Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

The Problem

The hard determinist tells us that anyone who says "I could have done otherwise" is deluding themselves and suffering from an illusion of free will. Assuming a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, is he right? No, he is mistaken. The hard determinist is confusing what we "can do" with what we "will do".

The fact is that whenever choosing occurs, “I could have done otherwise“ will always be true.

The Single Possibility Paradox

It is impossible to choose between a single possibility.
Waiter (a hard determinist): “What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?”
Customer (hungry): “I don’t know. What are my possibilities?”
Waiter: “In a deterministic universe, there is only one possibility.”
Customer (disappointed): “Oh. Okay then, what is my one possibility?”
Waiter: “How should I know? I can’t read your mind!”

Choosing requires two things to be true before it can begin:
1. There must be at least two real possibilities to choose from (for example, A and B).
2. The chooser must be able to choose either one (for example, “I can choose A” is true and “I can choose B” is also true, even if I cannot choose both).

Unless these two conditions are satisfied, choosing cannot happen. Choosing always requires multiple possibilities.

So, Does Choosing Happen?

Choosing happens. We objectively observe choosing when we watch people enter a restaurant, browse the menu, and place an order. We also observe that a person is held responsible for their deliberate choice when the waiter brings them the bill.

Choosing is an operation. It inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice. Each of us performs this operation many times every day. But it is not just a subjective experience. A person making a complex decision, like which automobile to buy, may write down a list of “pros and cons” to help evaluate their options more objectively. And choosing is not just a personal operation. We also witness groups of people making choices together, perhaps brainstorming to generate options, then prioritizing to decide what they want to tackle first. Clubs, parent-teacher associations, legislatures, and other groups make decisions all the time.

Choosing is important. It is routinely performed by all intelligent species. The ability to imagine different ways of solving a problem, to estimate the likely outcome of each option, and then to decide what we will do, enables us to deal more successfully with various environmental challenges and contributes to the survival of our species.

Because choosing is so important, the determinist should take care not to break it. Insisting upon only having a single possibility breaks the choosing operation.

Possibilities and Uncertainty

The notion of a “possibility” allows us to deal with uncertainty. When we do not know what “will” happen, we imagine what “can” happen to better prepare for what does happen. If we drive down a road and see a green traffic light, we know that it “can” turn red, so we are alert for that possibility.

Things that “can” happen exist within the imagination. We cannot drive a car across the “possibility” of a bridge. We can only drive across an actual bridge. However, to build an actual bridge, we must first imagine a possible bridge, and produce a plan for its construction. The plan is still only the possibility of a bridge until construction is completed.

A possibility is considered “real” if we can successfully make it happen if we choose to. Our bridge was a real possibility because we had the skills and materials to successfully build it. But what if we later decide that we will not build the bridge? Does this mean that our bridge was “impossible”? No. The possibility remains real, even if we never get around to building it.

The bridge itself never became a reality, but the possibility was real from the point where it was first imagined. And when we say that something “could have” happened, we are always speaking of something that did not happen. The bridge was never built, but it “could have” been built if we chose to build it.

So, when the hard determinist claims that there was only one thing that “could have” happened, he is confusing the notion of what “can” happen with the notion of what “does” happen and what “will” happen. Even though the bridge “will not” happen, it remains true that it “could have” happened if we chose to make it happen.

Choosing and Uncertainty

All choosing operations begin with a state of uncertainty. We have two or more options that we “can” choose, but we do not know yet which one we “will” choose.

For example, I wake up hungry and wonder what I should fix for breakfast. Three familiar options come to mind: scrambled eggs, pancakes, and french toast. I go to the kitchen to see whether I have the ingredients. I have eggs, so I can fix scrambled eggs. I have bread, so I can also fix french toast. But I have no pancake mix. So, I cannot to fix pancakes this morning.

But both the scrambled eggs and the french toast are real possibilities. As I evaluate each option, I recall that I had eggs yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that. Suddenly, scrambled eggs do not sound as appetizing as they did earlier. I decide that I will fix french toast this morning.

Could I have fixed something other than french toast? Yes. I could have fixed eggs again. And if I were out of bread, then I would have fixed eggs. The fact that I did not fix eggs does not contradict the fact that I could have fixed eggs if I wanted or needed to.

The Rule

Within a universe of perfectly reliable cause and effect, whenever choosing happens, “I could have done otherwise” will always be true.

Why? Because whenever we perform a choosing operation there will always be at least two “can do’s”. In my breakfast example, “I can fix scrambled eggs” was true and “I can fix french toast” was also true. Had either of those been false then choosing could not have happened. Why? Because it is impossible to choose between a single possibility.

Each “can do” at the beginning of a choosing operation becomes a “could have done” at the end.
So, when the hard determinist claims that “could have done otherwise” is impossible, he is mistaken.

“Could Have” versus “Would Have”

But “would” I have made a different choice under the same circumstances? No, I would not. The same reasons that led me to fix french toast the first time would still be good reasons. So, I would always choose french toast over a fourth day of scrambled eggs. And if we were to roll back the clock and replay this decision process we would always get the same result. So, in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect the notion that “I would have done otherwise” will always be false.

So, given a deterministic universe, “I could have done otherwise” will always be true, but “I would have done otherwise” will always be false.

If the determinist limits his claim to “I would have done otherwise” is always false, then he would be correct. But that is not the hard determinist’s claim. He insists that I “could have done otherwise” is “delusional”.

How Did He Get It Wrong?

We humans often speak and think “figuratively” rather than “literally”. We use metaphors and similes to express ideas. For example, the determinist looks at a causally necessary choice, and, since the outcome was inevitable, he imagines that it is “like choosing never happened” or it is “as if the choice was already made in advance” or he may say “choosing scrambled eggs was never really possible”. But he will leave out the words that flag metaphorical language, because he is taking his figurative statements literally.

Figurative statements have a one serious flaw. Every figurative statement is literally false. By “literally false” I mean that they are empirically, objectively, and in actual reality false.

To confirm this, all we need do is look at the facts:
(1) When the hard determinist claims that “choosing never happened”, is that a fact? No. Choosing really happened. It was an empirical event that took place in objective reality. So, the determinist’s claim is false.

(2) What about the hard determinist’s claim that “the choice was already made in advance”? Well, no, that is not true either. The choice was made through the choosing operation, and the choosing operation did not happen until I performed it. The Big Bang did not choose to fix french toast for breakfast, I did.

(3) And finally, what about the hard determinist’s claim that choosing scrambled eggs was never “really” possible? That too is false. Whenever someone makes a choice, two things must be true by logical necessity, (1) there must be at least two real possibilities to choose from and (2) we must be able to choose either one. I could have fixed the scrambled eggs if I chose to. The fact that I decided to fix french toast does not logically imply that fixing scrambled eggs was ever impossible. The fact that it did not happen does not contradict the fact that it could have happened.

So, all three of the hard determinist’s claims are false.

About “Can” and “Will”

What “can” happen constrains what “will” happen. Something that cannot happen will not happen.

What “will” happen does not constrain what “can” happen.

Possibilities are only constrained by two things: our imagination and our ability to “make our dreams come true”. If we have the imagination, the skills, and the resources to actualize a possibility, then that possibility is real. And it remains a real possibility even if we never actualize it.

About Causation

Causation itself never causes anything. The notion of causation is used to describe the interaction of objects and forces as they bring about events. We use the cue stick to hit the cue ball at a given angle that causes the ball to roll and hit the 8 ball in such a way that causes it to roll into the corner pocket. Causation did not do that. We, the cue stick, the cue ball, and the 8 ball are the objects. And the force we applied to the cue stick is the force that was passed from object to object. That force and those objects are the causes of the “into the corner pocket” event. The objects and forces caused the event.

The notion of causation is only used to describe the interaction of the objects and forces. The notion of causation itself is neither an object nor a force. Causation never causes anything.

About Determinism

Determinism itself never determines anything. Determinism asserts that the behavior of the objects and forces that make up the physical universe is reliable. Because it is reliable, every event will be the reliable result of prior events through some specific combination of physical, biological, or rational causal mechanisms.

We need this reliability to predict the outcome of our own actions.

Objects behave differently according to how they are internally organized.
(1) Inanimate objects behave passively in response to physical forces. A bowling ball on a slope will always roll downhill.

(2) Living organisms behave purposefully due to biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. A squirrel on a slope may go uphill, downhill, or any other direction where he hopes to find an acorn or a mate. He is not governed by gravity unless you drop him.

(3) Intelligent species have evolved a neurological infrastructure that enables them to imagine, evaluate, and choose. They can behave deliberately, choosing when, where, and how to eat, sleep, and procreate. They are free to choose what they will do.

Determinism never determines anything because, like the notion of causation, determinism is a concept used to describe the behavior of objects and forces. It is not itself an object or a force. It is not an entity with a brain that can perform the choosing operation, so it never “decides” anything.
Only intelligent species can decide for themselves what they will do.

About Free Will

There are two distinct notions about what the word “free” means in the term “free will”.

Operationally, free will is when someone decides for themselves what they will do while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. An “undue influence” would be any external force or internal condition that effectively cripples their ability to decide for themselves what they will do. An external force would be a person holding a gun to their head or any other threat that forces them to submit their will to the will of another. Other influences that compromise self-control include mental illnesses that disable the ability to reason, or causes hallucinations and delusions, or create an irresistible impulse. Any of these or other extraordinary influences can affect how we assess that person’s moral or legal responsibility for their actions.

Operational free will is not a subjective experience. It is an empirical distinction between a choice we make for ourselves versus a choice imposed upon us by someone or something else. Whether a person acted of their own free will, or whether they were coerced or otherwise unduly influenced, is a matter of objective evidence.

Philosophically, free will is irrationally defined as a choice someone makes that is free of reliable cause and effect. The philosophical notion assumes that, in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, every event is causally necessary from any prior point in time, and inevitably must happen. Philosophers have suggested that this constitutes a meaningful constraint that we must be free of, to be “truly” free.

But is this a meaningful constraint? I think not. No one experiences reliable cause and effect as a constraint. In fact, we depend upon reliable causation to exercise every freedom that we enjoy. If gravity were not reliable we could not crawl , stand, or walk. Reliable biological mechanisms keep our hearts pumping and our brains thinking. Our occasionally reliable reasoning helps keep our lives ordered.

Most important, reliable causation is the source of our control over significant events that affect our lives. Knowing that a virus causes polio and that the body’s immune system can be primed to fight that virus through vaccination, has given us control over that disease and many others.

The philosopher’s notion that reliable causation is a boogeyman that robs us of any control over our own lives and choices is only a Halloween story. It is the hard determinist’s delusion.

About the Single Inevitable Future

We know that there will be only one actual future. How do we know? Because we only have a single past in which to put it. So, the key question is how will this single future come about?

Within the domain of human influence (things we can make happen if we choose to do so), the causal mechanism by which the single actual future comes about usually involves imagining several possible futures, and then choosing the one that we will actualize.

We cannot build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge. So, on our way to the single actual future, we typically consider many possible futures. For example, we may evaluate several different bridge designs before choosing what type of bridge we will build.

In a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, there will be a single “actual” future, but there will also be many “possible” futures. The single actual future will exist in the real world. The multiple possible futures will exist within our imagination, that is where possibilities are born, that is where everything new is invented.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Sculptor1 »

Yes, you can only have done otherwise were the circumstances DIFFERENT.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 26th, 2020, 7:10 am Yes, you can only have done otherwise were the circumstances DIFFERENT.
And that is what "could have" always implies. It is the possibility that was not selected.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Terrapin Station »

Why would circumstances have to be different to choose one dish over another at a restaurant?

The circumstances are different once you make a different choice, but they're not prior to choosing, and prior to choosing is what folks are talking about when they note that they could have chosen differently. They're not saying they could have chosen differently after they've made a choice.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Sculptor1 »

Terrapin Station wrote: September 26th, 2020, 9:48 am Why would circumstances have to be different to choose one dish over another at a restaurant?

The circumstances are different once you make a different choice, but they're not prior to choosing, and prior to choosing is what folks are talking about when they note that they could have chosen differently. They're not saying they could have chosen differently after they've made a choice.
Because for any given moment your agency is determined to comply with your wishes.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 26th, 2020, 1:08 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: September 26th, 2020, 9:48 am Why would circumstances have to be different to choose one dish over another at a restaurant?

The circumstances are different once you make a different choice, but they're not prior to choosing, and prior to choosing is what folks are talking about when they note that they could have chosen differently. They're not saying they could have chosen differently after they've made a choice.
Because for any given moment your agency is determined to comply with your wishes.
Well, you can choose something like what to order in a way that's apparently random, though.
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Papus79 »

Throwing a bunch of complexity as this, such as considering the caloric neurological expense of making a decision or saying that you committed to the processing doesn't actually do much of anything.

Scultor1's one-liner was pretty good, ie. whatever you chose off the menu is your brain state pushing forward. What is your brain state? It's some combination of where you're at neurochemically in the moment combined with feedback that your hormones are giving you which will affect what type of food you have a hankering for. What's all of that made of? Many small incidents and decisions over the last few days for the most part, I doubt many genetic predispositions or truly long-term issues come into heavy play unless you're either diabetic and need to avoid sugar or (unlikely you'd be eating out in this next case) have a near-lethal peanut allergy which is informing your decision of what to stay away from. Needless to say one could also add if you're a particularly observant Muslim or Jew you'll avoid certain items that are under scriptural restriction, similarly if you're Catholic you might avoid certain things or go for the fish because it's Friday.

All of the complexity noted above has nothing to do with our processing and what we chose to do being a compilation of past states creating a present state (and if we want to be controversial and speculative - potentially future states pulling us forward along with that, none of what I said depends on that however).

This is where I then take this, there are two different types of free will proponents:
- People who believe quite literally in their ability to have done otherwise in a given moment and don't believe that any form of determinism is real.
- Compatibalists and concerned citizens who are worried about the idea of determinism getting out and ill-effecting society (of which Sam Harris and Robert Sapolsky have probably been hurting their feelings a fair amount lately).

I think at this point I'd find the only things really interesting to talk about on 'free will' is whether there are more branches of it than what I just mentioned above, ie. it might be worth knowing just to know and for the sake of making sure that I understand all of the cases people are actually making. Past that - really fundamental claims about reality seem to be of the sort that people are the least likely to be persuaded out of, I'd have no illusion that I'd make a case that would change someone's mind unless they're really that uninformed on what determinism is (people will tend to cling to it rather strongly if they just haven't seen sufficient evidence for a decade but they'll cling to it far more powerfully than that if they have emotional needs or load-bearing structures in their day-to-day living that require it to be true), and so I think the best we can hope for is clarity.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Sculptor1 »

Terrapin Station wrote: September 26th, 2020, 1:59 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: September 26th, 2020, 1:08 pm

Because for any given moment your agency is determined to comply with your wishes.
Well, you can choose something like what to order in a way that's apparently random, though.
Your apparently random choice is determined by the moment's determining factors. Where else would it come from?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Sculptor1 »

Papus79 wrote: September 26th, 2020, 2:48 pm Throwing a bunch of complexity as this, such as considering the caloric neurological expense of making a decision or saying that you committed to the processing doesn't actually do much of anything.

Scultor1's one-liner was pretty good, ie. whatever you chose off the menu is your brain state pushing forward. What is your brain state? It's some combination of where you're at neurochemically in the moment combined with feedback that your hormones are giving you which will affect what type of food you have a hankering for. What's all of that made of? Many small incidents and decisions over the last few days for the most part, I doubt many genetic predispositions or truly long-term issues come into heavy play unless you're either diabetic and need to avoid sugar or (unlikely you'd be eating out in this next case) have a near-lethal peanut allergy which is informing your decision of what to stay away from. Needless to say one could also add if you're a particularly observant Muslim or Jew you'll avoid certain items that are under scriptural restriction, similarly if you're Catholic you might avoid certain things or go for the fish because it's Friday.

All of the complexity noted above has nothing to do with our processing and what we chose to do being a compilation of past states creating a present state (and if we want to be controversial and speculative - potentially future states pulling us forward along with that, none of what I said depends on that however).

This is where I then take this, there are two different types of free will proponents:
- People who believe quite literally in their ability to have done otherwise in a given moment and don't believe that any form of determinism is real.
- Compatibalists and concerned citizens who are worried about the idea of determinism getting out and ill-effecting society (of which Sam Harris and Robert Sapolsky have probably been hurting their feelings a fair amount lately).

I think at this point I'd find the only things really interesting to talk about on 'free will' is whether there are more branches of it than what I just mentioned above, ie. it might be worth knowing just to know and for the sake of making sure that I understand all of the cases people are actually making. Past that - really fundamental claims about reality seem to be of the sort that people are the least likely to be persuaded out of, I'd have no illusion that I'd make a case that would change someone's mind unless they're really that uninformed on what determinism is (people will tend to cling to it rather strongly if they just haven't seen sufficient evidence for a decade but they'll cling to it far more powerfully than that if they have emotional needs or load-bearing structures in their day-to-day living that require it to be true), and so I think the best we can hope for is clarity.
Not having free will is your Mum making your choose the salad when you want steak.
Aside from that, for sure, there is complexity, and difficult to predict. This does not invalidate that the factors which lead to the final decision do not come from nowhere.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 26th, 2020, 2:56 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: September 26th, 2020, 1:59 pm

Well, you can choose something like what to order in a way that's apparently random, though.
Your apparently random choice is determined by the moment's determining factors. Where else would it come from?
What are "the moment's determining factors," though?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Sculptor1 »

Terrapin Station wrote: September 26th, 2020, 2:59 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: September 26th, 2020, 2:56 pm

Your apparently random choice is determined by the moment's determining factors. Where else would it come from?
What are "the moment's determining factors," though?
The state of the Universe, of which your brain is an indivisible part.
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Papus79 »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 26th, 2020, 2:58 pm Not having free will is your Mum making your choose the salad when you want steak.
That's the other place where the dialog tends to go round and round - free will tends to be almost as flexible a term as 'holy spirit'. Flexible enough to fill forum threads for decades with 'free will debate'. The moment someone can say with a straight face 'both free will and determinism are 100% correct' it's off to the races for good and with some luck a handful of people might even be able to make a lucrative income through retirement writing or lecturing about complex square-circles.

I guess in some sense that's good for having debate war games that can be played forever with no resolution because the topic being debated is somewhere between Rorschach blot and Zen koan, giving people an opportunity to try out new or different argumentative styles or approaches to see how much effect choice of form has on one's debating skills. The only downside for western culture, especially the US, keeping this one in debate war games or political status - there are a lot of people incarcerated right now, especially for non-violent drug offense, who are bearing the load of people's solipsism or their ability to feel great about themselves for their good luck in life.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Terrapin Station wrote: September 26th, 2020, 9:48 am Why would circumstances have to be different to choose one dish over another at a restaurant?

The circumstances are different once you make a different choice, but they're not prior to choosing, and prior to choosing is what folks are talking about when they note that they could have chosen differently. They're not saying they could have chosen differently after they've made a choice.
Actually, I am saying that "they could have chosen differently after they've made a choice".

At the beginning of the choosing operation two things must be true by logical necessity (that is, they are required by the operation):
1. There must be at least two real possibilities to choose from (e.g., A and B).
2. One must be able to choose either one ("I can choose A" is true and "I can choose B" is also true).

The "I can" in the present tense becomes an "I could have" in the past tense (after they've made their choice). The "I can" had to be true, so the "I could have" must also be true.

And, technically, both "I can's" were true in exactly the same circumstances. When choosing inputs two "I can's" it will output one "I will" plus one "I could have".

The result is that "I chose A, but I could have chosen B" is true in both parts. And that's the assumption that we all make when we use the English language. (But, of course, I'm an American, so English is a foreign language to me).
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Papus79 wrote: September 26th, 2020, 2:48 pm Throwing a bunch of complexity as this, such as considering the caloric neurological expense of making a decision or saying that you committed to the processing doesn't actually do much of anything.

Scultor1's one-liner was pretty good, ie. whatever you chose off the menu is your brain state pushing forward. What is your brain state? It's some combination of where you're at neurochemically in the moment combined with feedback that your hormones are giving you which will affect what type of food you have a hankering for. What's all of that made of? Many small incidents and decisions over the last few days for the most part, I doubt many genetic predispositions or truly long-term issues come into heavy play unless you're either diabetic and need to avoid sugar or (unlikely you'd be eating out in this next case) have a near-lethal peanut allergy which is informing your decision of what to stay away from. Needless to say one could also add if you're a particularly observant Muslim or Jew you'll avoid certain items that are under scriptural restriction, similarly if you're Catholic you might avoid certain things or go for the fish because it's Friday.

All of the complexity noted above has nothing to do with our processing and what we chose to do being a compilation of past states creating a present state (and if we want to be controversial and speculative - potentially future states pulling us forward along with that, none of what I said depends on that however).

This is where I then take this, there are two different types of free will proponents:
- People who believe quite literally in their ability to have done otherwise in a given moment and don't believe that any form of determinism is real.
- Compatibalists and concerned citizens who are worried about the idea of determinism getting out and ill-effecting society (of which Sam Harris and Robert Sapolsky have probably been hurting their feelings a fair amount lately).

I think at this point I'd find the only things really interesting to talk about on 'free will' is whether there are more branches of it than what I just mentioned above, ie. it might be worth knowing just to know and for the sake of making sure that I understand all of the cases people are actually making. Past that - really fundamental claims about reality seem to be of the sort that people are the least likely to be persuaded out of, I'd have no illusion that I'd make a case that would change someone's mind unless they're really that uninformed on what determinism is (people will tend to cling to it rather strongly if they just haven't seen sufficient evidence for a decade but they'll cling to it far more powerfully than that if they have emotional needs or load-bearing structures in their day-to-day living that require it to be true), and so I think the best we can hope for is clarity.
It doesn't need to be complex, though. Freedom is deterministic. Every freedom we have, to do anything at all requires reliable cause and effect. And, free will is a deterministic event.

Causation isn't some entity that is "out to get us". It is as much us as it is anything else.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 26th, 2020, 3:05 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: September 26th, 2020, 2:59 pm

What are "the moment's determining factors," though?
The state of the Universe, of which your brain is an indivisible part.
Can we get any more specific than that? lol
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021