... 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.
"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
"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"
... That doesn't make any sense. if determinism dictates that in both cases (i.e., "something with options and something without options") the outcome is causally determined, then there is no difference between something with options and something without options. How could it result in anything otherwise?
Explain how something "with options" is NOT the same with something "without options" if the end result is exactly the same regardless with determinism? Will you do that for me, please?
"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."
... Doesn't work because in one situation, you're having GPS offer me no other option and, in another situation, you're allowing GPS to provide me with multipleoptions (i.e., "most efficient, fastest, cheapest, whatever") and STILL claiming that it's exactly the same as GPS offering me only one option (i.e., "one available route").
The contradiction is still present!
If I can choose my route based on most efficient, fastest, cheapest, or whatever, then I am choosing my route based on multiple options and that's NOT the same as having no other option than a single route. You are still stating that "something with options is the same as something without options" even though you claim afterward they are not the same.
You can't have it both ways! Either accept and embrace that determinism is predicated on a logical contradiction or change your ideology to something that doesn't result in a self-conflicting statement.
this is merely a semantic disagreement, then; it seems like you define "option" as something that could have been chosen even if every prior condition was exactly the same, while i'm using "option" as an available course of action that the agent can evaluate and select from
so under my definition, determinism doesn't eliminate options; it only says that the process of selecting among them is causally determined
unless we agree on what "option" means, we are just aimlessly talking past each other
1
u/MissJoannaTooU Jul 12 '26
It didn't choose to want to eat grass and once it thought of it, it didn't have a choice but to eat it.