choices you’ve made you would quickly see that your choices aren’t of your own violition, but merely a causal sequence of events that you did not create.

So, say I was confronted with choice B or choice not B. Determinism would say any choice I made between those two was already determined, it was not possible for me to pick anything other then what I was going to pick. If this is true, then it means it was not logically possible for me to pick anything other then what I did in fact pick. For if I could choose something other then what was determined then determinsm would be false.

So what’s the issue? I would say that determinism implies logical necessity. If there is only one way I can choose then, then it’s not logically possible for me to choose anything other then what I infact chose?

So what’s the problem with that?

The problem with that is if determinism is true, there’s no such thing as logical possibility, everything that comes from determinism is logically necessary. But that’s obviously false just based on the mere fact that I can conceive of choosing “Not B” means that it’s logically possible. If determinism is true how can you conceive of ANY logical possibilities if it’s logically necessary?

I think based on the fact we can conceive multiple possibilities makes us free and our world not logically necessary.

What do you think?

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:49 am

Mistavega wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:06 am For the longest I’ve been a determinist and I’ve seem to have liberated myself by reasoning in the following way. I’m going to be a bit redundant but I’m merely setting up the argument against determinism.

I guess you could say I was determined to be free.

So determinism is the view that there is no free will, basically everything is caused by antecedent conditions. Determinism states that choice is an illusion, basically if you knew the causal chain behind the choices you’ve made you would quickly see that your choices aren’t of your own violition, but merely a causal sequence of events that you did not create.

So, say I was confronted with choice B or choice not B. Determinism would say any choice I made between those two was already determined, it was not possible for me to pick anything other then what I was going to pick. If this is true, then it means it was not logically possible for me to pick anything other then what I did in fact pick. For if I could choose something other then what was determined then determinsm would be false.

So what’s the issue? I would say that determinism implies logical necessity. If there is only one way I can choose then, then it’s not logically possible for me to choose anything other then what I infact chose?

So what’s the problem with that?

The problem with that is if determinism is true, there’s no such thing as logical possibility, everything that comes from determinism is logically necessary. But that’s obviously false just based on the mere fact that I can conceive of choosing “Not B” means that it’s logically possible. If determinism is true how can you conceive of ANY logical possibilities if it’s logically necessary?

I think based on the fact we can conceive multiple possibilities makes us free and our world not logically necessary.

What do you think?

I think that the notions of logical necessity and possibility do not have a god-damned thing to do with the determinism/free will debate. It's outdated anyway.

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:49 amThe will is influenced.

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:49 am That which is influenced is not free from influence.

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:49 am The closest anyone can get to exercising 'free will' is to acknowledge and recognize that this is true,

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:49 am learn what that entails, and then intentionally choose one's own influences whenever one can.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:03 am

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:49 am
I think that the notions of logical necessity and possibility do not have a god-damned thing to do with the determinism/free will debate. It's outdated anyway.

Is the determinism/free will debate really outdated? I still see some people, like your self TRYING TO debate this topic right up to to this very day, in 2018.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:03 am

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:49 am
That which is influenced is not free from influence.

Well, that makes sense, since it sort of speaks for itself, does it not?

But just because you SAY "the will is influenced" does that mean that that is 100% True, Right, and Correct?

Mistavega wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:06 amFor the longest I’ve been a determinist and I’ve seem to have liberated myself by reasoning in the following way.

... if determinism is true, there’s no such thing as logical possibility, everything that comes from determinism is logically necessary. But that’s obviously false just based on the mere fact that I can conceive of choosing “Not B” means that it’s logically possible. If determinism is true how can you conceive of ANY logical possibilities if it’s logically necessary?

Mistavega wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:06 am For the longest I’ve been a determinist and I’ve seem to have liberated myself by reasoning in the following way. I’m going to be a bit redundant but I’m merely setting up the argument against determinism.

I guess you could say I was determined to be free.

So determinism is the view that there is no free will, basically everything is caused by antecedent conditions. Determinism states that choice is an illusion, basically if you knew the causal chain behind the choices you’ve made you would quickly see that your choices aren’t of your own violition, but merely a causal sequence of events that you did not create.

So, say I was confronted with choice B or choice not B. Determinism would say any choice I made between those two was already determined, it was not possible for me to pick anything other then what I was going to pick. If this is true, then it means it was not logically possible for me to pick anything other then what I did in fact pick. For if I could choose something other then what was determined then determinsm would be false.

So what’s the issue? I would say that determinism implies logical necessity. If there is only one way I can choose then, then it’s not logically possible for me to choose anything other then what I infact chose?

So what’s the problem with that?

The problem with that is if determinism is true, there’s no such thing as logical possibility, everything that comes from determinism is logically necessary. But that’s obviously false just based on the mere fact that I can conceive of choosing “Not B” means that it’s logically possible. If determinism is true how can you conceive of ANY logical possibilities if it’s logically necessary?

I think based on the fact we can conceive multiple possibilities makes us free and our world not logically necessary.

What do you think?