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

[LADZDAZL]

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.

Richard, why aren't you prepared to defend the LFW you claim to believe in?  I've never met a proponent of LFW who who actually acts as though it's true. Have you?  Why don't you choose to believe in Darth Vadar for 5 minutes as Emuse suggests.  It really is endlessly fascinating to watch you jump hoops, duck and weave, rather than accepting the consequences of what you say you believe.

[pat1911]

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.

The problem is that you violate the law of non-contradiction where having the same self holding contradictory views in other possible worlds. You cannot hold contradictory views in 2 or more possible worlds and the self be the same self in both possible worlds. The other self would have to be a copy and not the same self. That would make it similar but not the same self.
And Darth Vader does exist...... in the Star Wars movies and books. I have seen it myself!

[RichardChad]

Richard, why aren't you prepared to defend the LFW you claim to believe in?  I've never met a proponent of LFW who who actually acts as though it's true. Have you?  Why don't you choose to believe in Darth Vadar for 5 minutes as Emuse suggests.  It really is endlessly fascinating to watch you jump hoops, duck and weave, rather than accepting the consequences of what you say you believe.

1. Actually I DO continually defend LFW, you sure have a selective memory! But you know that and said it anyway.

2. Red herring, are you another of those atheists for which determinism is a core component of your belief system yet you refuse to endorse it?

[hatsoff]

How is it rational to be an atheist and a dualist? What is the duality?

I think whenever people talk about dualism they are referring to material and mental stuff.  And, it is rational insofar as it seems intuitive (to some people), and there is no evidence to the contrary.

on materialism all mental phenomena is identical with material interactions, so that can't be what they are talking about.

What are they talking about?

How is it rational to be a physicalist who does't accept determinism? What (besides quantum indeterminism which does not grant free will in any sense) is there that could possibly avoid determinism?

Well, first of all, you seem to acknowledge yourself that, on the quantum level at least, determinism is not evidently true.  So, that stops determinism in its tracks right there.  But on a macro level, one still need not accept determinism as there is simply no evidence to indicate that determinism is true.

1. quantum indeterminism never been shown to operate at the macro level
2. what's your argument that determinism is not true? Sans anything immaterial, it must be true.

This response makes no sense.  I believe you have mixed up our conversation for another one.

[Hereorthere]

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.

So if I change my mind on something, it isn't me thinking it through and making a choice? It's just me being in that place, at that time receiving that information? I mean that in question form to see if I understand.

[Moot]

I'm not responding to anyone in particular here. If I had to guess, I'd say that determinism is probably true. I live my life as if it was true. It's not at all clear to me how one would live as if determinism was false.

[RichardChad]

How is it rational to be an atheist and a dualist? What is the duality?

I think whenever people talk about dualism they are referring to material and mental stuff.  And, it is rational insofar as it seems intuitive (to some people), and there is no evidence to the contrary.

on materialism all mental phenomena is identical with material interactions, so that can't be what they are talking about.

What are they talking about?

How is it rational to be a physicalist who does't accept determinism? What (besides quantum indeterminism which does not grant free will in any sense) is there that could possibly avoid determinism?

Well, first of all, you seem to acknowledge yourself that, on the quantum level at least, determinism is not evidently true.  So, that stops determinism in its tracks right there.  But on a macro level, one still need not accept determinism as there is simply no evidence to indicate that determinism is true.

1. quantum indeterminism never been shown to operate at the macro level
2. what's your argument that determinism is not true? Sans anything immaterial, it must be true.

This response makes no sense.  I believe you have mixed up our conversation for another one.

?
Point: on the quantum level at least, determinism is not evidently true.  So, that stops determinism in its tracks right there
Counterpoint:  quantum indeterminism never been shown to operate at the macro level, and that's what determinism is. There's no such thing as "determinism at the quantum level".

Point:on a macro level, one still need not accept determinism as there is simply no evidence to indicate that determinism is true
Counterpoint: I agree that there is no evidence for macro level determinism, but if not how does the athiest believe in it, how are they accounting for its non-existence? What's the argument that determinism is not true on atheism? Sans anything immaterial, it must be true.


EDIT: I keep forgetting you are an idealist, so, I can definitely see how my response doesn't make sense.

[RichardChad]

I'm not responding to anyone in particular here. If I had to guess, I'd say that determinism is probably true. I live my life as if it was true. It's not at all clear to me how one would live as if determinism was false.

You treat all responses on this forum as if the other person could have said nothing other than what they did?

You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?

no on both, right?

[Moot]

I'm not responding to anyone in particular here. If I had to guess, I'd say that determinism is probably true. I live my life as if it was true. It's not at all clear to me how one would live as if determinism was false.

You treat all responses on this forum as if the other person could have said nothing other than what they did?

You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?

no on both, right?

No on both, because neither follow from determinism except in a vacuous sense.

[Language-Gamer]

I'm not responding to anyone in particular here. If I had to guess, I'd say that determinism is probably true. I live my life as if it was true. It's not at all clear to me how one would live as if determinism was false.

What happened exactly?

[RichardChad]

I'm not responding to anyone in particular here. If I had to guess, I'd say that determinism is probably true. I live my life as if it was true. It's not at all clear to me how one would live as if determinism was false.

You treat all responses on this forum as if the other person could have said nothing other than what they did?

You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?

no on both, right?

No on both, because neither follow from determinism except in a vacuous sense.

Both most certainly ARE determinism, so you aren't talking about determinism then, right?

Determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will

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.


So, what are you talking about? Can you post a link to this version of "determinism" you are referring to?

[Moot]

I'm not responding to anyone in particular here. If I had to guess, I'd say that determinism is probably true. I live my life as if it was true. It's not at all clear to me how one would live as if determinism was false.

You treat all responses on this forum as if the other person could have said nothing other than what they did?

You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?

no on both, right?

No on both, because neither follow from determinism except in a vacuous sense.

Both most certainly ARE determinism, so you aren't talking about determinism then, right?

Determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will

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.


So, what are you talking about? Can you post a link to this version of "determinism" you are referring to?

Your second definition seems fine. And no, what you mentioned earlier does not follow from it other than in a vacuous sense.

[RichardChad]

I'm not responding to anyone in particular here. If I had to guess, I'd say that determinism is probably true. I live my life as if it was true. It's not at all clear to me how one would live as if determinism was false.

You treat all responses on this forum as if the other person could have said nothing other than what they did?

You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?

no on both, right?

No on both, because neither follow from determinism except in a vacuous sense.

Both most certainly ARE determinism, so you aren't talking about determinism then, right?

Determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will

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.


So, what are you talking about? Can you post a link to this version of "determinism" you are referring to?

Your second definition seems fine. And no, what you mentioned earlier does not follow from it other than in a vacuous sense.

1. Both are definitions of determinism, if you don't like them - time to adopt a new belief system!
2. How exactly does:
"You treat all responses on this forum as if the other person could have said nothing other than what they did?
You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?


not follow from

"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."

sounds like you're one of those "determinists" that feel "determinism" involves the ability to freely choose, or at a bare minimum doesn't imply that our actions are determined.
: - )

[Moot]

I'm not responding to anyone in particular here. If I had to guess, I'd say that determinism is probably true. I live my life as if it was true. It's not at all clear to me how one would live as if determinism was false.

You treat all responses on this forum as if the other person could have said nothing other than what they did?

You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?

no on both, right?

No on both, because neither follow from determinism except in a vacuous sense.

Both most certainly ARE determinism, so you aren't talking about determinism then, right?

Determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will

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.


So, what are you talking about? Can you post a link to this version of "determinism" you are referring to?

Your second definition seems fine. And no, what you mentioned earlier does not follow from it other than in a vacuous sense.

1. Both are definitions of determinism, if you don't like them - time to adopt a new belief system!
2. How exactly does:
"You treat all responses on this forum as if the other person could have said nothing other than what they did?
You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?


not follow from

"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."

sounds like you're one of those "determinists" that feel "determinism" involves the ability to freely choose, or at a bare minimum doesn't imply that our actions are determined.
: - )

Under your first definition, I'm not sure I am a determinist. Under the second, I think I am. Since most professional philosophers are compatibalists, you can't really have a definition of determinism that entails incompatibalism. Maybe the definition doesn't though.

How can it not follow? Well, it doesn't as far as I can see. The burden is on you to show that it does. Try to formalize it if you want to me to tell you exactly where I think you're going wrong.

I'm precisely the kind of determinist you think I sound like. It's called compatibalism.

You sound like one of those incompatibalists who haven't read much more than dictionaries on the topic of determinism and free will :-p

[RichardChad]

Under your first definition, I'm not sure I am a determinist. Under the second, I think I am. Since most professional philosophers are compatibalists, you can't really have a definition of determinism that entails incompatibalism. Maybe the definition doesn't though.

Sounds like you aren't familiar with compatibalism, as Mr Berkshire and other atheists have explained, compatabilsts simply redefine free will to be "nothing impeding you from carrying out your un-free will".
There is no such thing as a compatabalist who believes they can freely choose.

How can it not follow? Well, it doesn't as far as I can see. The burden is on you to show that it does. Try to formalize it if you want to me to tell you exactly where I think you're going wrong.

lol,
A. it follows, period, this is exactly what determinism is.
B. You should take a listen to  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUBgBeNLk-w you'll hate it, but it's your  professed view (determinism)

I'm precisely the kind of determinist you think I sound like. It's called compatibalism.

You sound like one of those incompatibalists who haven't read much more than dictionaries on the topic of determinism and free will :-p

lol, sorry to do this to you but you simply are not working with the real definitions.
again, compatabalist free will is nothing impeding you from carrying out your un-free will

You'll find no compatabalist that will claim free will is the ability to freely choose


sounds like you under the false impression that compatabalism is everything LFW is, just minus the theism?

Nothing continually amazes me more than atheists who don't believe determinism is true. How can you possibly reject the core of your world view?