Have you ever met a person that embraced determinism as true?

[Trinity]

We must believe in free will — we have no choice.
Isaac Bashevis Singer.

[Emuse]

What?

LFW proponents will claim something along the following lines ...

1.  I am free with respect to an action A that I have carried out if I could have failed to do A under exactly the same circumstances that I did A.  In fact, Richard said this in the section I was responding to.

2.  LFW does at least allow us to form beliefs that are not adequately supported by evidence or that have no supporting evidence as well evidenced claims.

I simply pointed out that we can test these types of claims.  Let P be the claim "Darth Vader exists".  If something close to 1 and 2 is correct then nothing is forcing me not to believe P in the actual world so there is a possible world in which I believe P under exactly the same circumstances that I'm actually in.  So if 1 and 2 are correct then I should be able to simply believe P because there is nothing to stop me.

[pat1911]

That would be a person who embraced the truth of:

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
  -- http://plato.stanford.edu/

Given the current arrangement of particles in the universe, thoughts and actions are fixed as a matter of natural law.
Not influenced, fixed.  Not by choice, but by physics.

Have you ever met a person that believed that:  it is true that under the assumption of determinism, one might say that given the way things have gone in the past, all future events that will in fact happen are already destined to occur.

Have you ever met a person that believed that?

Yes, I have met people who believed it, or thought they did. They problem is, that by the very act of trying to convince me of it, they are acting as if I have freewill. Or maybe that's just part of the plan??

[Emuse]

no idea what your claiming, look, it's very simple: on determinism there is NO action that could have been different given the same antecedent conditions. That's the definition. The future is as fixed as the past.

These sorts of claims are testable.

Given LFW, there is a possible world in which you are in exactly the same circumstances that you are in now yet believe that Darth Vader is real (you've formed that belief, just to prove that you can freely do it).  If your view of LFW is correct then you are currently free to actualise that world in this one.  There is nothing about your present circumstances which prevents you from forming that belief, even if only to prove to yourself that you have LFW so defined.  You could believe in Darth Vader for say, five minutes and then abandon that belief again after the experiment.

Give at go!

red herring

How is it possible for you to be a determinist, yet absolutely refuse to provide your support for the position?

Why do you claim to hold the belief if you don't embrace it as true? It never occurred to you that "God isn't real therefor materialism/physicalism/determinism is true" is an incredibly poor argument?

Thankfully I've never made such an argument.  And where did I claim to be a determinist?

And it isn't a red herring because it is a method of testing claims made by LFW proponents.

[Emuse]

That would be a person who embraced the truth of:

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
  -- http://plato.stanford.edu/

Given the current arrangement of particles in the universe, thoughts and actions are fixed as a matter of natural law.
Not influenced, fixed.  Not by choice, but by physics.

Have you ever met a person that believed that:  it is true that under the assumption of determinism, one might say that given the way things have gone in the past, all future events that will in fact happen are already destined to occur.

Have you ever met a person that believed that?

Yes, I have met people who believed it, or thought they did. They problem is, that by the very act of trying to convince me of it, they are acting as if I have freewill. Or maybe that's just part of the plan??

Nothing about determinism says you cant change your mind if your circumstances change.  For example, you receive new information or come to look at existing information in a new way.

[bskeptic]

What?

LFW proponents will claim something along the following lines ...

1.  I am free with respect to an action A that I have carried out if I could have failed to do A under exactly the same circumstances that I did A.  In fact, Richard said this in the section I was responding to.

2.  LFW does at least allow us to form beliefs that are not adequately supported by evidence or that have no supporting evidence as well evidenced claims.

I simply pointed out that we can test these types of claims.

Can you show me a LFW supporter that says we can believe anything we like, no matter how bonkers?

[Hereorthere]

That would be a person who embraced the truth of:

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
  -- http://plato.stanford.edu/

Given the current arrangement of particles in the universe, thoughts and actions are fixed as a matter of natural law.
Not influenced, fixed.  Not by choice, but by physics.

Have you ever met a person that believed that:  it is true that under the assumption of determinism, one might say that given the way things have gone in the past, all future events that will in fact happen are already destined to occur.

Have you ever met a person that believed that?

Yes, I have met people who believed it, or thought they did. They problem is, that by the very act of trying to convince me of it, they are acting as if I have freewill. Or maybe that's just part of the plan??

Nothing about determinism says you cant change your mind if your circumstances change.  For example, you receive new information or come to look at existing information in a new way.

I've seen this said multiple times but don't understand it. Does the chain of events leading back to the very beginning determine my chemical make up ( brain/thoughts ) or doesn't it? Seems like making a cake and eating it too.

[apophenia]

Yes, I have met people who believed it, or thought they did. They problem is, that by the very act of trying to convince me of it, they are acting as if I have freewill. Or maybe that's just part of the plan??

Nothing about determinism says you cant change your mind if your circumstances change.  For example, you receive new information or come to look at existing information in a new way.

I've seen this said multiple times but don't understand it. Does the chain of events leading back to the very beginning determine my chemical make up ( brain/thoughts ) or doesn't it? Seems like making a cake and eating it too.

Receiving new information is a part of that causal chain.  You can't just skip over it.  It has to be included in the chain as well.

[pat1911]

That would be a person who embraced the truth of:

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
  -- http://plato.stanford.edu/

Given the current arrangement of particles in the universe, thoughts and actions are fixed as a matter of natural law.
Not influenced, fixed.  Not by choice, but by physics.

Have you ever met a person that believed that:  it is true that under the assumption of determinism, one might say that given the way things have gone in the past, all future events that will in fact happen are already destined to occur.

Have you ever met a person that believed that?

Yes, I have met people who believed it, or thought they did. They problem is, that by the very act of trying to convince me of it, they are acting as if I have freewill. Or maybe that's just part of the plan??

Nothing about determinism says you cant change your mind if your circumstances change.  For example, you receive new information or come to look at existing information in a new way.

No determinism requires I change my mind if I am determined to.

[Pragmatic]

Which is completely compatible with what Emuse just said.

[RichardChad]

no idea what your claiming, look, it's very simple: on determinism there is NO action that could have been different given the same antecedent conditions. That's the definition. The future is as fixed as the past.

These sorts of claims are testable.

Given LFW, there is a possible world in which you are in exactly the same circumstances that you are in now yet believe that Darth Vader is real (you've formed that belief, just to prove that you can freely do it).  If your view of LFW is correct then you are currently free to actualise that world in this one.  There is nothing about your present circumstances which prevents you from forming that belief, even if only to prove to yourself that you have LFW so defined.  You could believe in Darth Vader for say, five minutes and then abandon that belief again after the experiment.

Give at go!

red herring

How is it possible for you to be a determinist, yet absolutely refuse to provide your support for the position?

Why do you claim to hold the belief if you don't embrace it as true? It never occurred to you that "God isn't real therefor materialism/physicalism/determinism is true" is an incredibly poor argument?

Thankfully I've never made such an argument.  And where did I claim to be a determinist?

And it isn't a red herring because it is a method of testing claims made by LFW proponents.

It most certainly is a red herring, as you well know. The discussion is have you ever met a person that  embraced determinism as true.

So, are you a determinist? yes or no? 

Endlessly fascinating to watch atheists deny left and right a foundational principle of their world view.

Cue voluminous discussions on what "atheism" means, what "physicalism" means and what "determinism" means, and how they arent the same notion (which is true)
but
not one word on how its possible be an atheist and not be a materialist/physicalist/determinist (except for the "I see no reason..." ones, which aren't reasons.)

[RichardChad]

Yes, I have met people who believed it, or thought they did. They problem is, that by the very act of trying to convince me of it, they are acting as if I have freewill. Or maybe that's just part of the plan??

Nothing about determinism says you cant change your mind if your circumstances change.  For example, you receive new information or come to look at existing information in a new way.

I've seen this said multiple times but don't understand it. Does the chain of events leading back to the very beginning determine my chemical make up ( brain/thoughts ) or doesn't it? Seems like making a cake and eating it too.

Receiving new information is a part of that causal chain.  You can't just skip over it.  It has to be included in the chain as well.

You didn't answer the question, did you not answer it on purpose?

Does the chain of events leading back to the very beginning determine my chemical make up ( brain/thoughts ) or doesn't it?

[RichardChad]

That would be a person who embraced the truth of:

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
  -- http://plato.stanford.edu/

Given the current arrangement of particles in the universe, thoughts and actions are fixed as a matter of natural law.
Not influenced, fixed.  Not by choice, but by physics.

Have you ever met a person that believed that:  it is true that under the assumption of determinism, one might say that given the way things have gone in the past, all future events that will in fact happen are already destined to occur.

Have you ever met a person that believed that?

Yes, I have met people who believed it, or thought they did. They problem is, that by the very act of trying to convince me of it, they are acting as if I have freewill. Or maybe that's just part of the plan??

Nothing about determinism says you cant change your mind if your circumstances change.  For example, you receive new information or come to look at existing information in a new way.

that's such an equivocation, a determinist must interpret that sentence as "nothing about determinism says a planet cant change it's orbit if circumstances change.  For example, the planet gets hit by a meteor."

Once again, your belief in LFW keeps peeking through with the language you chose to use.

This is an excellent question: "Does the chain of events leading back to the very beginning determine my chemical make up ( brain/thoughts ) or doesn't it? "

I'm guessing you would rather chew your arm off than answer it directly. Why?

[pat1911]

Which is completely compatible with what Emuse just said.

Except the part of me changing my mind. If I am determined to change my mind, that doesn't mean I changed it, it means it's part of the script.
In other words, I don't posses my mind if I do not have the power to determine for myself what it's contents are. This actually invokes a much harder determinism than a causal succession by a series of events. If I were determined to change my mind upon the appropriate trigger, than that was programmed in way before the event itself took place.

So under determinism, I could be delusionally attached to the notion of freewill, but simultaneously have been predetermined to then believe the notion of determinism upon the appropriate trigger. The trigger would had to have been in place before the that which invokes the trigger occurs meaning that none of it is of my own choosing and I posses no power over my thoughts and beliefs.
Hence, under determinism arguments and the actions of trying to convince are futility. We can only play what's already on the tape.

[pat1911]

Yes, I have met people who believed it, or thought they did. They problem is, that by the very act of trying to convince me of it, they are acting as if I have freewill. Or maybe that's just part of the plan??

Nothing about determinism says you cant change your mind if your circumstances change.  For example, you receive new information or come to look at existing information in a new way.

I've seen this said multiple times but don't understand it. Does the chain of events leading back to the very beginning determine my chemical make up ( brain/thoughts ) or doesn't it? Seems like making a cake and eating it too.

Receiving new information is a part of that causal chain.  You can't just skip over it.  It has to be included in the chain as well.

Depends on the type of determinism you are talking about. Under a hard deterministic motif, the casual chain is just part of the programming but isn't critical to the end result. It anathema to the notion of the self possession of consciousness.
Under this scenario, you may be aware of causation, but that awareness is a mere hallucination. You cannot posses what you cannot control.
Under determinism, our whole notion of understanding is simply a delusion, we are robots in somebody else's game.
And this, as it turns out, isn't an atheistic stance, but a Calvinist/ theist stance. If we are being pull by strings their needs to be a string puller.
The succession of causal events works fine in the universe of abstract objects, but it's contrary to self-possessed sentience.  That's where determinism falls apart.