3 upvotes, 7 direct replies (showing 7)
View submission: The difference between causality and determinism
The alternative to your choices being determined is that they are random.
Neither leads to free will.
Comment by MarinkoAzure at 20/08/2024 at 12:59 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Or, the alternative to choices being determined is *choices being selected* instantaneously. Lots of evidence for free will there.
Comment by Squierrel at 20/08/2024 at 12:41 UTC
-1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Choices are neither determined nor random.
Only physical events are determined. Choices *determine* physical events.
Deliberate choice is the *very opposite* of random chance.
Comment by diogenesthehopeful at 20/08/2024 at 12:12 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I write an Op Ed about the difference between causality and determinism and some how I've figured that the best way to retort is to deflect. Yes I downvoted you for doing that deflection. I can assume that you didn't have anything constructive to say, but thought it better to say something rather than see where this will go without your finger on the scale.
Comment by spgrk at 20/08/2024 at 12:11 UTC
3 upvotes, 2 direct replies
This really upsets libertarians. If we were discussing it face to face, I can imagine punches being thrown.
Comment by ryker78 at 20/08/2024 at 11:21 UTC
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
You've been corrected on this before that determined and determinism isn't the same thing. Randomness could determine something, that obviously isn't the same thing as determinism.
There's a pretty easy way to point out why what you are saying is limited when it comes to understanding the unknown.
What determined the big bang? And what determined the cause before it? Then keep going to infinite regress.
Comment by [deleted] at 20/08/2024 at 10:54 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
But how do we know that choices are actually choices? If we go along with the heavy materialism view that everything has been pre determined by the big bang than its safe to assume that choices are just a man made social construct that have no inherent existence.
Comment by RECIPR0C1TY at 20/08/2024 at 09:27 UTC*
1 upvotes, 3 direct replies
This begs the question. It assumes that the only alternative cannot be libertarianly free will (it must be random) therefore neither option (one of which is assumed) leads to free will.
No, the only option is not randomness. The other option is free will. Obviously an argument needs to be made beyond the simple assertion. But you don't get to just assume your side of the debate on a statement that proves your side of the debate.