“Our current choices do not determine the past. My posting a response to your post is not the cause of your creating the post in the first place.”
How do you think the status of retrocausation is relevant to the issue at hand? Most determinists and indeterminists don’t subscribe to retrocausation, so that doesn’t distinguish one position from another.
“Of course you might say that I have no choice but to write the sentences above, because I have no choice (free will). If so, why do you post blog entries? Are you trying to convince people of something(s)? What does it mean for someone to be convinced ( change their mind, etc. ) if they do not have free will? How would you describe your own actions given that you do not have free will?”
You seem to equate determinism with fatalism. How do you imagine that follows?
Most versions of determinism have a strong commitment to causality. Causes and effects. Necessary and sufficient conditions.
Something causes me to do a post. My post might, in turn, cause you to change your mind. Convincing someone would be an effect of something I wrote. My words can function as determinants, affecting what you belief.
Causes effect changes. How do you think that is at odds with determinism? Determinism is, itself, a causal category.
Ironically, the question you raise is a problem, not for determinism, but indeterminism. If you deny causality, then why are you trying to change someone’s mind? Unless something you said or wrote could *cause* another man to reconsider his position, then what does it mean to you, as a libertarian, to use persuasion in order to make another man change his mind?