Oh I agree with you that in reality our inability to predict the resultant state in the case of decision making doesn't tell us anything about the validity of Determinism nor Free Will.

I was only saying that if we somehow could (I know we currently can't), it would prove Determinism and disprove Free Will.

LuckyR who is attacking me and why ? Seriously what are you talking about are people looking to eat me if I show to little or to much emotion

I stipulated "in competitive environments". That's the arena I'm speaking about. If you don't compete against others, then my commentary doesn't apply.

There are those who try to live like robots without Emotions which really doesn't make much sense because weather we like it or not we as humans have profound emotions and should not deny them. But still I would love to hear the criticisms of emotionalism even though I probably already know what they are. I think that acting on Emotions is what emotionalism is.

Don't confuse not showing emotions externally with not possessing or using emotions (internally). In competitive environments, generally speaking showing emotions can distract oneself and definitely is seen as a weakness by one's competition, making one a target for their attacks.

In general, having an icy exterior signals to others mental strength, resolve and grit, thus those looking for easy prey look elsewhere. However, intelligently using naturally occurring emotional energy and channeling it in useful ways is a competitive advantage, just don't let them catch you doing it.

Alas no one knows at the granular level how exactly human decision making happens. We do know that if someone could take detailed knowledge of the antecedent state and correctly predict the resultant state (the decision) 100% of the time, most, including myself would take that as proof of Determinism and a refutation of the concept of Free Will.

We also know that knowledge of the antecedent state allows prediction of decision making better than random chance but nowhere near 100% accuracy. Thus the antecedent state clearly Influences decision making, just it isn't proven that it Determines it.

Now, everyone has experienced the process of pondering a choice. Determinism proclaims that while the process of pondering is real, that one can actually choose either vanilla or chocolate is an illusion. In other words our subjective feeling that we can choose is false. All Free Will is claiming is that our subjective feeling of choice is correct, that you really could have chosen vanilla or chocolate.

It doesn't require disintegration of the Universe. That's just hyperbole.

The freedom implied by the word "Free" in Free Will doesn't mean free from influence, it means free from following inevitably from the antecedent state.

That's the thing with fighting strawmen, you always win. No one I know who believes in Free Will (as well as serious Determinists) supposes that the concept applies to anything more than decision making, ie they agree that physical systems are Determined.

As to talking to Santa (and gods) since they both exist inter-subjectively (not objectively) we can speak to them but they don't answer back.

Reality is distressing for those who expect fantasy. For those familiar with reality, reality is "normal", "average" and/or expected. Get a grip.

Firstly, anything not impossible is possible in my understanding. What is your understanding?

You're asking me to demonstrate that Free Will is possible, which implies you believe it is impossible. Since there is a robust Determinism vs Free Will debate here and elsewhere that long predated your (and my) existance on this planet and likely will continue long after we're both gone, the general consensus is that Free Will is possible, therefore you're actually in the position of having to demonstrate your outlier position.

Santa Claus (as well as gods) definitely exist. I don't know if that satifies either of them being possible in your way of thinking.

Well the biggest risk (by far) of firearms is making suicide attempts more likely to be lethal. Thus if there is someone in your household who is at any risk of a suicide attempt, don't have a firearm in your home. If noone in the household attempts to take their life although accidents and homicide are statistical possibilities, they aren't dramatic and in my opinion don't warrant not buying a firearm if you want to target shoot, hunt or protect your home.

But if the antecedent state did not cause the resultant state, that's not Determinism.

I agree that fewer guns = fewer murders. And if someone pondering the purchase of a home defense weapon could by declining would substantively reduce the amount of guns in their community by their declining, your observation would be relevant.

If one option was going back in time when US gun numbers were much less and capping at that number, I wouldn't have a problem with that. If making AR15s never having been sold was a time travel option, I'd be for that.

Alas, the real question is where to go from the actual current state.

Pray tell, in which possibility is Free Will not possible? BTW if you're going to throw out conclusions, you're sort of obligated to back them up (oh and your citation doesn't address Free Will).

I don't get how your mind works. "Not disproven" doesn't mean: "proven", it means: "possible".

An excellent example of the burden for Determinists to disprove Free Will. Hence why Free Will is not disproven.

In my experience, from a practical standpoint (since you are describing personal dissatisfaction) the key shift in thinking to promote personal satisfaction is to come to the realization that just about everything one deals with on a day-to-day basis is best viewed relatively, not absolutely.

In addition, especially if you are young, focus on where you want to end up, then work backwards to where you are now (as opposed to dwelling on your current circumstances).

Good luck and remember: living well is the best revenge.

Arguing about whether a home defense gun ACTUALLY makes one safer is missing the point. It's like arguing whether buying homeowners insurance makes you come out ahead dollarwise, ie whether you will spend more in premiums than receive in payouts.

The home insurance purchaser isn't hoping his home burns to the ground so he'll get more in a check to rebuild his home than he paid to the insurance company. He's "buying" peace of mind that IF his home is damaged, he's prepared to rebuild.

Similarly the purchaser of a home defense weapon is buying peace of mind, not actual statistical safety, just as I (hope to) give more to the insurance company than receive from it.

Based on my experience I look at the "stupidity" definition differently.

Namely that there are several axes that together are what lay persons determine whether someone is generically "smart".

One axis is the volume of information one has retained (learned vs ignorant).

Another is the mental dexterity to process information (intelligent vs stupid in my lexicon)

Probably the most useful is the ability to discern social cues and communicate effectively with others (savvy vs naive)

Hey thanks for the more thorough discussion. I agree with using the term supernatural (to separate from the field of philosophical metaphysics). So at least for the purposes of this conversation let's call philosophical metaphysics "metaphysical" and divination, ESP, ghosts etc "supernatural", okay?

So, this part of the thread started with theorizing on possible actions and explanations of actions of gods. In your understanding are the purported behaviors and actions of gods (as described by religions), "supernatural", examples of the "metaphysical", or both?

Oh, I'm for reasonable gun control as are most gun owners in the US. But outright gun bans including of law enforcement and the military is practiced... Uummm... nowhere on planet Earth.

True, that number is zero, whereas the numbers of deaths that could have been prevented from occurring through the use of a firearm is greater than zero.

Okay, I guess my previous understanding is correct. Namely that academic Metaphysics does NOT necessarily (even with a ten foot pole apparantly) address the actions of "metaphysical" entities. That second use of the word perhaps being a "colloquial" use of the term.

So we're addressing two different uses of the term.

You never heard of the "Pious"? You obvious don't watch Fox News.

JC sure seems to fit the description of someone who practiced magic, for one example

Exactly. As an aside, I thought it was interesting the you distinguished stage magic from purported Magick, since stage magic is, of course completely logical and scientific ie in no sense metaphysical.

Anyway, your example of religious miracles as an example is right on. How do the academic Metaphysicians describe the parting of the sea, or the multiplication of the fishes and loaves? Myth? Magic? Some rationalization using vague pseudoscientific terminology?

Like I posted, it's not about what one consumes or doesn't consume. It's the announcement. Of course in environments where herd mentality is strong (younger age groups, members of insular groups, etc) you're not going to see the outlier opinion causing such an effect.

The backlash against Prius drivers in the 2000s was the same thing. It's the perceived "I'm better (purer) than you".

Your post makes sense if the definition of metaphysics is the musings of ivory tower metaphysicians. Whereas, to me the purported beyond physical actions of metaphysical entities also qualifies.

As usual, perspective is key.

Perhaps one is "Metaphysics" and the other is an example of the metaphysical.

What is interesting to me though as a non-drinker is the sociological reaction to the non-drinker. I think non-drinkers make drinkers uncomfortable. I'm not sure if they feel judged or something or if they feel guilty for doing something that they'd feel less guilty about if everyone around them were joining in.

It's like I need to walk around with a glass of melting ice and a skinny little straw so that people can see I am one of them. Walking around a party without a drink is like walking around without a shirt on or something where everyone notices and wants to get you a blanket or something.

Yeah, it's the same psychology as vegetarians making meat eaters uncomfortable.

However, there's a difference between someone not consuming alcohol (or meat) and another person announcing they're a teetotaler (or a vegetarian).

It's not about the noncomsumption, it's about the conversation.

Several things:

First, unless you want to redefine metaphysics in the current era from what it has meant historically, the role of "magic" cannot be excluded from it's repertoire.

To be clear I am NOT using the term "magical" perjoratively or dismissively. Rather I mean it as a explanation that defies observation, experience and knowledge.

If one is intellectually honest one cannot reasonably evaluate the role of metaphysics using it's current application, because in the current era we can only know the question, never the (true) answer. No, in order to fully evaluate what metaphysics is (and more importantly for this conversation, what it is not) we must use historical examples and put ourselves in the mindset of those in that era.

For example explaining lightning in the absence of an understanding of electricity. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism all ascribed lightning to the workings of gods (surprising no one) when those religions were invented in the Bronze and Iron ages, clearly not science, that's metaphysics. However, in Medieval times lightning (which commonly struck the tallest structures ie churches) was either thought to be prevented by the piety of the ringing of church bells warding off evil spirits (a metaphysical proposal) or that the sound of the ringing of the bells disrupted the air and thus prevented the lightning from striking the tower (a physical or a scientific theory).

That sort of thing used to be the norm. But now in the Post Truth era, one decides on an expedient conclusion, then cherrypicks data to support the predetermined conclusion. You really need to get with the times...

Let's say you're right and the impending climate crisis is zero percent due to human activity, do you propose we do nothing to address it?

I believe I get what you're saying, and I don't absolutely disagree with the analogy of an old fashioned mechanical slot machine. By my understanding a modern electronic slot machine that includes a random number generator is less analogous.

Though I have a large problem with your analogy in the sense that human decision making is in fact predictable somewhat, that is better than purely random (unlike slot machines) though of course well short of 100% predictability.

I assumed that the only way to know such an event would be to observe it in its occurrence, because no other information could necessitate the logical conclusion of the event's occurrence

Oh, I got that originally. My point was why look at the issue solely "logically" when the hallmark of the metaphysical is the "magical"? After all, that was the whole reason humans invented the metaphysical, namely to explain the (currently) unexplainable.

BTW, don't get me wrong, I agree your analysis makes "logical" sense.

Okay, then why did you limit the options of gods to the logical?

Several things:

First, you're discussing amortality (one doesn't die of old age, but can be killed just as you can be currently), not immortality (you can't die).

Secondly, immortality without eradication of aging and disease is torture (of an exquisitely twisted variety) that no thinking person would desire.

That's the case currently ie in the Humanist era. But back when religion was invented it occupied the space currently filled by science.

If someone is a fundamentalist Christian then their religion MUST accept a worldwide flood. Etc.

Well, sure the more extreme members of ANY group can be shown to be... extreme. But your OP attempted to describe a whole group.

Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying and I completely agree that was the situation before Humanism. That is, the role of religion before the Enlightenment is very different than the role of the identical religions today.

Or, are you proposing that the god knows the outcome through some other means, perhaps by actually having observational capacity in the future, while existing at the present? So the god, at the present, would know the future outcome by observing it before it actually happens for us, at the present. But wouldn't this just be determinism, if future acts, which are dependent on present choices, can be observed by God, before they are chosen by the person at the present?

Ah, you missed my reference to gods being metaphysical. I am not necessarily proposing any particular mechanism for the operations of gods because 1) being personally physical, I (and you, perhaps?) have no experience with the metaphysical and more importantly, it's inner workings and 2) I don't personally believe gods exist objectively (they do exist inter-subjectively).

Though I completely agree with your assessment of the potential situation, logically speaking.

Uummm... to my view you've "proven" the answer to a slightly different question. Namely: "CAN religion perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview?" or "can religion be USED to perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview".

Obviously entities invented by Iron age (or earlier) inventors are going to be geared towards an Iron age customer. Of course ancient processes can and have been updated to take into account Modern ethical standards to try to stay relevant though I agree with you that dogma is especially appealing to those who find critical thinking difficult or otherwise unappealing.

Kudos on your review of possibilities.

I'd add a few observations.

First, as metaphysical entities gods to my view can in fact "know" the outcome of random events (which, of course are unknowable to physical entities like humans and computers). For example being able to fool gods with card tricks and coin flips is considered ludicrous to theists and most atheists.

Secondly, humans clearly have a robust ability to make quick decisions in cases with equal supporting data for each choice, or no data whatsoever. This is commonly glossed over by Determinists. Thus there clearly is a separate process from that of memory and reasoning. Whether this is called Will or randomness or whathaveyou doesn't matter but it does explain why to my way of thinking, antecedent state X can lead to multiple possible resultant states, ie Y and Z.

Yes, the rationalization that the materially deprived (globally) are such is their own fault due to personal flaws is easy to understand psychologically as it serves both the purpose of making the wealthy feel superior and absolved from needing to address the issue.

Really described in detail in Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

I’ve always struggled to understand the appeal for mind altering substances. Whenever I tried it, it just felt like a dream where I wasn’t fully in control of my thoughts, and I never liked it. Why do humans want to escape their mind and avoid reality? How is it an advantage?

I understand your struggle, since yours is an atypical reaction to alcohol.

As to the advantage, while I can identify admittedly minor competitive advantages, it is my opinion and experience that the main advantage of alcohol consumption (especially when alcohol was invented) is personal, not competitive.