R: "We are the product of physical interactions, which are determined entirety by the laws of physics, and none of our choices could ever have been, or ever will be, other than exactly what they were, or will be. But we have agency."

P: "Something that is entirely governed by physical determinism cannot have agency. They are mutually exclusive. How could that be possible?"

R: "It is possible. We are governed by physical determinism, but we are autonomous."

P: "You have given different wording for 'agency,' but you have not explained how it is possible for something ruled by physical determinism to have it."

R: "But if it is true, then we can be ruled by determinism, yet make independent choices."

P: "But what reason do we have to think it is possible?" — Patterner

Fair summary. You believe agency and physicalism are mutually exclusive. I don't agree.

Here's a high level explanation of why I think it's possible:
1. compatibilism is consistent with agency.
2. Physicalism is consistent with compatibilism
3. Therefore physicalism is consistent with agency.

In this scenario, there is nothing other than the laws of physics at work. — Patterner

But the mind's operation is functionally identical- it is no less autonomous. It's grounded in physics - but the decision process is the same.

Earlier in the thread, we discussed Peter Tse's physicalist account of mental causation. If something like this is correct, it means that the product of our thoughts truly has causal efficacy. We're not just going along for the ride (as you seem to be suggesting) we're driving.

The boulder can take only a single path, given the physical characteristics of itself and the mountain.

Suppose your mind is immaterial, (at least partially) operating independently of the laws of nature. You have chosen a path down the mountain, but you might have taken a different path if you knew it to be more scenic, offering more shade, or if you knew a rattlesnake awaited you on your chosen path. You were, at all times, free to choose a route based on your knowledge, the aesthetic appeal, fears, and your skills. Do you agree this is different from the boulder?

Now suppose your mind is entirely the product of physical brain function. You have the exact same freedom to choose a route based on your knowledge, the aesthetic appeal, fears, and your skills. In both cases, these factors are the result of events in your life (e.g. the DNA that produced you, your studies, your physical conditioning and mountaineering skills). Why should the fundamental basis of these factors (physical vs immaterial) matter? I don't think it does. You have no more, and no less, freedom.

How is an act intentional if there is no option but to act, and in that exact way? — Patterner

There ARE options. See my above reply to Gnomon (the bold part).

If a single path suddenly & surprisingly branches into two paths, with completely different end-points, is that not a true philosophical dilemma? One end-point may be my original intended destination, and the other a different unintended destination : as in Robert Frost's Path Not Taken. But if I didn't know that alternative when I set out, my choice to change destinations would be a change of personal intention (goal selection). Was that new information also eternally destined to make the choice for me? — Gnomon

We are frequently surprised because we aren't omniscient, not because there are indeteministic things occurring in the world. Intent does not entail a certainty of action, it entails an intent (at a point of time) to act a certain way.

In Physics, the well-traveled road might be the path of least resistance ; in which case, Nature would always "choose" that option. But humans are not so mechanical, and sometimes "choose" to take the more resistant path. — Gnomon

We aren't directly mechanical in the way mindless objects are, but that's because our minds mediate our activities. That occurs even if minds are purely a consequence of physical brain activity.

But what about the statistical uncertainties in natural processes? Are our intentional choices certain, or probabilistic? — Gnomon

The only true indeterminism (and true randomness) in the world is quantum uncertainty. Einstein never accepted that, but most modern physicists do.

This doesn't seem to be a factor in everyday life.

Intentional choices do not seem a product of quantum uncertainty. The development of an intent, seems to me to be consistent with determinism.

you seem to be saying that the meaning -- in this case the new destination -- was never a real option. — Gnomon

No. I'm saying the opposite: we actually make choices. We consider the options before us.

Envision making a decision (i.e. forming an intent) through a (mental) deliberative process. You consider some set of options, and weigh the pros and cons of those options (both objective and aesthetic). Maybe you google a few things to get more information. You settle on a particular choice.

That decision was entirely the product of your mental processes - you own it. Could you have made a different choice? Only if something had been different: e.g. you had considered more (or fewer) options; you had identified different consequences or weighed the differently, or perhaps your internet connection dropped - so googling was not possible. But this entails a different set of antecedent conditions. Given the actual set of conditions, you could only make the decision you actually made. (Setting aside the possibility of some quantum mechanical interaction that injects true uncertainty somewhere in the process).

Agency denotes the capacity for intentional acts. Making choices is just what it says: choosing actions. Avalanches and hurricanes do not make choices and don't act intentionally. These require mental activity.

I'm not seeing the Compatibilism in your outlook, since by your own description there are no viable alternatives to the final outcome. — LuckyR

Compatibilists believe in a sort of free will that is consistent with determinism, therefore there is always only one possible way a decision process can come out (IOW, the principle of alternative possibilities is not met).

But we still consider our choices to be freely willed, because we actively make them, and it's as a consequence of our mental activity.

As I was going back and forth between the two doors of Ben & Jerry's in the freezer section at the store today, picking up several and reading the description, considering if I was in the mood for something with peanut butter, or caramel, considering the marshmallow ice cream, etc., it certainly felt like I had a choice then, not merely in hindsight. — Patterner

You did have a choice. And you made one. I'm saying that the choice you made could not have differed. That's because something precipitated the choice. Even impulses must have some cause - unless you think they are truly random, or magic. I don't believe in magic, and the only true randomness in the world is quantum indeterminacy- and this doesn't seem to entail quantum mechanics.

Is that an accurate statement about your position? — Patterner

Essentially right, but it glosses over our agency. Hurricanes and avalanches don't involve agency. We have thoughts (series of brain states), and these thoughts can ultimately affect the world.

At least I didn't pull a strawman definition out of thin air without citing any source at all. :lol: — Leontiskos

I googled the definition, and that's what appeared. My intent was to get you to explain what you meant, not to argue semantics.
You failed to make the case for it being a "kangaroo court" using your own definition.

Listen man, these dick measuring contests are fun and all, but if you have a complaint with the sources I've provided you can go ahead and provide that critique. — Leontiskos

I told you the article attacked a strawman legal argument. This would be clear if you understood the technicalities of the actual legal argument. You told me you weren't interested in those technicalities. Seems like you've come full circle.

: a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures — Leontiskos

You've merely quoted a definition and implied this somehow fits what occurred without explaining how.

The trial was clearly authorized and conducted according to the law. The only party who acted irresponsibly, was Trump - by violating the gag order multiple times.

I was not in favor of prosecuting it [...] because it was trivial, and technically nuanced.
— Relativist

Which is much my point. — Leontiskos

That's very different from claiming the procedure was "irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular". Laws were actually broken, and it was within the lawful discretion of the DA to prosecute it. Furthermore, by trial's conclusion, I had come around to thinking that it actually was a useful exercise.

We can just wait and see if the appeals result in a reversal. At this point it looks like everything was for show, prosecution and defense alike. — Leontiskos

The trial was conducted in accordance with reasonable interpretations of the law. Appellate courts may interpret the law differently, or decide there's something unconstitutional in the law. Overturning on some technicality will not mean he didn't do the deeds.

Just for show? Maybe, but Trump only has himself to blame. He did the deeds with no regard to the legality, and he constantly attacked the system. If it's overturned on appeal, that's the system working. If it's upheld- that's also the system working.

When I worked for a big oil company, I received annual training on business ethics - and was taught to always refrain for any activity that could possibly be construed as illegal, and this was because we had a target on our backs- our corporate behavior was often judged in the most negative light. Still, lawsuits were common, but the company never attacked the legal system. The company trusted the system. Why can't a candidate for President?

Here's a definition of "Kangaroo court":

an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.

Trump's conviction was in an official court. The correct legal procedure was followed: he was indicted for committing specific crimes under New York law. An official trial was held. The prosecution presented evidence of his guilt, and Trump's attorneys presented a vigorous defense. The jury deliberated and judged that Trump was guilty of all the charged crimes. This was the antithesis of a kangaroo court.

The article you pointed to did not address the specific technical issues involved in the case, and instead analyzed a strawman - a distorted view of the case. If your perspective is consistent with that article, I can understand why you might conclude there was something inappropriate or nefarious. If so, then this demonstrates that indeed you have not done adequate research to form your judgement.

I had a lot of questions before and during the proceding. I did the research to get those questions answered. As I said, I was not in favor of prosecuting it - but not because Trump was actually innocent, but because it was trivial, and technically nuanced. Nevertheless, it was a legitimate trial with a legitimate verdict.

I don't have any interest in delving into all of the legal details. I will do that with some Supreme Court cases, but I have no intrinsic interest in the details of a kangaroo court. — Leontiskos

You don't understand the legal technicalities, so you have no rational basis to judge this a "kangaroo court". So your judgement seems to be based on a mischaracterization of the case (from the article you linked, it seems). Your disinterest in delving into the technicalities -while nevertheless embracing that irrational judgement, implies you choose to cling to that judgement. That's your choice, but then there's nothing to discuss.

Sometimes, when we make choices, we weigh the options, thinking of benefits and costs and so forth. But I don't agree that we always go through any particular mental process when we do so. — Ludwig V

Sure, but every choice was preceded by some sequence of one or more thoughts. Given that sequence, the resulting choice will follow.

When you come to a fork in the road, do you stop and imagine taking the road less traveled, or do you start walking in the desired direction? In what sense is an actual choice an illusion? — Gnomon

The choice is not an illusion: we are actually making the choice - we have to actually go through the mental process to reach that choice.

The illusion is that of hindsight: that we could actually have made a different one. In actuality, we could have only made a different choice had there been something different within us (a different set of beliefs, disposltions, impulse...).

Do you believe there is an element of randomness (or unpredictability) to the decision making process? Or does antecedent state A always lead to resultant state X, never Y. — LuckyR

The only true randomness in the world is quantum indeterminacy. It's possible there is some small degree of quantum indeterminacy involved, but I'm aware of no evidence to support it. So yes, I believe the antecedent state will necessarily result in the consequent state.

My impression is that you are libertarian and pro-democracy. Is that correct?

What material evidence to you have to support your belief that personal choice is illusory? — Gnomon

That's not what I said. I said there "is an illusion of freedom".

I'm a compatibilist, and deny the PAP (Principle of Alternative Possibilities) - IOW, whatever choice we make, we could not have made a different one. Each choice is the product of a person's memories, beliefs, dispositions, and impulses at the point in time the choice is made. When we examine a choice in hindsight, we think of alternatives we might have made - and this gives us the "illusion of freedom".

Still, I acknowledge that we are free from external control - so we are free in that (compatibilist) sense. So we are (in this sense) freely making the choices we make. The memories, beliefs, dispositions, and impulses are our own; they are part of what makes us the individual we are.

When I choose my sushi from what's on offer or a book from the shelf, is that a physical action, a mental action or a metaphysical action? (What's a metaphysical action?) — Ludwig V

Here's my opinion.

Decision-making is a mental process, but mental processing is fundamentally a physical process of the central nervous system.

Under a physicalist metaphysics: metaphysical = physical; although when we account for mental activity, we don't do so at the microscopic level of particle behavior. It's somewhat analogous to a hurricane: we track them as functional entities, not as the activities of water and air molecules.

Mental states are functional entities, like hurricanes. They cause other mental states. We analyze them at the functional level.

Physical actions are indeed constrained by the limiting laws of physics. But meta-physical (mental) choices are not subject to physical laws --- perhaps only the laws of Logic. — Gnomon

Are you assuming reductive materialism is false? Otherwise, I don't see how you get any freedom from physical laws. There is only an illusion of freedom.

Sounds like you're confirming that you don't understand the law he was charged with. Your points were red herrings because you were implying no actual crime was committed, but your points weren't relevent to the elements of the case.

At best, your points seemed to be contextual. That's why I responded with some contextual points of my own. I wasn't trying to present the legal elements, so they aren't "red herrings". I had stipulated the fact that Trump was guilty of the crime he was charged with. If you don't understand why this conviction was legitimate, ask questions.

Understand that I never thought this indictment should have been made. It's also possible the law will be held unconstitutional. But he's legitimately guilty of committing the crime as it's written- all the intricate details needed to establish guilt were demonstrated by evidence.

The traditional arguments against human Freewill were typically based on the assumption that the whole world, from Big Bang onward, is a linear deterministic physical system. — Gnomon

That's true only because of quantum indeterminacy. So, instead of strict determinism from big bang to present, there's numerous instance of probabilistic determinism along the way. It remains to be seen if quantum indeterminacy plays a role in mental processes (some think it does), but if so- it would only seem to add a random element to the otherwise fully deterministic processes, which doesn't make it more free (in a libertarian free will sense).

The conviction seems to be a flagrant disrespect of the rule of law, — Leontiskos

My guess is that you're not familiar with the technical details of the law that Trump was convicted of breaking, and are substituting some distorted view of what you think the law is (or should be). That would explain why you listed the red herrings.

Let's test that. Do you understand how Trump could be held legally accountable for the falsification of business records, despite the fact that Trump did not personally make the accounting entry? That's a question that trips up a lot of people. If you do understand why, then please identify specifically what elements of the law (§175.10) that were clearly not met.

Was Trump charged with paying Daniels?
Were the actions he was charged with performed before or after the election?
Was a payment to Daniels illegal?
Is withholding information election interference? — Leontiskos

Red herrings. You're listing activities that aren't inherently illegal, but are merely immoral.

The problem was that in committing these immoral acts, the conspirators failed to stay within the confines of the law. The law was most certainly broken (this was established by the evidence, and confirmed by the jury). The specific law Trump was convicted of breaking is certainly a technicality, and a trivial one - but he did break it.

But the broader context is the inherent immorality of the acts. Trump supporters tend to gloss over this, as if everything is fine as long as it's not illegal. It's ironic when his immorality results in crossing legal boundaries, and he suffers a consequence.

The consequences of Trump's (technically trivial) crime were enormous - and (IMO) that's what makes this an important case. It wasn't important because the technical crime was a big deal, but Trump made it important by flagrantly disrespecting the rule of law, and encouaging that attitude amongst his followers. A statesmanlike attitude would entail respecting the process (compare to Joe Biden's comments about his son's conviction). Trump has only himself to blame, but he blames everyone else involved - attacking with childish insults. Trump is no statesman; he's a fraudster, of which this particular (trivial) crime is just the latest example.

I wasn’t aware neuropathy and spinal arthritis made you space out and wander off. — NOS4A2

Your confirmation bias may be coloring your perception. Are you predicting he'll space out and wander off in the debate? If he doesn't, will you assume he's on some secret miracle drug that's being kept from real dementia patients?

Someone who's already convinced Biden is a doddering old fool, will see that in the clip - that's what we call confirmation bias.

Biden suffers from spondylosis, which is age-related spinal arthritis, and neuropathy in his feet. These have affected his walking.

I think Biden's proposed corporate tax hikes are too high - they would damage the economy. They also won't happen- even if Dems unanamously supported them (they won't), they won't have 60 seats in the Senate. That's why Trump's plan is more dangerous: his revenue increases are entirely through tarriffs - which he can impose unilaterally.

Food and hospitality businesses are struggling to retain workers. This is an added incentive. He’s already lowed income taxes, and The Tax Cuts and Jobs act hasn’t expired yet. Biden is trying to eliminate it. — NOS4A2

So - you support the government intervening to help ailing business sectors. You consider taxes to be "theft". So do you propose eliminating all the "theft", or do you accept some degree of it?

The Paul Ryan tax plan will expire next year (the personal income tax side of it), so the "do nothing" option will result in higher taxes for all individuals. Biden has committed to keeping current tax rates for everyone making under $400K, while raising taxes on higher earners and corporations. Trump has promised to keep taxes at current levels and suggested lowering corporate taxes further.

I don't consider taxation to be theft; rather, it's the cost of doing business in this country (and it's pretty profitable to do business in this country). My view on tax and spending is that Democrats are too free to spend money while GOP is always over-eager to cut taxes. Trump is both a free-spender and a tax cutter: both lunacies in a single package. To be fair, Trump does propose raising revenue with import tarriffs, but this will result in trade wars and increase inflation. I truly wish GOP had nominated a rational person who could work with both sides to try and reduce the insanity. Biden is a better bet for some level of sanity on taxes, as compromise with GOP will be needed to pass anything.

I was wondering what the take away should be with more younger people being boss to older people? Less reliance on experience or wisdom? Direct management training that doesn't specifically teach the main drivers of the industries, just HR and general management skills? Or are these younger people actually more ambitious somehow? What's going on? — TiredThinker

I can give you my narrow perspective, as a 70-year-old retiree of a big oil company.

Salaries were based on "classification level" (CL) irrespective of whether they were in management or were individual contributors (IC) Staff with strong skills at their jobs but lack management skills, can advance to higher CLs by remaining ICs. Good managers need management skills, not the skills to be the best ICs.

Finally, most people don't want to be managers in an environment where the title and responsibility doesn't result in higher salaries.

Do the logicians here think that these sorts of claims are logically possible? — Leontiskos

Yes. The payment to Stormy was made before the election, and it was made to kill the story (interfering with the election). The payment amounted to a loan to Trump, which he repaid after the election.

The bloated government and its base is scared of Trump’s idea of ending taxes on tips, likely because it will affect their own meal ticket. We can’t have service workers keeping their own money. — NOS4A2

Reducing tax revenue does not result in decreased government spending- it actually increases it, by increasing national debt and the interest paid to service that debt.

My question is: why focus specifically on tips? Why not simply lower taxes (or increase the earned income tax credit) for low incomes? This seems fairer.

And of course, a goblet of Screaming Eagle Wine to wash it all down — punos

Only a goblet?

This inspires my choice of meal: a vertical of 10 vintages of Domaine Romanee Conti, to wash down some thin slices of comte cheese.

Relativist: "The point is simply this: at the point we make a decision, there is a set of determining factors: beliefs, genetic dispositions, environmentally introduced dispositions, one's desires and aversions, the presence or absence of empathy, jealousy, anger, passion, love, and hatred. These factors are processed by the computer that is our mind to make a choice."
So there is no convincing, no reasoning, no weighing different alternatives, no initiating action – it’s all billiard ball cause-and-effect. — Thales

That's not what I'm saying. You omitted the part in bold when you quoted me. We indeed reason, weighing alternatives; we can convince and be convinced. That we do these things seems obvious. Determinism is consistent with it- that's what I was arguing.

Fate implies intent- that past, present, and future events were planned (e.g. by the "fates", "the gods").
Determinism entails the unplanned, but inevitable, sequence of events from past to future

This hush money conviction is no big deal, — Hanover

Is it? I've long thought so, but now I'm not so sure. Sure, the charged crime is minor, but the actions behind the crimes are not.

Trump conspired with others to perform unscrupulous acts that helped him get elected. Few of those acts are actually violations of statutes, but they are still unscrupulous. The Mueller investigation exposed some of these acts, and this trial exposed others.

Trump isn't constrained by any moral code. The only constraint on his behavior is the legal code, and then - only if a solid case can be made. Prosecuting Trump for this minor crime reminds me of the prosecution of Al Capone, for tax evasion.

If war crimes are justifiable, then what's the point of labelling any actions "war crimes"?

Is there an implicit "except as a last resort" attached to each proscribed action? In that case, any warring entity that is at a strategic disadvantage are justified.

If there's an implicit "unless the opponent is truly evil" - how is this to be judged objectively, in general? Couldn't any warring entity claim the other side is evil?

I don’t really care about case text and legalism, — NOS4A2

You've previously said you don't care if your hero breaks the law or does anything immoral, so I knew you wouldn't care about the law. Of course, this makes your position self-defeating.

Sad that Trump helped make the lunatic fringe mainstream.

I'm appalled that so many liberals, good liberals whose side I've been on all my life, are so gleeful today. Do you not understand what you've done? The hush money case is a chickenshit case. Bragg's office already looked at it and decided it was a loser. They didn't bring the case. Then the Biden administration actively worked with Bragg's office to revive and prosecute the case. — fishfry

I agree it was a chickenshit case, in that it entailed a low level felony that rarely results in prison time, and that it probably leads some to consider his more serious crimes equally chickenshit (they aren't).

But you said some things that are just wrong.
"Do you not understand what you've done? "
What do YOU think we did? We didn't take the case to the grand jury, indict, and try Trump. If I had my way, the federal indictments would have been the only indictments, and they would have been tried by now.

"the Biden administration actively worked with Bragg's office to revive and prosecute the case"
Pure bullshit. If the Biden Administration wanted to prosecute Trump for these crimes they wouldn't have dropped the federal case. Secondly, there's no evidence of involvement by Biden or Garland. Third, it would be stupid, given the truly serious crimes Trump has committed. Bragg had local political motivations that may have led him to go out on a limb on this, but nevertheless it was in his discretion to do so*. That's why a "chickenshit case" was brought.

But even so, that doesn't mean Trump was innocent. The evidence was real, not manufactured. Trump received a fair trial, and a reasonable verdict was reached per the evidence. Trump behaved like a jackass throughout, and his cult parrotted all his childish accusations.

And yes, I'm delighted he was found guilty, because that's what the evidence showed, and because Trump was such a jackass about it all- undermining the rule of law and judicial system needlessly. There are statesmanlike ways to deal with a "chickenshit" trial, and when dealt with that way - emotions are kept in check, while respect is maintained for the rule of law and the judicial system.

Another aspect of this is the fact the trial exposed some pretty damnable behavior, irrespective of legality. He and Pecker cheated by killing negative stories and publishing false ones about opponents. Most immoral behavior is not a punishable crime, so there's some satisfaction when it is at least exposed. Interestingly, I haven't seen a single Republican make a negative comment about it. Instead, they just say "it's legal" - implying it's perfectly fine since it's legal.

* Will Republican DAs retaliate by going after Dems? Maybe, but as long as they are simply looking at real crimes, I don't care. I support holding politicians accountable.

Manhattan voted 85% for Joe Biden, and registered Democrats outnumber Republicans eight to one in New York. The Biden/Harris campaign and a whole host of anti-Trump Democrats pay the judge's daughter an obscene amount of money to work for them. A simple change of venue would have been an appropriate fix. How would you go about finding an impartial court and jury? — NOS4A2

In answer the question in bold: through voir dire. Statistics are not a valid basis for requiring a change of venue:

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-boudin

...no court has articulated a bright-line test whereby a fixed percentage of veniremen [individuals selected either to be screened as potential jurors or to actually be jurors in a case] expressing a preconceived opinion, standing alone, requires a change of venue.

...as recently noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, "detection of actual prejudice is not accomplished through juggling statistics

Whenever Trump loses, he always claims it was due to unfairness (and of course, his cult members uncritically accept everything he says). His accussations ought to convince no rational person. Hurling ad hominems at judge, DA, and jury is childish and inappropriate.

The jury reached a reasonable verdict based on the case presented and per the jury instructions they were given. The case involves some legal techicalities that depended on the legal judgement of the judge. Each such judgement that the defense appeals will be reviewed by appellate courts. Their assessment will not be based on analyzing Merchan's character. Instead, they will determine if he made errors that could have affected the verdict. That's the way the system works, and it's a pretty good system. It's too bad that Trump supporters refuse to accept that. But of course, they let Trump tell them what to think.

Yet for Donald Trump, he upgraded charges from misdemeanor to felony to convict Trump THIRTY FOUR TIMES. — Moses

Actually, it was Trump who upgraded his 34 misdemeanors to 34 felonies, by committing these offenses with the intent of committing additional crimes.

Let's say Trump got prison time, even if it's just one year.

If he were to win the election anyway, what would this mean for the spirit of the US population as a whole? The rest of the world would surely look upon the US as a broken democracy that has lost its ability to function through the framework of a healthy democracy, but what would the people do?

It's not like there's a Mandela at the helm of the party, someone who's been fighting for a good cause and for democracy who is put in jail because of a corrupt state. No, it's a narcissist who's on the brink of being a dictator and who's a convicted criminal for actual crimes in a democratic state.

So, how would the people react? Both short term and long term? — Christoffer

First of all, the chance of Trump spending even a day in prison is zero. But if we assume it occurs, I'm not sure it makes much difference. It won't change anyone's mind, domestically or in other countries.