BigBallinStalin wrote:So, you didn't really choose to respond? Then what did you just do--or rather, how did you do it? (remember not to choose your words as you type your next response).
I like Haggis' focus on the POV--i.e. within the system v. outside of the system. And still, the process is endogenous, so the unidirectional claim about environment influencing us is false.
You are operating under the assumption that actions can meaningfully be attributed to a person in the fully deterministic model. I contend that they cannot. To speak about something a person is "doing" in a world where they don't make any choices is farcical, because the person is no longer outside the system. You can only be outside of the system if you have free will.
Also, I'm starting to get tired of your arrogant and rude responses. The next time you do that, I'm probably just going to foe you again, and leave it there this time.
It's rude of me to say that your unidirectional claim is false? You haven't demonstrated otherwise, so hopefully you'll deal with it maturely.
Is it rude of me to ask you in a tongue-and-cheek manner to contradict yourself? You still are, so then what? You're angry at me because you've cornered yourself into your own contradiction? People got pissed at Socrates for asking questions, so please don't act like them.
Recently, you've sidestepped with a "oh, language doesn't matter in the deterministic model" and "assume fully deterministic model is true; therefore, your contention is false." The latter position is as false as all theological arguments which start with, 'assume God exists', so let's move on. Language does matter (i.e. subjectively defining oneself, human action, and the environment within which we operate), and this goes back to Haggis' distinction between "within the system" and "outside of the system." You're focused on a philosophical problem which has no bearing within our actual world--other than the meaning which you attribute to your deterministic model within this world (even language--i.e. the fundamental means through which your actions become meaningfully attributed to your person--make your model seemingly relevant to this world). In other words, "within the system" you use such means--within the system--to imagine something "outside of the system," but still it's not there. There is no "outside of the system." It's a language muddle, as Wittgenstein puts it.
You imagine something "outside of the system," and then deny that which happens through a process which contradicts your position (i.e. through language, or rather "meaningfully attributing actions to a person." We do this all the time by the way). It's weird--which is why I asked you, "So, you didn't really choose to respond? Then what did you just do--or rather, how did you do it? (remember not to choose your words as you type your next response)." That's me asking you to be practical; the fully deterministic model is not and is contradictory. It simply doesn't apply to the actual world--except in your head, as you project your meaning onto your defined reality (i.e. you're choosing
to apply the fully deterministic model). If you understand this, then you'll see why the fully deterministic model "seems" so plausible, but it isn't. Anyone can imagine anything beyond our ability to verify, and this is what you're doing, but it isn't useful/practical in this case.
You seemed to make an argument that human constraints matter for free will whereas natural constraints do not. I asked why there is any meaningful difference between the two, that is, to justify your assertion.
Hm? I've already gave you the distinction--whether or not you wish to apply your meaning to it, it doesn't matter. Anyway, can you explain where you're going with this?