Does "determinism" recognize The Arrow of Time? What does "determinism" have to tell us about the difference between the "future" and the "past"? Or are these concepts unacknowledged externalities?Determinism just means one future we can get to from our actual past. One difference between the future and the past is that there are things we can do now that will influence the future. That is usually assumed by determinists (and indeterminists) Isn't your sentence one and two a bit contradictory? No. It's a question of getting what 'can' really means. You think the two sentences are contradictory precisely because for you 'can' means can in the actual situation. That's the LFW version, that's the illusion I'm trying to get you to see through.
:-) Yes the word influence always means the same thing, there is not more than one kind of influence.So you are saying influencing future events has nothing to do with exerting a degree of Free Will?
You are not trying to understand. To understand assume determinism to see what the problem is re could have done otherwise. Recognise that 'could have' means 'would have' if circumstances were appropriately different. Check that against what you actually thought 'could have' meant. Note the sort of opportunity to have done otherwise was not as you thought. Note how the new correct meaning does not fit with the sort of moral responsibility you thought we had for our choices good or bad. Perhaps you just wont get it but clearly you wont by us telling you stuff you have to look in the right place and seePerhaps I don't get it because it sounds like contrived circular thinking. Of course given all your assumptions only one answer is possible. But, it still seems like something that's great for explaining what's happened - but not so useful in providing tools for navigating into the future. It guides us because it makes a big difference to how we judge ourselves and each other.It helps me tremendously.
:-) Yes the word influence always means the same thing, there is not more than one kind of influence.So you are saying influencing future events has nothing to do with exerting a degree of Free Will? Sometimes sometimes not.It doesnt for the ebola virus. Also it depends on what you mean by free will. There are two versions (at least) . One that involves being able to do otherwise in the actual situation is logically impossible.
No. It's a question of getting what 'can' really means. You think the two sentences are contradictory precisely because for you 'can' means can in the actual situation. That's the LFW version, that's the illusion I'm trying to get you to see through.Ah ha, now we are getting somewhere, perhaps. So it's all about the present moment. Funny that, a long time ago in my philosophizing youth I figured out the present can always get shaved down to the point that for all practical purposes the present doesn't actually exist, it's all about the past and the future. And right now the future has done a great job of racing up to catch my past so I gotta run off again, there's used roofing to be sold. I'll be back. cheers, :cheese:
No its not about the present moment.
What LFW is, is the concept that it’s empowering to have more than one thing you can do in the actual situation.
It’s belief in that impossible kind of power that a number of us say is a negative influence.
Im not even gonna hope to get agreement but if you just get to see what LFW is it would be great.
Citizenschallenge.
I will tell you my relationships with significant others in my life, my friend, my girlfriend and my children are wondeefully enriched for our disbelief in LFW. It makes such a difference. Shame I cant get it across but there you have it.
.Basically this is the essence of buddhism An ethics of compassion flows from the central belief in determinism (dependent arising)
So I happily call myself a buddhist, though all I mean by that is a determinist, consequentualist, atheist.
And yes that does guide me very well.
now you sound like you’re talking religion :gulp:
now you sound like you're talking religion :gulp:That's a shame because I did say all that means is I'm a determinist, consequentialist atheist. It's just that is the bases of buddhism, no god and an ethics of compassion for all sentient beings that comes from accepting dependent arising, which is determinism. Anyhow back to the plot. You know you feel determinism would restrict you, so you know you believe you have free will that would be impossible if determinism were true. So what's left to do for now is for you to see what that is. You'll only do it by answering questions. So question 1) why do you feel determinism would restrict you?
now you sound like you're talking religion :gulp:That's a shame because I did say all that means is I'm a determinist, consequentialist atheist. It's just that is the bases of buddhism, no god and an ethics of compassion for all sentient beings that comes from accepting dependent arising, which is determinism. Anyhow back to the plot. You know you feel determinism would restrict you, so you know you believe you have free will that would be impossible if determinism were true. So what's left to do for now is for you to see what that is. You'll only do it by answering questions. So question 1) why do you feel determinism would restrict you?Incidentally, it wasn't your mention of Buddhism that inspired my remark about religion... We are having such a difficult time communicating because you keep making assumptions about what I believe that don't match the way I'm looking at this. So of course you misread, or skip over, what I've written thus misunderstanding me on a couple levels. But that is my problem and i'll work on better defining it - but probably not today since too many other determining factors are forcing me into other activities today.
Now there is someone here who does have a better grasp of this and intelligently discussing it.
I notice that Lois never got around to addressing his specific points.
But, guess that’s been a bit of a pattern - determined by factors outside of Lois’ influence, I’m sure. 
There is no disputethat the rain makes the grass wet. The question is what made the rain fall on the grass to make it wet? Does the rain have free will?Nobody is defending that the rain is having free will. But I defend that the rain makes the grass wet, whatever the causes of the rain. So if you agree then can we leave this point. Now why do you not consistently apply this on the next point:
Yes, that's true, but it still doesn't prove free will. As long as deliberations are determined, no free will is necessary. The resultant actions come from the determining influences, not from free will.Your deliberations have influence, whatever their causes: just as the rain makes the grass wet, whatever the causes of the rain. Just stop here. Do you agree with this? If not why do you make an exception for deliberations? Just note: until here I have not mentioned free will yet.
There is no contradiction between being caused, and being a cause. So there is also no contradiction between your deliberations causing actions, and your deliberations being caused.Of course it matters what causes the actions--if scientific iquiry is of any importance to you. A scientist wouldn't say that because we deliberate that means we have free will. If you have no interest in knowing what caused amd controls the deliberations, as long as your investigations stop there, that COULD lead a person completely uninterested in understanding how things work to come up with the fantasy of free will. You need scientific inquiry in what makes the grass wet? The grass becomes wet because of the rain, whatever the causes of the rain. So why do I suddenly need knowledge of what causes the rain to see that the rain makes the grass wet? Why do I need knowledge of the causes of my deliberations to see that my deliberations have influence? Just keep at this point: my deliberations have influence. Now comes the next: we both agree that our deliberations are caused, are determined by previous processes or events. We both agree there is no magical interference from some uncaused supernatural soul or will. Right? Now I define: Free will means you can act according your own wishes and beliefs. You reaction:
Yes, that's exctly what it means, and my contention is that it is impossible for anyone to do anything that supersedes their determining factors.Huh? You say 'Yes, that's exactly what it means'. Now my 'contention' is: if that is exactly what free will is, then we have free will. If I can act according my own wishes and beliefs, whatever caused them, then we have free will. I agree with your idea that we cannot change the processes that lead to what we are now, but we do not need that. Your addition 'that it is impossible for anyone to do anything that supersedes their determining factors' is unnecessary. However, I think that your formulation 'supersede your determining factors' is extremely unclear. But we come at that later.
Only if you assume your wishes and beliefs happen in a vacuum or as a result of free will. If you wish to avoid in examining origins of beliefs and wishes, and going back as far as possible, then free will is as good an answer as any. You might as well say god did it and be done with the investigation. Why go any further? .No, and you already admitted that. Unless you have some powerful counter argument that you have not given yet: - you say that 'Free will means you can act according your own wishes and beliefs' is a correct and exact definition - you agree that rain causes the grass to become wet, whatever the causes of the rain - necessarily you should agree that my deliberations have influence, whatever the causes of my deliberations (see above) If we assume that in my deliberations my wishes and beliefs play a causal role, then we have that it is possible to act according my own wishes and beliefs, which means we have free will.
It does not mean 'having control of your determining factors'. If that was the case steam engines, heaters with thermostates, any servo system, would have free will, because they control their determining factors. See here].No, they wouldn't control their determining factors. But your contention is that humans can control their determining factors by force of will. The determining factors of machinery don't change because some of their actions are caused by a program or whoever created and installed the heaters and thermostats. All of the actions of the machinery are determined. You are the one claimimg free will, not me. Does the machinery with automatic systems have free will? Do the factors that determined the machinery's automatic actions become invalid because the machinery can seemingly act without direct control? That seems to be what you are implying. What can't work for machinery can't work for people. We are programmed machines that can't overcome our programming by the magic of free will, no matter how much you want it to be so. One of the determining factors of a steam engine is the amount of fuel that flows into the burning chamber. If this is reduced by the turning of the steam engine itself, it controls one of its determining factors. That does not mean a steam engine has free will. It shows that your criterion 'control of your determining factors' is worthless. Every servo system has control on one ore more of its determining factors, but surely no mechanical servo system has free will.
If an argument insults you, you should examine why you can't understand analogies. Feeling insulted isn't a good argument. It's more on the level of sayong, "No fair!" and taking your ball and running home.In the first place, you did not insult me, but Cit.pm. You seem to have a bad memory about what you wrote yourself, and to whom. In the second place, for insulting somebody the same is valid what you write: 'Insulting isn't a good argument'. If you want to build an argument against C.pm and you think he did not understand you, then try to explain how you meant it, where he did not understand you. You should have patience.
Far afield, though not really. Please entertain this thought. Have any comments?
From the perspective of navigating one's life Accepting the determinism thing, where do we go from there? I imagine you're familiar with the psychological notion of "being present in the moment" "what are you going to be present to" What does this determinism thing you're defending have to say about how we perceive the events of our life, and our own behavior during those events, as they flow by? Or taking it another step how do we act on the various events, and impacts, of our lives as they flow by?is all that pre-determined also...
Now there is someone here who does have a better grasp of this and intelligently discussing it.GdB is discussing free will defined as the ability to do what we want. He accepts that the want is detemined by factors beyond our control/influence.
I notice that Lois never got around to addressing his specific points. But, guess that's been a bit of a pattern - determined by factors outside of Lois' influence, I'm sure. :smirk:Yes of course. GdB is talking about free will we have even if determinism is true. So assuming determinism to have different wants and beliefs Lois would have to have had a different distant past and GdB wouldn't deny that, you are denying it with your smirk. I assume what you believe because everyone believes in LFW before reflection and because it is clear you think determinism would restrict you from what you write. So it's a question of you don't want to go there but talk about other things. But we have no disagreement over other things.
Far afield, though not really. Please entertain this thought. Have any comments?Yes, of course. And note how you feel that would restrict you somehow, of course you do. Get real about that and we can discuss the issue.From the perspective of navigating one's life Accepting the determinism thing, where do we go from there? I imagine you're familiar with the psychological notion of "being present in the moment" "what are you going to be present to" What does this determinism thing you're defending have to say about how we perceive the events of our life, and our own behavior during those events, as they flow by? Or taking it another step how do we act on the various events, and impacts, of our lives as they flow by?is all that pre-determined also...
Free will from the ground up.
Citizens challenge
Ive tried to help by suggesting two golden rules.
- Assume determinism for the purpose of understanding the subject of free will.
- Dont think free will refers to just one thing, it doesnt it refers to at least two things.
GdB pretty much agrees with me. He disbelieves in LFW and believes in CFW.
When you talked about GdB discussing ‘the issue’ you were clearly forgetting he was discussing CFW i.e free will possible even if everything was predetermined 14 billion years ago not the issue of LFW.
And you havent tried 1)
I strongly suggest ignoring these rules is hindering you a great deal.
I also think disbelief in LFW helps GdB in many ways, as it does me. Patience with trying to get his points across to Lois being one of them.
Stephen you know why I say you are starting to sound like you’re talking religion?
Because you’re always telling me what I’m thinking.
When it’s quite clear you don’t understand what I’m thinking.
It would be better if you just stuck to explaining what you do understanding, and it is valuable, I’m not knocking you.
and don’t read too much into smilies either, that one back there was supposed to be a poker stare, not a sneer,
sorry about the misunderstanding.:coolsmirk:
Then again maybe it was smirk, but certainly not a sneer :-/ /i]
Other than that, it would be nice for Lois to speak for herself.
And considering how easy she is with her one liners, why not directly respond to #150] 
Stephen you know why I say you are starting to sound like you're talking religion? Because you're always telling me what I'm thinking. When it's quite clear you don't understand what I'm thinking. It would be better if you just stuck to explaining what you do understanding, and it is valuable, I'm not knocking you. and don't read too much into smilies either, that one back there was supposed to be a poker stare, not a sneer, sorry about the misunderstanding. :coolsmirk: Other than that, it would be nice for Lois to speak for herself. And considering how easy she is with her one liners, why not directly respond to #150] :)Well you might be unique in not initially feeling everything being predetermined would restrict you. And I might have misunderstood every time you've written things about predeterminism that make it look like that. But no. So I'll leave it until you want to discuss LFW
Other than that, it would be nice for Lois to speak for herself. And considering how easy she is with her one liners, why not directly respond to #150] :)OK I expect she will. But nothing wrong with me pointing out that is not about LFW. Lois is right about LFW but goes off the deep end and says since we don't have LFW our deliberations don't influence our actions, which makes no more sense than saying because rain doesn't have LFW it doesn't make grass wet. There is not much dispute over that being a mistake.
I assume what you believe because everyone believes in LFW before reflection and because it is clear you think determinism would restrict you from what you write.Here's an example of you making an assumption that might fit what you want to believe But, that doesn't reflect on my process one bit… Sturm und Drang and trying to catch a freight train, or a wave function would be better analogies than this LFW you keep trying to smack me in the head with.
I assume what you believe because everyone believes in LFW before reflection and because it is clear you think determinism would restrict you from what you write.Here's an example of you making an assumption that might fit what you want to believe But, that doesn't reflect on my process one bit… Sturm und Drang and trying to catch a freight train, or a wave function would be better analogies than this LFW you keep trying to smack me in the head with. So try answering a question so I can see if I'm wrong. If it were true that there was one possible future you could have got to from the actual circumstances of your birth, do you think that would have restricted your freedom? If you answer "no" I'll take that at face value and back down but please be honest.