Schopenhauer, the ultimate red pill?

[Kevin Beal]

none of my arguments were these.

It wasn't meant as an exhaustive list, guy. I mention those because they are the most common. Your position is a kind of Epiphenomenalism. It's not new.

[MysterionMuffles]

Im embarrassed for you that you think you have done any of this. You havent argued for determinism, just strawmanned, as usual.

 

#butthurt that I made better arguments than you on your own position.

#FallacyFallacyAllDay

[neeeel]

#butthurt that I made better arguments than you on your own position.

#FallacyFallacyAllDay

 

nope, still not fallacy fallacy , for reasons given in previous post.

[MysterionMuffles]

[labmath2]

we have been over these questions many times, each time I explain it to you, and then next time, the same questions come up. I guess either I am not explaining very well, or you arent grasping it. Im not sure what use explaining it again would be.

 

Determinism does not equal things not changing

determinism does not equal things not happening.

Its possible to believe in determinism (or, as I want to put it, see that determinism is true) and not sit in a pile of your own shit until you die. Things still happen, even afterwards.

Thinking does not automatically preclude determinism, or prove free will.

Thoughts cant think other thoughts.

the voice in your head is a thought.

there is no you choosing thoughts. There are just thoughts, and other thoughts saying "look, I chose that thought"

How would choosing a thought even work? Can you point me to the mechanism? Between one thought and the next, how does it happen, what inserts itself between the space between one thought and the next, and chooses what the next thought is?

and so on

So you want me to change my mind because you are right, but i have no capacity to change my mind. In fact it goes beyond that, you only think deyerminism is true because it was predetermined that it will be the case. You are having this argument not because you choosr to, but because it is your destiny to have this conversation. Finally, it is my fate to call you a dimwit. I wish i could stop myself from calling you a dimwit, but i cannot since i neither chose that thought or this action. Welcome to the world of determinism.

[John Sambrook]

GNU Emacs is a powerful editor for text. I have been using it daily since about 1985.

 

2016 - 1985 = 31 years

 

In this editor, you can connect two different processes: A Zippy the Pinhead quote generator and an artificial psychotherapist modeled after work done by Joseph Weizenbaum.

 

When you let the processes run, the psychotherapist, named DOCTOR, seems to be analyzing what ZIPPY says.

 

It's funny to watch.

 

It is also an example of two deterministic processes (neither has "free will") interacting in a text-based exchange.

 

The exchanges between ZIPPY and the DOCTOR can seem intelligent at times, but ultimately, following them becomes boring.

 

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/ibm/library/lol/pinhead.html

[Kikker]

This doesn't conclude in there are fixed outcomes or that choice is an illusion. You are making an argument for something else.

 

There is nothing about having a cause or being predictable which necessitates that only one outcome is possible. If we were all billiard balls, then maybe you'd have a point, but we're conscious agents. Free will requires that more than one outcome is possible, otherwise this subjective experience I have of choosing is an illusion.

 

This is the entire debate, as far as I'm concerned, summed up in one premise. If you can show that only one outcome is possible, then my position has been refuted. I am wrong in that case. Otherwise, as I've defined my terms, I consider what you're saying to be just another way of saying that I'm right about Determinism, and that it is the free will position which is the right one.

For something to be predictable it has to be fixed. If something is fixed it is predictable. You have a relation here which works not only one but both ways. So you can easily disprove that relation by proposing a situation which is predictable but not fixed or a situation which is fixed but not predictable.

 

Since the rest of your reasoning is based on this premise being false(For something to be predictable it has to be fixed)  I will only target that premise.

[Tundra]

Every Determinist: "You have no control over your thoughts and actions! I'm gonna argue with you so that you can change your mind about your capacity for volition!" 

This is such a silly argument.

 

Determinists would likely tell you that stimuli impacts your 'choices' (which are really decisions), deterministically, arguments are one type of stimuli. 

 

 

 

It's a performative contradiction. Determinists do not try to convince brick walls or even dolphins. Just humans.

Because in our experience, talking to humans does change their behavior, but it doesnt do that to walls.

I'll let you figure out why.

 

 

Hmm. I wonder if the kind of people who are generally attracted to Determinism feel ineffectual / thwarted, and in disowning their own thwartedness, try to infect others with it?

 

That would explain so much! The not listening, the going in circles, the "it is because I say so," the accusations of "magical thinking," being drawn to these debates which go nowhere, etc.

 

 

Hmm, I wonder if the kind of people who are generally attracted to metaphysical libertarianism feel helpless / powerless, and in disowning their own helplessness try to imagine that they are more of an agent than they really are.

 

That would explain so much! The not listening, the going in circles, the "it is because I say so" the accusations of "irrational" and being drawn to these debates which go nowhere etc.

 

PS: not an argument. 

 

 

I think my arguments for free will are pretty original, fresh, and I try and change it up, come from new angles. Determinists always have the same old boring arguments: "causes have effects, you dumb dumb," "free will is magic."

 

Eh, I have original arguments for determinism, I don't come to the forums much am mostly in chat, but I'll type up some of them tomorrow around this time and share them, not that it matters, you refuse to talk to me in chat, so I don't know why I think it would be different here.

 

PS: neato strawmans dude.

 

 

 

To the Determinist, there are no preferred states. Things are just what they are. So, there is no personal responsibility, because there's no possibility of other states than what is. They can be wrong, be aggressive, can be terrible listeners, process literally nothing, be hypocrites, contradict themselves like crazy, and it's not bad. It just is. How convenient having no preferred states is...

 

I wish that I could operate that way, but my integrity keeps getting in the way. Damn it!

Oh man, you really are great at these strawmans, so good you just mix in ad homs too. Amazing. Also of course there are preferred states, because preferences are the basis for decisions (which is not the same as a choice)

[Kevin Beal]

Determinists would likely tell you that stimuli impacts your 'choices' (which are really decisions), deterministically, arguments are one type of stimuli.

I say that too. I call it free will.

 

Because in our experience, talking to humans does change their behavior, but it doesnt do that to walls.

I'll let you figure out why.

It's because conscious agents have volitional, self generated responses to their environment, which they control.

 

I guess it's obvious, like that's some kind of comment on what I said, or something. Be snarky and cryptic enough, and you win, something, somehow, right?

 

Oh man, you really are great at these strawmans, so good you just mix in ad homs too. Amazing. Also of course there are preferred states, because preferences are the basis for decisions (which is not the same as a choice)

You don't understand why I bring up preferred states. If you think what you're saying is relevant, you're doing a lot worse than a strawman. Your whole response would be a strawman, except it's too lazy to even qualify as that.

 

Eh, I have original arguments for determinism, I don't come to the forums much am mostly in chat, but I'll type up some of them tomorrow around this time and share them, not that it matters, you refuse to talk to me in chat, so I don't know why I think it would be different here.

For the benefit of anyone reading:

 

This is in reference to a time I visited the chat room and took exception to Tundra's moral relativism, saying that murder and child molestation are not evil, but are simply distasteful. And in the same sense that I found his comments there distasteful. The irony was lost on Tundra.

 

I was informed by at least 3 other people also using the chat room that he trolls the chat room regularly, baiting people into bitchy, petty and ridiculous debates. This is a perfect example of how I described Determinists in the post he quoted. The irony will surely be lost on him again.

 

If you're curious about the preferred states thing, it's fully elaborated on by Stef in this video:

 

 

Happy 4th, people! <3

[Tundra]

It wasn't meant as an exhaustive list, guy. I mention those because they are the most common. Your position is a kind of Epiphenomenalism. It's not new.

Yeah, I know, I hate how Metaphysical Libertarians are always like "God gave me free will! So it's literally magic!" and what not. Whats that? thats not the argument you're making. Well this wasn't supposed to be an exhaustive list, just a list of arguments you weren't making, and the most common ones! This isn't a strawman or anything silly! 

 

Anyways.... here this is.

 

 

A.) when a person acts, they pursue their most highly valued ends through what they believe to be the most appropriate means.

 

1a.) If you were able to change your desires you could make it be that you genuinely desired to do that which you at the moment, abhor. (if for instance, you did something you abhored for the sake of proving me wrong, it just shows that you value proving me wrong more than how much you abhor the thing.)

1b.) You can not do so.

Therefore 1.) you cannot change your desires.

 

2a.) if you were able to change your beliefs then you would be able to make it so that you genuinely believe that which you are certain is false.

3b.) You cannot make it so that you genuinely believe that which you are certain is false.

3.) you cannot change your beliefs. (this doesn't entail that your beliefs may not change, it only entails that YOU do not CHOOSE your beliefs.)

 

Conclusion.) if 1 then you cannot choose your desired ends. If 2 you cannot choose what you believe to be the most appropriate means. Given A. then C.) you have no free will.

[dsayers]

Yeah, I know, I hate how Metaphysical Libertarians are always like "God gave me free will! So it's literally magic!" and what not. Whats that? thats not the argument you're making. Well this wasn't supposed to be an exhaustive list, just a list of arguments you weren't making, and the most common ones! This isn't a strawman or anything silly! 

It's weird watching somebody talk to people who aren't here, have a conversation with themselves, and speak for other people.

[Kevin Beal]

Free will is using our capacity for reason to affect our environment toward our own ends. It's not about choosing to believe things you don't believe, choosing the specific content of your own thoughts, desiring things you don't already desire (without having an overriding desire), or any of these things.

 

To the degree that you believe these are relevant considerations is the degree to which you are talking about something other than free will.

 

Do you use your reason to choose the behavior which results in your desired outcomes, or don't you? If you do, then we're in agreement. You may describe it differently, but I just consider that a distinction without a difference, nitpicking, and unproductive.

 

Having desires, beliefs, and intention-in-action – and that these add up (in a sense) to a particular outcome – is not the same thing as describing a deterministic process, as I've showed multiple times already. Determinism is not having logical sequences of events, but rather a sequence of events where no choice occurs, and where reason is epiphenomenal (not itself causal).

 

If you say that reason is causal, consciousness is real, decisions are rational and influenced by subjective factors, then we're saying the same thing; you just happen to be using the term "Determinism" incorrectly.

[Tundra]

 

 

For the benefit of anyone reading:

 

This is in reference to a time I visited the chat room and took exception to Tundra's moral relativism, saying that murder and child molestation are not evil, but are simply distasteful. And in the same sense that I found his comments there distasteful. The irony was lost on Tundra.

 

I was informed by at least 3 other people also using the chat room that he trolls the chat room regularly, baiting people into bitchy, petty and ridiculous debates. This is a perfect example of how I described Determinists in the post he quoted. The irony will surely be lost on him again.

I'm a moral nihilist, not a relativist. 

 

Also this is not how I remember it at all. You asked for an argument for moral nihilism, I tried to explain to you that it is mostly a polemic position, meaning that it argues AGAINST other positions. You then cut me off and said since I wasn't going to present an argument I wasn't worth dealing with and then ignored me. When I tried to explain that there are general arguments for moral nihilism but that a general argument is not going to crush every conception of morality that is floating around but there are counter arguments to every individual conception. I tried to make an analogy to atheism, that there are general arguments for atheism, most of the arguing is arguing against individual arguments for god. You didn't care to respond.

 

PS: trolls? How is presenting arguments trolling? "bitchy petty and ridiculous" Are these really adjectives that describe arguments about morality, something which, as I understand it, the FDR community holds as the most important aspect of philosophy. 

 

Also Nice Kafka trap, if I DONT argue for determinism you strut around like a pigeon claiming determinists have no arguments, but if I DO argue for determinism then it's a pointless debate that leads in circles, and is some how indicative that your nonsensical psycho analytic non argument is totally true.

 

 

[Tundra]

It's weird watching somebody talk to people who aren't here, have a conversation with themselves, and speak for other people.

I love how you totally ignored my argument I made at the bottom of the post. Also If you couldn't tell, I was calling Kevin Beal out on strawmanning, because you're right it IS strange to bring up and mock arguments that nobody is making and act all innocent when someone points it out.

 

 

 

 

Free will is using our capacity for reason to affect our environment toward our own ends. It's not about choosing to believe things you don't believe, choosing the specific content of your own thoughts, desiring things you don't already desire (without having an overriding desire), or any of these things.

 

To the degree that you believe these are relevant considerations is the degree to which you are talking about something other than free will.

You've entirely missed the point of my argument, You cannot choose your ends, and you cannot choose your beliefs, and you act based on your beliefs towards your ends, so where is the choice?     The fact you cant choose your desires or beliefs is simply to demonstrate that you cannot act freely, but rather deterministically, since if you accept that we act towards ends, in ways that we believe to be appropriate to reach them, and you accept we cannot choose our ends, or our beliefs, then you must logically accept that we have no choice in our actions.

 

These considerations ARE relevant because they are relevant to action, if you are no choosing how you act, then what choices are you making?    

 

Also I love how you didn't actually refute my argument at all, even though I laid it out in such a rigorous fashion that you could easily point out WHICH LINE of it is false, or WHICH LINE of it doesn't follow from another line. You didn't do so. 

 

 

 

Do you use your reason to choose the behavior which results in your desired outcomes, or don't you? If you do, then we're in agreement. You may describe it differently, but I just consider that a distinction without a difference, nitpicking, and unproductive.

My reason determines, in part, my ends. And My reason determines, in part, my beliefs. My reason therefore determines my actions. But how does this show that reason == free will?     Also who are you to talk about being unproductive when you spend time in this thread making psychoanalytical non arguments, calling me a troll, and making 'none exhaustive lists' of arguments that nobody is making? Also for the record, I don't use my reason to CHOOSE, because I have no choice. Decisions are made. Decisions are deterministic. 

 

 

Having desires, beliefs, and intention-in-action – and that these add up (in a sense) to a particular outcome – is not the same thing as describing a deterministic process, as I've showed multiple times already. 

Oh, well I've shown multiple times already that you're wrong, and I will conveniently not share any of them here. (this isn't how arguments work you know...) 

 

 

 

 Determinism is not having logical sequences of events, but rather a sequence of events where no choice occurs, and where reason is epiphenomenal (not itself causal).

 

If you say that reason is causal, consciousness is real, decisions are rational and influenced by subjective factors, then we're saying the same thing; you just happen to be using the term "Determinism" incorrectly.

Where is the freedom of choice? where is the ability to choose otherwise? you aren't explaining any of this. It seems like your bar for "free will" is so low that merely being conscious is having free will. Then you accuse me of misusing the term determinism. 

[Kevin Beal]

Oh, well I've shown multiple times already that you're wrong, and I will conveniently not share any of them here. (this isn't how arguments work you know...) 

I guess that's supposed to be me? What, are you like 12 years old, or something? Am I supposed to feel foolish? 

 

I already rebutted everything you had to say before you came into the thread. I provided these arguments pages ago. I'm not going to go 'round in circles with you. I'm not interested in whatever this is.

 

A torrent of hostility and sarcasm is not how you make a case either, guy.

 

The final conclusion in your syllogism did not follow from the rest of your reasoning, for the reasons I mentioned. You say that I didn't address the argument, and failed to understand it, but you have that exactly backward. You failed to understand mine. Further context is provided in the thread, which you did not read.

[Tundra]

The final conclusion in your syllogism did not follow from the rest of your reasoning, for the reasons I mentioned. You say that I didn't address the argument, and failed to understand it, but you have that exactly backward. You failed to understand mine. Further context is provided in the thread, which you did not read.

I did read the thread, and you did not demonstrate how the conclusion does not follow at all.  If Belief and Desire are the basis of action, and you cannot choose either belief or desire, then how is it that you can choose your actions? 

 

Also "thats not how you make a case either"

 

Yeah, you're right. A rigorous argument that I posted is though. 

I guess that's supposed to be me? What, are you like 12 years old, or something? Am I supposed to feel foolish? 

 

Nah, you're way too high up on your horse to feel foolish.

 

 

 

I already rebutted everything you had to say before you came into the thread. I provided these arguments pages ago. I'm not going to go 'round in circles with you. I'm not interested in whatever this is.

Care to cite the post number? Or care to simply explain how it can be that action is based off of belief and desire, and while you cannot choose either belief or desire, you can choose your actions? Nah, probably not, you'll just say something about going in circles, maybe call me a troll (you know, despite the fact that I make arguments) and then post another reference to your psycho analysis of people who disagree with you. (not an argument as it turns out)

 

I even made my argument really simplified, laid out nicely etc. You just have to point to one of the premises which is false, or show how the conclusion doesnt follow.

[Kevin Beal]

Nah, you're way too high up on your horse to feel foolish. [...] care to simply explain [...] you just have to [...] post another reference

I don't feel like it.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Abusive people hate it when you don't meet their expectations. Spontaneous internal combustion. Notice they never have the impulse control to leave the conversation once they notice their expectations aren't being met. They need that persistent needle drip of sadism, so they keep coming back for more and more. I think it's time to cut Tundra off of her sadism binge and ban her.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Conclusion.) if 1 then you cannot choose your desired ends. If 2 you cannot choose what you believe to be the most appropriate means. Given A. then C.) you have no free will.

 

 

You can choose those things. You don't have total control but you have a little. 

 explain how it can be that action is based off of belief and desire, and while you cannot choose either belief or desire, you can choose your actions?

 

Changing your beliefs or desires does not mean having total control over them. 

[Will Torbald]

Abusive people hate it when you don't meet their expectations. Spontaneous internal combustion. Notice they never have the impulse control to leave the conversation once they notice their expectations aren't being met. They need that persistent needle drip of sadism, so they keep coming back for more and more. I think it's time to cut Tundra off of her sadism binge and ban her.

 

I agree! We should no-platform these people in order to create a safe space for us in order to avoid the pain of hearing different opinions.

[dsayers]

I agree! We should no-platform these people in order to create a safe space for us in order to avoid the pain of hearing different opinions.

I didn't see a reference to differing opinions. I saw a description of somebody basically using the community for destructive purposes. Talk about bias creeping in!

[Will Torbald]

I didn't see a reference to differing opinions. I saw a description of somebody basically using the community for destructive purposes. Talk about bias creeping in!

What's biased is to consider it sadist and destructive to make arguments about a position that most philosophers and scientists think is correct, and to van people for discussing it. It is indistinguishable from the tactics of the social justice warriors. Just refute and make arguments if it is so mistaken.

[shirgall]

What's biased is to consider it sadist and destructive to make arguments about a position that most philosophers and scientists think is correct, and to van people for discussing it. It is indistinguishable from the tactics of the social justice warriors. Just refute and make arguments if it is so mistaken.

 

Determinism has been rehashed repeatedly on these forums with no change in outcome. In fact, the outcome is so predictable there's no point in discussing it again.

 

Bottom line is, if you think have a choice, you do. Anyone that argues for determinism believes they can change someone's mind, which undermines their own position.

 

If everything is compelled because it is fore-ordained, then you can't get mad at someone for banning a discussion... it's not like they had a choice.

[MysterionMuffles]

Determinism has been rehashed repeatedly on these forums with no change in outcome. In fact, the outcome is so predictable there's no point in discussing it again.

 

Bottom line is, if you think have a choice, you do. Anyone that argues for determinism believes they can change someone's mind, which undermines their own position.

 

If everything is compelled because it is fore-ordained, then you can't get mad at someone for banning a discussion... it's not like they had a choice.

[Tundra]

Abusive people hate it when you don't meet their expectations. Spontaneous internal combustion. Notice they never have the impulse control to leave the conversation once they notice their expectations aren't being met. They need that persistent needle drip of sadism, so they keep coming back for more and more. I think it's time to cut Tundra off of her sadism binge and ban her.

How abusive of me to expect arguments on a philosophy board. My mistake.

 

PS: not an argument as it turns out. I made an argument for determinism, you havn't addressed it.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I can put my big boy pants on and not be offended. I get that it's my choice to be offended. But that doesn't change the fact that Kevin Beal hasn't been refuted. Kevin made about a bajillion arguments and they all go unrefuted, but people have the gall to get bitchy at him when they make one argument, have it refuted, when they expected they were correct, but they really weren't.

[dsayers]

What's biased is to consider it sadist and destructive to make arguments about a position that most philosophers and scientists think is correct, and to van people for discussing it. It is indistinguishable from the tactics of the social justice warriors. Just refute and make arguments if it is so mistaken.

I have no investment as I am not acquainted with Tundra or her contributions in general. The ones I've seen here aren't exactly productive. But since I have basic cognitive skills, I was able to derive from Mr. Moran's post that there is apparently a trend of using the community for destructive purposes. Which your biases led to you interpreting as wanting to censor somebody for disagreeing. Which you have now moved the goalposts to avoid taking responsibility for. Staff has previously banned people who are here for no reason other than disrupt, which aides in other people making arguments and having productive conversations. It is not antithetical to those goals.

[neeeel]

I can put my big boy pants on and not be offended. I get that it's my choice to be offended. But that doesn't change the fact that Kevin Beal hasn't been refuted. Kevin made about a bajillion arguments and they all go unrefuted, but people have the gall to get bitchy at him when they make one argument, have it refuted, when they expected they were correct, but they really weren't.

 

I made arguments that werent refuted

Tundras argument hasnt been refuted either.

[Tundra]

Determinism has been rehashed repeatedly on these forums with no change in outcome. In fact, the outcome is so predictable there's no point in discussing it again.

 

Bottom line is, if you think have a choice, you do. Anyone that argues for determinism believes they can change someone's mind, which undermines their own position.

 

If everything is compelled because it is fore-ordained, then you can't get mad at someone for banning a discussion... it's not like they had a choice.

Determinists believe they can change someones mind, because we know that ARGUMENTS are a type of stimuli. 

 

This notion that determinism means nothing changes is a strawman. 

 

And there is no change in outcome? is there some area of philosophy that FDR is in unanimity about? Because if not, then it seems like a mighty high bar to set, for this one topic, to expect everyone to agree.

[shirgall]

Determinists believe they can change someones mind, because we know that ARGUMENTS are a type of stimuli. 

 

This notion that determinism means nothing changes is a strawman. 

 

And there is no change in outcome? is there some area of philosophy that FDR is in unanimity about? Because if not, then it seems like a mighty high bar to set, for this one topic, to expect everyone to agree.

 

Let's boil it down to this: a particular critter is the result of trillions of molecular interactions that came previous to its existence. A particular choice is the result of trillions of molecular interactions (termed "stimuli") that came previous to its existence. Does that mean that a particular critter was pre-ordained by the universe? Does this mean that a particular result of a choice is pre-ordained in the universe?

 

There is some level of uncertainty in what happens next. That we have mechanisms that help us choose that are subject to physical laws does not invalidate the fact that no one can accurately predict with 100% certainty any choice.

 

This is why I say, "if you feel you have a choice, you do."

 

The original poster was depressed because she had been convinced that free will is an illusion and she has no choice. But that is not the case. There are always competing factors for our attention that are infathomable to anyone, which Kevin addressed in his very first reply to the OP. No one has refuted this: "Arguing for free will does not require a suspension of the laws of physics or chemistry or biology or logic. It's simply the acceptance that this subjective experience of rationally choosing one action over another, despite instinct or conflicting desire, is a true and accurate description of events."

[Will Torbald]

Let's boil it down to this: a particular critter is the result of trillions of molecular interactions that came previous to its existence. A particular choice is the result of trillions of molecular interactions (termed "stimuli") that came previous to its existence. Does that mean that a particular critter was pre-ordained by the universe? Does this mean that a particular result of a choice is pre-ordained in the universe?

 

There is some level of uncertainty in what happens next. That we have mechanisms that help us choose that are subject to physical laws does not invalidate the fact that no one can accurately predict with 100% certainty any choice.

 

This is why I say, "if you feel you have a choice, you do."

 

The original poster was depressed because she had been convinced that free will is an illusion and she has no choice. But that is not the case. There are always competing factors for our attention that are infathomable to anyone, which Kevin addressed in his very first reply to the OP. No one has refuted this: "Arguing for free will does not require a suspension of the laws of physics or chemistry or biology or logic. It's simply the acceptance that this subjective experience of rationally choosing one action over another, despite instinct or conflicting desire, is a true and accurate description of events."

 

Whatever happened to "emotions are not tools of cognition"? If there are two flavors in front of you, objectively speaking there are two choices. But subjectively speaking, in your mind, one is more tasteful to you than the other. You didn't choose your tastes, so how would you have freedom to choose if you're going to choose the one you like more? This is similar to the OP's problem with the boy she liked. She couldn't help to avoid her emotional troubles because she had no will in what she liked or not. The last part of your argument is a more verbose "I feel therefore I know". Again, Rand would have words with you.

[Tundra]

Let's boil it down to this: a particular critter is the result of trillions of molecular interactions that came previous to its existence. A particular choice is the result of trillions of molecular interactions (termed "stimuli") that came previous to its existence. Does that mean that a particular critter was pre-ordained by the universe? Does this mean that a particular result of a choice is pre-ordained in the universe?

Ordained implies that something chose to order something. It implies a plan, a goal. etc.    You are using words that have connotations of magical thinking, subtlety grouping my position in with them. I'm not going to imagine that this is intentional on your part. But lets look at what this would look like if you swapped ordained (as if by god or some ruler) with caused.

 

"Let's boil it down to this: a particular critter is the result of trillions of molecular interactions that came previous to its existence. A particular choice is the result of trillions of molecular interactions (termed "stimuli") that came previous to its existence. Does that mean that a particular critter was caused by the universe? Does this mean that a particular result of a choice is caused in the universe? "

 

See how this one word makes a world of difference in how it comes across?

 

Also yes. It does mean that it was cased by the universe (or rather, the events preceding it, and the laws of physics and what not)

 

 

 

There is some level of uncertainty in what happens next. That we have mechanisms that help us choose that are subject to physical laws does not invalidate the fact that no one can accurately predict with 100% certainty any choice.

 

This is why I say, "if you feel you have a choice, you do."

A system may be deterministic and unpredictable, there is no contradiction there. Also I don't know if feeling that something is the case is really evidence that it is actually the case. This sort of logic seems kin with the sort of logic that some Christians might give to justify their belief that god exists. That they have a subjective internal experience of a personal relationship with 'our lord and savior' jesus christ. The mind is obviously capable of tricking itself in a number of ways. Do you have any reason to believe that choice is not just another one of these ways? 

 

 

 

No one has refuted this: "Arguing for free will does not require a suspension of the laws of physics or chemistry or biology or logic. It's simply the acceptance that this subjective experience of rationally choosing one action over another, despite instinct or conflicting desire, is a true and accurate description of events."

Because thats not an argument that is an assertion. It doesn't require refutation. 

 

He is just saying that his definition of free will is "a true and accurate description of events"

 

If that is an argument, then so is "NUH UH!".   If that is an argument then so is "god exists is a true and accurate description of reality" Nobody would accept this as an argument, and yet you are here presenting this as an argument that needs to be rebutted? And again, it rests on a subjective experience of having rationality? How does this demonstrate that choice exists? How does it demonstrate anything other than simply that you FEEL as though choice exists? Because if simply feeling as though something is real is enough for you, then you are in the same sinking ship as the Christians are. 

 

 

And lastly I will also point out that you quoted my post, but didn't address anything I said in it. I pointed out that it is not self contradictory for a determinist to engage in an argument because a determinist can easily believe that arguments qualify as stimuli, and thus people who hear arguments have their decisions altered. You complain about how nothing ever changes in this debate, you assert that determinsts are arguing for determinism is self contradictory, and then when I explain why you act as though I didnt say anything about it. Could it be that you are partly responsible for the lack of change in this debate? 

 

Also I provided a unique argument from praxeology for determinism (Post #150), I believe it to be original to me, (by which I mean, I came up with it, I have never seen anyone else use it before, but that doesnt mean that nobody else has used it before and I simply haven't seen it), and what do you post AFTER that? That the debate is the same old thing over and over again. 

[Kevin Beal]

I made arguments that werent refuted

Tundras argument hasnt been refuted either.

Welcome to the club

[Kevin Beal]

For something to be predictable it has to be fixed. If something is fixed it is predictable. You have a relation here which works not only one but both ways. So you can easily disprove that relation by proposing a situation which is predictable but not fixed or a situation which is fixed but not predictable.

Is this circular reasoning? I don't follow...

 

A situation which is predictable, but is not fixed (in the same sense the result of a computer algorithm is fixed) is human behavior. I can predict what my friend is going to say about the food stain I made on my shirt during lunch, but that's not to say that he couldn't, just as easily have ignored it, or help me out in some way.

 

Words like "fixed" and "stimuli" are tricky.

 

Being clear about in what specific respect human behavior is fixed, and in what specific sense arguments are just another kind of "stimuli" is necessary. Something being perceived through some kind of mental process, or taken in via the senses do fit in the definition "a thing or event that evokes a specific functional reaction in an organ or tissue," and my behavior is fixed in a sense, given this definition: "(especially of a price, rate, or time) predetermined and not subject to or able to be changed."

 

But evoking a functional reaction via your eyes, lacks a kind of volitional capacity that is present with thought and other mental states. Similarly, my behavior is fixed in the sense that it already happened and the past is not subject to change, but the way we relate to the future is clearly different than how we relate to the past.

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

 

This everyday experience we have of choosing between multiple options, seeking outcomes that are in our advantage, is ubiquitous. It's impossible to imagine a life without thinking there are preferred states and other possible outcomes within our control, because having a conversation about it in the first place already assumes these things in order to make any sense at all.

 

The Determinist has to show that this is an illusion, and they have to do a damn good job of it. They can't simply say that causes have effects, we don't choose our desires (or thoughts, or beliefs), like these are debate clinchers. I can't simply stop at "Determinism implies no preferred states" and end it there. No Determinist would ever allow me to stop there, like that proves free will.

 

I'm not holding Determinists to a higher standard than I hold myself. I've offered a ton of reasoning, challenges, considerations, rebuttals, etc. If you search for free will or determinism in the forum search, you'll see me in there a lot, adding something new every time. I've spent a whole lot of time thinking about this, reading books on it, engaging in lots of debates, having neutral third parties check my reasoning – I take it very seriously. So, I can tell right away when someone is being lazy about it, and I say so. It doesn't make me right, obviously – I'm just sayin'.

 

 

P.S. This is only half a response to you kikker. Thank you for putting some effort in your responses.

[Will Torbald]

 They can't simply say (...) we don't choose our desires, like these are debate clinchers.

 

That people don't choose what they desire is the lynchpin of the argument in the first place. Positive claims like "people do choose what they desire" is what requires the extraordinary positive evidence that you so boldly asked for - there is no negative evidence to prove people don't do something. It is on you to prove or show that what you desire was/is chosen. That, say, a pregnant woman with cravings chose to have a desire for eating ice cubes purely by her conscious volition. Or that a pubescent boy chose to one day desire boobs after he got bored of being a kid for fourteen years. They would have to be in a state of no desire, notice they have no desire X, consciously make a change in their mind to reach a state of desire, and then proclaim they could have not desired X if they wanted.