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

[Identity Crisis]

I think you're losing focus of the discussion here. Remember, all I've set out to do was to show that a determinist can consistently talk about "choice" because a choice is simply the selection among alternatives. Your thought seemed to be that since the past would only be consistent with one future, given determinism, then there are no alternatives. But there are alternatives, they are just epistemic. In response to this, you are telling me how we ought to talk, but this is a different matter. If you're really interested, I'll answer your questions as well as respond to you saying that I don't really believe it, but I would also like to get to 2, 3, and 4 from your original post I responded to, but one at a time.

It seems to me that one of the main problems is that "sentence 1" and "sentence 2" do not, in fact, mean the same thing at all, and in fact bear little resemblance to one another.  I am dismayed for you to have implied that Richard was correct to say they do mean the same thing.

That's probably fair. I did point out that I had a feeling that sentence 2 had an emotional slant (i.e. it seemed to be a rhetorical move), but I don't expect for the conclusion to be liked, I just wanted to show that a determinist can consistently talk about choice.

Perhaps I should have made clear that I don't feel like I freely choose anything. I feel like I choose. I believe the feeling of freely choosing is a misunderstanding and something that dissolves once you have the full picture.

[RichardChad]

Richard,

Somebody opens the door and I say "don't let the cold in". Does this mean I don't really believe that the heat is leaving the house but that cold is moving in? Is this an example of people claiming to believe in physics but their behaviour revealing that they don't really?  Does it suggest a fundamental problem in their world view?


Mary, the philosopher has just completed her book outlining her theory of knowledge. "I always knew I had a book in me" she tells her sister. "What?" says her sister. "That intuition you had doesn't constitute knowledge by your definition. You've just proved your own theory wrong!  Gotcha!"

Dr Craig says, "all people just know certain things are objectively wrong". "What?" exclaims the atheist. "All people? What about psychopaths? How can I take your assessments of probability and sets seriously when you betray your lack of belief in what the world "all" means. You claim to know what "all people" means, but your usage betrays the fact that you don't really believe this standard definition. Gotcha!"


All of these are ridiculous examples of bogus arguments based on vacuous and superficially literal interpretations of language. And your OP is no better.

A nicely nuanced rebuke against just the bit which needs it.

That is the tricky thing about language, too much of it is self-referential.  Leastwise people get caught up in how the definitions interact rather than those things which they represent.

The only people that run into this problem are the ones that serially want to redefine words to mean something else..

[RichardChad]

I think you're losing focus of the discussion here. Remember, all I've set out to do was to show that a determinist can consistently talk about "choice" because a choice is simply the selection among alternatives. Your thought seemed to be that since the past would only be consistent with one future, given determinism, then there are no alternatives. But there are alternatives, they are just epistemic. In response to this, you are telling me how we ought to talk, but this is a different matter. If you're really interested, I'll answer your questions as well as respond to you saying that I don't really believe it, but I would also like to get to 2, 3, and 4 from your original post I responded to, but one at a time.

IOW: There are no real alternatives - there is one fixed future, BUT we can pretend there ARE alternatives.

You didn't answer address any of these obvious observations:
1. how is it "less emotional"??
2. how could it possibly be "easier to understand" when you are using terms like  "alternatives of the choice" which clearly do not actually exist on that world view
3. "Illusion of freely choosing" is exactly what you are claiming, how then could it possibly be "less informative" or have an "emotional slant"

[john doe]

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

Sure.  I've known many people who embrace some form of determinism as true.  Haven't you?  Is your whole point is to argue against determinism, the lead question is misleading.

There seem to be any number of threads titled to reflect incredulity regarding those who hold to positions the OP finds ludicrous.  Don't worry though at the atheist forums where I usually post most people would argue no one knows God exists.  Why?  Because you can't know what isn't true.  Har-dee-har-har.  If this sounds foolish to you too, then you have some idea how your position in this thread seems to me.

[RichardChad]

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

Sure.  I've known many people who embrace some form of determinism as true.  Haven't you?

1. no, I haven't.  I've encountered many who claimed it, but none that actually did.
2. What are these "some form of determinism" you are referring to?


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.

[Identity Crisis]

I think you're losing focus of the discussion here. Remember, all I've set out to do was to show that a determinist can consistently talk about "choice" because a choice is simply the selection among alternatives. Your thought seemed to be that since the past would only be consistent with one future, given determinism, then there are no alternatives. But there are alternatives, they are just epistemic. In response to this, you are telling me how we ought to talk, but this is a different matter. If you're really interested, I'll answer your questions as well as respond to you saying that I don't really believe it, but I would also like to get to 2, 3, and 4 from your original post I responded to, but one at a time.

IOW: There are no real alternatives - there is one fixed future, BUT we can pretend there ARE alternatives.

You didn't answer address any of these obvious observations:
1. how is it "less emotional"??
2. how could it possibly be "easier to understand" when you are using terms like  "alternatives of the choice" which clearly do not actually exist on that world view
3. "Illusion of freely choosing" is exactly what you are claiming, how then could it possibly be "less informative" or have an "emotional slant"

Epistemic =/= not real, so there's no pretending, but there are alternatives. If a weatherman says tomorrow's precipitation could be rain or snow, he's not pretending there are alternatives. The alternatives are epistemic.

I said why I didn't answer but okay:
I think epistemic alternatives are easier to understand because it simply means that for all we know, it could go this way or it could go that way. See the weather example above. Do you object that the weatherman is pretending that the precipitation could be rain or could be snow? He's not pretending, he means that, for all we know (i.e., epistemically, even though he wouldn't use this word), it could rain or it could snow. You might object and say that he shouldn't be saying that because history, in conjunction with the laws of nature, dictate that it will be one rather than the other. He would say that you're misunderstanding what he means by that it could rain or it could snow tomorrow. You could insist that he stop talking this way and that he say instead that he has the illusion that it may rain or snow tomorrow, but it sure makes sense to me the way he says it. Maybe I've been unfair in thinking that is a rhetorical move by you, but do you think that is an appropriate way to put it? The weatherman and determinist aren't being stubborn and just denying some evident truth that they actually believe, despite their claims otherwise. I can tell you that I have no experience of freely choosing, just choosing. It's not that I think you have some illusion of it, I think you misunderstand it.

[LADZDAZL]

Richard,

Somebody opens the door and I say "don't let the cold in". Does this mean I don't really believe that the heat is leaving the house but that cold is moving in? Is this an example of people claiming to believe in physics but their behaviour revealing that they don't really?  Does it suggest a fundamental problem in their world view?


Mary, the philosopher has just completed her book outlining her theory of knowledge. "I always knew I had a book in me" she tells her sister. "What?" says her sister. "That intuition you had doesn't constitute knowledge by your definition. You've just proved your own theory wrong!  Gotcha!"

Dr Craig says, "all people just know certain things are objectively wrong". "What?" exclaims the atheist. "All people? What about psychopaths? How can I take your assessments of probability and sets seriously when you betray your lack of belief in what the world "all" means. You claim to know what "all people" means, but your usage betrays the fact that you don't really believe this standard definition. Gotcha!"


All of these are ridiculous examples of bogus arguments based on vacuous and superficially literal interpretations of language. And your OP is no better.

That may be fine and dandy in the context of discussing an argument. But when you are composing an actual logical argument your language has to be absolutely precise. A logical argument cannot rely on a "you know what I meant" kind of linguistics.

Therefore, you cannot argue legitimately "You know what he meant by believing in Darth Vader" because it is a logical argument. The language has to be absolutely precise.
In the context of discussion, leniency and a relaxing of precise language is acceptable as long as communication is understood. In an argument, the language has to be exactly what you mean and exact.

This comment was directed at Richard and the superficiality of his OP. I'm glad that you recognised that it does indeed apply to your silly stubbornness too. Thanks.

[LADZDAZL]

Richard,

Somebody opens the door and I say "don't let the cold in". Does this mean I don't really believe that the heat is leaving the house but that cold is moving in? Is this an example of people claiming to believe in physics but their behaviour revealing that they don't really?  Does it suggest a fundamental problem in their world view?


Mary, the philosopher has just completed her book outlining her theory of knowledge. "I always knew I had a book in me" she tells her sister. "What?" says her sister. "That intuition you had doesn't constitute knowledge by your definition. You've just proved your own theory wrong!  Gotcha!"

Dr Craig says, "all people just know certain things are objectively wrong". "What?" exclaims the atheist. "All people? What about psychopaths? How can I take your assessments of probability and sets seriously when you betray your lack of belief in what the world "all" means. You claim to know what "all people" means, but your usage betrays the fact that you don't really believe this standard definition. Gotcha!"


All of these are ridiculous examples of bogus arguments based on vacuous and superficially literal interpretations of language. And your OP is no better.

A nicely nuanced rebuke against just the bit which needs it.

That is the tricky thing about language, too much of it is self-referential.  Leastwise people get caught up in how the definitions interact rather than those things which they represent.

The only people that run into this problem are the ones that serially want to redefine words to mean something else..

But that is EXACTLY what you are doing. You are interpreting our determinist usage of the word choice in your preferred way. We explain that we don't mean what you think we mean and you just ignore us and call us liers who don't know what we actually believe (whereas you of course do). In this thread your arrogance is competing with your lack of intellectual sophistication as to which is the most egregious. It's all a bit embarrassing and cringe-worthy.

[RichardChad]

I think you're losing focus of the discussion here. Remember, all I've set out to do was to show that a determinist can consistently talk about "choice" because a choice is simply the selection among alternatives. Your thought seemed to be that since the past would only be consistent with one future, given determinism, then there are no alternatives. But there are alternatives, they are just epistemic. In response to this, you are telling me how we ought to talk, but this is a different matter. If you're really interested, I'll answer your questions as well as respond to you saying that I don't really believe it, but I would also like to get to 2, 3, and 4 from your original post I responded to, but one at a time.

IOW: There are no real alternatives - there is one fixed future, BUT we can pretend there ARE alternatives.

You didn't answer address any of these obvious observations:
1. how is it "less emotional"??
2. how could it possibly be "easier to understand" when you are using terms like  "alternatives of the choice" which clearly do not actually exist on that world view
3. "Illusion of freely choosing" is exactly what you are claiming, how then could it possibly be "less informative" or have an "emotional slant"

Epistemic =/= not real, so there's no pretending, but there are alternatives. If a weatherman says tomorrow's precipitation could be rain or snow, he's not pretending there are alternatives. The alternatives are epistemic.

not at all.

but we know the weather doesn't "go one way or the other", it's fixed, it's just a question of us not having enough predictive power to understand what it will do.

That's vastly different than thinking that we as humans have alternate choices available to us, and we're selecting from among alternatives.


Your weather analogy is a good one, when was the last time a weatherman said "well, we have four options available to us, we're trying to decide now if we're going with rain or snow". (not predict, but actually cause it to rain or snow)


No
Instead they know it will do one particular thing, they just don't know for sure what that one thing is. There are no alternatives, just degrees with which they believe they know what that one thing actually will be.

That's light years away from the way we look at our ability to decide among alternatives. We aren't going in thinking "well, I know it's going to be one thing, that's for sure, can't change that, but I just want to see how close I can get to figuring out what that one thing will be, at this point in time." 


not a human on the planet earth thinks: "geeze, I wonder if I'm going to pick chocolate or vanilla ice cream for dessert, I know I can't change what it's going to be, there's only one future after all. I just wonder if I can predict what my selection will be."

[Identity Crisis]

I think you're losing focus of the discussion here. Remember, all I've set out to do was to show that a determinist can consistently talk about "choice" because a choice is simply the selection among alternatives. Your thought seemed to be that since the past would only be consistent with one future, given determinism, then there are no alternatives. But there are alternatives, they are just epistemic. In response to this, you are telling me how we ought to talk, but this is a different matter. If you're really interested, I'll answer your questions as well as respond to you saying that I don't really believe it, but I would also like to get to 2, 3, and 4 from your original post I responded to, but one at a time.

IOW: There are no real alternatives - there is one fixed future, BUT we can pretend there ARE alternatives.

You didn't answer address any of these obvious observations:
1. how is it "less emotional"??
2. how could it possibly be "easier to understand" when you are using terms like  "alternatives of the choice" which clearly do not actually exist on that world view
3. "Illusion of freely choosing" is exactly what you are claiming, how then could it possibly be "less informative" or have an "emotional slant"

Epistemic =/= not real, so there's no pretending, but there are alternatives. If a weatherman says tomorrow's precipitation could be rain or snow, he's not pretending there are alternatives. The alternatives are epistemic.

I said why I didn't answer but okay:
I think epistemic alternatives are easier to understand because it simply means that for all we know, it could go this way or it could go that way. See the weather example above. Do you object that the weatherman is pretending that the precipitation could be rain or could be snow? He's not pretending, he means that, for all we know (i.e., epistemically, even though he wouldn't use this word), it could rain or it could snow. You might object and say that he shouldn't be saying that because history, in conjunction with the laws of nature, dictate that it will be one rather than the other. He would say that you're misunderstanding what he means by that it could rain or it could snow tomorrow. You could insist that he stop talking this way and that he say instead that he has the illusion that it may rain or snow tomorrow, but it sure makes sense to me the way he says it. Maybe I've been unfair in thinking that is a rhetorical move by you, but do you think that is an appropriate way to put it? The weatherman and determinist aren't being stubborn and just denying some evident truth that they actually believe, despite their claims otherwise. I can tell you that I have no experience of freely choosing, just choosing. It's not that I think you have some illusion of it, I think you misunderstand it.

but we know the weather doesn't "go one way or the other", it's fixed, it's just a question of us not having enough predictive power to understand what it will do.

That's vastly different than thinking that we as humans have alternate choices available to us, and we're selecting from among alternatives.


Your weather analogy is a good one, when was the last time a weatherman said "well, we have four options available to us, we're trying to decide now if we're going with rain or snow".
No
Instead they know it will do one particular thing, they just don't know for sure what that one thing is. There are no alternatives, just degrees with which they believe they know what that one thing actually will be.

That's light years away from the way we look at our ability to decide among alternatives. We aren't going in thinking "well, I know it's going to be one thing, that's for sure, can't change that, but I just want to see how close I can get to figuring out what that one thing will be, at this point in time." 


not a human on the planet earth thinks: "geeze, I wonder if I'm going to pick chocolate or vanilla ice cream for dessert, I know I can't change what it's going to be, there's only one future after all. I just wonder if I can predict it."

Right, we know the weather goes one way or the other, and that it's fixed, but it's still appropriate to say it could go this way or that. So speaking about alternatives is appropriate even if the alternatives are epistemic. It's not vastly different for humans because choosing is just what humans do. Given determinism, the choice that's made can be fixed, and we can still speak about the alternatives. We know one choice will be made, we just don't know what it will be.

As far as how you think, and how you think others think, as I said, I think this is a misunderstanding. I actually often wonder what I will choose for dinner on a given night. I know, if determinism is true, that there is only one future, but I don't know what it will be. Sometimes I can predict it; people are actually pretty predictable.

[RichardChad]

Right, we know the weather goes one way or the other, and that it's fixed, but it's still appropriate to say it could go this way or that.

no, we speak of it as "I wonder what it WILL be."
When the weatherman misses, we don't accuse him of making bad choices, we accuse him of being a poor forecaster. we don't accuse the weather of having made a poor decision.

This is light years from persons, we speak of "what I will decide to do" and what "I decided to do".
This is precisely why a human can be held morally responsible, but the determined things cannot (which Dennett adamantly agrees with by the way), because a free choice was involved.

So speaking about alternatives is appropriate even if the alternatives are epistemic. It's not vastly different for humans because choosing is just what humans do. Given determinism, the choice that's made can be fixed, and we can still speak about the alternatives. We know one choice will be made, we just don't know what it will be.

nonsense, it makes zero sense to use terms like  "alternatives of choice" which clearly do not actually exist on that world view.

As far as how you think, and how you think others think, as I said, I think this is a misunderstanding. I actually often wonder what I will choose for dinner on a given night. I know, if determinism is true, that there is only one future, but I don't know what it will be. Sometimes I can predict it; people are actually pretty predictable.

Don't believe it for a minute, if you did you would be screaming to use terms consistent with that world view.

No one wants to purposefully disguise a closely held belief (unless they are in fear of persecution or something, which you aren't).

[Identity Crisis]

Right, we know the weather goes one way or the other, and that it's fixed, but it's still appropriate to say it could go this way or that.

no, we speak of it as "I wonder what it WILL be."
When the weatherman misses, we don't accuse him of making bad choices, we accuse him of being a poor forecaster. we don't accuse the weather of having made a poor decision.

This is light years from persons, we speak of "what I will decide to do" and what "I decided to do".
This is precisely why a human can be held morally responsible, but the determined things cannot (which Dennett adamantly agrees with by the way), because a free choice was involved.

So speaking about alternatives is appropriate even if the alternatives are epistemic. It's not vastly different for humans because choosing is just what humans do. Given determinism, the choice that's made can be fixed, and we can still speak about the alternatives. We know one choice will be made, we just don't know what it will be.

nonsense, it makes zero sense to use terms like  "alternatives of choice" which clearly do not actually exist on that world view.

As far as how you think, and how you think others think, as I said, I think this is a misunderstanding. I actually often wonder what I will choose for dinner on a given night. I know, if determinism is true, that there is only one future, but I don't know what it will be. Sometimes I can predict it; people are actually pretty predictable.

Don't believe it for a minute, if you did you would be screaming to use terms consistent with that world view.

No one wants to purposefully disguise a closely held belief (unless they are in fear of persecution or something, which you aren't).

I think we've probably peaked on our progress here. Thanks for the discussion.

[RichardChad]

You are treating me as if I could have done otherwise ; - )

[pat1911]

Richard,

Somebody opens the door and I say "don't let the cold in". Does this mean I don't really believe that the heat is leaving the house but that cold is moving in? Is this an example of people claiming to believe in physics but their behaviour revealing that they don't really?  Does it suggest a fundamental problem in their world view?


Mary, the philosopher has just completed her book outlining her theory of knowledge. "I always knew I had a book in me" she tells her sister. "What?" says her sister. "That intuition you had doesn't constitute knowledge by your definition. You've just proved your own theory wrong!  Gotcha!"

Dr Craig says, "all people just know certain things are objectively wrong". "What?" exclaims the atheist. "All people? What about psychopaths? How can I take your assessments of probability and sets seriously when you betray your lack of belief in what the world "all" means. You claim to know what "all people" means, but your usage betrays the fact that you don't really believe this standard definition. Gotcha!"


All of these are ridiculous examples of bogus arguments based on vacuous and superficially literal interpretations of language. And your OP is no better.

A nicely nuanced rebuke against just the bit which needs it.

That is the tricky thing about language, too much of it is self-referential.  Leastwise people get caught up in how the definitions interact rather than those things which they represent.

The only people that run into this problem are the ones that serially want to redefine words to mean something else..

But that is EXACTLY what you are doing. You are interpreting our determinist usage of the word choice in your preferred way. We explain that we don't mean what you think we mean and you just ignore us and call us liers who don't know what we actually believe (whereas you of course do). In this thread your arrogance is competing with your lack of intellectual sophistication as to which is the most egregious. It's all a bit embarrassing and cringe-worthy.

You act as if we have a choice. WE ARE PREDETERMINED! We have no choice in the way we respond. We're just playing the tape. Every word and every exchange has been predetermined, so we don't have a choice as to what we believe or the way we act.
Pretending like we do and getting angry about it is unjust. We don't have a choice how we react and what we believe, so why you mad? Were you determined to be angry about our lack of acceptance of determinism?
If you really believe in determinism, don't act as if we have a choice. You're efforts are futile.

[john doe]

You act as if we have a choice. WE ARE PREDETERMINED! We have no choice in the way we respond. We're just playing the tape. Every word and every exchange has been predetermined, so we don't have a choice as to what we believe or the way we act.

Pretending like we do and getting angry about it is unjust. We don't have a choice how we react and what we believe, so why you mad[/b]? Were you determined to be angry about our lack of acceptance of determinism?
If you really believe in determinism, don't act as if we have a choice. You're efforts are futile.

Wait, why are you asking someone who embraces determinism why they get mad if you're the guy who defines determinists as automatons.  Do you really think he has any choice?