Determinism

[Magnus_Anderson]

@peacegirl

Human choices are determined by beliefs, and those beliefs form the basis of our choices in the direction of what we hope will give us the favored outcome.

One is said to have compatibilist free will if and only if their choices are determined by their beliefs. That’s the definition of the term “compatibilist free will”.

Since you claim that human choices are determined by beliefs, it follows that you believe that compatibilist free will exists.

That’s really all there is to it.

But what you fail to understand is that we are all under a compulsion to move away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position. Even when we scratch an itch we are moving in this direction or we would be satisfied to never move. We cannot move in any other direction but that which is the most preferential at each moment in time. This IS an immutable law.

We’ve been over this in the past.

Your decisions are not necessarily determined by your beliefs. For example, they can be determined by a chip implanted inside your head. That’s an extreme case. An ordinary case would be something like getting drunk. When you get drunk, you become unable to reason properly. You become unable to take your existing beliefs and correctly deduce from them what you should do.

Note that the above phenomenon is perfectly compatible with determinism.

The good news is there is a way to reconcile the ability to choose, of our own accord, with the fact that our choices are not free.

They call it “compatibilism”. What you call “the ability to choose, of our own accord” is what compatibilists call “free will”.

Definitions are useless if they don’t reflect reality.

We’ve been over this too. I remember asking you to explain what the above statement means and you failing to provide a satisfying answer.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you don’t really understand what a definition is. Most people don’t. And I am talking about people who post on philosophy forums ( not average folks. )

A definition is merely a proposition of the form “Concept C is attached to term T by person P”. “Compatibilist free will” is a name given to the concept of free will that compatibilists attach to the term “free will”. A definition of that term is merely a description of the concept they are attaching to the term “free will”. Its truth value is fully determined by whether or not it’s an accurate description of the concept compatibilists are attaching to the term “free will”. Nothing else. But I know this is all too technical ( it’s sad that I have to say this on a philosophy forum but that’s how it is ), so I don’t expect anyone to get what I’m saying. But just in case someone does, there it is.

I am trying to show that the standard definition is flawed in the sense that the past cannot cause you to do what you do, because the past does not exist other than a memory.

“The past does not exist” is a very strange claim. Since the word “past” means “Everything that existed prior to the present moment”, what you’re saying is “Everything that existed prior to the present moment does not exist”. Doesn’t that strike you as a rather strange and grammatically incorrect sentence? I’m merely trying to say that, because it’s strange, most people won’t understand it without proper explanation. But perhaps we can safely ignore that statement and focus on other things you’re saying.

Initially, I thought that you’re a determinist. When I say “determinist” I mean determinist in the standard sense of that term. A determinist in the standard sense is someone who believes that the past fully causes / determines the future ( which means that there is no randomness / chaos involved. ) If you don’t believe that to be the case, you are not a determinist; you are an indeterminist. Sure, you might be a determinist in a different, and an usual, sense of the word, but you’re not a determinist in the standard sense.

When you say that you’re a determinist, all you seem to be saying is that our choices are determined by our beliefs; and even then, you’re saying that our choice at point in time t is caused by our beliefs at the same point in time t ( rather than what we believed at a prior in time. ) You really only seem to accept instantaneous causation / determination. This position is actually quite similar to that of metaphysical libertarianism. The only difference is that libertarians claim that choices are uncaused whereas in this case it is what causes our choices that is uncaused ( presumably our beliefs. ) In essence, not much of a difference.

There is, however, a small problem with this type of indeterminism. If the past does not determine the future, then your present choices cannot determine anything about your future. They can, at best, determine the present moment. This is problematic because many of our real life actions take time. Take motion as an example. In order to move from point A to point B, a certain amount of time must pass. Instantaneous motion isn’t possible because that would mean that you’re at two different positions at the same time ( something that is logically impossible. ) If you’re currently at point A, you can only be at point B at some future point in time e.g. at the next point in time. So if you decide, in the present moment, to move to B, that decision cannot cause you to move to B, because by causing you to move to B, the present moment would be causing / determining a future moment, which violates your “The past does not cause / determine the future”.

You might object with “It is not the past causing the future but the present”. But the present moment becomes the past the very next moment.

Our memory guides our choices in the present by our ability to ponder, think through our options. We do this to choose the most satisfying or preferable option after a lot of thought or very little.

But what determines those memories? You can’t say they are determined by the past because you’re denying that the past can determine the future. Thus, they are either determined by something in the present or they are, like libertarian choices, undetermined / uncaused.

but just as we can’t be dead and alive at the same time, we can’t have free will (the ability to choose otherwise) and not have free wil (the lack of ability to choose otherwise)

Compatibilists actually agree with you when you say that 1) libertarian free will ( what you call “free will” ) is incompatible with determinism, and 2) libertarian free will does not exist.

As I said earlier, they are NOT trying to reconcile the two concepts. They are NOT attempting to show that libertarian free will and determinism can co-exist. They are merely saying that 1) the relevant of concept of free will is not the one employed by libertarians, and 2) the relevant concept of free will is compatible with determinism.

It’s a mess created by poorly defined terms. Ant it’s probably libertarians ( and those who are working with the libertarian concept ) who are guilty of it.

I am asking people to follow the author’s reasoning to understand what happens when we explore the corollary to determinism as it is extended into everyday life.

Note that if all he’s saying is that if we shape the environment such that 1) every person chooses what they do freely of their own will ( no psychological games, no chips inside people’s minds, no excessive stress, etc ), and 2) the best choice for every single person at every point in time is the one that does not cause harm to anyone, that there would be no reason to punish people, he’s not saying anything new or groundbreaking.

[peacegirl]

@Magnus Anderson

@peacegirl

Human choices are determined by beliefs, and those beliefs form the basis of our choices in the direction of what we hope will give us the favored outcome.

One is said to have compatibilist free will if and only if their choices are determined by their beliefs. That’s the definition of the term “compatibilist free will”.

Since you claim that human choices are determined by beliefs, it follows that you believe that compatibilist free will exists.

That’s really all there is to it.

Peacegirl: Beliefs influence our choices. So do other things like our personal likes and dislikes. I like certain type music for example. It has nothing to do with my beliefs. Because of how determinism is defined, it has given rise to a compatibilism but both do not accurately describe reality.

But what you fail to understand is that we are all under a compulsion to move away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position. Even when we scratch an itch we are moving in this direction or we would be satisfied to never move. We cannot move in any other direction but that which is the most preferential at each moment in time. This IS an immutable law.

Magnus: We’ve been over this in the past.

Your decisions are not necessarily determined by your beliefs. For example, they can be determined by a chip implanted inside your head. That’s an extreme case. An ordinary case would be something like getting drunk. When you get drunk, you become unable to reason properly. You become unable to take your existing beliefs and correctly deduce from them what you should do.

Note that the above phenomenon is perfectly compatible with determinism.

Peacegirl: If a chip takes over your brain, it is not you. It’s the controller of the computer chip running the show. A drunk person may make poor choices but he is still the one making them.

The good news is there is a way to reconcile the ability to choose, of our own accord, with the fact that our choices are not free.

Magnus: They call it “compatibilism”. What you call “the ability to choose, of our own accord” is what compatibilists call “free will”.

Peacegirl: That is the laymen’s expression. We have free will because nothing is in the way of choosing this or that. It goes deeper than that.

Definitions are useless if they don’t reflect reality.

Magnus: We’ve been over this too. I remember asking you to explain what the above statement means and you failing to provide a satisfying answer.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you don’t really understand what a definition is. Most people don’t. And I am talking about people who post on philosophy forums ( not average folks. )

A definition is merely a proposition of the form “Concept C is attached to term T by person P”. “Compatibilist free will” is a name given to the concept of free will that compatibilists attach to the term “free will”. A definition of that term is merely a description of the concept they are attaching to the term “free will”. Its truth value is fully determined by whether or not it’s an accurate description of the concept compatibilists are attaching to the term “free will”. Nothing else. But I know this is all too technical ( it’s sad that I have to say this on a philosophy forum but that’s how it is ), so I don’t expect anyone to get what I’m saying. But just in case someone does, there it is.

Peacegirl: Well then that’s what we are looking for; it’s truth value, and it has failed the test because no one can do otherwise whether or not the compulsion is powerful like in OCD, or if it’s what we choose to have for breakfast, eggs or cereal.

I am trying to show that the standard definition is flawed in the sense that the past cannot cause you to do what you do, because the past does not exist other than a memory.

Magnus: “The past does not exist” is a very strange claim. Since the word “past” means “Everything that existed prior to the present moment”, what you’re saying is “Everything that existed prior to the present moment does not exist”. Doesn’t that strike you as a rather strange and grammatically incorrect sentence? I’m merely trying to say that, because it’s strange, most people won’t understand it without proper explanation. But perhaps we can safely ignore that statement and focus on other things you’re saying.

Peacegirl: It’s a critically important statement. We do not live in the past. We live in the present. We remember past events that become part of our decision making repertoire.

Magnus: Initially, I thought that you’re a determinist. When I say “determinist” I mean determinist in the standard sense of that term. A determinist in the standard sense is someone who believes that the past fully causes / determines the future ( which means that there is no randomness / chaos involved. ) If you don’t believe that to be the case, you are not a determinist; you are an indeterminist. Sure, you might be a determinist in a different, and a usual, sense of the word, but you’re not a determinist in the standard sense.

Peacegirl: It is an immutable law that we are constantly moving in the direction of what offers us greater satisfaction or preference, and only one choice can be made each moment in time. We can correct our mistakes but that is a different moment in time.

Magnus: When you say that you’re a determinist, all you seem to be saying is that our choices are determined by our beliefs; and even then, you’re saying that our choice at point in time t is caused by our beliefs at the same point in time t ( rather than what we believed at a prior in time. ) You really only seem to accept instantaneous causation / determination. This position is actually quite similar to that of metaphysical libertarianism. The only difference is that libertarians claim that choices are uncaused whereas in this case it is what causes our choices that is uncaused ( presumably our beliefs. ) In essence, not much of a difference.

There is, however, a small problem with this type of indeterminism. If the past does not determine the future, then your present choices cannot determine anything about your future. They can, at best, determine the present moment. This is problematic because many of our real life actions take time. Take motion as an example. In order to move from point A to point B, a certain amount of time must pass. Instantaneous motion isn’t possible because that would mean that you’re at two different positions at the same time ( something that is logically impossible. ) If you’re currently at point A, you can only be at point B at some future point in time e.g. at the next point in time. So if you decide, in the present moment, to move to B, that decision cannot cause you to move to B, because by causing you to move to B, the present moment would be causing / determining a future moment, which violates your “The past does not cause / determine the future”.

You might object with “It is not the past causing the future but the present”. But the present moment becomes the past the very next moment.

Peacegirl: True. A pool ball hits the next ball causing it to go into the pocket, and it’s all happening in the present. All I said is that the past cannot cause the present (which is the problem with the standard definition of determinism). The past is stored in our memory bank which has a huge bearing on our present choices.

Our memory guides our choices in the present by our ability to ponder, think through our options. We do this to choose the most satisfying or preferable option after a lot of thought or very little.

Magnus: But what determines those memories? You can’t say they are determined by the past because you’re denying that the past can determine the future.

Peacegirl: I never said that.

Magnus: Thus, they are either determined by something in the present or they are, like libertarian choices, undetermined / uncaused.

Peacegirl: They are determined by our present choices based on what we’ve been through in our lives. I did not say the events held in memory don’t matter.

but just as we can’t be dead and alive at the same time, we can’t have free will (the ability to choose otherwise) and not have free wil (the lack of ability to choose otherwise)

Magnus: Compatibilists actually agree with you when you say that 1) libertarian free will ( what you call “free will” ) is incompatible with determinism, and 2) libertarian free will does not exist.

As I said earlier, they are NOT trying to reconcile the two concepts. They are NOT attempting to show that libertarian free will and determinism can co-exist. They are merely saying that 1) the relevant of concept of free will is not the one employed by libertarians, and 2) the relevant concept of free will is compatible with determinism.

Peacegirl: I understand that but both concepts don’t match up to reality.

Magnus: It’s a mess created by poorly defined terms. Ant it’s probably libertarians ( and those who are working with the libertarian concept ) who are guilty of it.

Peacegirl: I understand both definitions. It’s the compatibilist one that is more concerning to me because it appears valid and sound when it is not.

I am asking people to follow the author’s reasoning to understand what happens when we explore the corollary to determinism as it is extended into everyday life.

Magnus: Note that if all he’s saying is that if we shape the environment such that 1) every person chooses what they do freely of their own will ( no psychological games, no chips inside people’s minds, no excessive stress, etc ), and 2) the best choice for every single person at every point in time is the one that does not cause harm to anyone, that there would be no reason to punish people, he’s not saying anything new or groundbreaking.

Peacegirl: It’s actually the other way around; by knowing we won’t be blamed in advance for what the world knows we have no control over, and by being unable to shift our responsibility for our actions when no one is holding us responsible (regardless of what is done), and by removing all of the hurt done to us that could justify retaliation (including economic insecurity), we can create the kind of world where peace can prevail.

[Ben_JS]

@Magnus Anderson

One is said to have compatibilist free will if and only if their choices are determined by their beliefs. That’s the definition of the term “compatibilist free will”.

I believe people act in accord with their will, and that holding a belief influences one’s will,
and one’s will is generally aligned with the tenants of one’s beliefs -
however, both the will and the beliefs, were determined by factors far preceding them.
Due to this, one’s actions were not determined by one’s will or beliefs,
they were determined by far preceding states,
that exerted their influence eventually through the medium of one’s will / beliefs.

@Magnus Anderson

Since you claim that human choices are determined by beliefs, it follows that you believe that compatibilist free will exists.

I wont speak for PG’s claims, but I do not make the above claim.

@Magnus Anderson

They call it “compatibilism”. What you call “the ability to choose, of our own accord” is what compatibilists call “free will”.

Labelling volitional action as free is misleading, as it is entirely determined before one even existed.
As you know, it is free of certain possible influences [non-existent ones], but determined by influences one had no choice in.

@Magnus Anderson

A definition of that term is merely a description of the concept they are attaching to the term “free will”. Its truth value is fully determined by whether or not it’s an accurate description of the concept compatibilists are attaching to the term “free will”. Nothing else.

It’s a terrible label IMO.
Like if I defined red balloon as also referencing the concept of blue balloon.
Such that if I saw a blue balloon, I could choose to describe it with the label of ‘red balloon’.
And if I used the label ‘red balloon’, you wouldn’t know if I was referencing an actual red balloon, or a blue balloon.

Completely misleading.

I think we should restrict the term ‘free will’, to libertarian free will, as it’s the form where people are actually claiming it’s free.
Compatibalists aren’t claiming one’s will is free of all influences beyond one’s control, yet they still want to hang on to the term ‘free’.

…don’t?
Create a different label?

One’s will isn’t free, so we shouldn’t label it so.
Maybe call it ‘volitional will’ or something, I don’t know a good label.
I simply refer to it as one’s will, and whilst it’s determined, it’s still valuable to us -
and a useful concept in describing the sum of one’s intent.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ben JS

I believe people act in accord with their will, and that holding a belief influences one’s will,
and one’s will is generally aligned with the tenants of one’s beliefs -
however, both the will and the beliefs, were determined by factors far preceding them.
Due to this, one’s actions were not determined by one’s will or beliefs,
they were determined by far preceding states,
that exerted their influence eventually through the medium of one’s will / beliefs.

So if A caused B and B caused C, B didn’t actually cause C, it was actually A that caused C?

Isn’t that a bit of a contradiction?

The fact of the matter is that A indirectly caused C and B directly caused C.

Labelling volitional action as free is misleading, as it is entirely determined before one even existed.

When you say that a man is free, even though he doesn’t possess every conceivable freedom, is that misleading as well?

They called it “free” to indicate that it is free from certain influences, not all influences.

A choice that is free from literally all influences is a random one; and a man who has “free will” of that sort is one who makes choices by throwing a dice.

Not even libertarians believe in the existence of that sort of free will. Most believe that decisions are determined by prior events merely not completely ( which means that, even in a libertarian universe, choices aren’t free from all influences. )

As you know, it is free of certain possible influences [non-existent ones], but determined by influences one had no choice in.

That it is free from certain ( and not all ) influences is really all the matters. And as you know yourself, in a deterministic universe, it is possible to be from all sorts of influences ( e.g. it is possible to be free from the effects of extremely low temperature. )

I think we should restrict the term ‘free will’, to libertarian free will, as it’s the form where people are actually claiming it’s free.
Compatibalists aren’t claiming one’s will is free of all influences beyond one’s control, yet they still want to hang on to the term ‘free’.

Most likely, the term “free will” never meant what libertarians claim it means; in other words, it probably never meant “free from all influences”. That’s most likely a misinterpretation, an overly literal interpretation, of what the term originally meant. The fact the libertarian concept of free will is a useless one testifies to that fact.

As far as I am concerned, rather than changing the definition of the term “free will”, I think it’s much better to simply note that the term has multiple meanings, i.e. that it means different things to different people, and to use terms such as “libertarian free will” and “compatibilist free will” to uniquely identify specific meanings. No need to change existing word-concept associations. You don’t even have to invent new terms.

One’s will isn’t free, so we shouldn’t label it so.
Maybe call it ‘volitional will’ or something, I don’t know a good label.
I simply refer to it as one’s will, and whilst it’s determined, it’s still valuable to us -
and a useful concept in describing the sum of one’s intent.

The word “will” merely refers to what one thinks one should do. And what one thinks one should do can be determined in any number of ways ( e.g. it can be determined by a chip. ) When they speak of a will that is free, they are talking about a will that is free from certain influences ( but not all. ) Iin other words, they are talking about a will that is determined in certain way. The term “free” does not mean “free from all influences”. It’s similar to the term “free speech”. “Free speech” does not mean completely free speech. In other words, if you have free speech, it does not mean you are free to say whatever you want, however you want, wherever you want and whenever you want.

[Ben_JS]

@Magnus Anderson

So if A caused B and B caused C, B didn’t actually cause C, it was actually A that caused C?

A completely determined B, and B completely determined C. Therefore, A completely determined C.

Existence is.
Why? How? We could imagine existence never being.
No existence - absolutely nothing… no thing ever was, and no thing ever will be.
I did this as a child, and it made me feel pretty nauseous.
So I stopped doing it, because ‘Existence is real!’, or so I asserted to myself.

Anyway, existence in it’s entirety, determines each attribute of existence.
It’s like a completed novel, that reads itself.
It’s all written.
Why there’s a book at all? I do not know.

---

---

As for the rest, sure.
We can use these loaded terms, which I really dislike.
So be it.

I suppose what I want to say is,
I don’t think our will has any meaningful impact on the outcome.
I think existence is going to unfold however it was determined to unfold,
and it doesn’t really matter what we want [what we’ve been determined to want],
because the outcome of existence is completely inevitable.
[Obviously our feelings matter to us, but not in causing actual change]

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act,
because potentially our acts were to determined to result in an outcome we prefer.
The sense that we can alter the course of existence, is an illusion IMO.
Really all we can do is hope, and defiantly press forward into the unknown.

It’s a rigged game.
But in comparison to eternal nothingness,
maybe a rigged game isn’t such a bad way to pass the time?

I don’t know if I’ll respond further,
I think most has already been said.

Regardless:
Have a good one, friend.
I hope life is kind.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@peacegirl

A pool ball hits the next ball causing it to go into the pocket, and it’s all happening in the present.

A pool ball is located at position (A) at point in time (t_1). At point in time (t_2), it is located at a different position where it is so close to another ball that it is touching it. At point in time (t_3), that other ball is starting to move. What happened is that a past moment ( (t_2) ) caused / determined the present moment ( (t_3) ). And that’s what yo say does not take place in our universe.

All this talk about how everything is taking place in the present is nothing but a distraction – and a serious one. The word “present” refers to the most recent point in time. The word “past” refers to all points in time before the present moment. The word “future” refers to all moments after the present moment. Every point in time was once a present moment. Every point in time was once part of the future ( except for the first one, in case such a moment exists. ) And every point in time eventually becomes part of the past.

I understand that but both concepts don’t match up to reality.

Concepts aren’t supposed to “match up to reality”. That’s the task of propositions. And concepts aren’t propositions. As I often say, concepts do not have truth value; they have use value.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ben JS

I suppose what I want to say is,
I don’t think our will has any meaningful impact on the outcome.
I think existence is going to unfold however it was determined to unfold,
and it doesn’t really matter what we want [what we’ve been determined to want],
because the outcome of existence is completely inevitable.
[Obviously our feelings matter to us, but not in causing actual change]

That sounds like fatalism. Fatalism is the belief that, regardless of what choices we make, the outcome will be the same. The word “fate” itself refers to events that will take place regardless of what anyone does. In a game of basketball, that would mean that the ball will have the trajectory that it will have regardless of what anyone does ( i.e. how it’s being thrown. ) But we all know that this isn’t the case; that the ball’s trajectory depends on how we throw it. Fatalism is basically the idea that our choices cannot determine – cannot be the cause of – anything. And it is important to note that it says nothing about whether or not our choices are determined. Consider that a choice that is uncaused can be just as fatalistic ( i.e. incapable of shaping the future ) as a deterministic one.

It all goes back to that mistaken idea that “If A caused B and B caused C then B didn’t really cause C, but rather, A caused C” which manifests as “If my choices are determined by other things, then my choices do not determine anything; but rather, these other things that determine my choices determine everything”.

[Sculptor]

@Magnus Anderson

@Ben JS

I suppose what I want to say is,
I don’t think our will has any meaningful impact on the outcome.
I think existence is going to unfold however it was determined to unfold,
and it doesn’t really matter what we want [what we’ve been determined to want],
because the outcome of existence is completely inevitable.
[Obviously our feelings matter to us, but not in causing actual change]

That sounds like fatalism. Fatalism is the belief that, regardless of what choices we make, the outcome will be the same. The word “fate” itself refers to events that will take place regardless of what anyone does. In a game of basketball, that would mean that the ball will have the trajectory that it will have regardless of what anyone does ( i.e. how it’s being thrown. ) But we all know that this isn’t the case; that the ball’s trajectory depends on how we throw it. Fatalism is basically the idea that our choices cannot determine – cannot be the cause of – anything. And it is important to note that it says nothing about whether or not our choices are determined. Consider that a choice that is uncaused can be just as fatalistic ( i.e. incapable of shaping the future ) as a deterministic one.

It all goes back to that mistaken idea that “If A caused B and B caused C then B didn’t really cause C, but rather, A caused C” which manifests as “If my choices are determined by other things, then my choices do not determine anything; but rather, these other things that determine my choices determine everything”.

Fatalism does not allow for change. Determinism is all about change. It is all about understanding how one thing leads to another; whether there is a direct causal link and to what degree.
Determinism is compatible with an act of will to cause change and to make the future.
Fatalism is a pre-set future, that no matter what you do or say the future is set. That is the complete opposite of determinism.

Radical free will on the other hand is the idea that causality is of no importance, and we capriciously make the future regardless of what we are and how we have learned to live. It has no account of HOW this can happen.

[Ben_JS]

@Wiki on Fatalism

While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, fatalism, determinism, and predeterminism are distinct, as each emphasizes a different aspect of the futility of human will or the foreordination of destiny. However, all these doctrines share common ground.

Determinists generally agree that human actions affect the future but that human action is itself determined by a causal chain of prior events. Their view does not accentuate a “submission” to fate or destiny, whereas fatalists stress an acceptance of future events as inevitable. Determinists believe the future is fixed specifically due to causality; fatalists and predeterminists believe that some or all aspects of the future are inescapable but, for fatalists, not necessarily due to causality.

Fatalism is a looser term than determinism. The presence of historical “indeterminisms” or chances, i.e. events that could not be predicted by sole knowledge of other events, is an idea still compatible with fatalism. Necessity (such as a law of nature) will happen just as inevitably as a chance—both can be imagined as sovereign. This idea has roots in Aristotle’s work, “De interpretatione”.

Theological fatalism is the thesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act makes the act necessary and hence unfree. If there is a being who knows the entire future infallibly, then no human act is free. The early Islamic philosopher, Al Farabi, makes the case that if God does in fact know all human actions and choices, then Aristotle’s original solution to this dilemma stands.

@Stanford on Determinism

Compatibilism emerges as a response to a problem posed by causal determinism. But what problem is that? Well, suppose, as the thesis of causal determinism tells us, that everything that occurs is the inevitable result of the laws of nature and the state of the world in the distant past. If this is the case, then everything human agents do flows from the laws of nature and the way the world was in the distant past. But if what we do is simply the consequence of the laws of nature and the state of the world in the distant past—then we cannot do anything other than what we ultimately do. Nor are we in any meaningful sense the ultimate causal source of our actions, since they have their causal origins in the laws of nature and the state of the world long ago. Determinism therefore seems to prevent human agents from having the freedom to do otherwise, and it also seems to prevent them from being the sources of their actions. If either of these is true, then it’s doubtful that human agents are free or responsible for their actions in any meaningful sense.

–

@Magnus Anderson

The word “will” merely refers to what one thinks one should do.

Not about should, about what one wants / intends to do.

will - intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen.

@Magnus Anderson

It all goes back to that mistaken idea

The jury’s out on whether it’s mistaken.

Not only is our will determined,
we have no real agency.
We contribute to the result,
only as much as one domino pushes another,
as it likewise itself was pushed - no meaningful agency.

I’ve yet to see any convincing argument as to how one’s will can be said to be within one’s (meaningful) control - at all.
i.e. that we have any freedom to direct it other than it was determined to unfold due to the chain of causality.

[peacegirl]

@Ben JS

@Magnus Anderson

So if A caused B and B caused C, B didn’t actually cause C, it was actually A that caused C?

A completely determined B, and B completely determined C. Therefore, A completely determined C.

Existence is.
Why? How? We could imagine existence never being.
No existence - absolutely nothing… no thing ever was, and no thing ever will be.
I did this as a child, and it made me feel pretty nauseous.
So I stopped doing it, because ‘Existence is real!’, or so I asserted to myself.

Anyway, existence in it’s entirety, determines each attribute of existence.
It’s like a completed novel, that reads itself.
It’s all written.
Why there’s a book at all? I do not know.

---

---

As for the rest, sure.
We can use these loaded terms, which I really dislike.
So be it.

I suppose what I want to say is,
I don’t think our will has any meaningful impact on the outcome.
I think existence is going to unfold however it was determined to unfold,
and it doesn’t really matter what we want [what we’ve been determined to want],
because the outcome of existence is completely inevitable.
[Obviously our feelings matter to us, but not in causing actual change]

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act,
because potentially our acts were to determined to result in an outcome we prefer.
The sense that we can alter the course of existence, is an illusion IMO.
Really all we can do is hope, and defiantly press forward into the unknown.

It’s a rigged game.
But in comparison to eternal nothingness,
maybe a rigged game isn’t such a bad way to pass the time?

I don’t know if I’ll respond further,
I think most has already been said.

Regardless:
Have a good one, friend.
I hope life is kind.

This whole discussion boils down to blame. If will is free according to compatibilists, it requires nothing other than a way to justify our approach to wrongdoing. We can then justify the BLAME AND PUNISHMENT that follows an act that is against the law. I’m not saying we should not. We have to protect the public, but no one seems to be listening that there is a better way. You’re all so busy with your own theories that you have no interest whatsoever in this author. If he was well known you would all listen intently. It’s so sad!

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ben JS

Not only is our will determined,
we have no real agency.
We contribute to the result,
only as much as one domino pushes another,
as it likewise itself was pushed - no meaningful agency.

When you say “real agency” and “meaningful agency”, what you really mean is the ability to make choices that are free from all influences. “Real” and “meaningful” are supposed to signify that you’re talking about something that is very important; but in reality, you’re talking about an ability that noone needs. Who actually wants to make decisions by throwing a dice? Reasoning is a deterministic process. If Socrates is a philosopher, and if all philosophers are men, then you are supposed to deterministically conclude that Socrates is a man. Who wants to go “Okay, let’s see. Today I feel like throwing a dice. Let’s see what the dice says. The dice says that I should conclude that Socrates is NOT a man. There you go! My completely free will has decided that Socrates is NOT a man! Don’t dare to tell me that I’m wrong! That’s my free will! Yours might be different! Everyone has their own truth, after all!”

[origami]

@Magnus Anderson

Fatalism is the belief that, regardless of what choices we make, the outcome will be the same.

Correction, fatalism is the belief that, regardless of what choice you make, that choice could have been forecast.

Where my fatalists at?

Actually, we shouldn’t be using the term “determinism” at all. It’s circular to begin with, because it would require someone or something to determine, ostensibly which was not itself determined. Determination is an action, and it requires an agent. We should be using in all cases “fatalism” instead.

Another case of when you take out some modern term, and discover that the debate has been going on for centuries. As usual, with the traditionalists wanting to mind their business, and the moralists (free will crowd) hunting them down with a vengeance.

[origami]

Here’s a question for you: was Plato a fatalist?

Happy next ten years of your life.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@origami

Correction, fatalism is the belief that, regardless of what choice you make, that choice could have been forecast.

That’s determinism, not fatalism.

Actually, we shouldn’t be using the term “determinism” at all. It’s circular to begin with, because it would require someone or something to determine, ostensibly which was not itself determined. Determination is an action, and it requires an agent. We should be using in all cases “fatalism” instead.

You’re being excessively literal. To say that the universe is deterministic merely means that the universe is unfolding AS IF there is a being ( “God” ) that determines the next moment based on the present moment using a mathematical function of some sort. But you don’t have to be that metaphorical if you don’t want to. You can also say that, in determinism, the present moment ( your agent ) determines the next moment via some sort of mathematical function.

[origami]

@Magnus Anderson

That’s determinism, not fatalism.

But is it libertarian determinism?

[Ben_JS]

@origami

Where my fatalists at?

To my understanding, determinism is fatalistic but emphasizes that it’s due to the chain of causality, as opposed to possibility of a supernatural agent for example that demands a result [in defiance of natural laws].

I’m not opposed to describing my position as fatalistic to an extent.

@origami

Actually, we shouldn’t be using the term “determinism” at all. It’s circular to begin with, because it would require someone or something to determine, ostensibly which was not itself determined. Determination is an action, and it requires an agent. We should be using in all cases “fatalism” instead.

I think existence is circular. Eternal recurrence.
By this, in as much as I accurately remember the previous moment, I know the furthest future: it’s the previous moment.
I think the determining factor, is the state of existence, which is circular.

If the process of gravity is an action or effect, that affects things, do we thereby say gravity is an agent?
I don’t think so. I think it’s better described as a series of reactions, and reactions don’t require agents.

[peacegirl]

Confirmation bias is twisting the facts to fit your beliefs. Critical thinking is bending your beliefs to fit the facts.

Seeking the truth is not about validating the story in your head.

It’s about rigorously vetting and accepting the story that matches the reality in the world.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ben JS

To my understanding, determinism is fatalistic but emphasizes that it’s due to the chain of causality, as opposed to possibility of a supernatural agent for example that demands a result [in defiance of natural laws].

“Supernatural being” is a being existing outside of the universe ( space and time. ) Such beings are probably not meant to be taken literally. They are, most likely, metaphors. Or at least, that’s what they were originally.

Many of these metaphors are actually perfectly compatible with each other and they can describe pretty much any kind of universe. As an example, you can say that a deterministic universe is a written book – a book that has been written in advance – and that is now being read by itself. You can also say that it’s being read by a supernatural being ( “God”. ) It’s all the same. You can also say that it’s being written in real-time. There’s really no difference. Completely random universes can be described in a similar way. You could describe them by saying “God determines the next moment by throwing a dice, paying no attention to what he has created previously.” You could also say “God determined everything in advance by throwing the dice lots of times. He’s now sitting back and watching it play out.”

The word “fatalism” comes from the word “fate”. Fate refers to events that are unavoidable i.e. events that are outside of our control. Regardless of what anyone does, these events cannot be avoided. The gist of fatalism is precisely that – the idea that we have no power to shape the future. Everything else about it is secondary.

Determinism is merely the idea that every event is determined ( strictly via mathematical function ) by prior events. It says nothing about who has power and who doesn’t.

[Ben_JS]

@Magnus Anderson

Determinism is merely the idea that every event is determined ( strictly via mathematical function ) by prior events. It says nothing about who has power and who doesn’t.

I suppose hypothetically, existence could have simply became itself at any stage of it’s cycle, such that the present moment could be described as the first moment. And that our will, was one of the determining factors that shaped existence and it’s attributes. With this said, we could be described as very powerful. But, we didn’t choose for our existence to begin - it simply was. Afterwhich, due to the state of existence, I argue our paths were set. We could be described as powerful, but I don’t think we can be described as originators, being in control, or justly held responsible for the outcomes of existence.

This is all me just kind of playing along, as I’ve already stated my beliefs.

EDIT: 4am, off to bed.

[Sculptor]

@peacegirl

Confirmation bias is twisting the facts to fit your beliefs. Critical thinking is bending your beliefs to fit the facts.

No it is not, Where the fuck do you get this from?
Critical thinking is an analysis that does easily allow beliefs. It does not even necessitate a conclusion. It has more to do with casting doubts on beliefs.

Seeking the truth is not about validating the story in your head.

It’s about rigorously vetting and accepting the story that matches the reality in the world.

It ought to be, but in essence what we take to be true is when the world we build in out head matches what we find outside it.
The trick is to be open to evidence, and fluid and critical enough to keep ideas which can be modified by new evidence.