Do I have a choice? (determinism vs libertarianism vs compatibilism)

quote:

---

Therefore nder compatibilism you do have a choice in that it is YOU that decides. That your nature dictates the choice does not change the fact that you are the source of the decision

---

But if determinism is true, then what are you deciding between?It can't be two possible futures, because if determinism is true there is only one possible future (although it is unpredictable).

quote:

---

The options presented to you, of course.

---

What are the options? Two different futures states?

quote:

---

Whatever optiosn are available to you in the situation. Which does not, of course, guarantee that the future would be signfiicantly different.

---

I still cannot see how determinism and free will are compatible. The options must be different future states. In order for a future state to be to be considered an option it must be possible for that future state to come about.Determinism states that there is only one possibility for the future, one option. Given that there is one option, there can be no choice.Can you explain why it would be wrong to say "the moon chose to orbit the earth" and it makes sense to say "I chose to write this post" if determinism is true? In both cases the previous states are responsible for the present state.Humes Fork: Either our actions are determined, in which case we are not responsible for them, or they are the random, in which case we are not responsible for them.Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sorry to be pedantic, but that isn't Hume's fork

---

And sorry for being pedantic about your pedantic comment, but Hume's Fork is used to describe both those ideas (though my definition is sometimes called Hume's Fork II).For instance, it is the definition used in Blackburn's Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.

quote:

---

That depends on how you define "possible". If you define it as requiring that there must be a non-zero probability that you will choose either option (given tht EXACT situation), and where that probability is not simply an expression of ignorance then you are requiring a random element in decision-making.

​

But how is that "free will" ? Surely that random element cannot be called "will" nor does it offer any freedom worth having. So I conclude that the premise - that "free will" requires such a possibility - is false.

---

I'm denying free will (for arguments sake), so saying that the other option (an element of randomness) cannot be considered free will does nothing to help your point.

quote:

---

That's easy. The moon isn't a thinking decision-making entity. You are.

---

I thought you'd say this, but now you are just begging the question. I asked:Why doesn't it makes sense to say "The moon chose to orbit around the earth" and it does make sense to say "I chose to write this post."Your reply: Because people have the ability to choose. Don't you see how that is kind of a vacuous answer? The question is: what definition of "choose," "decide," "option," etc. are you using so as to make the one sentence nonsensical and the other make sense?

quote:

---

Compatibilism denies the idea that deteminism in itself removes responsibility. It may remove ultimate responsibility, but unless we assume an omniscient creator there is no entity to take on that burden.

---

Until you can satisfactorily answer the question above (which you may be able to, though I'm not yet convinced) then you are responsible for your actions in the same way the moon is.Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, you're not. You're arguing that determinism is incompatible with free will. Pointing out that indeterminism doesn't save free will does help my point - because my point is that the determinstic, compatibilist, version of free will is the only view that makes sense.

---

I think the problem has to do with the vague notion of free will.If I give you an argument that x is incompatible with y, and the only reply you make is that ~x is also incompatible with y, then the most obvious solution is that there is a problem with the idea of y.You have to find a flaw in my argument, not just offer a counterargument. Maybe there is a flaw, I just want it explicitly pointed out.

quote:

---

And I answered, without begging the question. The moon is not a thinking, decision-making entity and you are. Are you claiming that no thought or consideration went into the writing of your post ?

---

Maybe thought and consideration, but did I have a choice? I don't know, maybe its just an illusion.

quote:

---

I mean the ability to weigh up and evaluate the options available and select one on that basis. The moon can't do that. You can.

---

And are these options future states. Yes or no. Are you claiming that two different future states are compatible with the present state?And "select one" is basically synonomous with "choose", which seems to make your definition circular. And to clarify, I don't know how to define it without it being circular.

quote:

---

And before you aruge that there is a contradiction with determinism we get right back to the point that you said "didn't help my case" - indeterminism has nothing to do with weighing up options and selecting the one preferred. There is no contradiction and no question-begging - at least on my part.

---

And I would argue that determinism has nothing to do with "selecting" since the idea seems to be incompatible with an immutable future state. The future state was determined even before you were born according to determinism.

I didn't explicitly make an argument, no. So here is a rough idea of what my thoughts are.Premisesi. Free will, defined by the ability to decide between options (Paul K, not verbatim).ii. What are the options? The options can be viewed as future states.For instance, I have a choice to go to grad school or not to go to grad school.I am choosing between two future states of the world, namely one where I am in grad school and another where I am not in grad school.All options can be viewed as future states.iii.In order for something to be considered an option, it must be possible for it to be chosen.Conclusion:From 1, there must be more than one option (options is plural).From two, these options are future states. From three, each option must be possible.So i. becomes:Free will, defined by the ability to decide between possible future states.Determinism:The state of of time 2 is completely determined by the state at time 1. Therefore, only one state is possible at time 2, i.e., the state dictated by time 1. There is only one possible state for each time, so therefore there is only on possible future.There is only one possible future according to determinism.That is obviously incompatible with free will as defined in the conclusion of the previous argument.I know you disagree with 2 (atleast), so I would like to hear your thoughts on that. Edited by JustinC, : grammar

quote:

---

The problem here is that even if you choose to go to grad school events may occur which prevent you from doing so. Equating the choice with future states means denying that the choice was made, if future events should make realisation of the choice impossible.

---

It seems my example would be precluded by iii. then, since it is not possible to choose for some event to occur that far ahead in the future.So maybe the choice would be an immediate action, i.e., how one should act. In that case, you are still choosing between atleast two future states: 1.) where you act in x manner, and 2.) where you act in ~x manner.Or even if the choice is entirely mental, you are still choosing between two different states of mind for the future (if you believe in a materialist notion of the mind then your mind would have to be physically different depending on the choice).

quote:

---

iii.In order for something to be considered an option, it must be possible for it to be chosen.

---

quote:

---

"Possible" here is not used in the same sense as should be used in premise iii. Any argument which relies on equating those two usages would therefore fail.

---

I don't quite see the equating. Can you be more explicit in the two different senses in which it is being used.But I'll try and reword it.

quote:

---

iii.In order for something to be considered an option, it must be able to come about

---

and

quote:

---

The state of of time 2 is completely determined by the state at time 1. Therefore, only one state is able to come about at time 2, i.e., the state dictated by time 1. There is only one state that is able to come about at time 2, so therefore there is only one future which is able to come about.

---

Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.