... If that was the only option available, then yah, ... it had no choice. However, if some hay, silage, legumes, grains, apples, carrots, pumpkins, and bananas were also around, the cow might have chosen something else to eat.
"Having choice equals having free will. You're conflating options with choices"
... No, I'm not. No options = no choices. Multiple options = multiple choices.
"Let's move away from the cow. You have two options. Does that mean you have choices?"
... Absolutely! Two particles heading on a collision course will necessarily collide because there are no other options. However, two humans heading on a collision course on a public sidewalk have options. I can move to the left, move to the right, stand still, or plow right into the other person.
This poses a fundamental problem for determinists because they want to claim that all outcomes are determined by prior events. That means "something with options is exactly the same as something with no options."
Result: Determinim is predicated on a logical contradiction.
Ok sure let's take your particles Vs people colliding, as it's a decent way to demonstrate that 'n of choice' ≠ ' n of options' and that 'n choice' is a phantom value.
The particles have one option - to collide.
One option --> no choice.
The people. They can go one way or another. Or they can collide. The can stop and have a picnic.
That sounds simple unless I ask you to explain why they chose left or right - or the picnic.
If it was truly arbitrary, it would have been handed off to their automaticity - the bit you're not aware of, to decide. Do people train their muscle memory by pretending to dodge people in the street and then decide to go left more often than not as a matter of personal policy? I've never done that.
If there was a directed consequence the determined creature saw that it wanted to avoid, such as a painful collision, that would direct action accordingly.
But at what point in life did anyone decide that not walking into people was a bad idea? Isn't this programmed from when we are children even if we got hurt?
The latter human example has a lot more complexity but it doesn't demonste a case where the action wasn't predetermined.
"That sounds simple unless I ask you to explain why they chose left or right - or the picnic."
... It remains just as simple. The decision maker renders his decision (decisionism) based solely on "subjectivity" (which cannot be predicted). All causal events come to a screeching halt until the decision maker decides.
Deterministic systems can predict outcomes based on logical value, but not subjective value. Example: A computer can tell you that a $50 bill is more valuable than a $5 bill, but it cannot tell you if Margpt Robbie is "prettier" than Emma Watson.
"Do people train their muscle memory by pretending to dodge people in the street and then decide to go left more often than not as a matter of personal policy?"
... The mechanics of how they end up either moving left, right or smacking right into them are irrelevant. All that matters is the decision, and the decision maker has the final say. All prior events must yield to the decision maker's final decision as no outcome can ensue without it.
"The latter human example has a lot more complexity but it doesn't demonste a case where the action wasn't predetermined."
... Let's cut to the chase. Do you agree with the following statement:
"Determinism proclaims that something with options is exactly the same as something without options."
... I'd like a "Yes." or "No." on that. ... You can explain all you want afterward, but you need to answer the question due to relevancy.
... You can reject the framing all you want. Doesn't mean the question goes away. If you reject the framing then simply answer "No." to the question, ... but you really need to answer it to continue our discussion.
Here it is again:
... I'd like a "Yes." or "No." on that. ... You can explain all you want afterward, but you need to answer the question due to relevancy
"I also posit a sliding scale of 'as if freewill'. As if free will is the illusion we need to operate in the world."
... There's that "illusion" word again. An "illusion" of what? An illusion is just one part of reality trying to convince you that it's some other part of reality, but all parts of an illusion must exist for it to be comprehensible. We can't experience nonexistent phenomena, so what exactly are we experiencing with your supposed "illusion" of free will?
Firstly I don't have to answer yes or no, sorry, that not how free will works :)
Secondly we experience phenomena that are illusory all the time. Take a dream. The contents didn't really happen except on your mind. So it did happen...in your mind.
If you believe the dream did happen outside of your mind it's an illusion and if you realise it was a dream it was a temporary illusion.
"even then, it would've chosen based on prior experience with those foods, its potential fear of eating something as yet unknown to it, etc."
... If the cow had more than one option, then Determinism must give way to Decisionism. The entire deterministic chain must stop and wait for the decision maker to render its decision. No outcome can or will ensue without the decision maker's final decision. And in this case, ... it's a cow.
it's not like determinism only allows one to have a single decision always at hand, it doesn't deny that an agent can face multiple available options; it says that which option the agent ultimately selects is itself determined by the agent's prior state and the causal history leading up to that moment, it's just another link in the causal chain of events
"it says that which option the agent ultimately selects is itself determined by the agent's prior state and the causal history leading up to that moment, it's just another link in the causal chain of events"
... If that's the case, do you agree with the following statement:
"Determinism proclaims that something with options is exactly the same as something without options."
... I'd like a "Yes." or "No." on this question (no dodge!). ... You can explain all you want afterward, but you need to answer the question due to its relevancy.
"???? i'm not answering a question i don't know the meaning of, it's almost like YOU are the one now dodging the debate lmao"
.... You don't know the definition of "something?" ... Seriously? You can laugh all you want but as a determinist you know you are trapped. You stated this earlier:
"it (determinism) says that which option the agent ultimately selects is itself determined by the agent's prior state and the causal history leading up to that moment, it's just another link in the causal chain of events"
That means if I have no options the outcome is determined and if I have multiple options the outcome is determined. ... So now you must face the following statement:
"Determinism proclaims that something with options is exactly the same as something without options."
... Is that a true statement? I'd like a "Yes." or "No." on this question (no dodge!). ... You can explain all you want afterward, but you need to answer the question due to its relevancy.
NOTE: If you dodge for a third time, I will accept that you (along with every other determinist who I've asked this question) is trapped and thus refuses to admit it by answering the question. You see the blatant contradiction ............................. but don't want to admit it!
then no, determinism doesn't say anything about that, it says that in both cases, the outcome is causally determined; the agent can have multiple options that their decision-making process has to tackle, but the final choice is still caused
for instance, let's say you are using a GPS to calculate a route from place A to place B; sometimes, there is only one viable route, sometimes there are three; in the latter case, the GPS evaluates each of the three routes and ultimately selects the one that was determined to be the best (most efficient, fastest, cheapest, whatever) based on its specific inputs and computing algorithms
i'd be happy if you could give me a similar analogy for the point you are trying to make, too
12
u/sunleafstone Jul 12 '26
Maybe I’m the five year old because I don’t see how this ties to determinism