Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Jarhyn]

I would go so far as to say, if we are going to whittle all this complexity of "could" and "shall", we can just dispense with "shall" and acknowledge that choice functions don't need to be indeterministic to be "free".

Really wills just need to return a product of their choice function rather than being interrupted and having that choice revoked or forced by operations external to the choice function either by failure to push, or a superceding choice function.

listA.pop is still, after all, a choice function. It can never return the second element (could not ever choose listA[2]), despite being in listA as "possibilities" under the definition of what a "possibility" is: an object which is contained in the set listA.

We can observe the "possibilities" of listA objectively. They are real things.

They are clearly never going to get chosen in an "immediate" operation of listA pop, but this presents no challenge of listA.pop's "freedom".

The only challenge to that freedom is when listA = {∅}, and it lets you know by returning ∅ rather than any member of set R.

listA does not need to even be capable of realizing possibilities for them to BE possibilities, and it only needs to be capable of returning an object in the set of R to be "free", which is dependent on whether it has had a Push operation operated.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Freedom from what? That's the question that makes freedom meaningful.

 

[Jarhyn]

Freedom from what? That's the question that makes freedom meaningful.

I pose it as freedom to, rather than freedom from.

"Freedom from" assumes specific impediments, an infinite set.

"Freedom to" looks at a specific, singular event: the return of the will.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Freedom from what? That's the question that makes freedom meaningful.

I pose it as freedom to, rather than freedom from.

"Freedom from" assumes specific impediments, an infinite set.

"Freedom to" looks at a specific, singular event: the return of the will.

Freedom to X implies freedom from anything that would prevent you from X'ing. "Freedom to" is the default assumption until something gets in the way of doing what you want. "Freedom to" implies "freedom from" that which prevents you from doing what you want.

 

[Jarhyn]

Freedom from what? That's the question that makes freedom meaningful.

I pose it as freedom to, rather than freedom from.

"Freedom from" assumes specific impediments, an infinite set.

"Freedom to" looks at a specific, singular event: the return of the will.

Freedom to X implies freedom from anything that would prevent you from X'ing. "Freedom to" is the default assumption until something gets in the way of doing what you want. "Freedom to" implies "freedom from" that which prevents you from doing what you want.

There is only one freedom to: the event that it happens. It is not an assumption but a reality, the individual singular thing that was "free from *".

It's really more a 1->inf; 1/x as x->0 kind of debate though.

They are likely the same idea but viewed from different angles.

You can always, from "freedom to requirement" begin enumerating things the will was "free from". You can't get whether the thing was free to it's requirement by discussing what it was free from, though.

The only "free from" is "free from *"

I guess I just like the idea of pointing to the requirement, the actual objective that produces a "returning state" that triggers, in some way, the release of the will with the gold star rather than "son, I am disappoint" or "try again".

I'm thinking about this, if you might imagine, because I actually want to use these discussions as a basis for hammering the necessary wills into HTMs, and stringing them together, and then tuning them until I have something that isn't entirely alien.

I'm not even going to get the power to start that work in earnest for a few more years, but I can discuss the requirements and the structure, and work out the algorithms and functions to make the kind of computer system that is, for lack of a better word, "a person".

To understand, though, it would be useful to have a identifier in unfree wills of what, in particular, first failed and a description of why.

A lot of it is going to be ripped off of and built unapologetically from the work of Tarn Adams.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You can't get whether the thing was free to it's requirement by discussing what it was free from, though.

You get to whether the thing was "free to" by simply setting the requirement and watching it happen. If it happens, then it was necessarily "free to" happen. If it doesn't happen, then you'll look for what prevented it from happening, and attempt to set it "free from" that constraint, until it eventually happens. ... For example, if Tarn Adams sues you for copyright infringement, then you may not be free to rip off Mr. Adams.

 

[DBT]

You're confusing an actuality with a possibility. Every item on the restaurant menu is a possibility. However, the Chef Salad on the table in front of me is an actuality. There will be only one actuality. However, there are always more than one possibility.

No confusion. it's just how determinism works by definition.

Every item is realizable (in fact necessitated) for someone in any instance in time, but not everyone. Who gets which menu item is determined, not freely willed.

Your selected menu item is fixed. Everyone's menu item, though different, though all options are taken by someone, is determined not freely willed.

By your own definition; ''All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

Free Will? Not likely.

Each person to their own menu item. Each menu item that is selected is not probabilistically selected, not freely willed, but necessarily selected. It cannot happen otherwise.

The choices made "will" not happen otherwise, but they certainly "can" happen otherwise. Every item on the menu is a real possibility for every person at the table. The fact that they will not choose an item does not logically imply that they could not choose that item.

They are all realizable for someone, but not everyone. Each their own necessitated option. Their only option in the instance of realization of the menu item.

It is a simple matter of what "can" and "will" actually mean. What "will" happen is not the same as what "can" happen.

What will happen within a determined system must necessarily happen. It cannot not happen. It cannot be otherwise.

And whenever choosing happens, there will always be at least two things that "can" happen, even though there is only one thing that "will" happen.

There can never be two things that can happen. There is no probability within a determined system. Whatever happens must happen as determined, no deviation.

If you select Steak and Salad, your wife selects Lasagna, your friend selects Spanish Mackerel and his wife selects Caeser Salad, four menu items are taken, each and every item selection necessitated/fixed/ determined by the mental/physical condition of the person/brain/mind involved in the process of determination.

Absolutely correct! Even though I "could" have selected the Lasagna, I didn't. And given those exact same circumstances, I never "would have" selected the Lasagna, even though I "could have".

There was never a possibility of you choosing Lasagna if it is determined that you select Steak and Salad. Determinism doesn't allow alternate actions, each and every Diner their own selection with no possible alternative.

Determinism allows no wriggle room, no 'I may have gone with Lasagna' - it's too late, hindsight cannot alter what was determined to happen.

1. If Causal Determinism is true ... - Bruce Silverstein - BA Philosophy - Quora

If Bruce would like to participate in this conversation, then I'd be happy to straighten him out as well. But I see no point in trying to have a conversation with someone who isn't here to defend his position. You may prefer his rhetoric to your own, but he is not actually saying anything that you are not already saying. So, let's avoid unnecessary redundancy.

Bruce is quite correct. He understands the rules of determinism and their consequences for all thought and action.

I don't prefer anyone's rhetoric. I post quotes because their descriptions describe the determinism and its consequences for the notion of free will.

In its simplest terms: if a deterministic system, everything is determined, hence nothing is freely willed or chosen in the sense that another option is possible. Other 'possibilities' are not your possibilities, but other people's necessitated actions, and the reason why determinism negates freedom of will.

'Possibility' implies uncertainty, that something may or may not happen.

Exactly. The function of our notions of "possibility" is to deal with everyday uncertainty. When we do not know what "will" happen, we imagine what "can" happen, to prepare for what does happen.

If ''possibility'' means that there is the possibility of something other than what is determined to happen, there are no possibilities in determinism. Everything proceeds as determined. No deviations, no alternate action, no may have been different.

There are no 'possibilities' in determinism.

When we are in the context of deterministic reality, there are no possibilities. Thus, when addressing functional possibilities we shift into a different context, the context where we speak of things that "can" happen, rather than things that "will" happen. We don't know whether the traffic light will be red or green when we get there (the deterministic reality is unknown), but we know for certain that it could be red and it also could be green (two real possibilities).
The function of a "possibility" is to allow us to imagine things that may or may not happen. The restaurant menu, for example, is a list of things that we might or might not choose for dinner. The function of such an imagined future is to "try it out" to see if we might want to choose it. For example, when I considered having that steak for dinner, I recalled having bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, and what first looked good to me suddenly seemed less appetizing. That's how a "possibility", something that "can" happen, logically functions.

We don't have the necessary information to accurately predict future states of the system. Which is why we speak of possibilities or likelihoods.

Ours is a limited perspective, and our predictions are only as good as the information we have.

A possibility might never be selected, but it remains a possibility, something we have the "ability" to do, something that we "can" do, even if we never actually do it.

If something happens, it happens because it was determined to happen, the state of the world, the state of you as events unfold. No deviation, if you recall your definition.

What is determined must necessarily happen as determined

Yes. And if it is "determined" (causally necessary) that I would consider the possibility of the steak, and then reject it, then that possibility, as a mental event, was causally necessary from any prior point in time and inevitably "would" happen, without deviation.

Of course, it "could" have happened differently. If I had coffee and toast for breakfast, and a salad for lunch, then the possibility of steak for dinner "would" have been very appealing, and I "would", under those circumstances, order the steak instead of the salad for dinner.

But that, of course, did not happen, even though it "could" have.

You can't consider anything that is not determined by information conditions, brain, environment, inputs, etc, in the instance of consideration. Your considerations are deterministic.

There is, for instance, the option to become an astronaut, to fly to the Space Station, an option that is not realizable for 99.999% of the population

That's a good point. We may imagine ourselves as astronauts without it being a real possibility. That would be a fantasy for most people. A fantasy is not expected to be a real possibility.

Fantasies are enabled by the information the brain has acquired, processed and extrapolated to include oneself in the scenario of space travel, imagining what it would feel like, etc, after all, the brain is an intelligent, rational system capable of generating a mental representation of the external world and self.

Superman may "leap tall buildings in a single bound", but that is physically impossible for us.

A real possibility is something that we actually can do, if we choose to do it.

In a deterministic system that includes a human brain with the neurological capacity to make decisions, that mind will always have multiple possibilities to choose from during that operation.

A real possibility is something someone will do, but not necessarily you or me. The someone that does these things does them because their brains, minds and events put them in that situation.

You don't just decide to become an Astronaut and become one, there's the matter of aptitude, circumstances, time, opportunity.....somebody gets to be an Astronaut but most of the world's population are ruled out, for them, there is no possibility.

There are no possibilities within the brain/mind in the sense that something not determined could possibly happen.

The paradox here is created by conflating the two "senses" that we're talking about. Are we speaking in the sense of possibilities, or, are we speaking in the sense of actualities. These are two very different senses. Are we speaking of things that "can" happen, or, are we speaking of things that "will" happen.

That's the thing, I am not conflating. We speak of possibilities because our understanding of current and future states of the system is limited, we extrapolate, we guess, while the system itself proceeds or unfolds as determined, without deviation, where everything that happens must happen as determined. Fixed. No deviation.

It is not what 'can' happen, but what must necessarily happen.

 

[Jarhyn]

Without a realizable alternative, no decision was made

This boils down logically, when pointed at listA, to a demonstrable nonsense:

"Without listA.pop() being capable of returning listA[2] ∅ must be returned".

If listA contains {[1,1],[2,2]}, listA.pop returns 1, not ∅.

As the thesis is not a true statement of listA, you are provably speaking nonsense in this claim.

Your entire argument boils down to repetitions of this idea.

It is nonsense, and proven so, directly, through contradiction of example

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Every item is realizable (in fact necessitated) for someone in any instance in time, but not everyone.

No. Realizable means "able to be realized". It does not mean that it will ever actually be realized.

Each specific order, by each person, will be necessarily realized. And each item that will not be realized will necessarily be not realized.

But the fact that a specific item will necessarily not be realized does not make the item "unrealizable". It remains an item that could have been realized if someone had chose to order it.

An ability implies a possibility to do something. I am able to walk to the grocery store. But I always drive my car, because I expect to bring back several bags of groceries. The fact that it is causally necessary that I never will walk to the grocery store does not in any way diminish my ability to walk to the grocery store.

Realizability is the ability to realize a possibility, to make it an actuality. And every person in the restaurant is able to choose any possibility from the menu, order it, and have it brought to their table and set in front of them. Every item on the menu is realizable, including every item that necessarily will not be realized tonight.

The ability remains constant, regardless of what will actually happen. I am able to walk to the grocery store even if I never will do so. I am able to order the Lasagna, even if I chose to order the steak with a side salad. My abilities are never changed by causal necessity.

Who gets which menu item is determined, not freely willed.

That would be the hard determinist's word game. The freedom is in the choosing, not in the willing. You are taking advantage of the abbreviated form "free will", and imagining that it means the will must be free of the choosing. But if you consult any general dictionary, you'll see that free will is a "voluntary", "unforced" choice, not some kind of free-floating will.

By your own definition; ''All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

He's still correct, as always. We will choose for ourselves from multiple possibilities what we will do. This will be a causally necessary event, that will happen without deviation, and will be inevitable from the Big Bang to this moment.

It will inevitably be our own choice. It will inevitably be ourselves doing the choosing, and doing so for our own reasons and our own interests. And it will be called a freely chosen will.

Or, it will inevitably be a choice imposed upon by someone or something else, in which case it will be called coercion or undue influence. In which case it will not be a choice of our own free will.

What will happen within a determined system must necessarily happen. It cannot not happen. It cannot be otherwise.

Again, you're creating a paradox when you misuse the word "can" when you actually mean "will". The correct statement is this: "What will happen within a determined system must necessarily happen. It will not not happen. It will not be otherwise."

Using "can" in place of "will" throws us out of the context of deterministic necessity and into the context of possibilities. And, we end up with paradoxes like this one:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer: "I don't know. What can I order?"
Waiter: "Given determinism, there is only one thing you can order, sir."
Customer: "Oh. Then what is that one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I have no clue".

To remove the paradox, and start making sense again (despite David Byrne's advice), we can pragmatically reframe the example:
Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer: "I don't know. What can I order?"
Waiter: "Sorry sir. Here is our menu. You can order anything you want from the menu."
Customer: "Cool. I will have the Steak with a side salad".

From the menu of the many things that we can order, we select the single thing that we will order. And, all of the other items on the menu become things that we could have ordered instead.

Deterministic causal necessity does not remove any of the things we can do. It only necessitates that we will do only one of things that we can do.

And whenever choosing happens, there will always be at least two things that "can" happen, even though there is only one thing that "will" happen.

There can never be two things that can happen.

Then I wish to see the manager about getting a new waiter.

Bruce is quite correct. He understands the rules of determinism and their consequences for all thought and action.

Bruce Silverstein is saying the same thing that you are. And you are both wrong for the same reasons.

The function of a "possibility" is to allow us to imagine things that may or may not happen. The restaurant menu, for example, is a list of things that we might or might not choose for dinner. The function of such an imagined future is to "try it out" to see if we might want to choose it. For example, when I considered having that steak for dinner, I recalled having bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, and what first looked good to me suddenly seemed less appetizing. That's how a "possibility", something that "can" happen, logically functions.

We don't have the necessary information to accurately predict future states of the system. Which is why we speak of possibilities or likelihoods.

Precisely. That's why humans evolved specific linguistic concepts to deal logically with the problems of our frequent uncertainties.

Ours is a limited perspective, and our predictions are only as good as the information we have.

Correct.

If something happens, it happens because it was determined to happen, the state of the world, the state of you as events unfold. No deviation, if you recall your definition.

That is correct. But to keep in touch with the truth, we need to be aware of our own role as causal agents within the overall scheme of causation, and not indulge the fantasy that someone or something else is causing events that we are actually causing ourselves.

You can't consider anything that is not determined by information conditions, brain, environment, inputs, etc, in the instance of consideration. Your considerations are deterministic.

I certainly hope so. But keep in mind that the brain you mention is my own brain, and essentially my own self. And I (my brain) exercise some control over which information I subject myself to, and which changes I wish to make to my environment, etc. These too are matters of consideration that are deterministic (but then again, everything is, so why even bring it up?).

 

[DBT]

Every item is realizable (in fact necessitated) for someone in any instance in time, but not everyone.

No. Realizable means "able to be realized". It does not mean that it will ever actually be realized.

The point with determinism being: whatever is not determined to happen cannot be realized. If not determined, it literally cannot happen.

If it's determined that you select Steak and Salad, nothing else is realizable, hence no 'able to be realized.'

Each according to their state and action, nothing more, nothing less.

That's determinism.

Each specific order, by each person, will be necessarily realized. And each item that will not be realized will necessarily be not realized.

Exactly. Which is what negates any claim for free will within a determined system. Compatibilism's definition is based on action, not will, which is a category error.

Determined actions even when not coerced by external factors must necessarily proceed as determined, not freely willed.

But the fact that a specific item will necessarily not be realized does not make the item "unrealizable". It remains an item that could have been realized if someone had chose to order it.

Nobody is able choose something if that 'choice' is not determined. There are no alternate possibilities. If it's determined (state and condition of the system, including the brains/minds of the diners) that Lasagna is not chosen by anyone present, Lasagna literally cannot be chosen. Nobody chooses it. If determined, it cannot be chosen.

An ability implies a possibility to do something. I am able to walk to the grocery store. But I always drive my car, because I expect to bring back several bags of groceries. The fact that it is causally necessary that I never will walk to the grocery store does not in any way diminish my ability to walk to the grocery store.

You are able to do anything that is determined by the state and condition of the system in any given instance in time, you can run, jump, push a barrow, ride a bike, if it's determined, you can do it.

Moreover, not only can you do it, you must necessarily do it.

You cannot not do it.

Realizability is the ability to realize a possibility, to make it an actuality. And every person in the restaurant is able to choose any possibility from the menu, order it, and have it brought to their table and set in front of them. Every item on the menu is realizable, including every item that necessarily will not be realized tonight.

Nope, there are no multiple options or alternate actions within a determined system in any given instance in time....there is only one per person.

Each person 'opts' for an item on the menu according to their own state and condition in relation to the circumstance they are in.

Each and every item may be selected by someone with no possible alternative action in any instance of selection.

Selection is necessitated, not freely chosen or willed.

No deviations possible for anyone or anything.

The ability remains constant, regardless of what will actually happen. I am able to walk to the grocery store even if I never will do so. I am able to order the Lasagna, even if I chose to order the steak with a side salad. My abilities are never changed by causal necessity.

If you don't walk to the grocery store, this being determined, there was never a possibility of it happening. Unless its determined that you take that walk, it literally cannot happen.

We with our limited perspective may say. 'I could have gone to the grocery store' - which really means 'I should have gone to the grocery store.' Too late. It didn't happen and could never have happened because conditions, if determined, did not allow it to happen.

''The increments of a normal brain state is not as obvious as direct coercion, a microchip, or a tumor, but the “obviousness” is irrelevant here. Brain states incrementally get to the state they are in one moment at a time. In each moment of that process the brain is in one state, and the specific environment and biological conditions lead to the very next state. Depending on that state, this will cause you to behave in a specific way within an environment (decide in a specific way), in which all of those things that are outside of a person constantly bombard your senses changing your very brain state. The internal dialogue in your mind you have no real control over.''

 

[Jarhyn]

"Cannot" happen

Again, you are mixing contexts. In one context we take all the rules of physics, all those mysterious mechanisms that are understood to the extent they may be, and we present a different state field to all that.

This is what "can" means. Different stuff, same basic mathematical operations happening.

"Cannot" does not operate in the concept of concrete reality.

When I say "the dwarf cannot climb up a smoothed stone wall" I am making a statement not about A universe of physical interactions but of all hypothetical localities of all Dwarven physics on a given "raw configuration": "smoothed stone walls" are, in that physics, "unclimbable".

It is in effect saying "this math does not allow reaching this value from this other value". So, it is applicable in terms of "multiplying two integers numbers together using standard integer multiplication, you CANNOT generate a number that is not itself an integer"

This is different from saying "when I am done multiplying 7 * 5 in this sentence, I shall reach the answer 35."

One is a discussion of "multiplication, as an operation of an algebraic group on a field" and the other is a discussion of "what happens in this moment of reality?"

"Cannot" only ever happens in the imagination, in terms of provisional freedoms.

When you try to mix contexts, you just spew foolishness.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If not determined, it literally cannot happen.

No, not "literally", but only "figuratively". If you take it literally you end up with nonsense. For example, you end up with the waiter telling the customer that he has only one choice for dinner, but neither the customer nor the waiter can say what that one choice is. The result is an absurdity.

There must be at least two things that a person can choose before choosing begins. It is a logical requirement of the operation. Therefore, it is nonsensical to claim that only one thing can be chosen, because if that were the case, then the choosing operation would immediately come to a screeching halt. One cannot choose between a single possibility!

We get similar nonsense with another example where we have two things that can happen even though only one thing will happen:

We're driving down the road and see a traffic light up ahead. The light is currently red, but it could turn green by the time we get there. On the other hand, it could remain red. So, we slow down. But as we arrive it turns green, so we resume speed. Our passenger, a hard determinist, asks, "Why did you slow down back there?". We respond, "The light could have remained red." The passenger says, "No, you're wrong. It was determined, from any prior point in time, that the light would be green when we arrived. So, why did you slow down?". We respond, "BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE REMAINED RED!". "No, it could not!", he exclaims. We pull over to the side of the road, and say "Get out of the car." Then we drive off without his nonsense.

So, your claim is not literally true, but literally false.

How then did you get to your conclusion? Through figurative thinking. If it is the case that only one choice will be made and that only one thing will happen, then it seems AS IF only one choice can be made and AS IF only one thing can happen. But that is literally false.

Figurative speech is commonly used in human communication. However it has one small flaw: Every figurative statement is literally false. So, if our goal is to get closer to the truth of the matter, we need to be aware of errors introduced by figurative thinking.

If it's determined that you select Steak and Salad, nothing else is realizable, hence no 'able to be realized.'

Nope. Every item on the menu was realizable. Every item on the menu could have been chosen. To say otherwise is nonsense. And it is easily demonstrated to be nonsense by simply ordering every item on the menu. As each item is brought to the table it will be obvious that it was always realizable, whether we chose to realize it or not.

Determinism can only claim that it was inevitable that the item we chose would be chosen, and it was inevitable that the other items would not be chosen. Determinism can make no logical claims as to what could or could not be chosen, or what could or could not happen.

You are able to do anything that is determined by the state and condition of the system in any given instance in time, you can run, jump, push a barrow, ride a bike, if it's determined, you can do it.

What you seem to forget is that I am able to do those things whether it is determined that I will do those things or not. An ability to do something, whether it is to "run, jump, push a barrow, ride a bike", does not require that I actually do any of those things at any specific time or place. I have the ability to do those things whenever I choose to do them, and I retain those abilities even when I choose not to do them.

Moreover, not only can you do it, you must necessarily do it. You cannot not do it.

First, what I can and cannot do is not affected by whether it is necessary that I do it or not.

Second, it may be causally necessary that I will choose to push a barrow of my own free will, or it may be causally necessary that someone with a gun will require me to push that barrow against my will. Thus, both free will and coercion remain meaningful within a deterministic system. That is the simple claim of compatibilism.

Nope, there are no multiple options or alternate actions within a determined system in any given instance in time....there is only one per person.

Customer: "What do you mean when you tell me that there is only one possibility for dinner, and then refuse to tell me what that possibility is?!"

Your claim, if true, results in nonsense.

Each person 'opts' for an item on the menu according to their own state and condition in relation to the circumstance they are in.

Yes. For example, if I had not had the bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, I would have chosen the steak for dinner instead of the salad. That was my own state and condition that evening and it determined my choice. But my own state and condition is part of who and what I am. So, it remains I, myself, that is choosing to order the salad for dinner.

If you don't walk to the grocery store, this being determined, there was never a possibility of it happening.

There was always the possibility of it happening. After all, I always had the ability to walk to the grocery store. And, if my car broke down, and I didn't have any food in the house, then I would have had to walk to the grocery store even though I didn't want to.

A possibility is not required to happen in order to be a possibility. The whole point of a possibility is that it need not happen in order to serve its function of imagining a future that may or may not be chosen. In the restaurant, when choosing between ordering the steak versus ordering the salad, each represented a different possible future, one in which I ate steak for dinner and the other in which I ate a salad for dinner.

Determinism cannot assert that there is only one possibility, or only one thing that can happen, or only one choice that can be made. All of those claims result in absurdity. Determinism may only claim that one possibility will be actualized, that one thing will happen, and that one choice will be made.

We with our limited perspective may say. 'I could have gone to the grocery store' - which really means 'I should have gone to the grocery store.' Too late. It didn't happen and could never have happened because conditions, if determined, did not allow it to happen.

Ironically, it is hard determinism that "limits our perspective". It insists that there is only one possibility, only one thing that can happen, only one choice that can be made. And in doing so it simply leaves us with a collection of absurdities and paradoxes.

It is odd that they have not yet been able to escape from their own self-induced hoax.

''The increments of a normal brain state is not as obvious as direct coercion, a microchip, or a tumor, but the “obviousness” is irrelevant here. Brain states incrementally get to the state they are in one moment at a time. In each moment of that process the brain is in one state, and the specific environment and biological conditions lead to the very next state. Depending on that state, this will cause you to behave in a specific way within an environment (decide in a specific way), in which all of those things that are outside of a person constantly bombard your senses changing your very brain state. The internal dialogue in your mind you have no real control over.''

And here we have Trick Slattery trying to pull us into the same hoax, using the neuroscience approach. What he fails to mention is that our brain states include our own thoughts and feelings that we experiences as we make our choices. I can explain why I chose the salad instead of the steak for dinner tonight. It was that bacon and egg breakfast and that double cheeseburger lunch. So, it was I, myself, who placed the order for the salad, and the waiter will bring me the bill to pay. Neuroscience does not say otherwise.

 

[fromderinside]

OK. So simplify. 'May' isn't possible, neither is 'can' Choice isn't part of the paradigm.

It's 'this' then 'that'.

Conditions are explicit.

Yes there are be many this's and that's but they all reduce single objective transactions.

It's 'not this' 'not that'; Nor even 'if this' 'then that'. We know that because 'not' isn't an option conditioner. Nor is it ever 'what if' 'perhaps then'.

What can or may aren't options in the paradigm.

All that counts is material. Subjective is never objectively testable.

By the by Neuroscience has no say. So why suggest it says anything?

Everything reduces to singular cause and effect. That's determinism.

Just because you are too lazy to find a way to reduce to single cause when there are apparently many possible has no weight.

Materiality has been shown to reduce every time we define limits such as atom, quark, etc. and everything observable without instrumentation also demonstrates singularity of events. I'm sure that quantum solutions will reduce as well since space and time are now in play.

 

[Jarhyn]

'May' isn't possible, neither is 'can' Choice isn't part of the paradigm.

Then you, again, fail to understand the actual definition of "choice", "may", and "can" and even the reasons humans study physics, or what "physics" even means.

listA is a choice function with a deterministic return. It does not need to be capable of returning listA[2] for this to be true.

As we have all discussed, "can" is an imaginary game humans play and operates in the context of imagination. What things "can" do is imaginary. The object containing the imagination of a false future is objectively there, even if the thing imagined is not reality. The object holding this imagination is, like it or not, an objective part of the choice function.

if(!listA.empty()) val=listA.pop();

listA.empty(), as discussed, returns an image of listA. The image, while imaginary, still objectively impacts the function of the system.. because the image itself is an object.

So "can" is definitely a sensible notion separate from "will".

But moreover, listA.pop() is a choice function even though any given call can only ever return a single, deterministically known answer.

Images have objective shapes, because all images are made of objects, even if the image is not exactly the thing it imagines.

The objective shape of the image plays a large role in determining what does happen, and in this context "CAN" is the discussion of the system's behavior across the set of all images it may contain when a choice function is operated so as to make a decision.

Look at that construction: it operates outside of physics and describes the constraints physics generates in a general way. This is in fact the whole idea of physics, to describe the "can" not the "will" of the universe.

listA is unambiguously a choice function, though. It returns a single member of a given set.

 

[DBT]

If not determined, it literally cannot happen.

No, not "literally", but only "figuratively". If you take it literally you end up with nonsense. For example, you end up with the waiter telling the customer that he has only one choice for dinner, but neither the customer nor the waiter can say what that one choice is. The result is an absurdity.

​

literally​

adverb exactly, really, closely, actually, simply, plainly, truly, precisely, strictly, faithfully, to the letter, verbatim, word for word The word 'volk' translates literally as 'folk'.

There must be at least two things that a person can choose before choosing begins. It is a logical requirement of the operation. Therefore, it is nonsensical to claim that only one thing can be chosen, because if that were the case, then the choosing operation would immediately come to a screeching halt. One cannot choose between a single possibility!

As there are no alternative actions within a determined system, there are no two things that a person can do. Freedom of choice is an illusion.

There may be different actions, multiple actions, but each and every action is determined, not chosen. If it is determined that you turn left, that is your only possible action. Turning right was never a possibility for you.

The driver behind you turns right because that is her determined action, she cannot turn left.

There are two roads and two ways to go, but only one possible action for each driver, one to the left, the other to the right.

No deviation possible.

That, by the given and agreed upon definition, is how determinism works.

We get similar nonsense with another example where we have two things that can happen even though only one thing will happen:

But two things can't happen. Every state of an object within a series of events is in a fixed state as the system progresses deterministically, x, y, z..... no deviation.

Nothing else can happen. Complexity doesn't change that. Complexity just makes prediction more difficult, chaotic but deterministic systems virtually impossible.

We're driving down the road and see a traffic light up ahead. The light is currently red, but it could turn green by the time we get there. On the other hand, it could remain red. So, we slow down. But as we arrive it turns green, so we resume speed. Our passenger, a hard determinist, asks, "Why did you slow down back there?". We respond, "The light could have remained red." The passenger says, "No, you're wrong. It was determined, from any prior point in time, that the light would be green when we arrived. So, why did you slow down?". We respond, "BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE REMAINED RED!". "No, it could not!", he exclaims. We pull over to the side of the road, and say "Get out of the car." Then we drive off without his nonsense.

What the light does is determined by any number of elements, of which we have no access to, or awareness of.

We don't know precisely when the lights will cycle, 'our' brain responds according to past experience (memory function) with traffic lights.
We have a good idea of how they work.

So, your claim is not literally true, but literally false.

Not in the least. Whatever the lights do is determined by whatever is happening within the system. We don't have that information.

Because we don't have the necessary information, we wait to see what happens. A state of waiting in anticipation is our condition until fresh information prompts us to move; the lights have turned green

How then did you get to your conclusion? Through figurative thinking. If it is the case that only one choice will be made and that only one thing will happen, then it seems AS IF only one choice can be made and AS IF only one thing can happen. But that is literally false.

Determinism doesn't allow alternate actions. Everything must proceed as determined with no deviation.

It's not my conclusion. It's how determinism works according to the given and agreed upon definition;

''Each state of the universe and its events are the necessary result of its prior state and prior events. ("Events" change the state of things.)
Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation").

However, in order for determinism to be true, it must include all events. For example, determinism cannot exclude the effects of natural forces, like volcanoes and tidal waves or a meteor hitting the Earth. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of biological organisms that transform their environments, like tree seedlings changing bare land into a forest. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of deliberate choices, like when the chef prepares me the salad that I chose for lunch.

All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

If it's determined that you select Steak and Salad, nothing else is realizable, hence no 'able to be realized.'

Nope. Every item on the menu was realizable. Every item on the menu could have been chosen. To say otherwise is nonsense. And it is easily demonstrated to be nonsense by simply ordering every item on the menu. As each item is brought to the table it will be obvious that it was always realizable, whether we chose to realize it or not.

Not realizable by everyone or anyone where or when it is not determined. Each action is fixed by antecedents, not freely chosen.

The options exist for a range of people and a range of tastes. And the world, if deterministic, does not allow alternate actions.

If it's determined that you opt with fish and chips at 8:05pm on a Sunday night, events bring you to that point in time to order fish and chips at 8:05pm Sunday night.

The other items on the menu exist for other people in that moment in time, but not for you. Each to their own determined menu item at 8:05pm Sunday night.

That is how determinism works. No ifs, buts or maybes.

You are able to do anything that is determined by the state and condition of the system in any given instance in time, you can run, jump, push a barrow, ride a bike, if it's determined, you can do it.

What you seem to forget is that I am able to do those things whether it is determined that I will do those things or not. An ability to do something, whether it is to "run, jump, push a barrow, ride a bike", does not require that I actually do any of those things at any specific time or place. I have the ability to do those things whenever I choose to do them, and I retain those abilities even when I choose not to do them.

If an action is determined, the action must necessarily happen as determined. You jump, you run, you ride a bike, eat a meal, drink a pint of lager, whatever, and you do it unimpeded, the actions performed freely and precisely as determined.

Nothing restricts your jump, your bike ride, you eating your meal or downing a pint of lager because all of these actions must proceed as determined, not freely chosen.

Not freely chosen, because you never had a choice.

Never had a choice because by definition determinism allows no alternatives.

And here we have Trick Slattery trying to pull us into the same hoax, using the neuroscience approach. What he fails to mention is that our brain states include our own thoughts and feelings that we experiences as we make our choices. I can explain why I chose the salad instead of the steak for dinner tonight. It was that bacon and egg breakfast and that double cheeseburger lunch. So, it was I, myself, who placed the order for the salad, and the waiter will bring me the bill to pay. Neuroscience does not say otherwise.

But there is no hoax.

Given the rules of determinism, no possibility of alternate actions, etc, what he says is correct.

It has to be that way. Events must proceed as determined.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not freely chosen, because you never had a choice.

And again your failure to understand choice functions is apparent.

listA.pop is a choice function.

"free choice" for listA is not defined as listA.pop returning listA[2]. Rather, "free choice" for listA.pop is listA.pop not returning ∅.

There are clearly situations where listA can make a free choice, even when "it cannot have chosen otherwise".

In other words, you speak nonsense.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

literally adverb exactly, really, closely, actually, simply, plainly, truly, precisely, strictly, faithfully, to the letter, verbatim, word for word
The word 'volk' translates literally as 'folk'.

Good. You looked it up, and gave us the thesaurus list of synonyms.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines literally this way:
I. In a literal manner or sense.
1.a. In a literal, exact, or actual sense; not figuratively, allegorically, etc.

Literally is the opposite of figuratively.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines figuratively this way:
In a figurative manner.
1. In or by means of a figure or emblem.
2. By or as a figure of speech; metaphorically.

One small complication in using these two words correctly is that the words, literally, really, and actually are sometimes misused as intensifiers when making a figurative statement. From the American Heritage Dictionary in your original citing:

Usage Note: For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherence of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of "in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words." In 1926, for example, H.W. Fowler deplored the example "The 300,000 Unionists ... will be literally thrown to the wolves."

Obviously, the 300,000 soldiers will not be literally "thrown to the wolves". They may be abandoned on the field without backup or support, such that it is AS IF they were "thrown to the wolves". But that is literally a figurative statement.

When I use the word "literally", I am referring to a correct statement as to what is actually going on in the real world, as a matter of objective fact.

And when I complain about someone speaking "figuratively", I am criticizing the statement for being an inaccurate and false depiction of what is actually happening in the real world.

The criteria for determining whether a statement is literal or figurative is to compare it to empirical reality. Are the 300,000 soldiers being actually thrown to the wolves? No. So the statement is figurative, not literal.

And I hope that clears up the distinction between figurative and literal. It is an important distinction, because it has to do with what is true and what is not true.

In debates about determinism we see many figurative statements. For example, consider the statement: "If my choice is already determined then it is as if I never made the choice at all". But is it literally true that you never made the choice? No. You actually made a choice. That is an empirical fact. And it was also causally necessary that you would be actually making that specific choice. That too would be an empirical fact. And there is never any contradiction between two empirical facts (all empirical facts are compatible).

As there are no alternative actions within a determined system, there are no two things that a person can do.

Figurative or literal? Figurative, because whenever choosing happens (and it empirically does happen), there will always be at least two distinct things that the person can do. The person literally can choose one and the person literally can choose the other. This is a logical requirement of the choosing operation. It is built into the mechanism of decision-making.

Freedom of choice is an illusion.

Figurative or literal? Figurative, again.

Freedom of choice is literally the ability to choose from multiple options the single thing that we will do, while we are free of coercion and undue influence. Coercion and undue influence are real events in the real world. And we can actually be either free of them or we can actually be subjected to them. In matters of legal responsibility, there will be case law precedents, expert testimony, and objective evidence of these facts.

There may be different actions, multiple actions, but each and every action is determined, not chosen.

Figurative or literal? This time we get a mixture!

Each and every action is certainly determined by some actual object and some actual event.
But choosing happens to be an actual event that is actually performed by us.

So, we cannot conclude that all determined events are "not chosen", because some determined events are literally chosen.

If it is determined that you turn left, that is your only possible action. Turning right was never a possibility for you.

Figuratively or literally? That depends entirely on what is the determining cause.

For example, if you are in a building, walking down a hallway on the right side of the building, and it intersects with a hallway that requires you to turn left, then that is certainly your only possible action.

But if you're in the same building with a central hallway, that intersects halls on both the left and right, then it would be equally possible for you to turn left or right.

And you having those two possibilities would be causally necessary from any prior point in time.

That, by the given and agreed upon definition, is how determinism works.

But two things can't happen.

No, two things won't happen, but any number of things can happen.

What will happen is constrained by what can happen, because if it cannot happen, then it will not happen.

But what can happen is only constrained by our imagination and our ability to actually make it happen.

Every state of an object within a series of events is in a fixed state as the system progresses deterministically, x, y, z..... no deviation.

Correct!

Nothing else can happen.

Figurative or literal? Figurative. What can happen is not constrained by what will happen.

"Nothing else will happen" is the literal fact of the matter.
"Nothing else can happen" is a figure of speech, derived by "if nothing else will happen then it is as if nothing else can happen".

Like all figurative statements, "nothing else can happen" is literally false.

We're driving down the road and see a traffic light up ahead. The light is currently red, but it could turn green by the time we get there. On the other hand, it could remain red. So, we slow down. But as we arrive it turns green, so we resume speed. Our passenger, a hard determinist, asks, "Why did you slow down back there?". We respond, "The light could have remained red." The passenger says, "No, you're wrong. It was determined, from any prior point in time, that the light would be green when we arrived. So, why did you slow down?". We respond, "BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE REMAINED RED!". "No, it could not!", he exclaims. We pull over to the side of the road, and say "Get out of the car." Then we drive off without his nonsense.

Whatever the lights do is determined by whatever is happening within the system. We don't have that information. Because we don't have the necessary information, we wait to see what happens. A state of waiting in anticipation is our condition until fresh information prompts us to move; the lights have turned green

But we didn't wait to see what happens. We slowed down, just in case the light remained red. If we had not slowed down and the light remained red, then we would have gone through the red light, and collided with cars in the crossing road.

We took action, we slowed down, upon the possibility that the light would remain red.

For safety sake, we needed to consider both possibilities, the possibility that the light could change green and the possibility that the light could remain red. Two possibilities. Two things that could have happened. Not just one.

That's how the human mind must work in order to avoid traffic collisions.

To suggest otherwise creates nonsense.

I'll just close with the same quote you provided, and hope that eventually you understand what it means:

''Each state of the universe and its events are the necessary result of its prior state and prior events. ("Events" change the state of things.)
Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation").

However, in order for determinism to be true, it must include all events. For example, determinism cannot exclude the effects of natural forces, like volcanoes and tidal waves or a meteor hitting the Earth. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of biological organisms that transform their environments, like tree seedlings changing bare land into a forest. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of deliberate choices, like when the chef prepares me the salad that I chose for lunch.

All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

 

[bilby]

Freedom is simply the absence of knowledge; It's a specific subset of ignorance that refers to future events.

The chef sees the customer walk into the restaurant, and asks the waiter "What's that guy going to order?". The waiter replies "I don't know. He could order anything off the menu".

Is the waiter wrong? As we know, in a deterministic universe, the customer cannot do anything other than conform to his destiny. The customer couldn't order anything off the menu, except what he ultimately does order.

What I am seeing in this thread isn't any disagreement about whether freedom of will exists, but simply a disagreement about the perspective that the individual philosophers might take.

The hard determinist takes a 'god's eye view', and says that as everything is determined, we could in principle know what the customer is going to order.

The compatibilist takes a 'waiter's eye view', and says that it's irrelevant that god knows what the customer is going to order; The waiter can only say that the customer is free to order anything on the menu.

As an atheist, I doubt that the former is possible; As a realist, I am certain that it's not possible for any human being.

The god's eye view is of little value outside philosophical musings, but the waiter's eye view is a genuinely useful way to model our reality on a day to day basis.

Neither is wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

Freedom is simply the absence of knowledge; It's a specific subset of ignorance that refers to future events.

The chef sees the customer walk into the restaurant, and asks the waiter "What's that guy going to order?". The waiter replies "I don't know. He could order anything off the menu".

Is the waiter wrong? As we know, in a deterministic universe, the customer cannot do anything other than conform to his destiny. The customer couldn't order anything off the menu, except what he ultimately does order.

What I am seeing in this thread isn't any disagreement about whether freedom of will exists, but simply a disagreement about the perspective that the individual philosophers might take.

The hard determinist takes a 'god's eye view', and says that as everything is determined, we could in principle know what the customer is going to order.

The compatibilist takes a 'waiter's eye view', and says that it's irrelevant that god knows what the customer is going to order; The waiter can only say that the customer is free to order anything on the menu.

As an atheist, I doubt that the former is possible; As a realist, I am certain that it's not possible for any human being.

The god's eye view is of little value outside philosophical musings, but the waiter's eye view is a genuinely useful way to model our reality on a day to day basis.

Neither is wrong.

Well, subjective freedom, "provisional freedom" is a lack of knowledge. It is imaginary, and everyone here generally agrees on this.

There's another freedom being discussed here in "real freedom".

The compatibilist says no such thing as you say we do, that we need this "provisional freedom" at all. Both the compatibilist AND the hard determinist reject that this "provisional freedom" is "real freedom".

Rather the hard determinist says "we have no choice because we cannot choose otherwise", not understanding that a choice, at least for the compatibilist is not between "what will happen" and "otherwise" but "a selection of one of a set", and when the compatibilist says "free to choose" they mean "the choice will be of that set".

Likewise a will being free is not exactly about the "provisional freedom" you're referencing here even though that is an element of how choice of will happens (choose a will from the set as the element on the basis of provisional freedom being "true" or "high" and priority is "high"). It is rather about whether the will has its goal structure satisfied in the resolution of events.

When we talk about "free will", as compatibilists, we are talking about a specific will having real freedom in a given moment: whether the constant will "to decide for oneself" is currently, in that moment, having it's goal structure met.

Not the provisional "if I do this then goal" but "right now, goal!" Specifically of that structure of will.

"He has free will to choose" would unpack for the compatibilist as "he has a will to choose from this list of things he has planned for himself and what he will do will, deterministically, come from that list, and not the request of, say, a guy with a gun."

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Freedom is simply the absence of knowledge; It's a specific subset of ignorance that refers to future events.

The chef sees the customer walk into the restaurant, and asks the waiter "What's that guy going to order?". The waiter replies "I don't know. He could order anything off the menu".

Is the waiter wrong? As we know, in a deterministic universe, the customer cannot do anything other than conform to his destiny. The customer couldn't order anything off the menu, except what he ultimately does order.

What I am seeing in this thread isn't any disagreement about whether freedom of will exists, but simply a disagreement about the perspective that the individual philosophers might take.

The hard determinist takes a 'god's eye view', and says that as everything is determined, we could in principle know what the customer is going to order.

The compatibilist takes a 'waiter's eye view', and says that it's irrelevant that god knows what the customer is going to order; The waiter can only say that the customer is free to order anything on the menu.

As an atheist, I doubt that the former is possible; As a realist, I am certain that it's not possible for any human being.

The god's eye view is of little value outside philosophical musings, but the waiter's eye view is a genuinely useful way to model our reality on a day to day basis.

Neither is wrong.

"Determine" has two meanings, one is to cause and the other is to know. For example, "We could not determine (know) whether it was the pressure or the temperature that determined (caused) when the chemical reaction would take place." Indeterminism can be a problem of prediction (knowledge) or a problem of causation. And I suspect that "random" and "chaotic" events are problems of unreliable prediction rather than unreliable causation.

As we know, in a deterministic universe, the customer cannot do anything other than conform to his destiny.

The customer has the same problem as the waiter: "Well, I try my best to conform to my destiny, but nobody will tell me what it is!"

The god's eye view is of little value outside philosophical musings, but the waiter's eye view is a genuinely useful way to model our reality on a day to day basis.

"Amen" for pragmatism!