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

[Moot]

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?

I've never in my life heard of August Bershire. Is he a philosopher? Does he have any kind of relevant degree? If no, why in the world would I sit through an hour lecture by him? This might be hard for you to believe, but there are people on this forum who actually read philosophers on these topics. You should try it. That way you don't have to quote laymen as your authorities.

Again, if you're so sure it follows, just formalize it and we'll see.

Nothing amazes me less than you being amazed by things you don't understand. I've gotten quite used to it.

[RichardChad]

I've never in my life heard of August Bershire. Is he a philosopher? Does he have any kind of relevant degree? If no, why in the world would I sit through an hour lecture by him? This might be hard for you to believe, but there are people on this forum who actually read philosophers on these topics. You should try it. That way you don't have to quote laymen as your authorities.

Again, if you're so sure it follows, just formalize it and we'll see.

Nothing amazes me less than you being amazed by things you don't understand. I've gotten quite used to it.

ad-hominem, avoiding the argument, personal attack, the usual.


wow, well, sorry to do this to you, but what I am presenting is what determinism is, actually, and what you profess to believe. What you are claiming has nothing to do with determinism (remember, compatabalists are determinists)

Find a single atheist scholar that claims compatabalism includes the ability to freely choose.
Find a single atheist scholar that claims physicalism means anything other than the notion that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical.

read this for example: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ you'll no doubt argue that it's incorrect..

[hatsoff]

Richard,

According to the sep link, compatibilism is the thesis that free will and determinism are compatible. It doesn't commit anyone to affirming or denying free will or determinism.

[Moot]

I've never in my life heard of August Bershire. Is he a philosopher? Does he have any kind of relevant degree? If no, why in the world would I sit through an hour lecture by him? This might be hard for you to believe, but there are people on this forum who actually read philosophers on these topics. You should try it. That way you don't have to quote laymen as your authorities.

Again, if you're so sure it follows, just formalize it and we'll see.

Nothing amazes me less than you being amazed by things you don't understand. I've gotten quite used to it.

ad-hominem, avoiding the argument, personal attack, the usual.


wow, well, sorry to do this to you, but what I am presenting is what determinism is, actually, and what you profess to believe. What you are claiming has nothing to do with determinism (remember, compatabalists are determinists)

Find a single atheist scholar that claims compatabalism includes the ability to freely choose.
Find a single atheist scholar that claims physicalism means anything other than the notion that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical.

read this for example: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ you'll no doubt argue that it's incorrect..

You started the personal attacks. I'm just responding with the appropriate amounts of maturity. Also, what argument am I avoiding. If you have an argument, present it's premises and conclusion.

Is this a serious question: "Find a single atheist scholar that claims compatabalism includes the ability to freely choose."

About 80 percent of atheist philosophers hold that view. Do you want me to just start naming them? Google "atheist philosopher" and you'll find a bunch.

"Find a single atheist scholar that claims physicalism means anything other than the notion that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical."

How is this relevant to the discussion?

The article on Compatibalism looks just fine. What did you think I would disagree with?

[RichardChad]

Richard,

According to the sep link, compatibilism is the thesis that free will and determinism are compatible. It doesn't commit anyone to affirming or denying free will or determinism.

1) Do you understand the difference between the compatabalist version of "free will" and libertarian free will?
The compatabalist version of "free will" is: nothing impeding you from carrying out your un-free will". ie, you are determined, but not coerced.

2) You simply couldn't be more mistaken, compatibilism affirms determinism, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#Det

if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time

As long as the agent is free from external coercion, they have freedom of action, which is the compatibilist freedom we have according to Thomas Hobbes and David Hume.



sorry to break it to you, but isn't it better to know the truth?

[RichardChad]

Is this a serious question: "Find a single atheist scholar that claims compatabalism includes the ability to freely choose."

About 80 percent of atheist philosophers hold that view. Do you want me to just start naming them? Google "atheist philosopher" and you'll find a bunch.

oh, absolutely not! please present one. You're in for a real shock when you find out that the ability to freely choose is most certainly NOT a compatabilist notion. This will be a real eye opener for you.


As long as the agent is free from external coercion, they have freedom of action, which is the compatibilist freedom we have according to Thomas Hobbes and David Hume.

"Find a single atheist scholar that claims physicalism means anything other than the notion that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical."

How is this relevant to the discussion?

physicalism-determinism.

The article on Compatibalism looks just fine. What did you think I would disagree with?

well, you would have to have read it of course.

A common characterization of determinism states that every event (except the first, if there is one) is causally necessitated by antecedent events.[4] Within this essay, we shall define determinism as the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time. Notice that an implication of determinism as it applies to a person's conduct is that, if determinism is true, there are (causal) conditions for that person's actions located in the remote past, prior to her birth, that are sufficient for each of her actions.


which directly contradicts your earlier statement:
Me: You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?
You: No on both, because neither follow from determinism except in a vacuous sense.

[Moot]

Is this a serious question: "Find a single atheist scholar that claims compatabalism includes the ability to freely choose."

About 80 percent of atheist philosophers hold that view. Do you want me to just start naming them? Google "atheist philosopher" and you'll find a bunch.

oh, absolutely not! please present one. You're in for a real shock when you find out that the ability to freely choose is most certainly NOT a compatabilist notion. This will be a real eye opener for you.


As long as the agent is free from external coercion, they have freedom of action, which is the compatibilist freedom we have according to Thomas Hobbes and David Hume.

"Find a single atheist scholar that claims physicalism means anything other than the notion that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical."

How is this relevant to the discussion?

physicalism-determinism.

The article on Compatibalism looks just fine. What did you think I would disagree with?

well, you would have to have read it of course.

A common characterization of determinism states that every event (except the first, if there is one) is causally necessitated by antecedent events.[4] Within this essay, we shall define determinism as the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time. Notice that an implication of determinism as it applies to a person's conduct is that, if determinism is true, there are (causal) conditions for that person's actions located in the remote past, prior to her birth, that are sufficient for each of her actions.


which directly contradicts your earlier statement:
Me: You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?
You: No on both, because neither follow from determinism except in a vacuous sense.

We all know what determinism is Richard. You're the one who don't understand what compatibalism is. Have you read a single compatibalist? If so, who and what premise in their argument are you objecting to?

As for an atheist philospher who claims compatabalism includes the ability to freely choose, well, Dennett, Ruse, Bergmann, would you like me to continue?

I already know what you're going to say next. These people don't actually believe in free choices because they accept that things are determined. That's because you still don't understand what compatibalism means.

[LADZDAZL]

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?

No you don't defend LFW.

When challenged you just claim red herring.


You genuinely seem to believe that some of the greatest philosophical minds of all time, who do hold to determinism and compatabilism, are not just obviously wrong but also know they are wrong and are delusional.

Your bravado is inversely correlated with your expertise.  But your bombast does get response whilst lowering the level of debate. You are the Donald Trump of reasonable faith.

[pat1911]

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?

No you don't defend LFW.

When challenged you just claim red herring.


You genuinely seem to believe that some of the greatest philosophical minds of all time, who do hold to determinism and compatabilism, are not just obviously wrong but also know they are wrong and are delusional.

Your bravado is inversely correlated with your expertise.  But your bombast does get response whilst lowering the level of debate. You are the Donald Trump of reasonable faith.

I do not see where a red herring is committed. If anything, the challenge of believing in Darth Vader for 5 minutes would be a red herring in that doing so would neither demonstrate freewill or determinism, it's just a diversionary tactic by application of a nonsensical challenge that demonstrates the ability to be silly.
Okay, so I have chosen to believe in Darth Vader for 2 seconds. And?

And your purpose of the ad hominem attack demonstrates what exactly? Was that a determined attack? Or was the insult prepared under the assumption that RC can change his mind?

Whether or not you believe in freewill or not, attacking and insulting functions under the assumption of freewill; otherwise what's the point? Arguing determinism as if a person has the freewill to change his mind is hilarious to me...

[RichardChad]

Is this a serious question: "Find a single atheist scholar that claims compatabalism includes the ability to freely choose."

About 80 percent of atheist philosophers hold that view. Do you want me to just start naming them? Google "atheist philosopher" and you'll find a bunch.

oh, absolutely not! please present one. You're in for a real shock when you find out that the ability to freely choose is most certainly NOT a compatabilist notion. This will be a real eye opener for you.


As long as the agent is free from external coercion, they have freedom of action, which is the compatibilist freedom we have according to Thomas Hobbes and David Hume.

"Find a single atheist scholar that claims physicalism means anything other than the notion that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical."

How is this relevant to the discussion?

physicalism-determinism.

The article on Compatibalism looks just fine. What did you think I would disagree with?

well, you would have to have read it of course.

A common characterization of determinism states that every event (except the first, if there is one) is causally necessitated by antecedent events.[4] Within this essay, we shall define determinism as the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time. Notice that an implication of determinism as it applies to a person's conduct is that, if determinism is true, there are (causal) conditions for that person's actions located in the remote past, prior to her birth, that are sufficient for each of her actions.


which directly contradicts your earlier statement:
Me: You live your life as if the future was as fixed as the past?
You: No on both, because neither follow from determinism except in a vacuous sense.

We all know what determinism is Richard. You're the one who don't understand what compatibalism is. Have you read a single compatibalist? If so, who and what premise in their argument are you objecting to?

As for an atheist philospher who claims compatabalism includes the ability to freely choose, well, Dennett, Ruse, Bergmann, would you like me to continue?

I already know what you're going to say next. These people don't actually believe in free choices because they accept that things are determined. That's because you still don't understand what compatibalism means.

no offense, but you are simply clueless on compatabalism, astonishingly so.

Compatabalists ARE determinist (you've yet to acknowledge that BTW, wonder why ; - )  )
Compatabalism is simply the position that determiism and free will are compatible, (free will suitably redefined)

there is NOTHING on this page that makes the claim that compatabalists acknowledge the ability to freely chose.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

It's exactly opposite, foundational to the notion of compatabalists "free will" is the notion that "freedom in the expression freedom of will modifies a condition of action and not the agent’s will"

see for example
1. If a person acts of her own free will, then she could have done otherwise (A-C).
2. If determinism is true, no one can do otherwise than one actually does (D-E).
C. Therefore, if determinism is true, no one acts of her own free will (F).

Call this simplified argument the Classical Incompatibilist Argument. According to the argument, if determinism is true, no one has access to alternatives in the way required by the Garden of Forking Paths model of free will.[11]

[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?

No you don't defend LFW.

When challenged you just claim red herring.


You genuinely seem to believe that some of the greatest philosophical minds of all time, who do hold to determinism and compatabilism, are not just obviously wrong but also know they are wrong and are delusional.

Your bravado is inversely correlated with your expertise.  But your bombast does get response whilst lowering the level of debate. You are the Donald Trump of reasonable faith.

1. utter nonsense, I've defended LFW many times as you well know, here's one for example
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/freewill-is-only-rationally-justified-position-6033035.msg1275478360.html#msg1275478360

2. LFW discussion on this thread IS a red herring

3. I've asked for anyone here to defend the notion of determinism, no one actually has, the continue to insist that determinism includes the ability to choose.

[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?

No you don't defend LFW.

When challenged you just claim red herring.


You genuinely seem to believe that some of the greatest philosophical minds of all time, who do hold to determinism and compatabilism, are not just obviously wrong but also know they are wrong and are delusional.

Your bravado is inversely correlated with your expertise.  But your bombast does get response whilst lowering the level of debate. You are the Donald Trump of reasonable faith.

I do not see where a red herring is committed. If anything, the challenge of believing in Darth Vader for 5 minutes would be a red herring in that doing so would neither demonstrate freewill or determinism, it's just a diversionary tactic by application of a nonsensical challenge that demonstrates the ability to be silly.
Okay, so I have chosen to believe in Darth Vader for 2 seconds. And?

And your purpose of the ad hominem attack demonstrates what exactly? Was that a determined attack? Or was the insult prepared under the assumption that RC can change his mind?

Whether or not you believe in freewill or not, attacking and insulting functions under the assumption of freewill; otherwise what's the point? Arguing determinism as if a person has the freewill to change his mind is hilarious to me...

pat1911  +1

amazing isn't it?

[LADZDAZL]

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?

No you don't defend LFW.

When challenged you just claim red herring.


You genuinely seem to believe that some of the greatest philosophical minds of all time, who do hold to determinism and compatabilism, are not just obviously wrong but also know they are wrong and are delusional.

Your bravado is inversely correlated with your expertise.  But your bombast does get response whilst lowering the level of debate. You are the Donald Trump of reasonable faith.

1. utter nonsense, I've defended LFW many times as you well know, here's one for example
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/freewill-is-only-rationally-justified-position-6033035.msg1275478360.html#msg1275478360

2. LFW discussion on this thread IS a red herring

3. I've asked for anyone here to defend the notion of determinism, no one actually has, the continue to insist that determinism includes the ability to choose.

So you believe that ...

"Someone throws me a ball, I can catch it or drop it, this is an exercise of free will"


... constitutes a defence of libertarian free will?

Fascinating

[wonderer]

And your purpose of the ad hominem attack demonstrates what exactly? Was that a determined attack? Or was the insult prepared under the assumption that RC can change his mind?

RC's mind can be changed and that doesn't contradict determinism in the slightest.  It is a simple fact that after RC reads this his mind will be changed such that it has a memory of reading this, (at least for a short while and RC has no choice in the matter.  It will simply be a chain of physical causality that occurs.

RC's brain is not some isolated system which you and I are unable to influence.  His brain exists in a complex web of causality which includes among other things, your brain and mine.

Now my impression is that RC has strong emotional reasons to avoid facing the fact that he is wrong about some things.  So in some regards he might be considered learning disabled and harder to effectively influence than is normal, but it would be silly to think that determinism conflicts with it being possible to influence the working of RC's mind.

Whether or not you believe in freewill or not, attacking and insulting functions under the assumption of freewill; otherwise what's the point? Arguing determinism as if a person has the freewill to change his mind is hilarious to me...

People's minds changing isn't a matter of freewill, it is a matter of physics.  Consider a person who is insulted or ridiculed and blushes in embarrassment, or tears up.  Do you honestly think that that person's mind hasn't been affected in a way utterly independent of free will?

Furthermore, with some psychological understanding, other people's will can be influenced subconsciously to result in them behaving in ways that they have no conscious intention of behaving in.  For example, think about reverse psychology.

[RichardChad]

So you believe that ...

"Someone throws me a ball, I can catch it or drop it, this is an exercise of free will"


... constitutes a defence of libertarian free will?

Fascinating

If in fact you are capable of choosing to catch or drop the ball, and the result of either catching or dropping is a possible action that can be taken, then you have LFW.

You wont find any professional philosopher that disagrees with that statement.

If determinism is true, no one can do otherwise. If a person acts of her own free will, then she could have done otherwise.

Interestingly enough for you, Dennet uses that same basic argument (ducking or not ducking from a thrown brick) in discussing how we are determined.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joCOWaaTj4A