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

[RichardChad]

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.

so, are you then defending determinism? Would be interesting to have one person step forward and do so.

If you are in fact defending determinism, could you explain why your response clearly treats me as if I could have done otherwise? Claiming that I am "avoid[ing] facing the fact" is a good example of a statement that is utterly incoherent on determinism.

determinism: 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.
- stanford.

[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.

so, are you then defending determinism? Would be interesting to have one person step forward and do so.

If you are in fact defending determinism, could you explain why your response clearly treats me as if I could have done otherwise? Claiming that I am "avoid[ing] facing the fact" is a good example of a statement that is utterly incoherent on determinism.

determinism: 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.
- stanford.

No Richard,

I'm not going to bother defending determinism to you, since you have demonstrated to me that you don't want to know that you are wrong about things.  I prefer to save my time and effort for people capable of admitting to being wrong, or who even want to know when they are wrong about things.  They learn much better.

[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.

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...

It is Richard who claims red herrings, not me.

Did you actually choose to believe in Darth Vadar ?  Are you telling me you did really, really believe in Darth Vadar for two seconds?

[LADZDAZL]

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

Right.  So you are providing an example of a behavior which you believe is consistent with LFW.  And Dennet uses essentially the same scenario as a coherent example of determinism in action.

So you've managed to cite an action that is coherent with LFW or determinism.



And this is how you defend a belief in LFW?  By citing a behaviour consistent with LFW, determinsim or compatabilism?

Fascinating.

[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...

It is Richard who claims red herrings, not me.

Did you actually choose to believe in Darth Vadar ?  Are you telling me you did really, really believe in Darth Vadar for two seconds?

Not really, I believe in Darth Vader in general. He was a great, well developed character in the Star Wars series of which I still like the original trilogy to be the best. So I gave it much more than 2 seconds. Vader was a great bad guy, so I still believe in him. He brought balance to the force. What am I supposed to believe about the character that is different from the story?

And I did not see where Richard invoked a red herring, at all. What was his red herring, specifically?

[pat1911]

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.

Denying certain occasions where freewill does not exist does not debunk freewill in general. It takes only one single act of freewill to crumble the entire glass house of determinism. Determinism must prove all things are determined. Freewill requires only one event in which it occurs.
So under determinism all actuals and potentials must be covered as determined. Simply freely choosing between Coke and Pepsi, and having freely chosen one and having had the option to choose the other causes determinism to fall apart. To be a deterministic is difficult. The burden of proof is immense.
Further, the action or defense of determinism must necessarily assume freewill exists  which is both ironic and contradictory. For if all is determined, so is determined our belief in freewill.
That may very well be it's undoing. The action of convincing somebody of a position assumes they have the will to choose what to believe. If we are determined to believe in freewill it's futile to make arguments to convince somebody who does not have a choice in their beliefs. The action is a contradiction in itself.
Does it not seem weird to try and convince somebody of something they had no choice but to believe in?

[Emuse]

It most certainly is a red herring, as you well know.

It gives you exactly what you've requested.  A prima facie proof combining logic and evidence.

P1.  If determinism is false then LFW is true.
P2. If LFW is true then we are free to believe claims for which there is no evidence.
P3. If we are free to believe claims for which there is no evidence then I can believe that Darth Vader exists.
P4. I can't believe Darth Vader exists.
C. Therefore, we are not free to believe claims for which there is no evidence.
C1. Therefore, LFW is not true.
C2. Therefore, determinism is not false.

Three modus tollens incorporating a simple test that someone can carry out in the comfort of their own home (falsify P4).

So no, not a red herring.  Which premise do you disagree with and why?

I've also already touched on the tu quoque fallacy.

Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Please Google for more info.  Even if I do act as though determinism is false, this still doesn't discredit the argument above.

[hatsoff]

It most certainly is a red herring, as you well know.

It gives you exactly what you've requested.  A prima facie proof combining logic and evidence.

P1.  If determinism is false then LFW is true.
P2. If LFW is true then we are free to believe claims for which there is no evidence.
P3. If we are free to believe claims for which there is no evidence then I can believe that Darth Vader exists.
P4. I can't believe Darth Vader exists.
C. Therefore, we are not free to believe claims for which there is no evidence.
C1. Therefore, LFW is not true.
C2. Therefore, determinism is not false.

Three modus tollens incorporating a simple test that someone can carry out in the comfort of their own home (falsify P4).

So no, not a red herring.  Which premise do you disagree with and why?

I've also already touched on the tu quoque fallacy.

Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Please Google for more info.  Even if I do act as though determinism is false, this still doesn't discredit the argument above.

Why would you think that any of those premises are true?

[Emuse]

It most certainly is a red herring, as you well know.

It gives you exactly what you've requested.  A prima facie proof combining logic and evidence.

P1.  If determinism is false then LFW is true.
P2. If LFW is true then we are free to believe claims for which there is no evidence.
P3. If we are free to believe claims for which there is no evidence then I can believe that Darth Vader exists.
P4. I can't believe Darth Vader exists.
C. Therefore, we are not free to believe claims for which there is no evidence.
C1. Therefore, LFW is not true.
C2. Therefore, determinism is not false.

Three modus tollens incorporating a simple test that someone can carry out in the comfort of their own home (falsify P4).

So no, not a red herring.  Which premise do you disagree with and why?

I've also already touched on the tu quoque fallacy.

Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Please Google for more info.  Even if I do act as though determinism is false, this still doesn't discredit the argument above.

Why would you think that any of those premises are true?

P1 is based on the assumption that intentional actions are not random.  We all seem to agree with this.  LFW proponents seem to agree that if intentional actions are not random then either determinism or LFW must be the case.
P2 is based on the notion that LFW allows me to form beliefs via an act of the will and that there is no non volitional and antecedent circumstances that will prevent this if LFW holds.  This also includes the freedom to accept claims which are not supported in context ("You believe atheism because you are free to believe claims for which there is no evidence" and so on.  Or, "We are free to reject evidence"). Under these circumstances I could form a belief just to prove that I'm not being forced by antecedent circumstances to withhold belief.
P3 seems uncontroversial.

How would the premises being false help LFW as it is often presented?

[bskeptic]

P2 is based on the notion that LFW allows me to form beliefs via an act of the will and that there is no non volitional and antecedent circumstances that will prevent this if LFW holds.  This also includes the freedom to accept claims which are not supported in context ("You believe atheism because you are free to believe claims for which there is no evidence" and so on.  Or, "We are free to reject evidence"). Under these circumstances I could form a belief just to prove that I'm not being forced by antecedent circumstances to withhold belief.

Where are you getting that from? Can you quote the work of a LFW philosopher?

This sounds to me nearly as strange as something like, "If LFW is true, then you could flap your arms and fly away if you wanted".

There may be all sorts of things you can't do, both for physical and psychological reasons, regardless of LFW.

[bskeptic]

P1 is based on the assumption that intentional actions are not random.  We all seem to agree with this.  LFW proponents seem to agree that if intentional actions are not random then either determinism or LFW must be the case.

I think they could be random generated in a sense. Why not?

Of course, if they were either random or determined, then they wouldn't (for me) be the intentions of the agent in a proper 'free' sense. But they could in theory have a random element, just as they could in theory be determined.

[Emuse]

Where are you getting that from? Can you quote the work of a LFW philosopher?

I'd rather present an argument which shows I'm thinking than simply list quotes! )

We are dealing with Richard Chad's defence of free will.  Richard's defence relies on PAPs (to whit, for P to have free will it must be possible that P could have acted differently).  To quote Richard from above ...

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.

The problem here is that determinism does not lead to modal collapse so "could have done differently" is not a sufficient condition for free will even if it is a necessary one.  As a result (and given that PAPs are necessary under LFW and accepting Richard's claim that no professional philosopher denies this) the entailment relation "If P acted freely then P could have acted differently" doesn't give us the reverse "If P could have acted differently then P was acting freely".  Why?  If the antecedent circumstances that forced P to do A at time T in the actual world are not metaphysically necessary and could have been different even if only slightly then P could have done something other than A at time T in the actual world even though determinism is true.  This also means that the sentence immediately prior to Richard's bolded statement is false in a general sense.  I certainly hope for all our sakes that there are professional philosophers who disagree with it! 

To avoid this and maintain PAPs, it must be possible for a person to take different actions under exactly the same antecedent circumstances.  This is what I was addressing in my first response to Richard after he said ...

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.

In this statement, Richard obviously isn't claiming that under determinism, there is no action that could have been different given different antecedent conditions.  That's obviously false.  To give the type of free will being espoused here, we need different actions under the same conditions and which are controlled by nothing other than the will of the belief former.

How could one have come to a different decision if one was still deliberating at the time?

That's a very good question!

Now you're supposing that LFW allows you the freedom to change the past!

Oh, come on!  If I say, "I wore the brown shoes but of course, I could have worn the black shoes instead" I'm not saying that I can go back in time and change the shoes I was wearing!  I'm claiming nothing of the sort.  To say that an action could have been different and under the same circumstances is not to say that we can go back and change it.

I think they could be random generated in a sense. Why not?

Well, freely willed actions not being the antithesis of random action will have interesting consequences for Kalam.

And "you can't do X for non volitional physical or psychological reasons" ("flap your arms and fly", "believe in Darth Vader") is exactly what determinism argues out from because the psychological and physical factors are part of the antecedent events which are determining the outcome.

[hatsoff]

Emuse,

Freedom of will or choice is not the same as freedom of action or belief.  So, for instance, we can freely *will* to believe in Darth Vader, but not necessarily be able to carry out that will and actually believe in Darth Vader.

[Emuse]

Emuse,

Freedom of will or choice is not the same as freedom of action or belief.  So, for instance, we can freely *will* to believe in Darth Vader, but not necessarily be able to carry out that will and actually believe in Darth Vader.

What does this actually mean?  I can't believe in Darth Vader so its not something I can choose to do!  Even if I want to believe in Darth Vader (or fly unaided), how is a want that can't be acted upon a realistic choice?  That type of will is impotent.  And if we end up denying PAPs with respect to action to hold onto the idea of free will then there is still a problem with Richard's defence thus far.  The type of free will being defended there is freedom we possess in relation to realistic choices that we can make (what shoes to wear, to let a ball fall to the floor or not when thrown at you and so on).

[bskeptic]

Well, freely willed actions not being the antithesis of random action will have interesting consequences for Kalam.

This goes back to you saying:

P1.  If determinism is false then LFW is true.

And it doesn't seem to follow. Determinism may be false, and you could have a measure of randomness. But that's not the same as LFW being true.