The subject of free will like many others on this site and RGT is not an easy one. I have however come up with a principle that seems to work on this site and has worked in my experience irl also.

The level of certainty that an individual displays in their philosophy is inversely proportional to their intelligence.

There is some scatter in the data, but it fits pretty well.

Are you certain?

mmk socrates

Why are possible world semantics gone in a deterministic system? What about different initial conditions or natural laws?

Then something like "If I cared, I would have done x" seems perfectly right. If there had been different initial conditions in a deterministic universe, resulting in me caring, I would have done x.

Harsh.

That Plato guy was a friggen ******, eh?

So was Kant.

Hume, definitely a low IQ.

If no other world is possible...

DUCY? I've already explained it.

We've already refuted it numerous times...DUCY?

I dunno about 'explained'. More sort of 'repeatedly stated'.

Here's a thing - you're most definitely not a determinist, right? And you seemingly think that neither beauty nor the word 'if' could exist in a determined universe (I'm simplifying, but you know what I mean). So why isn't the clear existence of those things the basis of your argument?

Because I can no more prove that 'beauty' or 'moral' facts clearly exist...that's the realism/anti-realism debate.

I get the feeling that if my first name were professor u'd be eating it up.

Here is an example of determined behavior within the brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_action_pattern

Well, truthfully it is an example of determined behavior outside the brain, or rather observed outside the brain. The neural net as described in the article is a hypothetical one that is assumed.

FYI, the libertarian can handle deterministic behavior.

What?

No. Please do it again.

If determinism wants possible world semantics, then it needs to show how initial conditions could have been otherwise.

Not with references per se, no. It takes a long time to dig up good ones. I can certainly back up some of my claims, however, and already have done so. Much of Eastern metaphysics doesn't even contain the concept of an "agent." Some ancient Greek settlements were fatalistic, and those who challenged fate were viewed as fools in these places. Many languages do not even have terms corresponding to free will. Etc.

I mean, you know that people share different religions than yours, right? That people have different political views? What on earth could possibly rationally motivate you to think that every culture in the whole world shares your view on this subject? To such a point that you are willing to hold by that extreme assertion with no evidence to back it up? I mean, I am the one presenting the evidence here, and yet the onus is on the one making an extreme claim to provide equally extreme evidence to back it up. But I guess all the normal principles of reason and logic cease to apply when you "find it hard to believe" anything other than your own assertion (which you can't even support as plausible)?

This must be what it was like to oppose religion in medieval Europe. Can you think about the magnitude of the claim you're making? And yet, you've clearly never looked into it or investigated it yourself. Nobody else has said anything about it. Nobody has ever contradicted my examples of East Asian cultures and Greek cultures and tribal South American cultures. Isn't it a bit strange when someone continually makes a fact-based assertion and nobody ever bothers to respond? I mean, even unfalsifiable assertions about government conspiracies and faking the moon landing and

Yet my claim here is met with only eerie silence. Well, I know what I think it is - the existence free will is such an ingrained opinion in this culture that challenging the idea results in significant cognitive dissonance for most people, to such a degree that claims running so contrary to it are largely blocked out. I'd love to hear your hypothesis on why it gets ignored. And before you say that it's too ridiculous to take seriously - think about some of the ridiculous claims made on this forum and in RGT, and think about how many responses they get. What is so special about this claim in particular that gets it so consistently ignored? I mean, I've been posting it for years now and I haven't yet had ONE sustained debate on the subject. Doesn't that strike you as odd? I mean, I really would like to hear your credible explanations, because I really honestly can't think of any except the one I mentioned above. The general habit in this forum when someone makes a suspicious claim is for people to investigate it and explain why it's spurious, rarely is a claim (any claim) ignored.

Um, dude. Your claim of free will and definition thereof divorces choices from pre-existing causal change. Ergo, it does not imply that they could have chosen differently had they so willed, that type of language is confusing. Your claim is that they could have chosen differently given that each and every factor and random outcome had been exactly the same as it was, ie given the exact same causal sequence in its entirety. "Chosen differently had they so willed" can be interpreted as "chosen differently had their preferences been different," and that is a change of the prior conditions.

The language here must be very clear - because naturally through a translation barrier any biased language is going to be relatively quick to give inaccurate responses. What you are asking is, "are choices uncaused, or do they have causes?"

I don't think the blame game flows from concepts of free will, I think one of the ways in which the concept of free will destroys lives and hurts people is by letting vengeful and sadistic people use it as an excuse to hurt others. I think the blame game is a strategy that is based on reciprocal altruism and essentially on "punishment" in iterated "games" as a method of cultural conditioning and group dynamics.

Eh, I don't really agree with any of these, but I suppose I can accept them for the sake of argument.

This one is completely wrong. At least given the definition of "hard determinism" that is being used by the poster of the same name. Given a more traditional definition, I don't think the term "predetermined" even means anything. Either way this assumption is sour.

Doesn't follow. You need more premises if you want to back up this assertion. Regardless, it's not syllogistic form.

False again. Agenthood only requires alternative potential actions, not alternative actual actions.

This one is correct. If I granted 6 then you'd have something.

This doesn't follow logically. Some might argue that it's true, I don't think so. If God doesn't exist, then is it impossible to discuss God? I don't believe so, I believe we can form judgments about something even if it doesn't exist (except as a hypothetical), so even this doesn't follow imo. But it's close enough again that I'd pass it. 4, 5, and 6 are out, though.

Uh, P3 is what I asked you to logically establish. Sorry if that wasn't clear. But regardless, I reject all of these. You can certainly summon up arbitrary premises to support your arbitrary conclusion. In fact, if I invent premises from nowhere, I can even prove that the moon is an apple tart! Isn't that impressive?

No, not really. You may as well be begging the question if you're just fabricating premises. If you want to refute my position, you need to show that my premises contradict one another. Showing that my premises contradict your premises does not refute my position or its validity.

No, you only need to show how the outcome would differ if initial conditions had been otherwise.

Particularly from a position of incomplete information.

Possible world semantics are not gone in a deterministic system.

Right, so is the process of evolution. And the gravitation of planetary objects. We've never actually observed it, and even if we had, we only really observed photons striking our instruments anyhow, so...

Really? You're going that far?

lol madnak goin blitzo...tooo drunk to read...will do in the morning and rip new ones.

PS durka durka...so not impressed with ur current arguments. You were doing better before where you tried to at least be combative.

Do you hold to Stoic ethical views as well?