Free will is wholly deterministic

[Sculptor]

When I chose to commit a crime, or not commit a crime I make a decision. The decision is based on a nexus of causalities which include all antecedent conditions including my motivation, volition, physical and mental needs, education, socialisation, experience ad infinitem. It might be difficult for another to predict my choice. But that choice can only make sense if it is the sum of those causalities, the things that make me who I am. There are laws that might deter me, or encourage me. but it is not free in an absolute sense that I am free of the deterministic condition of the universe, the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment. It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine, I make the choice. Free will is illusory, such choices are determined or would be meaningless. I am that agent of determinism compatible with causality and the exercise of my will.

But apparently, God gives us free will. And about that, we have no choice, because he insists upon it. Unless you are a Calvinist, then you don't.

ANyone care to refute?

[Constantine]

Free will exists because we can't determine everything, and are error prone even when we do. We make a mathematical assumption causality is deterministic and turn pessimistic in response. I've worked for highly deterministic governments and know they Fubar. I've fucked up and misunderstood a number of times.

Dialectics is the metric of the mind. It's how we confront concepts against concepts in a kind of Venn diagram. We choose the best relevant product out of our own selfish understandings. We know the worth of all cognitive immaterial things, and want to compare them to objectified measurements like miles to terrain, or flow rates to river currents, but there is no universal or totally sane system of measurement out there, or one ever likely to be constructed to allow for a post scientific exploration of free will or deterministic causality. In the end due to out reliance on consciousness and perception, and our individualized imperfect understanding of how things work, we are left making decisions with insufficient data. It's a duality of contradictions, a buffet we pick and choose from. That's the essence of free will. The presumption of a totality that is finite and determined pushing us is a risky conjecture, rarely can we competently act upon it.

In the end we can only rely on Immanual Kant. God save the king. Shortest debate ever.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X6cogix3c ... llcyBpcmFl

[danileo]

sorry, I want to understand you but I am having problems; what is exactly the process that ocurrs when you decide and generate an act upon something?

[puto]

If A is better than B and B is better than C than A is better than C, but lack the concept of self-evidence so could not know that a proposition is self-evident. Objective claims are not self-evident truths, they must be supported with evidence and deliberation. Sidgwick's: (1) Clear and distinct. (2) Careful reflection. (3) Consistent. (4) General consensus (338.)

[Iwannaplato]

Someone who believes in free will believes, amongst other things, that they have the option to not try to get what they want. They are free to not allow their own wishes, goals and intentions lead to what they they do. This is, for some reasons, positive.
Someone who believes in determinism believes, amongst other things, that their self-evaluations are generally accurate, despite these self-evaulations, including evaluations of their own arguments, for example, being utterly determined and also their own sense of 'having just been rational.'

I've never quite been sure what's so interesting about trying to convince others that their position is incorrect. If you succeed in convincing others that free will or determinism is the case, what's now better?

[phyllo]

Someone who believes in determinism believes, amongst other things, that their self-evaluations are generally accurate, despite these self-evaulations, including evaluations of their own arguments, for example, being utterly determined and also their own sense of 'having just been rational.'

If one looks at the Dunning-Kruger experiments, one sees that self-evaluations can be changed.

So, if we are living in a determined world, then one is not stuck with some 'predetermined' poor evaluation.

And if we are living in a free-will world, then some people with free-will display poor self-evaluation. (The same problem. Which they can also change.)

[Skepdick]

It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine.

The conventional understanding of determinism is thus...

Determinism is the philosophical view that events are completely determined by previously existing causes.

You start off agreeing with the above by talking about the sum total of the antecedent conditions determining your choice, but that's not all.

Your choice is also taking into account the consequences of your choice?!? But you haven't made that choice yet.
So over and above any "sum total of antecedent conditions" you are also taking into account the future which is NOT an " antecedent condition"

So that's not determinism.

[Sculptor]

It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine.

The conventional understanding of determinism is thus...

Determinism is the philosophical view that events are completely determined by previously existing causes.

You start off agreeing with the above by talking about the sum total of the antecedent conditions determining your choice, but that's not all.

Your choice is also taking into account the consequences of your choice?!? But you haven't made that choice yet.
So over and above any "sum total of antecedent conditions" you are also taking into account the future which is NOT an " antecedent condition"

So that's not determinism.

So how did you chose that answer?
Have you ever heard of compatibilism?

[Skepdick]

So how did you chose that answer?

I observed your account of your own reasoning and noticed that it fails to satisfy the very definition of "determinism" you claim to be using.

Have you ever heard of compatibilism?

It doesn't matter because whatever it is you are doing - it's not deterministic. Since there's no conflict - there's also no need for compatibilism.

[Immanuel Can]

When I chose to commit a crime, or not commit a crime I make a decision. The decision is based on a nexus of causalities which include all antecedent conditions including my motivation, volition, physical and mental needs, education, socialisation, experience ad infinitem. It might be difficult for another to predict my choice. But that choice can only make sense if it is the sum of those causalities, the things that make me who I am. There are laws that might deter me, or encourage me. but it is not free in an absolute sense that I am free of the deterministic condition of the universe, the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment. It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine, I make the choice. Free will is illusory, such choices are determined or would be meaningless. I am that agent of determinism compatible with causality and the exercise of my will.

But apparently, God gives us free will. And about that, we have no choice, because he insists upon it. Unless you are a Calvinist, then you don't.

ANyone care to refute?

Your argument, then, isn't being offered to people who can choose to believe it, and it's not being offered by somebody whose reason for offering it is that it's the best argument.

Rather, you were "caused by antecedant conditions" to offer it, and it arrives at people who cannot choose to believe it -- either they are induced by "antecedent conditions" to believe it regardless of its worth as an argument, or they are prevented from believing it by "antecedent condtions" over which they have no control.

So your argument is no longer rational. It does not appeal to reasons, but to "antecedent conditioning."

And since mind itself can't change anything, it's no longer commendable on its rationality, either. So there's no reason for anybody to believe it, other than that they're incapable of disbelieving it because of "antecedent conditions." And those who believe it are not smarter or better off in any way than those who don't, since both only respond to their "antecedent condtions," not to good reasons.

Happy with that? It's the implication of your claim, obviously.

[Sculptor]

When I chose to commit a crime, or not commit a crime I make a decision. The decision is based on a nexus of causalities which include all antecedent conditions including my motivation, volition, physical and mental needs, education, socialisation, experience ad infinitem. It might be difficult for another to predict my choice. But that choice can only make sense if it is the sum of those causalities, the things that make me who I am. There are laws that might deter me, or encourage me. but it is not free in an absolute sense that I am free of the deterministic condition of the universe, the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment. It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine, I make the choice. Free will is illusory, such choices are determined or would be meaningless. I am that agent of determinism compatible with causality and the exercise of my will.

But apparently, God gives us free will. And about that, we have no choice, because he insists upon it. Unless you are a Calvinist, then you don't.

ANyone care to refute?

Your argument, then, isn't being offered to people who can choose to believe it, and it's not being offered by somebody whose reason for offering it is that it's the best argument.

Yes reality does not care what you believe.

Rather, you were "caused by antecedant conditions" to offer it, and it arrives at people who cannot choose to believe it -- either they are induced by "antecedent conditions" to believe it regardless of its worth as an argument, or they are prevented from believing it by "antecedent condtions" over which they have no control.

But I make the argument in the knoweldge that some people would not have heard it had I remained silent.

So your argument is no longer rational. It does not appeal to reasons, but to "antecedent conditioning."

Wrong. Whether or not you have the chops to understand it, does not diminish the rationality of the argument.
And even YOU might oen day hear is enough time to realise that you assinine free will argument has always been bollcoks.

And since mind itself can't change anything, it's no longer commendable on its rationality, either.

Wrong again. Reality is change. Minds cahnge all the time.

So there's no reason for anybody to believe it, other than that they're incapable of disbelieving it because of "antecedent conditions." And those who believe it are not smarter or better off in any way than those who don't, since both only respond to their "antecedent condtions," not to good reasons.

Once again - this is not about belief. You can believe what you will, but you cannot will what you will. There is every reason to set aside your childish belief and smell the coffee of reality.
My typing this argument is an antecedant condition which may or may not convince.

Happy with that? It's the implication of your claim, obviously.

Are you happy with any argument you offer, since I have radical free will, by your estimation nothing you can ever say to me can CAUSE me to change my mind, or anyone's mind since they have alos to chose to beleive something else.
Happy with that? It's the implication of your claim, obviously.

[Sculptor]

So how did you chose that answer?

I observed your account of your own reasoning and noticed that it fails to satisfy the very definition of "determinism" you claim to be using.

Have you ever heard of compatibilism?

It doesn't matter because whatever it is you are doing - it's not deterministic. Since there's no conflict - there's also no need for compatibilism.

I am determined to make this argument, as you are determined to be an arsehole.

[Immanuel Can]

ANyone care to refute?

Your argument, then, isn't being offered to people who can choose to believe it, and it's not being offered by somebody whose reason for offering it is that it's the best argument.

Yes reality does not care what you believe.

Okay. Then reality also doesn't "care" if one disbelieves in Determinism. It's not the argument for Determinism that will settle the matter either way: it's prior causality that will settle it.

Rather, you were "caused by antecedant conditions" to offer it, and it arrives at people who cannot choose to believe it -- either they are induced by "antecedent conditions" to believe it regardless of its worth as an argument, or they are prevented from believing it by "antecedent condtions" over which they have no control.

But I make the argument in the knoweldge that some people would not have heard it had I remained silent.

"Arguments" don't change anything: only "antecedent causes" do. Moreover, there's no "if" in Determinism: there is one what DID, in fact, happen. You were caused to make the argument, and people will likewise be caused to believe or disbelieve it, however "antecedent conditions" have already arranged things to be. You changed nothing. You achieved nothing. And you added nothing to the situation that "antecedent conditions" did not already make inevitable.

Wrong. Whether or not you have the chops to understand it, does not diminish the rationality of the argument.

"Understanding" does not make an impact, remember? Only "antecedent conditions" do.

And even YOU might oen day hear is enough time to realise that you assinine free will argument has always been bollcoks.

Not possible. Whatever I, or you, will believe is already predetermined for us by "antecedent conditions."

Reality is change. Minds cahnge all the time.

No, the Determinist argument is that "change" is an illusion.

Things are what they are, and what they were fated to be. "Antecedent conditions" make that unavoidable. There is only one way that things are predetermined to be, in each case. Just as there is no "if," there is no "change" either. The fact that we feel that there IS such a thing as change has to be explained away by Determinists as an "epiphenomenon," an illusion that just happens to go along with "antecedent conditioning," for no reason we understand.

Once again - this is not about belief. You can believe what you will, but you cannot will what you will. There is every reason to set aside your childish belief and smell the coffee of reality.

Except nobody can do that. "Antecedent conditions," remember? They're all that Determinism allows.

Are you happy with any argument you offer, since I have radical free will,

Where did the word "radical" come from? I have never used it. It seems you're afraid a more moderate position would be uncomfortable for you, and are at pains to make my belief in free will extreme or "radical," if you can.

But you can't. I don't recognize that characterization as mine.

...by your estimation nothing you can ever say to me can CAUSE me to change my mind, or anyone's mind since they have alos to chose to beleive something else.

You might have been typing a bit quickly here...I can't figure out what this argument here is supposed to be.

In any case, it's nothing I said. But maybe you don't mind slowing down and making it clear. If so, I'll respond...after all, I believe you and I can change our minds, if there are good reasons to do so.

But a Determinist can't.

[henry quirk]

Each and every necessitarian, no matter where, no matter when, lives his life as a libertarian free will. Not a one naturally, or intentionally, lives as though he were not a libertarian free will.

The cognitive dissonance must be maddening.

[Immanuel Can]

Each and every necessitarian, no matter where, no matter when, lives his life as a libertarian free will. Not a one naturally, or intentionally, lives as though he were not a libertarian free will.

The cognitive dissonance must be maddening.

True dat.

To argue at all is to act as if Determinism is not true. it's to appeal to a mind to change, and to do something other than what "antecedent conditions" provide for it to do.

So even while the OP denies the truth of will, it relies on will in order to make its case. Cognitive dissonance indeed.