I'm just telling you what hard determinism says

given the world we live in
If I chop your head off you will necessarily die.

Determinism is a claim about the laws of nature: very roughly, it is the claim that everything that happens is determined by antecedent conditions together with the natural laws. Determinism is a thesis about the laws, but it should not be confused with [what]...has been called..."the necessitarian view". It's easy to get confused because determinism is often formulated in a loose and misleading way, e.g. as the thesis that facts about the past metaphysically determine or necessitate or "fix" all future facts.

you seem to be more concerned with debating the modal fallacy.

I'm talking about the definitions.

Here are 2 definitions:

Definitions (1): Given the world, If P then necessarily Q.

Definition (2): Q will happen

It is my understanding that Definition (1) -->hard determinism
and Definition (2)-->fatalism

what say you?

So am I.



This is not determinism as can be seen from the SEP. This is fatalism.



This is determinism, not fatalism.



You have them backwards. That's what I say.

Not if hard-determinism is true. That IS hard determinism!

Kenneth please weigh in on this since you always seem to know the official meaning of the terms

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 01:48 PM ----------

hard determinism says things could NOT be otherwise. No free will no nothing. Just causal inevitability

I see that you have not studied logic since last time you discussed this. You ought to. This is a complete waste of time for you and them too. My offer to send a logic textbook still stands. The textbook is Paul Tomassi - Logic. Just send me a pm with your email.

Though I completely disagree, If that is actually the case and not just your opinion, and I have them backwards, then why are we even debating this issue? I espouse free will so, given your claim on the definition of fatalism, I so no reason to think fatalism is real.

I suppose I will then espouse that the future is "determined" instead.

I mean, Q will happen. Be it by necessity, be it by free will choice, be it by randomness

whatever term you think that falls under, put it there

I have no problem with that. Saying "X will happen" and '"X will happen' is true" is compatible with a myriad of philosophical positions--fatalistic, deterministic, or probabilistic (non-deterministic).

I'm just telling you what hard determinism says

given the world we live in
If I chop your head off you will necessarily die.

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 02:09 PM ----------

False, even given the world we live it: Since it is still not logically impossible a person will die if decapitated. That is to say, the propositions that X is decapitated and lives, does not imply a contradiction, although, if X is decapitated, then if is physically impossible that X does not die. Which is to say that X is decapitated, but X does not die is incompatible with the law of nature the event is subsumable under. Now, to infer from the fact that X is decapitated, but does not die is inconsistent with a law of nature, to the proposition that it is logically impossible that X does not die if decapitated, is to commit the modal fallacy. And violate the eleventh commandment. So the issues are logically connected. What is physically impossible can be logically possible (although not conversely). And if it is logically possible for a decapitated person to live (which it is) then a person whose head is chopped off will not necessarily die. I think you are confusing logical necessity with physical necessity. That's the twelfth commandment. Thou shalt not confuse logical with physical necessity.

Remember the saying: Thou canst no more philosophize without logic, than thou canst row thy boat without oars. And the admonition: Prophecy without logic, maybe; but philosophy without logic, never!

that is my understanding of fate. Apparently I was wrong.

If God or a prophet says X will happen, then X will happen.

this doesn't negate free will nor does it negate determinism nor randomness nor anything else

y understanding of fate. Apparently I was wrong.

If God or a prophet says X will happen, then X will happen.

this doesn't negate free will nor does it negate determinism nor randomness nor anything else

Logic is an exercise of thought dependent on people who think and in their physical actual circumstances...

If the prophet is right, then it will happen (and it is assumed that God is right). But, that does not mean it will happen just because God or the prophet says it will happen. Saying that it will happen does not make it happen. The prophet (supposing he is an infallible prophet, and is always on the money) says X will happen because X will happen. But that does not mean that X will happen because the prophet says it will happen. Not unless the prophet has extra powers so that he can not merely prophecy infallibly, but he can make happen what he prophecies. I know of no prophets like that: have you? So what is true is that if X happens, then the infallible prophet will say it happens. But it is false that if the prophet says it will happen, then it will happen, unless (as I pointed out) the prophet can make X happen. After all, Pete, the infallible prophet, must know X will happen, otherwise he is not infallible. But Pete knows that X will happen because X will happen (and neither he, nor anyone, can know what is not true) but that does not mean that X will happen because Pete knows it will happen. Mere knowing that X will happen does not make X happen. X's happening will cause Pete to know X will happen (for unless X happens, Pete cannot know it will happen). But that is a far cry from the proposition that Pete's knowing X will happen can cause X to happen. How could mere knowing that X will happen cause X to happen?

Ta-Da!

So? ..................

Up until the time in which a headless body or a bodiless head is sustained artificially be possible physically, it is logically impossible for it to be true .

You just don't know what "logical impossible" means. P is logically impossible means, P implies a contradiction. But the proposition that a decapitated man can survive does not imply a contradiction. Therefore, it is logically possible for a decapitated man to survive. Case closed. Next. (You confuse logical possibility with physical possibility. Look those terms up). This is not a matter for debate. This is a matter of discovering what the terms mean.

But I do grasp and understand the classical conception on both and I still have good reason to disagree...

First the contradiction does not need to be explicit but implicit once is not excluded that some hidden variables are accounted in P as part of P which does not need to be true...

P has to be described completely to the full to extrapolate what is and what is not logically possible from P on...

Logic is produced in physical entities, so far that we know of, humans, so what is aimed by it cannot transcend it base scope, or origin...and that, to think otherwise, is what is not logical at all...