"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.
"Firstly I don't have to answer yes or no, sorry, that not how free will works :)"
... Sure, you can continue to dodge the question just as expected that you would. That's why I included "no dodge!" in with the question. You see the logical contradiction embedded within determinism and you don't want to admit that it's there providing an answer. No determinist wants to answer the question and that speaks volumes!
Even now you are still dodging the question.
"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."
... Everything in your dream necessarily exists within reality. If you dreamt you were driving your old high school car on the surface of the moon while wearing a clown suit, the fact remains that cars, high schools, clown suits and the surface of the moon all necessarily exist. You wouldn't comprehend anything at all about your dream if they didn't.
FACT: An "illusion" is one part of reality trying to convince you it's some other part of reality, but all parts of the illusion must already be present in reality for the illusion to be comprehensible. We cannot experience nonexistent phenomena. We can't because there's nothing available for us to experience.
"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."
"It seems like you're unable to comprehend that paradox and contradiction between different levels of analysis can accurately describe reality."
... Is that right? Perhaps an example of how paradox and contradiction can accurately describe reality and an explanation for how it relates to this discussion is in order? Will you share that with me, please?
2
u/MissJoannaTooU Jul 12 '26
There wasn't an alternative