Free will is wholly deterministic

[Sculptor]

If you are haing difficulty start with a dictionary.
Then when you are ready for your big-boy pants try to consult some of that philosphy you hate and refuse to engage with.

It's precisely the philosophy (your philosophy) I am pointing out as wrong and incoherent.

If you are having difficulty seeing it perhaps you need to move on past philosophy? It's what grown ups do.

You don't know anything about philosophy. If you did you would know you are talking bollocks.

[Sculptor]

An argument is a cause.

Or in other words, it becomes an "antecedent condition".

Of course.

[Skepdick]

If you are haing difficulty start with a dictionary.
Then when you are ready for your big-boy pants try to consult some of that philosphy you hate and refuse to engage with.

It's precisely the philosophy (your philosophy) I am pointing out as wrong and incoherent.

If you are having difficulty seeing it perhaps you need to move on past philosophy? It's what grown ups do.

You don't know anything about philosophy. If you did you would know you are talking bollocks.

I know that you are talking bollocks. And I know that you are a philosophers.

Which is consistent with my world-view. Philosophers talk bollocks.

[Sculptor]

It's precisely the philosophy (your philosophy) I am pointing out as wrong and incoherent.

If you are having difficulty seeing it perhaps you need to move on past philosophy? It's what grown ups do.

You don't know anything about philosophy. If you did you would know you are talking bollocks.

I know that you are talking bollocks. And I know that you are a philosophers.

Which is consistent with my world-view. Philosophers talk bollocks.

... and with the the man that put DICK into his own skipper disappeared up his own arse....

[Skepdick]

You don't know anything about philosophy. If you did you would know you are talking bollocks.

I know that you are talking bollocks. And I know that you are a philosophers.

Which is consistent with my world-view. Philosophers talk bollocks.

... and with the the man that put DICK into his own skipper disappeared up his own arse....

Haven't disappeared anywhere.

Speaking of arses. You should remove your head from yours.

[Immanuel Can]

An argument is a cause.

Not according to Determinism. According to Determinism, the argument itself cannot commence a causal chain. It can only be regarded as a link in a chain that's already formed. So the reason the argument exists is not because it's rational, but because its antecedent conditions produced it.

Moreover, Determinism cannot regard mind as a source of causality. Mind is not material. An argument is an appeal to the mind.

And Determinism has no place for change, if by "change" we mean the "veering of events from one possible course to another." There are no alternate possibilities, according to Determinism: so one's mind-state is only ever what "antecedent conditions" compelled it to be. It is unswayed by reasons or evidence, but is rather produced entirely by these "antecedent causes." There is only one possible state for a mind to be in -- that which "antecedent conditions" are conducive to. So it's not the argument that produces any appearance of change: it's the "antecedent conditions."

So no, arguments are not causes, according to Determinism: they are, at best, epiphenomena of material-causal chains, or "antecedent conditions". The only ultimate "cause" according to Determinism, is whatever original event commenced the causal chains that produced the "antecedent conditions" in which we now find ourselves to be helpless pawns.

The only way you get to make arguments into causes would be by abandoning Determinism, and supposing that there is such a thing as "mind," and that mind is not entirely determined by 'antecedent conditions," and that human beings are capable of volitional choice...and are not just products of "antecedent conditioning."

[Sculptor]

An argument is a cause.

Not according to Determinism. According to Determinism,

please cite!

[Immanuel Can]

An argument is a cause.

Not according to Determinism. According to Determinism,

please cite!

I'm not making an "appeal to authority." I'm using logic. Determinism requires that "antecedent conditions" explain everything. You said so yourself, in fact.

[Immanuel Can]

An argument is a cause.

Or in other words, it becomes an "antecedent condition".

It's worse than that, even.

The "argument" becomes merely a node in a much longer chain of "antecedent conditions." That means that the reason the argument exists at all is not because it's rational or realistic, but rather because it is whatever its "antecedent conditions" have predetermined that it would be. We can't even suppose it is a rational thing: "antecedent conditioning" could generate in us all kinds of beliefs and arguments about things that are absurd, unreal and non-existent, or delusory. There's no longer a way of judging that, since "antecedent conditions," and not rationality, are the generators of the pattern of argument and belief.

"Antecedent conditions" made me believe in unicorns and leprechauns. What more can I say about that?

[Skepdick]

I'm not making an "appeal to authority." I'm using logic.

Which logic? The deterministic or non-deterministic kind?

Determinism requires that "antecedent conditions" explain everything. You said so yourself, in fact.

So would you have made this comment if Sculptor hadn't made this post?

(jsut to remind you all, in case i haven't mentioned it recently - Philosophy is bullshit)

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not making an "appeal to authority." I'm using logic. Determinism requires that "antecedent conditions" explain everything. You said so yourself, in fact.

So would you have made this comment if Sculptor hadn't made this post?

Determinism cannot recognize any "would have" states. For Determinism, there is only what DID happen. There are no hypothetical or alternate states.

But I'm not a Determinist, so, no. I made it because Sculptor made the post. But I didn't have to: I could have ignored him. I had the freedom to forbear, or to write it in an alternate way to what I did. That I chose to is a further indication of my free will.

Free will does not mean "absolutely without inducement from external phenomena," you see. It just means that I get to choose my response to the stimuli that are out there, including Sculpy's post.

But you do point out something that's highly problematic for Determinism: it's so totalizing that some perverse explanation can always be invented to suggest that something only happened because of "antecedent conditioning." It's utterly unfalsifiable. One can never stop a person from sliding into that sort of explanation, even if, by doing so, he's contradicting his own theory and exhibiting irrationality. Maybe "antecedent conditioning" made him do that.

[Skepdick]

Determinism cannot recognize any "would have" states. For Determinism, there is only what DID happen. There are no hypothetical or alternate states.

Hardly. It doesn't impose any such restrictions.

We can imagine a past in which Sculptor didn't make this post and you didn't reply to it. There are infinitely many alternative timelines we can imagine.

Determinism simply implies that none of you could have made the choices necessary to make any of those alternatives happen.

But I'm not a Determinist, so, no. I made it because Sculptor made the post. But I didn't have to: I could have ignored him.

And yet you didn't. So maybe you are just lying to yourself?

I had the freedom to forbear, or to write it in an alternate way to what I did. That I chose to is a further indication of my free will.

And yet you wrote exactly what you wrote. Almost as if it were determined to be that way. Despite all the alternatives you imagined.

Free will does not mean "absolutely without inducement from external phenomena," you see. It just means that I get to choose my response to the stimuli that are out there, including Sculpy's post.

Of course, it's sufficient to make think that you could've done otherwise to make you believe in free will.

But you do point out something that's highly problematic for Determinism: it's so totalizing that some perverse explanation can always be invented to suggest that something only happened because of "antecedent conditioning." It's utterly unfalsifiable. One can never stop a person from sliding into that sort of explanation, even if, by doing so, he's contradicting his own theory and exhibiting irrationality. Maybe "antecedent conditioning" made him do that.

Yeah well. Some people believe in determinism and some people don't. What choices could you possibly make to change that?

Non-determinism is just as unfalsifiable.

I mean, you choose to speak like a determinist; or you choose to speak like a non-determinist. But could you have made any other choice?

(On and on we go in circles, because Philosophy is lame and formulaic. Almsot like it's deterministic and we can't break the cycle)

[Immanuel Can]

Determinism cannot recognize any "would have" states. For Determinism, there is only what DID happen. There are no hypothetical or alternate states.

Hardly. It doesn't impose any such restrictions.

Yes, it does. You can still imagine them, just as you say; but Determinism means they can't be real....and they could never have been realized...since "antecedent conditions" define the limits of the possible.

But I'm not a Determinist, so, no. I made it because Sculptor made the post. But I didn't have to: I could have ignored him.

And yet you didn't. So maybe you are just lying to yourself?

An excellent illustration of the point I made to you: that Determinism allows no tests for truth, and is scientifically unfalsifiable and unverifiable, because it's a reductional explanation that can always be revised to "explain away" all objections.

Some people believe in determinism and some people don't.

Determinists insist that "people" can't actually "believe." Rather, antecedent conditions shape their particular cognitions for them.

Non-determinism is just as unfalsifiable.

Except that, as Henri points out, while every person in history has lived as if free will were real, no person in the history of the world has succeeded in living in utter compliance with Determinism. To be a consistent Determinist would mean to give up all volition, all thought of alternatives, all choices, all dreams of what 'could be,' and all projects, and even all actions, and to surrender completely to the fatalism of "antecedent conditioning."

And that would quickly result in death, obviously.

So every person is compelled, by the very nature of being, to behave as if free will is a reality and Determinism is a falsehood.

That's pretty telling of what's right, actually.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not making an "appeal to authority." I'm using logic.

Which logic? The deterministic or non-deterministic kind?

That's not a coherent question. You might as well speak of "deterministic or non-deterministic" mathematics, or the "accountancy of dancing". Logic is a system of relations of propositions, not a particular proposition.

[Skepdick]

That's not a coherent question. You might as well speak of "deterministic or non-deterministic" mathematics, or the "accountancy of dancing". Logic is a system of relations of propositions, not a particular proposition.

It's a coherent question, alright.

Deterministic logic mandates that if you accept the premises of a sound and valid argument then you can't reject its conclusions.

Of course, if I have free will - I can do whatever the fuck I want. Now, you might say that makes me "irrational" or "illogical" or some other adjective.

And to that I say: "Yeah. I freely choose to be those things.". Adhering to logic robs you of that freedom.