so we have free will to go against our own desires. the wish to go against our own desires may be caused by some unknown factor in our history, or it may result in our intellectualizing that our innate desires are wrong...which is also a cause. a choice is a cause and a choice is caused.

everything is connected in some odd way, and i think it is not really linear.

as far as morality, probably there really is no such thing. it can only be evaluated using criteria such as whether or not there is a beneficial effect in behaving a particular way-and then again, i think morality issues are also affected and adjusted in the process of evolution.

basically we are sitting here thinking about things which are going on as they do behind the scenes and we can do nothing about them and it doesnt do any good to know how they work either, not being able to change it. but that must be what philosophy is...

i feel bad i cant understand the algebraic way of expressing these ideas and proofs, but at the same time i suspect they dont really give an accurate picture. for instance, 2+2=4. but if you have two sour oranges and two sweet ones, and each of four people get one, they will not all be of the same opinion as to their fortune in life. and if two of the oranges were as large as grapefruit and two were as small as cherries, any two of the four plus the remaining two would not be of equal weight.

Well we do sometimes go against our desires, because we find that what we desire is contrary to what we ought to do. But, that seems to me and important part of being a human being. Doesn't it seem so to you?

I don't know why you come to the conclusion (if that is what you did) that there is no such thing as morality, when you say in the next breath that "it can only be evaluated using criteria such as whether or not there is a beneficial effect in behaving a particular way". For why isn't it morality to do just that? Shouldn't a moral person evaluate his actions in terms of whether what he does is beneficial? And I don't understand why you say that we cannot do anything about what happens "behind the scenes". It seems to me that what we do often does change the way things would happen unless we did as we did. You seem to be saying that some kind of fatalism is true, when it doesn't seem to me that you have given any justification for that. Indeed, in allowing that we sometimes act contrary to our desires aren't you allowing that we can sometime change what would have occurred unless we had acted against our desires?

Well we do sometimes go against our desires, because we find that what we desire is contrary to what we ought to do. But, that seems to me and important part of being a human being. Doesn't it seem so to you?

I don't know why you come to the conclusion (if that is what you did) that there is no such thing as morality, when you say in the next breath that "it can only be evaluated using criteria such as whether or not there is a beneficial effect in behaving a particular way". For why isn't it morality to do just that? Shouldn't a moral person evaluate his actions in terms of whether what he does is beneficial? And I don't understand why you say that we cannot do anything about what happens "behind the scenes". It seems to me that what we do often does change the way things would happen unless we did as we did. You seem to be saying that some kind of fatalism is true, when it doesn't seem to me that you have given any justification for that. Indeed, in allowing that we sometimes act contrary to our desires aren't you allowing that we can sometime change what would have occurred unless we had acted against our desires?

The tossing of a coin is a determined event. Whether it turns up heads or tails is a function of several things, such as the force exerted on it, the direction of the force, the resistance of the air, and the properties of the surface upon which it lands. The fact that people do not have sufficient control over the force that they exert, and do not know about all of the properties of the relevant other factors, makes them unable to accurately predict the outcome. But that inability to predict the outcome does not entail that it was not caused by the preceding events. What this illustrates is that epistemically there may appear to be more than one possible outcome, but that does not make it actually the case that there is more than one possible outcome. One not knowing what will happen does not make the event not causally determined. Likewise, the decision to act in accordance with the outcome of some event may itself have preceding causes.

And, of course, no one can prove that they could have done other than what they have done, given all of the circumstances that obtained.

When one decides to have chocolate rather than vanilla, that is likely due to preferences one has regarding the taste, though it could also have to do with beliefs regarding allergies and so forth. Or one might attempt to prove that one has "free will" by choosing what one would normally not choose. But that desire to prove something is then the cause, which itself is probably due to preceding events, and so we still have not left the realm of causal determination.

well, kenneth-i have only come to a few conclusions-first, that i will continue to make decisions as though they were mine to make whether or not i have free will, since i dont believe the question will ever be settled to my satisfaction. second, that i believe in a sense of morality that has come to me over time which is static and subject to change, and i intend to try to act within its limits, while constantly updating its definitions.

pretty much, all of what you said is what i am thinking, but it is only pondering about things we will most likely never know for certain. when i say there probably is no such thing as morality, i mean it is one of those things like beauty-we sense it, but cant describe it or put a limit around it or keep it in a box. we will argue about it and do a lot of soul searching, but what it really amounts to is 'doing the right thing' but then one has to define right, and we are back to the beginning.

i was working on this in a blog or two, had to give it up-life got in the way.

...On the contrary, as I said, it can be demonstrated that the probability of incompatibilist free will is infinitely great.

Determinism has nothing to do with cause and it has nothing to do with events. Both notions are meaningless in a determined world.

You are completely wrong about the meaning of the word "determinism". See:

Determinism | Define Determinism at Dictionary.com

Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free Will[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As you are evidently using "determinism" in a nonstandard way, it would be helpful for you to say precisely what you mean by it.

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

When the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy asked me to write the entry on determinism, I found that the title was to be "Causal determinism".
I therefore felt obliged to point out in the opening paragraph that determinism actually has little or nothing to do with causation
PhilSci Archive - Causality and Determinism: Tension, or Outright Conflict?

When the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy asked me to write the entry on determinism, I found that the title was to be "Causal determinism".
I therefore felt obliged to point out in the opening paragraph that determinism actually has little or nothing to do with causation
PhilSci Archive - Causality and Determinism: Tension, or Outright Conflict?

The fact that you have one deviant person does not show what the word "determinism" means, nor does it show how the term is generally used. If you paid attention, I provided four different sources, including an ordinary dictionary.

I suggest you look up the term in your favorite English dictionary and see what it says.

Furthermore, you have failed to say what it is that you do mean by the term, and you have failed to provide the demonstration that you claimed to have.

Yes, I know. You keep quoting that. You never say, however, how that is relevant to the issue of whether you (and the SEP guy) are using the term, "determinism" deviantly. Obviously you both are. That is not how the term is used standardly in philosophy. That is simply a matter of fact. There is no dispute about it. The question is what justifies the deviation.

you (and the SEP guy) are using the term, "determinism" deviantly. Obviously you both are.

What would you call the notion that all events are caused

The "deviant person" is the author of one of the articles that you referenced, the most authoritative of the articles that you referenced.

I suggest that you think about the ramifications of determinism, and read some serious articles.

I have failed in neither respect, because on this occasion I have made no attempt.

Determimism and free will, endlessly debated never settled even the meaning of the terms it seems is debatable.

.

I say, either put up or shut up. If you have an argument, provide it.

I regret to say that I took the time to read the entire linked paper: What is being written on is not the same issue as this discussion; they've only a superficial relationship (and this, only on a mechanical level). As a matter of fact, it seems to be defending and supporting a banality.

... completely different contexts; the same terms yet on very different planes/levels.