Not unless the cheese is hard cheese. But, yes. I agree whole-heartedly.

[CENTER]The Scarlet Letter "D"[/CENTER]









1) If there was a past event, then there was a cause prior to that past event, but what she neglected to tell me was that if there was a past event, then there was a subsequent event to that past event. Yes, I always knew that to be true, but never did I hear it uttered from the mouth of my dear determinism.

2) If there is a current event, then there is a cause prior to the current event, but what she neglected to tell me was that if there is a current event, then there is going to be a subsequent event to the current event. Again yes, I always knew that to be true, but never did I think it was something determinism should say.

3) If there will be a future event, then there will be a cause prior to the future event, but what she neglected to tell me was that if there is a future event, then, there will be a subsequent event to the future event. Finally, I always knew that to be true, but never did I think (not even for a moment) that it was her place to tell me, nor would I have ever expected that she was going around telling others such things that she neglected to tell me.

Why O why has she led me astray!? Will she continue to be untruthful until my dying day? Any idiot knows that two plus two is four, but never has Ms. Determinism felt the need to utter that truth to me! Nor do I believe it was ever her place to.

There's still a place in my heart for thinking that maybe it was never her place to tell me about what will happen subsequent to events that have antecedent causes, and maybe (just maybe) she is not really the one saying all those things others attribute her to saying, but if I'm mistaken on that account such that she is as deceitful as I now suspect that she may be, then it saddens me greatly that I will have to take her fishing southern style-being fed to alligators, that is.

You are starting to wander again.

I do believe that where there is no effect, there is no cause. To Say X caused Y is equivalent to saying Y is the effect of X. You can't have one without the other. They are inseparable.

Yes. And thank you.

I do believe that where there is no effect, there is no cause.

Libertarians can go several ways with this.... (1) They can deny that every event has a cause, since they might hold that human choices are not caused by anything. Or, (2) they can hold that, even though every event has a cause, human beings are not events, but agents of events--so that the choices of human beings are not events either. Your being born is an event, and your being born was caused by prior facts in the universe. But your choices are not an event. So although the existence of human beings themselves are effects of some prior cause, their choices are not sufficiently caused by some prior event, since libertarins think that if they were so caused, then you would not be "free to choose" among a range of forking alternatives.

The libertarian view, however, has the problem that his view backfires on him. If none of my choices have causes, then all my choices are totally random, hence I have no control over any of my own actions, and therefore, I am not free to choose in this case, either....

My view on the Libertarian position:

I believe that everyone is either a Determinist or not a Determinist (aka Indeterminist). I believe all Libertarians are Indeterminists, so I believe that no Libertarian is a Determinist; moreover, no Indeterminist is a Determinist.

Libertarians lack belief that Determinism is true. Also, I believe all Indeterminists believe in free will, just as all Soft Determinists believe in free will, and I believe that the free will that one believes in is no different than the free will the other believes in (whether they agree with me or not).

Commentary:

You said (and I bolded above) something that implies the following: some Libertarians hold that every event has a cause. Yes, some do, but it's not merely the case that only some do. I say all do, but what you say implies that it's not the case that all do.

Every past, present, and future event had, has, or will have a preceding cause, and I base this on the belief that Determinism is true, but what else ought I believe supposing that Determinism is true?

Extrain would have me believe that Determinism says that every event has a cause, which I'm fine with, but he doesn't stop there. He goes beyond that and believes that Determinism says even more. He says that determinism says that every event has a later effect. I suppose I believe every event has a later effect too, but I didn't believe that Determinism was the bearer of that truth (if it is).

Every past, present, and future event had, has, or will have a preceding cause, and I base this on the belief that Determinism is true, but what else ought I believe supposing that Determinism is true?

Extrain would have me believe that Determinism says that every event has a cause, which I'm fine with, but he doesn't stop there. He goes beyond that and believes that Determinism says even more. He says that determinism says that every event has a later effect. I suppose I believe every event has a later effect too, but I didn't believe that Determinism was the bearer of that truth (if it is).

In summary, he doesn't merely believe that determinism says that all events have prior causes. He also believes that in addition to that that determinism also says that all events have later effects.

Thus, he does not view that Determinism is a view limited to what happens before events (past, present, and future). He views that Determinism also says something about what happens after events (past, present, and future).

Consequently, any summary of determinism that is limited to saying that all events are antecedently caused only tells half the story about what Determinism is-if he's correct.

To assume that an event has no prior cause sounds absurd to me.

To assume that an effect can take place without cause - also absurd. Where there is no action there can be no reaction, therefore where there is no cause, there can be no effect.

Do either of you believe that YOU are responsible for the decisions YOU make?

Well, I only meant "seems to [to me]."

If a person tells me that he is both 1) a determinist and 2) believes in free will, then I automatically classify that person and apply the following terms to him:

3) a soft determinist
4) a compatibilist

Posted by Extrain:

fast;162936 wrote:

Quote:

Posted by Extrain:

fast;162513 wrote:

P1) Every event has a cause. My observation is that the proposition is true. It's either a necessary truth or a contingent truth. I believe it's a contingent truth. When I put P1 and P2 together, I come up with the notion that there is a cause and effect relationship between two events. The prior event is the cause for the latter, and I take this to mean that the latter event is the effect of the prior. But, I do not interpret this to imply a chain of events. I do not know why I would refer to the second event as a cause unless it too results in a third event.

But you just explicitly admitted all events are causes. If they are, then all events have effects. This logically follows even if "all events have a cause" is contingently true. Everything that is a cause, also has an effect. That is why we dub causation "causal sufficiency." If a thing is a cause, then it has an effect paired with it.

No I didn't. At least I don't think I did. I am saying that all events have causes. Again, there is no event without a cause.
Once more, behind every event is a cause. If there was, is, or will be an event, you can bet your bottom dollar that there was, is, or will be an underlying cause for that event. That's what I am saying.

I have not said, nor did I mean to imply, that all events are causes (as you put it). They may very well be, and I think maybe (just maybe) that they are, but I do not think we should conclude that they are just because 1) all events have causes and 2) every cause is an effect.

But, notice how the lamp breaking was not a cause. It was an event that had a cause. It's premature to say that it is a cause as well.

If an event is a cause, then another event will be an effect, but why think that an event that is an effect is also a cause? Because it had a cause? It was an event and so was caused, but that doesn't mean the event itself is a cause. Maybe it would come out better if I said not every event (that has a cause and is an effect) is in turn a cause.

If there is no event without a cause, then every event has a cause. And if every event has a cause, then every event just IS an effect of some prior cause, since it is a necessary analytic truth that everying that is a cause has an effect, just as everything that is an effect has a cause. Q.E.D.

There's no other way around this. You have deny P1), and say that not every event has a cause. so I don't know what the rest of your speculations are about.

Just think of the results of Quantum Indeterminacy. That some events don't have causes is not an absurd Idea unless you think the results of Quantum Mechanics are absurd. Why do you think physicists wrestle so much with that question? A lot of them have abandoned the idea of determinism as it stands because they think Quantum Mechanics shows us just this: that some events don't have causes. So many of them think determinism is actually an outdated superstition coming from scientists and philosophers of old.

Hi extrain,
You appear to be familiar with the quandry of quantum indeterminacy. So tell me this - Is it possible that the physicists wrestle with it so much because they naturally assume that they are witnessing the actions of more than one atomic particle. Whereas it is theoretically possible that only one particle is present in all locations, but in alternate states of decay? I ask this because I believe the latter

Yes, of course. Who wouldn't? Maybe Ted Bundy? You should listen to the content of his own personal self-defense at his trial hearing....

So you clearly believe in free will?