Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: sumthin' nosh on...

Post by Terrapin Station »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 4:46 pm I do. And in 58 years not one jot of evidence has been offered to convince me otherwise.

Care to offer some?
Just this: what do you take to be any evidence of the extramental existence of natural kinds or of universals? What sort of things would they be ontologically? How would they instantiate in particulars in terms of the mechanisms involved?
I'm a nominalist.

Meaning?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nomi ... taphysics/

What is mind, will, intent, purpose, personality, identity, etc.?
Different brain states, which are concrete particulars.

Which is endorsing that "particles in motion" are necessarily deterministic

I pine for evidence showin' they're not.
Why wouldn't you equally require evidence that they are?
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 22, 2021 4:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 4:47 pm
From you.
Then quote where I said both already. Or if it's a logical upshot in your view, present the logical argument. How many times do I need to ask?

Or am I supposed to buy that it's contradictory just because you said so, even though you can't at all demonstrate it?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 4:53 pm ...if it's a logical upshot in your view, present the logical argument. How many times do I need to ask?
This is the carousel again. 🎠 You know darn well what I actually said.

It's the logical upshot of YOUR view. :shock: That you refuse to articulate the inevitable conclusion doesn't make it escapable. It just means you're refusing logic. It's been rationally demonstrated to you twice now, at least. You just refuse to see what's right in front of your face, obviously.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: sumthin' nosh on...

Post by henry quirk »

Just this: what do you take to be any evidence of the extramental existence of natural kinds or of universals? What sort of things would they be ontologically? How would they instantiate in particulars in terms of the mechanisms involved?

Can you translate the above into non-philosopher?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nomi ... taphysics/


Can you give me the non-philosopher summary?


Different brain states, which are concrete particulars.

How does material result in me?


Why wouldn't you equally require evidence that they are?

I can put shot reliably on target when I take into account distance, wind, gravity, and the idiosyncrasies of my 12 gauge.

If particles in motion weren't deterministic I'd never hit the target.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:25 pm It's the logical upshot of YOUR view.
Then show this per a logical argument. Just stating it doesn't cut it.
It's been rationally demonstrated to you twice now, at least.
No, it hasn't.

You wrote, for example:
"It's a logical proof that you either have to affirm or deny the existence of dynamics. It seems to me that at the moment, you are attempting to avoid doing either;"
If I'm avoiding doing either, then I'm certainly not doing BOTH! lol

I'm only stating a contradiction if I'm doing or necessarily implying both.

You also said:
Either things exist or do not exist. There's no middle state. That's axiomatic, logical and inevitable.
You claim that everything that exists is also physical, do you not?
Therefore, it cannot be the case that you think dynamics, assuming they exist, are anything other than physical. (Or you have to think dynamics simply do not exist (but that latter is so implausible that I hesitate to attribute it to you at all, so I shall not.)
That's a bunch of conditionals a la "IF I say this, IF I say that" etc.

That's certainly not a demonstration that the view I stated IS or IMPLIES a contradiction.

You also said:
Either you affirm the existence of dynamics, or you do not.
Claiming that I said or implied BOTH (so as to be forwarding something contradictory) makes no sense in the context of you saying either I (should) do one or the other, but I haven't yet.

So where is the contradiction in the view that I stated?

What you'd need to do is either quote something I said that's a contradiction, or quote something I said and then from there, logically show how that quotation necessarily entails a contradiction.

For example, you could quote something like "I'm a physicalist and not a determinist."

And then try to argue for how that logically entails some statement of both P and not-P.

By the way, it shouldn't be this ridiculously difficult to explain this to you. It's turned out that anything at all that I try to explain to you is like pulling teeth . . . with a Q-Tip.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:25 pm It's the logical upshot of YOUR view.
Then show this per a logical argument.
Page 23, in the middle.

You've got it broken down into premises, right there.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:07 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:25 pm It's the logical upshot of YOUR view.
Then show this per a logical argument.
Page 23, in the middle.

You've got it broken down into premises, right there.
If you're talking about this:
So easy.

Either things exist or do not exist. There's no middle state. That's axiomatic, logical and inevitable.
You claim that everything that exists is also physical, do you not?
Therefore, it cannot be the case that you think dynamics, assuming they exist, are anything other than physical. (Or you have to think dynamics simply do not exist (but that latter is so implausible that I hesitate to attribute it to you at all, so I shall not.)
Not only are you suggesting things I might say rather than quoting what I said--aside from me saying that I'm a physicalist--but there's not even a contradiction there.

Again, you're supposed to show how something I stated necessarily implies a logical contradiction.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

At any rate, I did say much earlier that in my view, there is change, including motion. And sure, of course I'd say that change/motion are physical.

"There is change/motion" is not part of what it refers to to be a physicalist, by the way. It's just that in my view, there is change/motion.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:07 pm If you're talking about this:
So easy.

Either things exist or do not exist. There's no middle state. That's axiomatic, logical and inevitable.
You claim that everything that exists is also physical, do you not?
Therefore, it cannot be the case that you think dynamics, assuming they exist, are anything other than physical. (Or you have to think dynamics simply do not exist (but that latter is so implausible that I hesitate to attribute it to you at all, so I shall not.)
Yep.
Not only are you suggesting things I might say...

You "might" say them, you say? Then I'll ask.

Which premises "might" you say, and which "might" you deny?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:06 pm At any rate, I did say much earlier that in my view, there is change, including motion. And sure, of course I'd say that change/motion are physical.

"There is change/motion" is not part of what it refers to to be a physicalist, by the way. It's just that in my view, there is change/motion.
But change and motion are undeniable empirical realities, so that's a moot point. The Physicalist has to account for them as "physical," or deny they exist altogether.

The former implies he has to also be a Determinist, and the latter, merely that he is being goofy.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:07 pm But change and motion are undeniable empirical realities, so that's a moot point.
They're not undeniable, but at any rate, I accept that they occur.
The Physicalist has to account for them as "physical," or deny they exist altogether.
Sure. Again, on my view, change/motion are obviously physical. (And who would claim that they're not? Someone could claim that, but it would have to be someone with pretty unusual views.)
The former implies he has to also be a Determinist,
The argument for which goes?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:13 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:07 pm The Physicalist has to account for them as "physical," or deny they exist altogether.
Sure. Again, on my view, change/motion are obviously physical. (And who would claim that they're not? Someone could claim that, but it would have to be someone with pretty unusual views.)
Not really.

Most people believe, and all people act as if, mental events like "desires" or "intentions" can initiate causal chains. Sure, everybody knows there are physical elements in those chains, but not necessarily in the initial events, the "desires" or "intentions." Those can be dependent on the person and his or her choices. And then, at least some physical pre-events are not inevitable; a human being can "choose" to alter those particular events.
The former implies he has to also be a Determinist,
The argument for which goes?
You really need that? :shock:

Okay: here it is.

If all events in the causal chain are physical, then there is nothing not an automatic effect of those physical pre-events that could interfere with or alter the physical chain of events. There's nothing that actually could be "otherwise" to interrupt the causal chain. Whatever will be, will be; by inevitable physical forces and materials, not by any volition or other "non-physical" events. No "personal" or "volitional" entities make it into the causal chain.

Causal Determinism.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:44 pm
You really need that? :shock:

Okay: here it is.

If all events in the causal chain are physical, then there is nothing not an automatic effect of those physical pre-events that could interfere with or alter the physical chain of events. There's nothing that actually could be "otherwise" to interrupt the causal chain. Whatever will be, will be; by inevitable physical forces and materials, not by any volition or other "non-physical" events. No "personal" or "volitional" entities make it into the causal chain.

Causal Determinism.
Sticking strictly with physical phenomena, and sticking strictly with phenomena that have nothing to do with minds or living things in general:

(1) How are you ruling out acausal events/how are you figuring that there are ONLY causal events

and

(2) How are you ruling out causal events where say, particle A strikes particle B, and there's an 80% probability that particle B subsequently moves with velocity x, and a 20% probability that particle B moves with velocity y, where x does not equal y, and where there are no other phenomena or differences involved; it's just a brute fact that two different velocities are possible for particle B after being struck in an identical way by particle A?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:08 am Sticking strictly with physical phenomena, and sticking strictly with phenomena that have nothing to do with minds or living things in general:
Can't do that. If you're a Physicalist, then "minds" and "living things" also have to be nothing but "physical." There can be no exceptions, or you cease to be a Physicalist, by definition.
(1) How are you ruling out acausal events
Like?

If there are no such instances you know, or you can't find any, then what do you mean by "acausal"? They rule themselves out, if they aren't real.
and

(2) How are you ruling out causal events where say, particle A strikes particle B, and there's an 80% probability...
That's Determinism, but with "probability" ruling instead of "material causality." Either way, there's no agency, cognition, volition, or choice involved...so again, it's Causal Determinism.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:14 am
Can't do that. If you're a Physicalist, then "minds" and "living things" also have to be nothing but "physical."
lol. That's not the idea. The idea is along the lines of a thought experiment so that we focus on the simplest pertinent scenario and don't become sidetracked by other stuff. Like when we do thought experiments contemplating one or two particle universes, etc. No one is saying they believe we're in a one or two particle universe. The idea is to strip things down to what needs to be focused on without introducing other phenomena, entities, etc. that can easily distract from a particular issue.
Like?
Like a particle spontaneously appearing or disappearing or spontaneously moving or whatever. It could be any event imaginable.

Isn't this a logical argument you're supposed to be presenting? You claimed determinism as logical entailment. I'm asking you how you're ruling out the logical possibility of acausal events.
That's Determinism
Huh? By what definition of determinism? It's not determinism by the definition I'm using.
Post Reply