which is not really what AN is about. — I like sushi

Agreed.

This is why you see so many people believing that others are condoning the extinction of the human species - they see the 'ethical' stance as saying this is better for society (the destruction of society is better for society). — I like sushi

ANs do believe in the extinction of society being the ethically correct outcome of hte near-middle future. But, not by genocide. Not it's better 'for society'. It 'is better'. Full stop.

This is as regards the Asymmetry. The asymmetry supports acting to prevent more people. Not the position that more people is an unethical course of action. One pre, one proscriptive.

It seems you're claiming that you cannot have a valid argument without true premises. That's is untrue. If i've got that wrong, apologies.

where one has false premises validly leading to a "supported" conclusion. — Hallucinogen

I have explained this one. To reiterate:

If your premises are empirically wrong, the argument is unsound, but can be considered valid(in the case that the premises, however false, would support the conclusion as written/formulated). — AmadeusD

So, an example could be:

P1: Hitler was German
P2: Hitler carried out his acts in service of Germany
C: Hitler was a German dictator.

This is false. He was an Austrian dictator of Germany.

But the above is a valid argument. In the world where Hitler was German, it holds. However, P1 is untrue, therefore it is not a Sound argument.

Another example:

P1: It is raining today where i am
P2: I am outside, unshaded
C: I am wet with rain.

Logically consistent, and valid. However, it is not raining where i am. So this is unsound.

Each of these disagreements has an affect on how we individually understand freedom and its restrictions. — Metaphysician Undercover

The former seems certain, but I am unsure it will turn out we disagree about hte latter. The passing of time is absolute. There can be no disagreement if we're both accepting that it is a unidirectional 'force' and cannot be adjusted in any way whatsoever (particularly as regards changing it)

and I've explained how it is logically impossible to choose another option if the other option is not present to the mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not think you have done this. I think you've explained the *empirical state in which it is highly unlikely one would consider 'other' options. Perhaps were seeing through a lot of daylight there.

You deny the necessity of the cause/effect relationship within a habit, which I assert. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hmm..I deny this necessity in most scenarios - much more strongly here, and I think it is empirically incorrect to assert. Not philosophically. There is no such thing as a closed loop of thought which cannot be altered - something your position seems to suggest. The fact that habit obtains doesn't prevent it from being interrupted. It does not make any other course 'impossible', but improbable. Again, i see this to be an empirical wrong, not a philosophical one (*relates to the first response I've made above)

you dismiss — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not.

Your conception of freedom is, in my view, plainly wrong. Impossibility has nothing to do with freedom. Freedom only obtains when choices are available ("could have done otherwise"). The passing of time negates this, as it is a metaphysical barrier to choice at all. Time does not restrict freedom. It prevents choice. If you do not have gills, the 'choice' to breathe underwater is not open to you. Freedom doesn't enter the discussion on my view.

the self-evident is of the utmost importance, because it is used to form the base — Metaphysician Undercover

While I understand what you're saying here entirely, I don't think is a good point. If it's self-evident, stop labouring it. We're already in agreement. There's is no reason to invoke something we already agree with to support further assertions as they plainly cannot do so. This is my point. The passage of time is not an interesting factor in the assessment of Freedom. It is something in light of which we must consider Freedom. We have no choice. There is no discussion. It's not to do with with any denial - it is inapt.

It is therefore the most interesting to "us". — Metaphysician Undercover

Not to me, no. If this is the practical basis on which your argument relies (i.e, you posit the passage of time as a support for a lack of freedom to choose) we're at cross purposes and I wouldn't be able to understand what you're trying to say.

earlier part of the act, and a later part. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't really get on board with this. Technically I acknowledge it - there is a moment of time at the 'initiation' of an act, and then it;s 'completion' let's say. Noted. But, this does not, imo, make present anything knew. An act occurs in totality. You can't be half-way through an act and leave an act half-done. The entire act is carried out, regardless of the content and consequence. An act is whatever is done in a single action. And I would be extremely clear (at the very least for discussion purposes) that mental acts and physical acts need to be treated separately.

and subject to "possibility"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, we agree.

but the future part exists as possibilities — Metaphysician Undercover

As above, I cannot understand what you're trying to describe here.

They claim a necessity here — Metaphysician Undercover

I also agree this is roughly my understanding of how determinism treats choice - but its even dryer than your charitable account lol.

appear to have — Metaphysician Undercover

This doesn't do anything for me. It leads to no mental changes in my processing these ideas. "appear" to be means almost nothing without further investigation, and on further investigation, that "appearance" to me, is clearly heuristic and not 'actual'.

We call this causation, and this necessity allows us to make accurate predictions. — Metaphysician Undercover

While I note you're trying to teach egg-sucking here (lol, i'm not offended) constant conjunction does. Not necessity. There is not a logical relationship between the two, just a very, very close speculative expectation. Hume rears his head.

is a restriction of some sort — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not.

I see it as being the most important. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, understood. My first exposition of our difference in approach above should explain this discrepancy.

restriction but not a restriction on one's freedom? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand the question. It isn't a restriction. It's a fact of hte matter which prevents any choice being made in respect of it. Freedom requires available choices. Preclusion isn't a restriction on Freedom, it's a lack of ability to choose. Not a restriction on one's freedom to choose. This is a stark and incredibly important distinction that I think is lost here... (though, If i'm argued out of the position, perhaps not).

in the middle of an act occurring — Metaphysician Undercover

No idea what this could refer to. An act is a total action. You can't be in the middle of it other than retrospection (because you can denote the exact time the act took to carry out - in the act, there is no such distinction of time - but this supports my view) is my view.

Further, the past part, since it cannot be changed, serves as a restriction on what is possible in the future part. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, what (the heck) are you saying here? This makes no sense to me unless in retrospective speculation. It's uninteresting and does nothing for the conversation imo. There is no "past part" of an act while it is occurring (why is noted above - we're treading the same ground several times in all of these replies to one another).

If something is impossible for a person to do, then the person's "freedom" is restricted accordingly. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. The Freedom doesn't obtain. There is no Freedom to be restricted. Freedom requires that one could (in the case of restriction) otherwise have done so/done otherwise. When the option is empirically, metaphysically not open to you, invoking freedom is empty and meaningless.
I do not have my choice to breathe through gills restricted. I simply do not have freedom in that pursuit. It is not open to me. I could not possibly choose that option. Freedom (to do so) does not obtain, and cannot be restricted.

To choose is to do something — Metaphysician Undercover

No it plainly is not. To Choose is to adopt a mental disposition. To act pursuant to a choice is to 'do something' (though, this exact formulation of the distinction assumes the delineation between mental and physical acts mentioned above - if you reject that, fair enough).

Of course I would say that. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, this explains a lot but I have to simply say I cannot grasp what you could possibly be thinking to get there. There is no freedom to act. Therefore, it cannot be restricted. It doesn't exist.

So, I believe there is significant disagreement between you and I on what is meant by "freedom of choice". — Metaphysician Undercover

For sure :P

You seem to think that even though the past is fixed and cannot be changed, and it poses significant restrictions on us, these restrictions are simply impossibilities, and these impossibilities have no relevance to our freedom of choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is not what has been discussed. Restrictions on freedom can only obtain where a choice could be made. In the scenarios you've asked to address (ones where a choice in the past causes a current state of affairs - which you call a restriction to choose for no reason, as far as I can tell) one is unable to choose the thing you are using as an example of a restriction on freedom. But, given that you said you would call my not having a gills a restriction on my freedom to breathe underwater I can only conclude by saying;

I think it is pretty clear your version of Freedom is inapt, and unable to describe how humans actually choose and act in the real world. You cannot deliberate between choices you cannot obtain. Your position denies this, and I'm not willing to do so.

In other words, all the arguments which determinists make about the past having causal influence over us, you dismiss as irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, this is a complete and utter misrepresentation of what i'm saying. What I have said is 100% concordant with determinist thinking. It is just an oddity of that position.

those assumptions may no longer be applicable. — Wayfarer

And we couldn't know if they were :up:

You have entirely missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position.
I do not feel you post does what you've described. It's possible you missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position. Maybe?

there seem to be situations where otherwise intelligent people are incapable of seeing flaws in certain political positions. And that is of course assuming the positions are held in good faith and not the result of entirely different motivations. — Echarmion

I will always assume good faith, until shown otherwise. Unfortunately, across threads as long as these two have been (Trump/Election threads) It's hard to continue that assumption. Otherwise, the above is bang-the-heck-on.

The problem with saying the 'bias' is doing the talking is that it dispenses with other peoples' views a priori. — Paine

This is certainly true - I think all we can do to counteract is point out inconsistencies in approach. LIke trusting the media one way, but not hte other.

Because it isn't valid. — Hallucinogen

False.
Your premises can be entirely false - as long as, in the world in which they are true, the conclusion is supported, the argument is valid but unsound. The addition of the premises being true creates soundness. Validity is purely formal.

That's all that is needed to defeat this point. — schopenhauer1

I have seen discussions where I've leant toward this not being the case. I.e not being sufficient to support the position entirely. The non-identity problem does get its day, essentially. But I think it can be defeated, regardless. I would have to revisit those discussions (i believe one was on an Antinatalist podcast with a very irking woman presenting, tbh, but Benatar as guest) to get to it, though, so feel free to disregard that.

I think its not entirely wrong to require that a lack of harm is pursuant to an individual. But, if its true for *insert any considered future person* then it is true for every other considered future person. These are, to the degree it matters here, individuals in consideration. So, you can take an individual who does not exist, yet is on the other side of the Yes/No choice being made (determinists shhh) - it's clearly wrong to create something which will primarily suffer.

But this actually gives us an even clearer formulation - "Inducing suffering is wrong".

Explain what kind of "restrictions" you are talking about here. — I like sushi

(to be clear, I personally don't really think these restrictions are apt responses to the AN position, but other ethical considerations to be discussed elsewhere). One possible route would be licensing for parentage. Another would be restrictions on how many children can be part of any given (defined) genetic circle.

Anyone with a more thorough understanding in favour of enforcing such ideas by law are extreme radicals and should probably be treated with contempt by everyone else (they will be by me for sure). — I like sushi

I'm unsure contempt would be my response, as opposed to incredulity.

All of your points have to do with individuals already living, and so are irrelevant.

to be brief: no. What I said was correct. Soundness is a relationship between true premises and a valid conclusion. A true premise with a false conclusion is not sound as this applies to the whole argument, not the premise. It is relational.
Onward…

Validity is the relationship a true premise has with a true conclusion — Hallucinogen

That's soundness. Validity is mere formal agreement between premises and conclusion. If your premises are empirically wrong, the argument is unsound, but can be considered valid(in the case that the premises, however false, would support the conclusion as written/formulated).

:halo:

Banno is about to have a field day.

It seems like a lack of context produced a misunderstanding of what I was talking about. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's a bit of both. Your wording clearly leaves me open to give the response I did, but subsequently I definitely veered away from what you were getting at. The distinctions between action and choice are pretty directly on point there, so my last response should be pretty apt.

that act of making the choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not at all the case, and I can't see how you don't see your conflation - The Choice and The Act are clearly different things, and inserting the speculative, and indefinite 'habit' aspect again, reduces likelihood only. Nothing beyond having already carried out the act prevents you from making what would, in the moment, be considered 'other' choices.
Habits aren't in-stone, repetitive neural connections that cannot be altered. A gust of wind could do it, to go back to my original line of thought. Only hte act precludes anything from possibility here. That's clear cut. I'm unsure how you're getting to the choice (i.e internal delineation between options) or habit (a vague, not-well-defined series of neurological actions that usually follow each other to an end) could be doing the same job. They aren't metaphysical obstacles so possibility shouldn't be being spoken about there imo.

When I act — Metaphysician Undercover

You can delete the rest of this sentence, and your mode of description works perfectly. Why you acted isn't relevant to possibility (i am likely to have to back down from whether I consider threats a curtailing of freedom here). In your description of the case the "habit" is doing precisely zero for possibility. It is making it less likely you would consider other options - nothing to do with whether you could. Again, these aren't facts about anything, other than that time proceeds unidirectionally and we cannot change an act that already occurred.

because this actually contradicts what is meant by "acting by habit". — Metaphysician Undercover

Then you're simply using a phrase which has your conclusion baked-in. Not philosophy. This is just pointing out that once someone acts, you can't change the act. This remains in the position of being entirely self-evident, and uninteresting. It isn't a discussion.
However, it seems you're trying to imply that from the post-choice position of "It was habit that caused me to act in X way" this somehow retroactively places the now-extant impossibility of considering other options at the time of decision/choice. It doesn't, though. So, again, you're 100% correct in what you're literally saying but It seems you're trying to get much more out of it than is actually there. Time moves in one direction. Big whoop.

making a choice restricts one's freedom to choose — Metaphysician Undercover

This is incoherent to me. Making a choice doesn't restrict one's freedom to choose in any sense other than that time moves in one direction. Freedom isn't in play. You already chose. There's no 'restriction'. It's plainly not open to you to make that same decision again. Restricting is both inadequate and inapt. The general fact that time moves in one direction restricts your choices to one's that operate in the same direction. But this isn't at all what you've tried to say.
I'm truly not understanding what lifting you think these ideas are doing?

When the habit kicks in there is no time prior to the act of choice — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, there is. The rest of this sentence is an empirical speculation that is required to support your claim but I think is plainly wrong. You are, again, speaking from the post-action world to the pre-action world to try to impugn the obvious freedom to break out of one's habit prior to acting.

cannot say that the person's act is habitual, it is deliberate. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct, and this, I think, ironically, is what most of the rest of your comments are not sufficiently parsing out from one another. If your position is simply that if (Habit)->(Act) actually occurs then, retrospectively, that person was restricted in their choices. But that is wrong, and incoherent. What actually occurred doesn't inform what could have been.

this idea of a shred of time prior to the choice, is irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's because you have necessarily removed the important part of the process from your claim's supporting struts. Whcih is fine, if the point you're making literally boils down to "Time moves in one direction" but it feels, at least, as if you're trying to wring more from it.

You ask me "what's 2+2?", and I say "4". There's no deliberation on my part. Through some sort of reflex I apply the process I know will produce the answer. Then I state the answer. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is one possible sequence of events and is not at all bounded logically or even empirically. This is retroactive claim couched in present-tense words.

Because the habit is generally quite reliable, we often do not doubt it. — Metaphysician Undercover

This seems to wipe away from debris. These are, then, heuristic claims and not at all claims about the possibility of deliberation. That's fine, and insofaras (that goes) I agree.

We often do doubt it. This is how most specialised areas of thought develop. Habits are as you describe them, but they don't get close to preventing anything from happening in the metaphysical sense. Habits are loosely held sequences of thought in response to common stimulus. Not pre-recordings.

It is a freedom related issue. At the time when the person is making the choice, the person has freedom to consider more options. At the time when the choice is made, the person does not have that freedom. — Metaphysician Undercover

The choice is no longer extant to be made. It is in the past. There is no consideration of Freedom. You would not say that my not having gills restricts my freedom to breathe underwater. I am simply unable to do so. Freedom isn't relevant. The present case is the same, as far as I see it.

herefore we can conclude that the act of judgement is an act which limits one's freedom. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly the opposite - it is one's freedom to choose made manifest (unless we're back at "time passing restricts freedom" type of inanity).

exists as a duration of time, but the habit limits that amount of time to the very minimum — Metaphysician Undercover

This is certainly true, and acknowledged. I wouldn't say 'very minimum' though, I think you're speculating far too much in some of these claims. But, overall, vibe is on point imo.

Great! When? Evidence - how do you know? — tim wood

Have you been paying attention to his campaign (previously), his continually declining abilities and acknowledgement of such all and sundry?
His inability to even form coherent chunks of speech is a pretty prime indicator. Continual mis-steps in recollection is another. HIs absence from his actual job, almost continually, also contributes to this view.

either you're right or you're remark is toxic — tim wood

Yeah, you're definitely not being an adult about any of this, if these are you only two options to land on. That is absurd.

The media hasn't presented him as shallow and biased. — frank

That is literally all i have read about the guy - he's hypocritical and incredibly biased in (essentially) bigoted ways; that he is incapable of carrying the mantle of VP or P as a result of his political leanings and inability to reach/speak to/engage with Women, POC and other Minorities. Every article that has come across any of my SM or non-social media has been either a comedic attack or a "He's going to be the end of America" type of nonsense.
And definitely some of those earlier claims are true - his PR skills are terrible. But to take all of this serious to judge him as a human being, based on this source of information, is bizarre. The film, btw, has been universally panned by all non-right-wing media for roughly these reasons (you can tell, because Close and at times Adams are praised as "despite" the film lol which might be fitting).

This is the hill he's willing to die on: Democrats don't have children. In other words, he's no where near as bright as we expected him to be when he was chosen. — frank

Well no, this is the unchartiable, childish and ultimately misleading version of things the media likes to put out. His claim isn't "democrats don't have children" anymore than "deplorables" was an actual claim to be applied to every Republican or MAGA-adjacent person. It clearly wasn't, and Hilary unfairly suffered for her lack of precision imo. I wouldn't call the current situation 'unfair' because you're right, he's had several chances to even back out of that thing - but the same mechanisms are at play. They want you angry and incredulous. I'm not really defending him, to be clear. I don't know him. I'm aware he's an awful politician and it's a shame he's running with Trump, amongst all else to deplore there. But it truly is bizarre to see the exact same industry being treated completely differently when they spin different sides of the same coin (i,e two-party politics/politicians) - particularly when I know most of the posters here are far, far more intelligent than to allow what is clearly, and inarguably an industry which does not thrive on accuracy, truth or verdicality but clicks and views.

If Vance actually graduated, what's curious to me is how the hell did his dumbass get out of Yale? — 180 Proof

You have to be a special kind of stupid to think you'd have a clue, and that your opinion is anything more than your bias writ large. Perhaps it just hurts that you did not?

The Jojo Siwa of TPF.

((A) does not imply B) is quite different to (A implies (not B)) I would think.

Is it that their deliberations become transparent and familiar to us, and this in turn somehow makes it easier for us to love them? — Leontiskos

Something like this. We see ourselves. Self-interest is somehow shared interest in these cases.. or something approximating that squared circle of care.

it may be that this fact has value for overcoming the 'is'-'ought' gap, insofar as we associate understanding with 'is' and love with 'ought' — Leontiskos

IN practical terms, it probably solves it. But the arguments remain unchanged :P

Couldn't have invented a better response to illustrate my point.

Governing is conducting policy and organisational aspects of policy and action of a given entity (in this case, the USA). It is not my definition, but thank you for the stark illustration.

why the fuck a bunch of adult men pretending to do philosophy can't just be adults and humans about this type of thing is entirely unsurprising but disappointing nonetheless. — AmadeusD

I think the problem being outlined is that you cannot take for granted those premises if your theory is demolishing access to anything which could confirm it. I see the issue..

By, i would imagine, being much more than shallow, biased, media-driven versions of his personality and life presented to you. The same reason I have no real opinion on Biden beyond his ability to govern, which was lost some time ago.
Sometimes its absolutely fine to accept what's right in front of you - the media is exceptionally good at being wrong no matter which side is in the spotlight. This is almost solely an issue of personality, given almost everything else can be boiled down to statistics.
This isn't a 'you' problem, but it is certainly a problem of this and the Election thread. Pretending that the media is accurately informing you but inaccurately manipulating your opponents. No. You're all in the ditch. NOS has this issue, 180 has this issue - why the fuck a bunch of adult men pretending to do philosophy can't just be adults and humans about this type of thing is entirely unsurprising but disappointing nonetheless.

So then what is it about understanding that predisposes one to love? And it is worth asking whether the principle also holds when we are not speaking about persons or even animals. In understanding the ocean am I disposed to love or appreciate it more? The moon? A motorcycle? — Leontiskos

Oooh, yeah, good distinction.
I think "love" indicates soething to do with an actor, not an object. I don't think one can love something which does not have aspects to love. And personally, I don't 'feel' Love applies to ought but deliberative beings. I don't love lower animals, nor I do i think it's open to me. But dogs? More than most humans. Probably because I understand how horrific their ability to make decisions are. Children too. Adults? They have to do some work. Most don't want to be understood.

have the property of being red since they can elicit/cause that (format of) experience/perception to most onlookers under common circumstances? — jorndoe

"direction of best fit" as it goes... More than likely, something like this.

I think forgiveness has far more to do with dealing with your reaction to an event, than it has to do with your thoughts on the actor.

When forgiving one's self, @Leontiskos makes a great point that it's a social activity, so applying 'forgiveness' to oneself smacks, to me, much more of dealing with one's inner confusion than it does 'forgiving a wrong'.
I have done plenty that weaker men would have killed themselves over the guilt from - I am not happy about any of that actions, but I have forgiven myself. To quote science fiction:

"I've looked at how I can defeat them, and I know that if I can understand them, I can love them." - Ender Wiggin

I think "to love" is as good as "forgive" but does something closer to what @Tom Storm is getting at. Understanding, contextualising and accepting do something rather spectacular to one's mentality while doing nothing at all for the actor.

We agree! LOL.
(Y)

As I said, I'm the one who set the table. It appears like you want to replace it with your own setting — Metaphysician Undercover

If this is your feeling, that also explains a lot and I apologise if that's the vibe that's coming through. As noted elsewhere in my response, I have reviewed the entire exchange to avoid this being the case - so, either you've been a bit off in your wordings or I've been a bit lazy in my readings - either way, I think further down my response it will be clearer what's going on, and where we've converged...

I was not ever talking about the time prior to making the choice — Metaphysician Undercover

As noted elsewhere, this is a bizarre revelation to me, given what's been being discussed and how it's been worded, but it sorts some stuff out and I have no issue with how you're approaching this.

I was always talking about the time when the choice is made. — Metaphysician Undercover

I may leave off similar responses, so as to just clear a crystal clear response to this version of the position: This is uninteresting and there is no argument. If the choice has already been made, there's no discussion to be had. I think, in this sense, it's basically "I agree, but why did you bring this up then?" haha.

Do you, or do you not agree, that at the point in time time when the choice is made, it is impossible for you to have made a choice which you did not think of? — Metaphysician Undercover

This question conflates the two possibilities of what we're talking about. Asking it indicates you want me to answer to my version of what we're talking about, but the rest of the context indicates you want me to respond to yours which would result in a bit of a 'gotcha'. Given I was not indicating what you were, with some trepidation I will answer to both:
Obviously, yes. The choice has already been made. Any shred of time prior to the act of 'choice', i disagree. Anything can get in between the two. So, hopefully this answers both 'versions' relatively succinctly and clears up what I was apprehending vs what you were wanting to hear.

Very clearly, the fact that the person did not think of the option at the time when the decision was made, makes it impossible that the person could have chosen that option at that time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hmm, I don't think that even on your version this the case (but I note this is different to the question at the top of this para, which i've answered directly). The thing which makes it impossible in the above is having already made a decision. Any amount of time prior to Choice Point A (lmao, i love doing that) then impossibility isn't in the picture. Unlikelihood is. Once the choice is made (which, I now take is what you're wanting me to address) there isn't a discussion. It is definitionally impossible. It wouldn't matter if the options were in mind at the time. They weren't chosen. End of. There's no philosophy there.
So, in short - I agree, but that's just uninteresting and there are not valid objections - It's like the "water is wet" argument (well, no - water makes things wet, but im sure you get me) - it's a non-issue. If we can get clear of the current crossed wires, I would (without a shred of incredulity) like to know what's being seen as an interesting discussion there :)

Perhaps you misunderstood what you engaged with when you engaged me. — Metaphysician Undercover

It certainly seems I did, regardless of my view on your wordings. Apologies for any tension as a result.

I am saying that when the choice is made this causes other choices to be impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is what I illustrated, to my mind - so, your answer is clear regardless :)

the choice makes it impossible to choose otherwise, because the choice is an act which occurs in time, and when it is made it cannot be undone. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, we agree.

It restricts your freedom because you exclude the other possibilities, by having chosen what you chose. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a different issue, again. I'm not implying you've conflated, just that this is separate. My response here is essentially "Not until you act, but once the act takes place, that choice is made "in time" with no recourse". The freedom to re-choose, or change one's mind prior to acting is clearly available in essentially any situation where we're not considering some form of mind-reading. Again, this is only go to apply to certain types of decision, but this is at least a separate issue to the one we've come to terms on (as I see it).

Do you agree that each time you make a choice, you are actually restricting your own freedom? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. I don't think it's possible to choose otherwise (it seems you also?) therefore freedom isn't relevant. "Could have done otherwise" seems to be required for freedom in these types of contexts (choice, ethics etc..). Again. perhaps I'm missing something but this seems clearly a state-of-affairs about the direction of time and not a philosophical point about freedom or choice. Every single moment hat passes precludes us from altering the prior moment/s ad infinitum. Self-evident and uninteresting.

It restricts your freedom because you exclude the other possibilities, by having chosen what you chose. — Metaphysician Undercover

I see what you're doing here, and I think there's a interesting meta-discussion to be had, but i refrain so we're not muddying water again (and perhaps, getting off-topic). It would result in a fair few exchanges, I think.

By restricting choices it increases freedom, and by making choices it restricts freedom. — Metaphysician Undercover

You'll need to go a lot further before this formulation makes too much sense to me, and given i've clearly gotten some crucial aspects of your posts wrong I will refrain from forming any view on it right now other than that it seems bit of an aesthetic claim, rather than a neurological or philosophical one.

adhering to the decision prevents you from reconsidering or choosing otherwise — Metaphysician Undercover

B= (for me) "acting on the decision". Maybe there's a disagreement we can starting working on here after all! :D

When a decision is made actions are carried out accordingly — Metaphysician Undercover

Those are two distinct events, as far as I'm concerned (goes to the above, i guess!) which somewhat materially changes the implications made out in your comments.

and this creates impossibility where prior to this was possibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

Definitely agree that once an act (pursuant to a decision) has been carried out or initiated, you cannot then "re-choose" what to be inspired by (in the strict sense) as regard the act you just did. You can merely over-ride by further action, whatever result the previous decision caused by way of your actions in pursuit of it. But, i see them as distinct events so there's a twinge of disagreeing with the overall view, despite probably assenting to most discreet elements.

it seems you misapprehended the setting of the table, thinking it to be something other than it was. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, regardless of my views on your wording (or noticing what wire were crossed, lol) this seems quite clear to me now and I apologise for whatever level of tension or irritation came from that.

You both sound as if it's time to cool your boots, take a couple of days away from each other and come back without the venom present here...

What are you taking this to actually mean to the discussion? Not at all an attack - i just see the pretty stark practical difference between arguing for "bodily" changes manifesting lets say, intangibly, and actually positing an intangible.
I never know what to make of common-sense-use of language when it comes up against either its actual meaning, or where it illustrates something clearly untrue such as like "His soul left his body at that jump-scare" where it could be illustrating a genuine dissociation (albeit, extremely transient).

validity of the argument. — Hallucinogen

Validity doesn't have much of a relationship with truth.

Why do you say this is weird? I think it's not only reality, but obvious. Are you familiar with the concept of original sin? We are all prisoners of our moral outlook, that kind of goes without saying. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hey mate.
Just want to note whether or not you're using religious reasoning to support your positions here? This seems a bti of a curve ball otherwise.
In the substantive, if we're all prisoners of our moral outlook, that's the end of that. We get no free choices. Nice (Y).

The fact is that the other option did not come to mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a retrospective fact, and I've been extremely clear to the point of feeling a bit silly that this isn't what's on the table right now. The position that the past (having happened) could, now, have been otherwise, is utterly preposterous. Luckily, that's not what's being discussed here.

This implies that the reason — Metaphysician Undercover

....

It doesn't imply that. It implies there was a reason which was not that the person lacked that knowledge (or ability to act, I suppose, it's just as apt here).

The person has lazy decision making habits which restrict one's freedom of choice — Metaphysician Undercover

I cannot make sense of this, I'm sorry.

There are restrictions to our decision making capacity, which our physical bodies force upon us — Metaphysician Undercover

This is clearly incoherent. Our bodies prevent us from acting in whatever ways (well, most ways lol so the point is not lost). Unless you want to get specific about neurological disorders, this doesn't hold water for me.

when this is impossible for a person's mind to do anyway. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, a perfect decision is not available. I can accept that and change nought else in my position. And, I do ftr. I don't see how this relates to various options being in the person's, call it, lexicon, at the time a decision was made. Not being in their conscious mind is just not enough for me to dismiss those options come choice-time.

To state it very clearly, in the terms of your example, I am saying that it was not possible for the person to choose Y, if Y was not present to the person's mind as an option at the time when the choice was made. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hmm, I understood this to be what you were saying already, for whatever that is worth. I am not seeing an "impossibility' though. It seems to me you're putting the choice ahead of a set of possible choices thereby ipso facto making them unavailable because the choice is already made. But...
I also note this is specific to certain types of choices, but it doesn't change our disagreement - just want to be clear a lot of choices are better-made the second time around, despite every option being, in some sense, available the first time. Most courts acknowledge this. The concept of "adducing fresh evidence" in it's various forms relies on that information being plainly unavailable and not just "not before the court". It may be that the issue comes down to not being able to know one from the other, scientifically. The fact that you didn't think of it simply isn't something that makes it impossible. It makes it unlikely, at best.

Perhaps even restrictively unlikely - and here you're going to get some definite truck and likely, if worded well, some concession from me. The problem is that, what is restricting it? If the idea is that one's mind restricts one's mind I think there's more work to be done... but I certainly see a way to my backing down if this is zoomed in on.

So, our only point of disagreement seems to be that I say it was impossible for the person to have chosen Y at that time, because Y was not present in the person's mind, as an option, at the time when the decision was made. You seem to think that it is possible for a person to choose an option not present in the person's mind at the time of making the choice. I think that this is impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

(there are comments on the preceding, but they're not that interesting so I deleted them)
*conscious mind. And therefore, I have no issue with just standing on the disagreement. If you see that as enough-of-a barrier to the choice to relegate X option to 'impossible' so be it. I don't. Otherwise, I think that's probably a relatively good overview.

Then a choice is made. Do you see, that when the choice is made, the chooser cannot then proceed to weigh options not brought up, as if the choice wasn't yet made? — Metaphysician Undercover

You're still conflating the two points in time, but trying to use preciseness to make it coherent. I'm sorry, but your position as-stated in this paragraph seems to boil down to "every single choice is of one option" which isn't even an argument to do with what we're discussing. What I would say here to bring it a little more into focus is that, one version of your position is:

One cannot choose an option which is not in-mind at the moment the choice is made. — metaphysician undercover

(my comment: surely true).

(an aside - one can retroactively weigh options - you just can't reverse a decision made.. immaterial here, but crucial at other points of the discussion)
As you'll note, that's entirely agreeable. I haven't thus far understood this to be your argument, or what we're disagreeing about. What I've disagreed with is that one not having an option consciously in mind while weighing options makes that option impossible to be made. It doesn't. All of our language, reviewing the exchange, indicates this version of the problem. The choice to be made, not a choice already made. I have, again, tried to be excruciatingly clear about this.

If all you're saying is that once a person has settled on (to make this easy...) 2 out of 10 options to deliberate about, then they are now precluded from choosing the other 8. This is for several reasons, but none of those reason are because it is impossible.

So, it's possible I'm agreeing with you and feel as if some time was wasted talking about two separate issues imprecisely. But i've had fun. Having just skimmed the remaining in your post, forgive some glib replies - they run the same risks as the above.

if the person has not brought all the relevant information into the decision making process, then the decision making capacity of the person is impaired, restricted, by that failure to bring up the relevant information. — Metaphysician Undercover

This statement is clearly true, but its much softer than the bar you set earlier. Potentially making some serious sense here now..

the person did not, — Metaphysician Undercover

re-tro-ac-tive.

The person's freedom to choose from all the possibilities is restricted by not having all the possibilities present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Restricted, certainly. I am also restricted by cling-film, but it isn't a real obstacle to my movements.

It's my principle, my description, — Metaphysician Undercover

While I think this is a bit of a lazy way to approach the disagreement, this entire paragraph relies on 'restriction'. Not 'impossibility'. I'm fine with that.. No disagreements. Impossibility just isn't int he discussion.

You are not distinguishing between the process of bringing options to mind, and the point in time when the decision is made. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is actually exactly what I did because it seemed clear to me you were having a pointless discussion about not being able to reverse time. I made it painfully clear, which i've also noted in this response several times, that you are conflating the post-choice issue with the pre-choice issue. No one, in any circumstance, can re-do something they did in the past (1:1, that is). And I acknowledged this pretty clearly, even in some of the quotes you've used. Confusing my man...

It's in the past, therefore it is impossible for it to be otherwise. — Metaphysician Undercover

Bingo bango bongo. Im unsure why you got through several hundred words from each of us before noting this clear distinction between what you're claiming and what actually is..

And, it is very important to distinguish between freedom to choose and freedom to act — Metaphysician Undercover

I did so, quite clearly and have needed to remind you of it a couple of times.

Once we get the facts sorted out we might be able to reasonably discuss the matter of opinion. — Metaphysician Undercover

This explains a lot of your responses..

I understand you to be quite upset at some opinions of mine.

By that metric it has less credence than Confucianism. And by another metric, Confucianism has given us something, analytics have done nothing. — Lionino

I can't think you're doing ought but trolling, If you aren't - i'll just leave you to it. Habermaas is placed as I've described.

That is exactly what you are doing. — Lionino

Err, no. But do go on...

Jesus Christ. It is projection over more layers of projection. It is almost like a circus of dishonesty. — Lionino

Ah, i see, just being you. No worries bud :) I don't understand you either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIU8TBJ7SYU And his behaviour/actions here prove there is none :lol:

Awesome isn't he?

Deep Down seems to be the most popular cut from that project. No complaints haha. Glad you've enjoyed!!

His album Corpse Flower done with Jean-Claude Vannier might also be up your alley!

s. Do you think freedom is the capacity to do the impossible? That's what it seems like — Metaphysician Undercover

It will become clear why I think two things here:

1. This is unanswerable, as between the two of us (my answer is "no" prima facie, though); and
2. You are not adequately understanding much of what im saying, or overblowing it to caricature.

The possibility (threat) of me being locked up in jail if I steal Dan's car, in no way limits my freedom to choose to steal Dan's car. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Yes it does. The only other option is to say that one is prisoner of their own moral outlook. Which would be weird, to say the least.

Yes it does mean exactly that. — Metaphysician Undercover

Im unsure we're using these words in the same way, if this is your response.
"could have done otherwise" is the metric generally used, and the fact that you know something means it could have come to mind. There's not much more to that, in terms of what we're talking about.
Otherwise, we are never free to choose anything, at any time. We are restricted by our current conscious access to whatever is in our minds and this changes drastically from moment-to-moment depending on environmental triggers (or lack of, i suppose). If you have a different metric you're using, please outline it. You seem to be using post-hoc "Well, it happened in way X therefore way Y wasn't possible" which is clearly wrong. If it's not that, i'll need some help.

then the person was not capable of making that choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

PLainly wrong, pending a better explanation of your fundamental position.

making a choice — Metaphysician Undercover

This one is true, but is not what I'm talking about. Once a choice is made, you're not free to choose otherwise due to the law of identity (though, that gets muddled when we're talking about intangibles, but you get the point i'm sure).

it's too late to alter the choice already made. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, as above. Perhaps this is the issue. You're conflating post-choice with pre-choice. I doubt Dan intends (and I dont) to suggest one can retroactively change one's decision. You could override it, but you can't undo it. Obviously.

You ought to see that it is logically impossible for a person to be capable of making a choice which does not come to one's mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, not at all. You're just, for whatever reason, assuming that the example is one in which nothing brings the option to the subject's mind. I have been explicit that this isn't what I'm describing. I've given examples of what, and how that could be, also. I wont repeat here as it looks, weirdly, like you've actually addressed that. We'll see how that goes..

Therefore it is impossible that a person is capable of choosing an option which does not come to the one's mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. It would be impossible to make a choice which was not consciously accessible at the time, say after a concussion. It is possible that anything could bring something not currently in ones waking consciousness. Again, your bar is way the hell too high.

But we can only take into consideration what actually did happen. — Metaphysician Undercover

Bingo. The bolded response above is exactly what's happening. This explains a lot about our disagreement, and everything you've said is reasonable in light of that. However, that's not what i'm talking about and very clearly so.

It was impossible for the person to choose that other option, when the choice was made, because that option was not present to the person's mind. The person's freedom to choose that option was therefore restricted. — Metaphysician Undercover

This only makes even basic structural sense in a post-hoc description. And it's still essentially wrong, because you're referring to circumstances that could have been otherwise, in a pre-choice world. Clearly.

The other options are not "in the shadows", they are simply not present to the person's mind at the point in time when the decision is made. — Metaphysician Undercover

They are. No idea what you're getting at here. Seems like desperate flailing to get through the conflation of the two scenarios, unfortunately, being cross-discussed. In the pre-choice world they are options that anything could bring to mind. This makes it possible prior to the choice being made. A gust of bloody wind could've done it.

It doesn't even matter if it is possible to drag up the memory or not. What matters is whether the person actually does drag up those particular memories. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, your entire objection seems to be about whether it's possible or not. So, this seems like an admission that your point isn't holding water? If it's possible that another option could occur to the person, then their freedom wasn't stymied. Again, you're retrospectively applying the rigidity of time and its unidirectionality to a clearly in-the-air proposition which at the time was indeterminate. It is only determinate from the post-hoc perspective.

restricts one's freedom of choice by leaving options concealed. — Metaphysician Undercover

Now we're coming to terms a bit better - so those options are, in fact, 'in the shadows' which you denied earlier in this response. With that on the table, we clearly see the implication differently. That these options are available, but not present, doesn't stymie freedom of choice to me. It seems to, for you. That's fine, but I don't think you're making good arguments for it basically.

Do you not agree that prejudices, biases, and ideologies in general are real restrictions on one's freedom of choice? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. They are obstacles, I'd say, but not restrictions. Having no legs is a restriction on your choice of mobility. Being white restricts your choice of skincare product (or, can). Being a female restricts *insert a laundry list, no pun intended*. Being a dick doesn't (trying to catch your examples, not trying to assume what you mean). But, i see we disagree here. Fine. I don't htink you've made good, or even coherent arguments for it.

I think that both of you are simply denying the facts because the facts are inconsistent with what you believe. — Metaphysician Undercover

I literally scoffed. Take that as you will. These aren't facts. Not meaning to be rude - but there are no facts being discussed.

But that is exactly the case with Dan's perspective. Dan thinks laws, and the threat of punishment are restrictions. But these do not prevent one from carrying out those acts. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you're somewhat glossing over the difference. The thread of enforcement creates a materially different scenario. You can - literally - have your freedom removed, rather than be unable to access it (for lack of a better way to delineate). I'm not saying this is the best take, but I think there's a difference here.

impossible for a person to chose because they are not present to the person's mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

These don't follow, to me, so back to my original objection. Though, this goes someway to clarifying:

What do you mean by "not really" in this sentence? — Metaphysician Undercover

Just because it didn't occur to you in the moment doesn't mean you aren't capable of having made that choice. Something as simple as having encountered a slightly different shade of green prior to making the decision might have put you in mind of the 'other' option/s.
I think if you were to make your point as one about things you don't know then it could be run, but in it's current form its basically saying "it's in the shadows, so it can't be real" as regards these other options' availability.

Some things chosen are impossible to achieve in actions due to physical restrictions — Metaphysician Undercover

While I think this, and the surrounding notes are great points and well-put, I don't think it affects the difference being noted here.

This is a very real and absolute restriction, you simply cannot dig up information which has been forgotten. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, you very much can. There are entire therapies dedicated to this mechanism. Memories are very, very rarely actually lost. This is why I made the point earlier that, sure, if you didn't know the thing you couldn't drag it up even with the aid of environmental triggers.

This is also a very direct response to your last quote to Dan there. He is 100% correct.

Therefore mentioning a further option brings that option into the realm of possibility, but existing habits still restrict one from choosing it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps this is the case for you.

the average Republican, not the average American.

What's 'the average American' in a two-party system? The undecide centrist?

The most significant restriction to one's freedom of choice is a failure to consider all the possibilities. — Metaphysician Undercover

This isn't a restriction. I'm with Dan on this. A restriction would mean you are unable to do the thing. In this case, you're just misguided. Any instance where a further option is suggested to you leaves you open to considering it. Your personal habits only prevent you from bringing options up within yourself - and even then, not really. Habits are flimsy, mentally speaking, versus the ability to take on new information.

Proceeding with the choice firmly decided restricts one's freedom to choose otherwise. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wouldn't be surprised if Dan just laughs at this. It's nonsensical.

Haha, I see what you did there ;)

It will do for him what he in his incompetency was not able to do in his first term. — Fooloso4

More-or-less agree.

These examples show that he does care to be a dictator. — Fooloso4

The, quite strictly, do not.

On almost a daily basis he demonstrates that he is unpredictable. — Fooloso4

I note your ability to predict him, and nought else :) That's fair.

I see no evidence of wanting a dictator, as opposed to being stupid.

Perhaps - but his running mate is also an idiot, who voters aren't happy with. Indicates a lot..
But also, there's a monarchy in several states where there is no dictator :) I realise Vance is probably not thinking along those lines. But, he's also not really to be taken seriously.

I'm more interested in what his popularity means for the future — frank

(Y)

he commented that a lot of people like it — frank

Well, of course he would. And most people do like strong, decisive language. It's hard to take seriously hte kind of mealy-mouthed horseshit most politicians give out. That's not to say this is good but it certainly doesn't insinuate his votes want a dictator. That's a rather bizarre claim, tbh (not that you precisely made it).

If "red" is just in your mind, when you ask for a red pen, how is it that the person you are asking hands you what you want? — Banno

Sometimes, they don't. Or, they are wrong.