For instance, Pood has endorsed constant conjunction and adequate determinism, which do not permit alternate choice or action, yet argues for free choice.
Yet I have pointed out that you have never yet defended the claim that determinism does “not permit alternate choice or action,” whereas I have pointed out that because determinism is a mindless descriptive process, it is not the sort of thing that can permit, fail to permit, or coerce, anything.
That determinism does not permit alternate actions is inherent.
determinism, in
philosophy and
science, the
thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''
I await your answer to my longstanding request to explain how hard determinism paints pictures, writes novels, composes symphonies, and designs buildings.
The answer has been given multiple times;
Conditions on earth have evolved, microbes to multicellular organisms, to the point where creatures capable of writing, painting, landing spacecraft on other planets, etcetera, have evolved.
Our abilities were not freely willed, we played no part in deciding what we would become or be capable of, but how events unfold as the system evolves from past to present state, a species capable of art, science, books, music, where the present conditions, the current state of the world in turn determines future states of the system.
We have been over all this.
It's been done to death, yet here we are.
The cite you give also discusses soft determinism, which is different from hard determinism, so there are different definitions of determinism and not, as you keep insisting, a univocal definition.
The only difference is that compatibilists claim that free will is compatible with determinism and incompatibilists claim it isn't.
determinism as a system, it's terms and conditions, is the same.
Free will is the dispute, not the nature of determinism....unless it is claimed that alternate decisions and actions are possible.
Due to how determinism is defined, they are not possible. Whatever happens, must happen as determined. Will, for instance, is determined.
You keep mistakingly claiming that (hard) determinism does not “permit” alternative actions. As has been endlessly pointed out, determinism is a descriptive and not a prescriptive process, and thus in no position to “not permit” anything.
The given definition of determinism is a description of how the world works if it is deterministic.
If the world is in fact deterministic, everything happens as determined, just as defined.
The world may include truly random events, but that is irrelevant to compatibilism because that is the argument that free will is compatible with, not random events, but determinism just as it is defined to be.
The Britannica cite commits the modal fallacy, which has been explained to death.
You still have not explained how the Big Bang designs buildings, paints picture, etc. You just assert it.
Nah, no modal fallacy. Though Compatibilism may qualify as a modal fallacy due to its neglect to take the nature of will into account in its careful but erroneous definition of 'free will.'
but the point remains that compatibilism in general does not rely on a different definition of determinism.
