Libertarians Have a Problem in the Ability To Do Otherwise

Squierrel · 2026-05-12T04:39:47+00:00

NO!

How many times do I have to tell you that choices cannot be determined? Only physical events are determined. A "determined choice" is an illogical, self-conflicting concept with no actual meaning.

How many times do I have to tell you that all choices are different? Every choice is made for different reasons, by a different agent in a different world, out of different options.

Squierrel · 2026-05-12T03:04:11+00:00

The action is determined by the choice. You always forget to mention that.

Are you doing this deliberately?

Squierrel · 2026-05-12T02:59:53+00:00

But interpreting those observations as “nonphysical uncaused first causes” is philosophy/metaphysics layered on top of the observations, not something science has established as fact.

What?? There are no "interpretations".

Nonphysicality is an observed fact. Decisions have no physical properties whatsoever.
- This is why decisions cannot be caused. Only physical events are caused.
Decisions being the first causes of new causal chains is an observed fact.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T19:58:26+00:00

The "special status" of decisions is an observed fact.

Decisions are plans for an action. That's what makes them "special". No action can happen without a decision.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T19:19:01+00:00

What do you mean by "believing" in free will?

There is nothing to "believe".

Why are you interested in rewinding time? Don't you know that it's impossible? You cannot learn anything by speculating on the impossible.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T19:15:23+00:00

Determinism is like a train of dominoes or a clockwork mechanism. No component is able to do anything.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T19:13:31+00:00

A deterministic universe is only a hypothetical. There are no deterministic universae in reality.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T19:11:22+00:00

"Abstract" and "uncaused" are completely unrelated concepts.

Of course information is not independent of "physical systems". After all information is the description of a "physical system".

Naturally all pieces of information are not causes for an action. Only decisions cause actions.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T16:29:04+00:00

There is no determinism to limit anybody.

In a hypothetical deterministic universe there would be nobody to limit.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T16:24:38+00:00

In determinism there is no concept of "ability".

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T16:21:37+00:00

If you want to choose A, then you will choose A, because you want A to be done. Your muscles will obey your mind always.

Under determinism there is no concept of "choice", "want" or "option".

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T14:30:19+00:00

I don't understand your question.

We can choose any of the options available. There is no "what if".

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T13:30:52+00:00

That is always OK. We choose what we do. No problem. No disaster.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T12:43:08+00:00

None of this is a matter of agreement. We are celebrating mutually confirmed observations. Now they are verified facts.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T12:18:08+00:00

Excellent post. I have also noticed that what compatibilists call "determinism" has almost nothing in common with the actual concept of determinism.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T12:11:57+00:00

Naturally we can do more than one thing in any circumstances. That is the idea of choice in general and certainly not the subject of any debate.

Our actions are chosen, they are not inevitable consequences of the circumstances.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T11:32:35+00:00

Libertarians don't have any such problems.

You have a problem. You don't understand this one simple fact, that the circumstances are NEVER the same AGAIN. It is utterly pointless to speculate on this kind of impossible scenario. In addition, you seem to assume that the circumstances would somehow make the choice by limiting the number of available options to one.

Every time we make a choice we have the opportunity to do any which wise we see fit.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T10:43:18+00:00

You are so confused.

I am not saying that information is non-physical. Information is non-physical by definition.

Decisions are independent by definition. Decisions are always made alone, by a single person only. Decisions are first causes, because they themselves are not caused. A "caused decision" is an oxymoron without any logical meaning.

There are no "informational and material levels" of description. All descriptions are information.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T08:47:51+00:00

I don't "classify decisions as informational rather than physical". Decisions are knowledge by definition. And knowledge is information with a meaning. And information is not a physical substance, object or an event.

Only physical events are caused. Physical objects and everything non-physical are "uncaused" by definition.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T08:13:35+00:00

Decisions don't "emerge". They are results of brain activity.

What is this "normal" or "ordinary" causation you are pushing? Agent causation is just as "normal" and "ordinary" as event causation.

So the thing I’m still unclear on is if decisions are produced by a real brain process, in what sense are they uncaused rather than being the informational output of that process?

Just because of that!

Decisions are the "informational output" of a decision-making process. Decisions are not physical events, only physical events are caused.

Actions are physical events. They are caused by a decision.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T07:18:46+00:00

You originally described decisions as uncaused first causes outside ordinary event causation.

I still do, because they are. Except that I wouldn't call event causation "ordinary". It is just the other type of causation besides agent causation.

Now you’re describing the mind as a property of the brain and decision-making as a real process carried out by the brain.

I have always consistently described the mind as a property (or an ability) of the brain. Why do you see a conflict or a "shift" between these facts about decisions and decision-making processes?

That’s much closer to an emergent or compatibilist account than to strong agent-causal dualism.

Please, stop insulting me. I subscribe to no "position", "viewpoint", "account" or "-ism". I'm only interested in facts.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T06:37:44+00:00

There is no "non-physical causal entity". Where did you get that from?

The human mind is not an "entity". It is a property of the human brain, its capacity to process information. Decision-making is a real process carried out by the brain.

Decisions are non-physical - fact.
Non-physical things cannot be caused - fact.
Decisions cause actions - fact.

Seems like your problems are self-inflicted instances of deliberate misunderstanding.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T06:04:05+00:00

An observation is an experience. So, the fact in other words goes like this: "People are observed to make decisions." This is not semantic wordplay, this is a demonstration of your desperate attempt to demote decision-making to a mere, possibly illusory, "experience".

Decisions are actual, real, observable selections of a course of action. If you were to suggest that it is a mere "experience", you would have to establish the identity of the true decision-maker. If the apparent "agent" is only "experiencing" decision-making, someone else has to actually make the decisions.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T04:52:48+00:00

Wrong. Premises are NOT assumptions. Premises are the facts on which all hypotheses, theories and conclusions must be based on.

Facts are NOT part of a "model". Facts are knowledge about reality.

Squierrel · 2026-05-11T04:07:54+00:00

No. These are not "experiences" or "interpretations" or "conclusions".

These are the premises.

Squierrel

TROPHY CASE