If the universe is deterministic, and thus predetermined, then, unsurprisingly, the inputs you have to begin with are also predetermined. This rather limits the number of possible inputs to... 1, and the number of outputs to... 1.
I really hope you haven't spent too long on it so far?
I disagree
5 minutes long enough?
I'm honestly not surprised.
So?
No, only the imagining of the choices is predetermined, along with the eventual outcome. Infinity can be as big a word as you want it to be, it doesn't change the principles involved, principles that you are simply riding roughshod over and ignoring.
And what exactly do you mean by "freely"? You have mentioned the word in a number of threads but never had the good graces to explain what you mean by it. Care to now?
Indeterminism doesn't exist within a deterministic universe, so how exactly is it a cop out? The question is the nature of the freedom present in a deterministic system, and whether the complexity of the human process of choice is in principle any different than that found in a thermostat.
Once again, and hopefully for the last time, although I doubt that very much, it is not the process of choice that anyone has raised issue with, but the nature of the freedom within that process, whether it is anything other than the trivial notion of freedom found in a thermostat.
It is predetermined that you will imagine the alternatives you do. All alternatives that you don't select, and possibly even the one you do (if it does not come to pass as imagined), are counter factual. Counterfactual simply means that expressing something that has not happened. If something has happened then it is factual. The single predetermined future path, due to being predetermined, is also factual (even if we don't know what it is yet). Every single other alternative we can imagine is, by definition, counterfactual, but our act of imagining of them is not.
An exact definition I guess can be got close to with your help. After all you certainly seem to know what not being free is..
but Sarkus we are talking about the mind...everything is imagined in some form...Philosophy 101 All choices a pure mental constructs that we imagine exist and fortunately most of them turn out to exist.
So something that goes from A to B to C, and can only ever go from A to B to C, and does so "with out resistance" is, in your view, moving "freely"?
I think you need to think a bit about what you are writing....
No, they really don't turn out to exist. Seriously. Almost none of them in the grand scheme of things. Every time you imagine what you might want for dinner - how many of those do you not have for that dinner?
Yes, which is why I said that "All alternatives that you don't select, and possibly even the one you do (if it does not come to pass as imagined), are counter factual" because it is quite possible that we conclude to do something but don't end up doing it. We could choose to go at the light... but the engine breaks down.
First, you know zip about what I have or haven't done in the past, so please don't presume. Second, I'm sure you think this has relevance, but it really doesn't. Whether the imagination is dysfunctional or not doesn't alter that the alternatives they imagine are alternatives they imagine.
What choice does he have?
Why, too complex for you?
Please don't get pedantic. It was clear you were not using the electrical term.
And what "category" am I switching?
So you weren't actually meaning anything at all when you said "thus the term "freely" could be defined in part by using the words "with out resistance."?
I have got remember to always be specific to the point of absurdity when discussing any thing with you.
If you were more devoted to the topic instead of trying to tear me down you might actually achieve something.
the above is a fine example... can I use it later?
Has it been pre determined how long he will not understand?
I know what we're discussing, but if you can't distinguish and explain the difference in the nature of freedom between a river and human free will, and the description of "freely" certainly covers the former... what am I to think?
They all have freedoms, but it is the nature of that freedom that is being discussed here. If you are asserting that the human will has a different type of freedom to a computer, or a thermostat, then please explain it.
We are. But to establish the nature of free will, and what it really is, whether the freedom is trivial or anything more, it is quite correct and pertinent to discuss those things that are also covered by the definition of "freely" that you offer. If you can't handle that...?
My objective is not to tear you down, but simply to defend my position on this matter. You, however, continue to post crap. And by that I mean ill-thought out half-baked pseudo-arguments, throwing words around as if the word itself is enough. I have no doubt you think you're being clever, or think your arguments are intelligible, and have some profound meaning. No, they're just crap.
Along the lines of "able to do otherwise than what one does".
You will do what you will do.
Don't feel you need to on my part. But what does this have to do with anything? I could tell you about my desire for a chicken sandich, but it's not going to further anything.
Where you are concerned I have no doubt that I couldn't imagine it.
Yes, but we can not know until he does.
I don't think his understanding will actually have an input into that, but you never know.
No. And yes, I was predetermined to provide that answer.