What's causal to actions then? — Baden

Usually deciding to perform them.

What's causal to that decision?

What's causal to that decision? — Baden

Decisions don't have causal antecedents. That's the whole gist of free will. I don't buy determinism.

Other than decisions (you said 'usually' above) what causes actions?

Autonomic functions can, for example.

You said, 'for example'. What else?

Muscle memory is another example if you don't consider that coextensive with autonomic functions.

Is that it?

Is there a reason we'd be trying to give an exhaustive list?

Yes. But just to clarify first. Your responses to me just now were in no way caused by my posts. My posts played no part in the causal chain of our communications. Because that cannot happen in your view. Correct?

They were not the cause of my responses, correct. I had to decide to answer, decide what to type, etc.

But you accept that but for my posts you would not have written yours?

But you accept that but for my posts you would not have written yours? — Baden

Sure, but that's not what a cause is. I still had to decide to write mine. I could have decided otherwise.

So my posts were a necessary but not sufficient condition for yours, right?

I think saying they were ontologically necessary, even, isn't really justified, but it would be an unusual situation, at least, for me to have written my posts as I did without them actually being a response to yours.

At any rate, it's definitely not sufficient, right.

Welcome to the world of necessary and sufficient causation.

(And the idea that my posts might not have been necessary for yours is utter nonsense and you know it. You even quoted me in a couple for crying out loud.)

So, terrapin's trivial misunderstanding is that if something is not a sufficient cause, it's not a cause at all.

Welcome to the world of necessary and sufficient causation. — Baden

Well, or the world of neither as I noted. :razz:

What is necessary and sufficient causation?

And the idea that my posts might not have been necessary for yours is utter nonsense and you know it. — Baden

One can't forward an argument much worse than "that's utter nonsense and you know it"

(And the idea that my posts might not have been necessary for yours is utter nonsense and you know it. You even quoted me in a couple for crying out loud.) — Baden

So the existence of my posts was not necessary for you to quote them?

We can't imagine what someone else might say?

After all, a lot of the content on boards like this might as well be coming from a telemarketing or apologetics "objection sheet"

You had to press the quote button and the reply button on my posts for your posts to be written as they were.

You're being disingenuous because you know I'm right. — Baden

I suppose this sort of thing isn't possible?

That's not what you did though.

That's not what you did though — Baden

Which is irrelevant to whether it was ontologically necessary.

Decisions don't have causal antecedents. — Terrapin Station

That's absurd.

Can you explain how necessary and sufficient causation makes your case here? I googled it so have a basic understanding but I dont see how you are using it here in such a way that it is laughable to disagree. My understanding thus far is that it is s contentious issue in philosophy, rather than something only fools would disagree with you on.

So you don't buy free will.