Compatibilism: What's that About?

[fromderinside]

'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.

Uh, I started with determinism. It's pretty clear that determinism is a reductionist model. No place for choice, ergo no place for compatibilism. Not in any fiction about how such you construct might appear you can't justify it against determinism.

If you, a philosopher try to construct such from determinism you can't make it hold when all statements are deterministically reduced. There is an effect for every cause and no set of causes that can't be reduced to singular C-E statements.

What I read from you are presumptions justified by presumptive, not demonstrated, exceptions to determinism as basis for presumptions. Circles everywhere.

Even your rationalizations tells us they convenient fictions, imaginary without substance. Lists not withstanding.

That a human would construct a logic system suited to his impressions is to be presumed and rejected as subjective. That is what I've been doing all along and you've been feeding my argument.

 

[bilby]

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!"

As Obi-Wan Kenobi may have remarked:

"Your mass shall be divided by your volume, Luke.

It is your density"

I am still unconvinced that our universe is, in fact, deterministic; That view is about a century behind modern physics. But it genuinely doesn't matter.

We don't and can't know, and our ignorance is a fundamental element of the inputs that cause the outputs. We try to change the future, and as nobody seriously wants to live in a dystopian and apocalyptic future in which the waiter brings a salad rather than a nice steak, we are largely successful in getting the future we want - whether or not we can be said from a god's eye view to have influenced that future at all.

I chose the steak because I like steak. I also chose the steak because of the laws of physics and the starting conditions of the universe, but telling the waiter that just delays my meal, because he doesn't care.

 

[DBT]

'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.

Uh, I started with determinism. It's pretty clear that determinism is a reductionist model. No place for choice, ergo no place for compatibilism. Not in any fiction about how such you construct might appear you can't justify it against determinism.

If you, a philosopher try to construct such from determinism you can't make it hold when all statements are deterministically reduced. There is an effect for every cause and no set of causes that can't be reduced to singular C-E statements.

What I read from you are presumptions justified by presumptive, not demonstrated, exceptions to determinism as basis for presumptions. Circles everywhere.

Even your rationalizations tells us they convenient fictions, imaginary without substance. Lists not withstanding.

That a human would construct a logic system suited to his impressions is to be presumed and rejected as subjective. That is what I've been doing all along and you've been feeding my argument.

It appears that some folks are just unable to get a grip on the implications of determinism.

 

[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.

Uh, I started with determinism. It's pretty clear that determinism is a reductionist model. No place for choice, ergo no place for compatibilism. Not in any fiction about how such you construct might appear you can't justify it against determinism.

If you, a philosopher try to construct such from determinism you can't make it hold when all statements are deterministically reduced. There is an effect for every cause and no set of causes that can't be reduced to singular C-E statements.

What I read from you are presumptions justified by presumptive, not demonstrated, exceptions to determinism as basis for presumptions. Circles everywhere.

Even your rationalizations tells us they convenient fictions, imaginary without substance. Lists not withstanding.

That a human would construct a logic system suited to his impressions is to be presumed and rejected as subjective. That is what I've been doing all along and you've been feeding my argument.

It appears that some folks are just unable to get a grip on the implications of determinism.

It is impressive how both of you are buried so deeply in your dogma, indeed, that neither of you understand what "choice", or even a number of words, even means.

I don't think either of you even really have produced any evidence that you are capable of abstract thought in the first place.

It's kind of sad and occasionally I run into folks like that in my line of work where I just have to ask "how did you even get this far?"

Still, abstract thought, while useful, is not necessary for every profession. Abstraction to 3-5 layers is necessary for software engineering and computer science.

listA is an abstraction. It's not really subjective, but a description of a generic machine, a configuration a computer can be mutated to conform to. It is a description which is homologous to many observable structures in nature, and in fact which is homologous to all "stacks".

Your computer has an objectively real "stack" structure running right now. It is the objective form by which functions operate memory.

I wouldnt have even brought up listA if I couldn't demonstrate instantiability: the ability to apply a mere description readily to the large scale properties of a real object.

listA operates a choice function. Choosing is what it does. It's process, and in fact the process of all choice functions is still deterministic.

If either of you think "determinism removes choice" you are both failing to understand the meaning of the word "choice" as anyone but someone from your religion uses it.

"Free choice on listA" does not mean listA will ever return listA's second element, "free choice on the list" means listA dererministically returns a member of listA. listA is just nice because it is an incredibly simple construct, something that anyone, at least anyone capable of abstract thought, can understand.

Note, here, that constructs are not subjective either, they are just "objects, which happen to have been constructed just-so to instantiate a given pattern of behaviors."

There are no exceptions made of determinism in any of this.

Choice functions always resolve deterministically. They are still making choices of their alternatives when their return is of those alternatives by the action of the choice function.

Calling listA.pop and getting listA[2] and not listA[1] would in fact indicate list A was making a "coerced" choice and similarly would indicate an unfreeness of choice on listA.

 

[Jarhyn]

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!"

As Obi-Wan Kenobi may have remarked:

"Your mass shall be divided by your volume, Luke.

It is your density"

I am still unconvinced that our universe is, in fact, deterministic; That view is about a century behind modern physics. But it genuinely doesn't matter.

We don't and can't know, and our ignorance is a fundamental element of the inputs that cause the outputs. We try to change the future, and as nobody seriously wants to live in a dystopian and apocalyptic future in which the waiter brings a salad rather than a nice steak, we are largely successful in getting the future we want - whether or not we can be said from a god's eye view to have influenced that future at all.

I chose the steak because I like steak. I also chose the steak because of the laws of physics and the starting conditions of the universe, but telling the waiter that just delays my meal, because he doesn't care.

Well, this gets down to discussions of what determinism is.

There are some discussions upthread on "superdeterminism" and "just-so determinism".

To understand what is meant by this, and to save you the trouble of having to search it up, it is The idea that all "stochastic" systems may be represented as deterministic systems, by adding stochastic resolution mechanisms to "the initial configuration".

Think about "war, the card game": you start with a (randomly? Chaotically?) Arranged deck for each player. Each player plays their cards in the order they exist, then the decks of collected cards flip and then you play through those.

This game resolved chaotically, but deterministically, from the initial setup. You can repeat the game, the exact same series of captures and so on, just by presenting the same orderings of initial deck to the players.

The game is stochastic but as you can see, is also describable in deterministic terms.

Take for example the game "snakes and ladders", as well. In this game each player takes turns rolling the dice, and doing whatever the square says. Like the card game "War", this too is apparently stochastic (relying on moments of randomness)... But it is still a deterministic resolution of a determined set of dice rolls: you can in fact play the game by rolling a dice a hundred times, writing down the result, and executing that series of dice rolls in series.

Any game or system which incorporates randomness is in fact describable as such a "just-so determinism" or "superdeterministic system".

Taking this even further, we can observe Dwarf Fortress, that stupid game I keep bringing up: given a set of fixed "raw files" a configuration profile, and an integer, a series of RNG outputs is born, and that series of outputs then builds a whole simulated universe deterministically.

Given those pieces of information, the whole simulated universe unfolds the same way every time. There wouldn't be any way to distinguish in the execution of the algorithm what the seed is, or how the next event will resolve from within the universe. It looks "stochastic" from the inside and for their intents and purposes, the future may not be predicted.

The useful feature, however, is that we can stop the cogitation of time there, calculate what will happen to mathematical certainty, and then watch exactly that thing happen, and so make true statements about what is going on: Urist has a will (step forward); Urist's will SHALL be fulfilled by satisfaction of requirement (the place to step may be stepped to, and shall remain such as he steps there); thus Urist's will to step forward is  free with respect to it's requirement.

So for the sake of this whole discussion we are generally just accepting "superdeterministic" mechanics, since all systems, deterministic or stochastic to the player, are fundamentally describable as deterministic.

 

[DBT]

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.

I pointed out the meaning of the word in the context in which it was used. That's all.

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.

It was rhetoric. What I meant is not hard to grasp.

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.

Have you got that off your chest now?

It doesn't change anything. Determinism still doesn't allow alternate choices or alternate actions, nothing is freely willed, there are no alternate possibilities, only what is determined.

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.

You missed the point in the first place.

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).

It is literally true that every action you take is not freely willed or freely chosen. There are no alternatives. The 'choice' is fixed by antecedents before it happens, and the event proceeds as determined.

Refer to your own definition of determinism;

''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.

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.

There is no actual choosing.

Choosing implies the possibility of taking another option.

There are no other options within a deterministic system.

Events proceed literally as determined.

literally
Adverb; exactly, actually, precisely, strictly....

Freedom of choice is an illusion.

Figurative or literal? Figurative, again.

Nothing figurative about it. An illusion is the ''perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature'' - Merriam Webster

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.

Except that there are no multiple options to choose from for any person in any given instance in time, only the determined action.

It has been explained that the multiple options, the items on the menu or whatever, are not there for everyone, that each person must necessarily take the determined action, one takes this item someone else a different option, etc.

Each person has their own course of action, with no deviation.

No one has multiple options in any given instance in time.

Everything proceeds without deviation;

''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.

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!

No mixture. What happens is not freely willed or freely selected, but determined, fixed, set, non-negotiable, no possible alternative.

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.

Literally chosen? Choice requires the possibility of taking a different option. Determined means that there is no possibility of an alternative action.

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.

No it doesn't. The state of the system fixes the next state of the system, which fixes the next and the next....if it is determined that you turn left at the next corner, that is precisely what happens. No deviation.

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.

You misconstrue determinism. If the building has a central hallway where the other hypothetical building doesn't, the state of system is different, therefore determines a different set of actions, but being a deterministic system, you still don't have multiple realizable options.

The second scenario may have you turning right, but that action is as fixed as the first scenario.

I think you may be trying to circumvent the rules of determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is literally true that every action you take is not freely willed or freely chosen

No, it is literally, objectively false: many actions I take are willed, many wills I hold are, in this moment, free with respect to requirements such as "hold bag" and "prove DBT wrong yet again, not that there's any expectation that they are capable of understanding ideas at all".

You cannot change from the compatibilist definition of free to argue that it does not exist. At least not if you are to be taken seriously, anyway. To do so is to argue against a position that someone else does not hold, which is the very definition of "straw-man argument".

Free, in the compatibilist context, is "freedom to requirement"; "freedom from all constraints to the requirement".

Will is "a series of instructions with requirement(s)"

Choice is "selection of a thing from a set of things".

When a will is free, it is "a series of instructions that shall or is meet(ing) it's requirement(s)".

When a choice is free, it is "selection of a thing from a set of things by a given process NOT some other set of things or by some other process".

When a will is not free, it is "a series of instructions that shall fail it's requirement"

When a choice is not free, it is "selection of a thing outside of the aforementioned set or process".

And when we say "free will" without denoting which will is intended, it is a reference to a specific will, in the moment, satisfying it's requirement.

"He had free will" unpacks to "the will he held had a requirement freely chosen by a given process (the process' not-coerced branch)."

It is not about being able to go down either branch in the moment! It is about which branch is actually, objectively utilized.

If you refuse to pick up these definitions and produce the contradiction you claim exists within that syntax, then you ought accept that you cannot, either by force of will or virtue of ideas, defend incompatibilism, because you will not be defending incompatibilism.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

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.

It doesn't change anything. Determinism still doesn't allow alternate choices or alternate actions, nothing is freely willed, there are no alternate possibilities, only what is determined.

The fact is that determinism doesn't change anything. Choosing is still happening in the real world. Literal menus of alternate possibilities exist in restaurants. And it was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity that everything would be just so.

Ironically, "freely willed" becomes nonsense when taken literally. Free will is an intention that is freely chosen, that is, specifically "chosen while free of coercion and undue influence".

It is literally true that every action you take is not freely willed or freely chosen. There are no alternatives.

Every customer is free (of coercion and undue influence) to choose for themselves what they will have for dinner. And they will be choosing from a literal menu of alternatives.

The fact that they are not free from causal necessity does not contradict the fact that they are free of coercion and undue influence. Determinism does not change anything.

The 'choice' is fixed by antecedents before it happens, and the event proceeds as determined.

The choice is fixed by the antecedent events happening within the customer's own brain, thus it is each customer deciding from themselves what they will order for dinner.

The customer's own brain, as it is during its choosing operation, will also have antecedent causes stretching back in time to any prior point in eternity. But this fact does not change the fact that it is the customer's own brain that is doing the decision-making that is the final responsible prior cause of the choice.

Refer to your own definition of determinism;
''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.

Correct. It was causally necessary from any prior point in time that each customer would be free (from coercion and undue influence) to choose for themselves what they would order for dinner. And that choosing process itself would proceed deterministically within each customer's own brain.

For example, upon considering the steak, I recalled that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, so, I inevitably chose the salad rather than the steak for dinner.

All events, including my thoughts and feelings as I made my choice, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. This included the menu of alternate possibilities, my considering those possibilities in terms of my own goals and interests, my choosing the salad rather than the steak, and the waiter bringing me the bill for my deliberate action.

Causal necessity does not mean what you think it means. It doesn't actually change anything. All of the events proceeded reliably, one after another, caused by some combination of physical, biological, and rational causal mechanisms.

There is no actual choosing.

That would be "actual" used as a rhetorical intensifier. You might also have used "literal" or "real" in the same figurative fashion.

The truth is that there is actual, real, literal choosing happening in the real world all the time.

Choosing implies the possibility of taking another option.

Correct. And, since there is actual, real, literal choosing happening in the real world there are also possibilities. For example, the restaurant has a literal, actual, real menu of such possibilities that you can choose from.

Events proceed literally as determined.

Correct. And, as it turns out, what we ordered for dinner in the restaurant proceeded literally as determined by us choosing for ourselves what we would order.

You see, events are not simply "determined", they are specifically determined by specific causes. A person, for example, is caused to be who and what they are, starting by prior biological (mating) and rational ("Will you marry me?") decisions by the person's parents. Then the person's own biology and rationality interacts socially with its social environment and physically with its physical environment over the years until he finds himself as an adult, sitting in a restaurant facing a menu of possibilities to choose from.

Then the person chooses for himself to order the salad for dinner rather than the steak, for his own reasons, including his dietary goals. That is determinism. That is also free will, a choice he made for himself while free of coercion and undue influence.

An illusion is the ''perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature'' - Merriam Webster

Good. Then you will understand when I say that the idea that determinism contradicts free will is an illusion. It misinterprets the actual nature of determinism, and, it misinterprets the actual nature of free will.

It has been explained that the multiple options, the items on the menu or whatever, are not there for everyone, that each person must necessarily take the determined action, one takes this item someone else a different option, etc.

The options and possibilities, the many different things that we can order for dinner, are right there on the menu. And they are there, equally, for every customer in the restaurant. Each customer has the ability to choose any of those options.

And they must have this ability, because they have no knowledge at all, as to what choice was causally necessary, until after they complete the decision making process that specifically chooses that option.

Each person has their own course of action, with no deviation.

But that course of action has not yet been finally determined until after they make their choice. No event will ever happen until its final prior causes have played themselves out. And the final prior cause of a deliberate act is the act of deliberation that precedes it.

Literally chosen? Choice requires the possibility of taking a different option. Determined means that there is no possibility of an alternative action.

Yes. Literally chosen. In fact, it was causally necessary, from any prior point in eternity, that the choosing would happen, and each customer would be making their own choice, free of coercion and undue influence.

Causal necessity is a fact which does not change any of the other facts.

You misconstrue determinism.

No. You do. But, then, many otherwise intelligent people also misconstrue determinism. They portray it as a monstrous causal agent that robs us of our freedom and our control, when it is actually just plain ol' reliable cause and effect, something we all take for granted in everything we do.

 

[DBT]

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.

When I said 'literally' I meant - literally; Adverb; exactly, actually, precisely, strictly - (Merriam Webster) That's all. Nothing controversial.

It doesn't change anything. Determinism still doesn't allow alternate choices or alternate actions, nothing is freely willed, there are no alternate possibilities, only what is determined.

The fact is that determinism doesn't change anything. Choosing is still happening in the real world. Literal menus of alternate possibilities exist in restaurants. And it was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity that everything would be just so.

The fact is that determinism entails that everything...meaning all objects and events, within the system proceed according to past states of the system. That including human activity. There are no exceptions.


Options are not chosen, they are determined before they happen. Events must inevitably lead to option A for you, option B for your partner, etc, where option A was never a possibility for your partner and option B was never an option for you.

Realizable alternatives do not exist within a deterministic system.

Hence, there is no choice. Choice entails the ability to have done otherwise.

'Could have Done otherwise' does not exist within deterministic systems.

There are no choices. Any and every action taken is not chosen, it is determined. It is inevitable, Fixed, Set, Necessitated, done and dusted, no alternatives.

Conscious thought and deliberation come too late in the causal sequence to be effective in producing 'freely willed' actions, it is instead, unconscious neural states that determine actions.

That, essentially, is the death knell for the notion of free will.


Compatibilism fails to make a case for free will because it tries to redefine both freedom and will.

A critique of Compatibilism.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

When I said 'literally' I meant - literally; Adverb; exactly, actually, precisely, strictly - (Merriam Webster) That's all. Nothing controversial.

It doesn't change anything. Determinism still doesn't allow alternate choices or alternate actions, nothing is freely willed, there are no alternate possibilities, only what is determined.

The fact is that determinism doesn't change anything. Choosing is still happening in the real world. Literal menus of alternate possibilities exist in restaurants. And it was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity that everything would be just so.

The fact is that determinism entails that everything...meaning all objects and events, within the system proceed according to past states of the system. That including human activity. There are no exceptions.


Options are not chosen, they are determined before they happen. Events must inevitably lead to option A for you, option B for your partner, etc, where option A was never a possibility for your partner and option B was never an option for you.

Realizable alternatives do not exist within a deterministic system.

Hence, there is no choice. Choice entails the ability to have done otherwise.

'Could have Done otherwise' does not exist within deterministic systems.

There are no choices. Any and every action taken is not chosen, it is determined. It is inevitable, Fixed, Set, Necessitated, done and dusted, no alternatives.

Conscious thought and deliberation come too late in the causal sequence to be effective in producing 'freely willed' actions, it is instead, unconscious neural states that determine actions.

That, essentially, is the death knell for the notion of free will.


Compatibilism fails to make a case for free will because it tries to redefine both freedom and will.

A critique of Compatibilism.

Determinism alone entails nothing. You need a deterministic system and a given state to entail anything.

Choice in compatibilism, again, does not require the ability to do otherwise.

This post already answers your blatherskite:

You cannot change from the compatibilist definition of free to argue that it does not exist. At least not if you are to be taken seriously, anyway. To do so is to argue against a position that someone else does not hold, which is the very definition of "straw-man argument".

Free, in the compatibilist context, is "freedom to requirement"; "freedom from all constraints to the requirement".

Will is "a series of instructions with requirement(s)"

Choice is "selection of a thing from a set of things".

When a will is free, it is "a series of instructions that shall or is meet(ing) it's requirement(s)".

When a choice is free, it is "selection of a thing from a set of things by a given process NOT some other set of things or by some other process".

When a will is not free, it is "a series of instructions that shall fail it's requirement"

When a choice is not free, it is "selection of a thing outside of the aforementioned set or process".

And when we say "free will" without denoting which will is intended, it is a reference to a specific will, in the moment, satisfying it's requirement.

"He had free will" unpacks to "the will he held had a requirement freely chosen by a given process (the process' not-coerced branch)."

It is not about being able to go down either branch in the moment! It is about which branch is actually, objectively utilized.

If you refuse to pick up these definitions and produce the contradiction you claim exists within that syntax, then you ought accept that you cannot, either by force of will or virtue of ideas, defend incompatibilism, because you will not be defending incompatibilism.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

When I said 'literally' I meant - literally; Adverb; exactly, actually, precisely, strictly - (Merriam Webster) That's all. Nothing controversial.

Right. There's nothing controversial about the notions of literally and figuratively, except perhaps the problem where "literally", "actually", "really", "exactly" are employed as rhetorical intensifiers, where they are literally used figuratively to communicate the very opposite of what they actually mean.

For example, when you insist that determinism means that there is no "actual" choosing happening, when we can empirically observe the people in a restaurant doing exactly that, choosing what they will have for dinner, from a list of alternative possibilities, then your claim is empirically false. Your claim does not reflect reality.

Your claim that there are no alternate possibilities in a deterministic system is also empirically false, because there is the restaurant menu, filled with alternate possibilities. So, again, your claim is false.

The reason your claim is false is because you are speaking figuratively, rather than literally. You are employing philosophical abstractions that literally contradict physical reality.

So, that's the only reason I bring it up.

The fact is that determinism entails that everything...meaning all objects and events, within the system proceed according to past states of the system. That including human activity. There are no exceptions.

Correct!

Options are not chosen, they are determined before they happen.

False!

Options are literally chosen. The causal mechanism by which an option is realized is called "choosing". Choosing causally necessitates the choice to realize that specific option.

And the choosing itself was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity. It will and does happen in empirical reality, and it necessarily happens. Just like every other event.

Events must inevitably lead to option A for you, option B for your partner, etc,

Correct!

where option A was never a possibility for your partner and option B was never an option for you.

False!

Both the steak and the salad were options for both of us, because they both appeared on the menu.

I considered both of those options. And my friend also considered both of those options. I chose the salad because I recalled having bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. She chose the steak because she had toast and orange juice for breakfast and a salad for lunch.

Had they not been real options then neither of us could have considered them both. But both were as real as any option ever gets to be, as a real possibility for consideration when making our choices for dinner.

Realizable alternatives do not exist within a deterministic system.

OBVIOUSLY THEY DO!

Hence, there is no choice. Choice entails the ability to have done otherwise.

And of course, there was, in empirical reality, a choice being made, and there was, in empirical reality the ability to have done otherwise within that choosing operation.

I chose the salad, for my own reasons, even though I could have chosen the steak.
She chose the steak, for her own reasons, even though she could have chosen the salad.

'Could have Done otherwise' does not exist within deterministic systems.

OBVIOUSLY IT DOES!

There are no choices. Any and every action taken is not chosen, it is determined. It is inevitable, Fixed, Set, Necessitated, done and dusted, no alternatives.

So, the next question is, How did you manage to get such false conclusions from the empirical evidence?

You are simply getting trapped through your own figurative thinking. Your claim that "there are no choices" can only be supported figuratively, and falsely, by suggesting that, with determinism, "it is AS IF there are no choices".

And from that false conclusion you simply built one false claim upon the other, "Well, if there are no choices, then there is no choosing, and if there is no choosing, then there are no alternatives being considered".

False, false, and false. One falsehood upon the next. Pull one string and it all unravels.

Conscious thought and deliberation come too late in the causal sequence to be effective in producing 'freely willed' actions, it is instead, unconscious neural states that determine actions.

Conscious thought and deliberation come precisely when they are needed, to explain our behavior to ourselves and others.

"What are you ordering?"
"I'm going to have the salad, because I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. What about you?"
"I had a light breakfast and a salad for lunch, so I'm all in for the steak."

Both of us are awake and consciously aware as we have this conversation. And that is all that is required neurologically to be responsible for our decisions.

That, essentially, is the death knell for the notion of free will.

In your dreams.

Compatibilism fails to make a case for free will because it tries to redefine both freedom and will.

Compatibilism simply uses the operational definitions of freedom, will, and free will, the ones that everyone is familiar with, and in the fashion that everyone normally uses these terms.

A critique of Compatibilism.

I'm sorry, but I do not accept homework assignments. If the article was sufficient for you to get the correct understanding of things as they are, then you should be able to present the key points yourself. But if it did you no good, then why should you ask me to read it and then have to explain to you?

 

[DBT]

When I said 'literally' I meant - literally; Adverb; exactly, actually, precisely, strictly - (Merriam Webster) That's all. Nothing controversial.

Right. There's nothing controversial about the notions of literally and figuratively, except perhaps the problem where "literally", "actually", "really", "exactly" are employed as rhetorical intensifiers, where they are literally used figuratively to communicate the very opposite of what they actually mean.

Red Herring. What I meant was that each and every state of the system physically (literally) determines the next, which determines the next, etc.

Which obviously does not allow freedom of choice or freedom of will because each and every state of the system is determined by its antecedents, which is neither chosen or willed.

Not being chosen or willed, there is no case to be made for free will within a deterministic system.

That's all.

For example, when you insist that determinism means that there is no "actual" choosing happening, when we can empirically observe the people in a restaurant doing exactly that, choosing what they will have for dinner, from a list of alternative possibilities, then your claim is empirically false. Your claim does not reflect reality.

What you see is each and every person acting doing whatever the system determines, an interaction of information between the environment and the brain as an information processor.

You know that determinism allows no alternate actions, therefore each selection of an action and shelf item is the only possible action in that place and moment in time.

No possible alternatives. If Aunty Marge selects Corn Bread at 8:45am at the Supermarket, there is no possibility of choosing Rye or Sourdough.

The action she took at 8:45 is it, no possible alternatives.

With no possible alternatives, there was no actual choice.

Her action was determined before she even entered the Supermarket.

''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, Determinism.

Your claim that there are no alternate possibilities in a deterministic system is also empirically false, because there is the restaurant menu, filled with alternate possibilities. So, again, your claim is false.

I have explained multiple options several times. Multiple options are related to multiple people...again: someone takes this option, someone takes that option.

All options may be taken by someone, but no single person in any given instance in time has multiple options, just what is determined in that instance in time by the state of the system.

Each action necessitated by the past states of the system.

That is determinism. There are no deviations.

Nobody gets multiple possible actions in any given instance in time......that would be Libertarian Free Will.

You are arguing for Compatibilism.

The reason your claim is false is because you are speaking figuratively, rather than literally. You are employing philosophical abstractions that literally contradict physical reality.

So, that's the only reason I bring it up.

Nothing of the sort. You misconstrued what I said and ran with it.

The fact is that determinism entails that everything...meaning all objects and events, within the system proceed according to past states of the system. That including human activity. There are no exceptions.

Correct!

Yes, correct. Including its implications for freedom and the status of will. Not to mention no possibility of alternate decisions or actions in any given instance in time, where all actions are necessitated and not freely chosen from a set of alternatives.

Determinism, according to the very definition you agree with, allows no alternative, just what is determined

A critique of Compatibilism.

I'm sorry, but I do not accept homework assignments. If the article was sufficient for you to get the correct understanding of things as they are, then you should be able to present the key points yourself. But if it did you no good, then why should you ask me to read it and then have to explain to you?

It wasn't meant for my understanding. The article provides information on incompatibilism for anyone who may be interested.

I didn't think that you would read it. I assume that there are other readers.
.

 

[Jarhyn]

obviously does not allow freedom of choice or freedom of will

This post already answers your blatherskite:

You cannot change from the compatibilist definition of free to argue that it does not exist. At least not if you are to be taken seriously, anyway. To do so is to argue against a position that someone else does not hold, which is the very definition of "straw-man argument".

Free, in the compatibilist context, is "freedom to requirement"; "freedom from all constraints to the requirement".

Will is "a series of instructions with requirement(s)"

Choice is "selection of a thing from a set of things".

When a will is free, it is "a series of instructions that shall or is meet(ing) it's requirement(s)".

When a choice is free, it is "selection of a thing from a set of things by a given process NOT some other set of things or by some other process".

When a will is not free, it is "a series of instructions that shall fail it's requirement"

When a choice is not free, it is "selection of a thing outside of the aforementioned set or process".

And when we say "free will" without denoting which will is intended, it is a reference to a specific will, in the moment, satisfying it's requirement.

"He had free will" unpacks to "the will he held had a requirement freely chosen by a given process (the process' not-coerced branch)."

It is not about being able to go down either branch in the moment! It is about which branch is actually, objectively utilized.

If you refuse to pick up these definitions and produce the contradiction you claim exists within that syntax, then you ought accept that you cannot, either by force of will or virtue of ideas, defend incompatibilism, because you will not be defending incompatibilism.

No possible alternatives

And no true Scotsman!

If Aunty Marge selects Corn Bread at 8:45am at the Supermarket, there is no possibility of choosing Rye or Sourdough

Also laughably false. She could select all three.

Fallacy of the false dichotomy, anyone?

You know, me ordering the salad doesn't exclude me from the steak too.

Maybe just bring me the lot, and a bucket.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

What I meant was that each and every state of the system physically (literally) determines the next, which determines the next, etc.

Correct. And I've repeatedly confirmed the statements that conform to empirical reality.

Which obviously does not allow freedom of choice or freedom of will because each and every state of the system is determined by its antecedents, which is neither chosen or willed.

False. And I'll repeatedly disagree when you draw false conclusions that clearly contradict empirical reality.

We observe people making choices. We assume that every step in the choosing process is determined by antecedents. We are consciously aware of the antecedent reasons for our choices. For example, I chose the salad instead of the steak because I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch.

We observe people acting upon their choices. Every step in the acting is determined by antecedents, and one of these antecedents is clearly the choosing that each person just performed.

So, it is false to claim that choosing and willing are outside of determinism.

Not being chosen or willed, there is no case to be made for free will within a deterministic system.

The choosing of the intent and the acting upon that intent are fully deterministic and fit right into a deterministic system.

Thus free will, a deterministic event in which a person chooses for themselves what they will do while free of coercion and undue influence, fits right into that same deterministic system.

What you see is each and every person acting doing whatever the system determines, an interaction of information between the environment and the brain as an information processor.

I do not see any external system determining what the person will do.

What I do see is the deterministic system we call "a person" reading the menu and placing the order.

If I look for the causes of the person's actions, I find most of them within the persons themselves. The biological need for food is part of the person, and is located within each person, and is not located in any system external to each person's own biology.

This individual need for food is one of the causes of restaurants being built and people going into those restaurants to buy dinner.

You know that determinism allows no alternate actions, therefore each selection of an action and shelf item is the only possible action in that place and moment in time.

Sorry, but you have no clue as to what a "possibility" actually is and how the notion of possibility functions within the deterministic system known as a "person".

Your claim that there are no alternate possibilities in a deterministic system is empirically false, because there is the restaurant menu, filled with alternate possibilities. And, unless someone walks into the restaurant already knowing what they will order, each person will select their dinner from among many alternate possibilities.

I have explained multiple options several times. Multiple options are related to multiple people...again: someone takes this option, someone takes that option.

No. You haven't explained how possibilities work. There is no requirement for multiple people in order for one person to have multiple possibilities.

During the choosing process there will always be multiple possibilities that a single person can choose from, even though they will choose but one of them. That is how the notion of possibilities functions.

Determinism, according to the very definition you agree with, allows no alternative, just what is determined

Determinism not only allows alternate possibilities, it guarantees that they will appear within the causal chain exactly when and where they do!

Every thought is an event, reliably caused by prior events. The restaurant menu caused us to see and consider multiple possibilities for dinner ("considering" is a deterministic series of thought events).

The point of compatibilism is that there is no need to step outside of causal necessity in order to find free will. Free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do while free of coercion and undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less. Freedom from causal necessity is not a requirement for free will.

 

[DBT]

Which obviously does not allow freedom of choice or freedom of will because each and every state of the system is determined by its antecedents, which is neither chosen or willed.

False. And I'll repeatedly disagree when you draw false conclusions that clearly contradict empirical reality.

You appear to be misconstruing determinism. Quite simply, without realizable alternatives, there is no choice.

That is not a false conclusion. It's how determinism works.

A system where every action is determined by the previous state has no place for choice.

If actions are determined they are not chosen. They are set by antecedent states of the system.

There is no possibility of choosing or doing something different.

This is according to the agreed upon definition of determinism.

We observe people making choices. We assume that every step in the choosing process is determined by antecedents. We are consciously aware of the antecedent reasons for our choices. For example, I chose the salad instead of the steak because I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch.

We observe people taking actions. We cannot observe the antecedents of these actions or the information processing activity that puts it into action.

We have no access to the underlying activity that makes it happen, information input, processing, action initiation. We see what is happening, not how it happens.

That is the role of neuroscience.

When you say we 'observe people making choices' you imply that they have alternatives, but of course determinism by definition allows no alternatives.

People must necessarily perform their actions as determined. The actions are performed without restrictions as determined. People move freely.

We observe people acting upon their choices. Every step in the acting is determined by antecedents, and one of these antecedents is clearly the choosing that each person just performed.

Their choices are not free, they are determined. There are no possible alternatives. Determined actions necessitated not chosen.

So, it is false to claim that choosing and willing are outside of determinism.

Nobody has made that claim. The issue is that 'choosing' is an illusion. Each and every action is determined by the state of the system. People are aspects of the system. Each and every brain state is a consequence of the previous and it is brain state that determines what we think and what we do. Inputs, processing, narrator function, motor action initiation milliseconds prior to awareness, etc, etc...

Not being chosen or willed, there is no case to be made for free will within a deterministic system.

The choosing of the intent and the acting upon that intent are fully deterministic and fit right into a deterministic system.

Thus free will, a deterministic event in which a person chooses for themselves what they will do while free of coercion and undue influence, fits right into that same deterministic system.

You are slapping the free will label where it has no place. It's not the 'person' who chooses, but brain state, and unfortunately, brain state is not chosen.

So it is that which is not chosen - brain state - that determines behaviour, and not free will.

As it is not free will that governs or determines our actions, free will is a false label.

What you see is each and every person acting doing whatever the system determines, an interaction of information between the environment and the brain as an information processor.

I do not see any external system determining what the person will do.

It's an interaction of inputs and brain state.

Sensory inputs come from the external world.

Input is information from the external world.

Information input is the external world acting upon the system.

The brain responds to information from the external world.

The brain itself is an aspect of the system at large.

What I do see is the deterministic system we call "a person" reading the menu and placing the order.

According to information interaction between the brain and its environment. The person as a conscious entity is whatever the brain is doing in any given instance.

If the brain fails in some way, the person fails accordingly.

If I look for the causes of the person's actions, I find most of them within the persons themselves. The biological need for food is part of the person, and is located within each person, and is not located in any system external to each person's own biology.

This individual need for food is one of the causes of restaurants being built and people going into those restaurants to buy dinner.

Neither the causes or the state of the system is a matter of choice.

State equals output. There are no alternatives. Determinism allows none.

Necessity:
''Necessity is the idea that everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is necessary, and can not be otherwise. Necessity is often opposed to chance and contingency. In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated.''


Social Conditioning
''Human behavior is affected both by genetic inheritance and by experience. The ways in which people develop are shaped by social experience and circumstances within the context of their inherited genetic potential. The scientific question is just how experience and hereditary potential interact in producing human behavior.

Each person is born into a social and cultural setting—family, community, social class, language, religion—and eventually develops many social connections. The characteristics of a child's social setting affect how he or she learns to think and behave, by means of instruction, rewards and punishment, and example. This setting includes home, school, neighborhood, and also, perhaps, local religious and law enforcement agencies. Then there are also the child's mostly informal interactions with friends, other peers, relatives, and the entertainment and news media. How individuals will respond to all these influences, or even which influence will be the most potent, tends not to be predictable.

There is, however, some substantial similarity in how individuals respond to the same pattern of influences—that is, to being raised in the same culture. Furthermore, culturally induced behavior patterns, such as speech patterns, body language, and forms of humor, become so deeply imbedded in the human mind that they often operate without the individuals themselves being fully aware of them.''

 

[Jarhyn]

there is no choice

You seem to be misconstruing choice.

Again:

obviously does not allow freedom of choice or freedom of will

This post already answers your blatherskite:

You cannot change from the compatibilist definition of free to argue that it does not exist. At least not if you are to be taken seriously, anyway. To do so is to argue against a position that someone else does not hold, which is the very definition of "straw-man argument".

Free, in the compatibilist context, is "freedom to requirement"; "freedom from all constraints to the requirement".

Will is "a series of instructions with requirement(s)"

Choice is "selection of a thing from a set of things".

When a will is free, it is "a series of instructions that shall or is meet(ing) it's requirement(s)".

When a choice is free, it is "selection of a thing from a set of things by a given process NOT some other set of things or by some other process".

When a will is not free, it is "a series of instructions that shall fail it's requirement"

When a choice is not free, it is "selection of a thing outside of the aforementioned set or process".

And when we say "free will" without denoting which will is intended, it is a reference to a specific will, in the moment, satisfying it's requirement.

"He had free will" unpacks to "the will he held had a requirement freely chosen by a given process (the process' not-coerced branch)."

It is not about being able to go down either branch in the moment! It is about which branch is actually, objectively utilized.

If you refuse to pick up these definitions and produce the contradiction you claim exists within that syntax, then you ought accept that you cannot, either by force of will or virtue of ideas, defend incompatibilism, because you will not be defending incompatibilism.

No possible alternatives

And no true Scotsman!

If Aunty Marge selects Corn Bread at 8:45am at the Supermarket, there is no possibility of choosing Rye or Sourdough

Also laughably false. She could select all three.

Fallacy of the false dichotomy, anyone?

You know, me ordering the salad doesn't exclude me from the steak too.

Maybe just bring me the lot, and a bucket.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You appear to be misconstruing determinism. Quite simply, without realizable alternatives, there is no choice.

And yet we objectively observe people in a restaurant making choices from a literal menu of realizable alternatives. So, obviously determinism cannot claim that this is not happening.

I am saying that you are misconstruing determinism if you believe determinism makes such menus and such choices impossible.

My claim is that determinism simply makes possibilities and choices inevitable. This is the correct understanding of determinism.

A system where every action is determined by the previous state has no place for choice.

And yet there is choice, and choosing, right there in front of us. So, you need to adjust your understanding of determinism to match reality, or you should leave the explanation of determinism to those of us who can.

If actions are determined they are not chosen. They are set by antecedent states of the system.

And what if choosing happens to be the antecedent state of the system that brought about the next state in which we had a choice in hand?

There is no possibility of choosing or doing something different.

Whenever there is choosing there will always be the possibility of doing something different. This is a logical necessity of the choosing operation. And we see that operation happening every day.

Not just by individuals, but also choosing by groups, such as legislatures, clubs, committees, and your local Parent Teacher Association. Are we to tell these groups that they are only having an illusion of choosing?

This is according to the agreed upon definition of determinism.

I believe you do not fully understand the definition that we've agreed upon. You still insist it has implications which I have demonstrated do not exist. For example, choosing is actually happening within that definition.

We observe people taking actions. We cannot observe the antecedents of these actions or the information processing activity that puts it into action.

The action we observe everyone taking in the restaurant is choosing from the menu what they will have for dinner.

If we want to discover the antecedent causes of those choices, we can just ask them why they ordered the salad instead of the steak. "I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, so I figured I had better balance that with a healthy salad for dinner". Now the antecedent causes of their choices are known.

We have no access to the underlying activity that makes it happen, information input, processing, action initiation. We see what is happening, not how it happens.

We know enough to hold the person responsible for paying the bill. They ordered that dinner voluntarily, of their own free will (a choice free of coercion and undue influence).

That is the role of neuroscience.

The role of neuroscience is to map the physical processes to the mental experiences, the thoughts and the feelings that we had as we considered the steak versus the salad for dinner.

But it is the role of the waiter in the restaurant to hold each customer responsible for their bill.

When you say we 'observe people making choices' you imply that they have alternatives, but of course determinism by definition allows no alternatives.

Determinism, by definition, makes it inevitable that every item on the menu will be a real possibility, something that the person can choose or not choose, as they please. Determinism, by definition, insures that each thought we have, about the bacon and eggs for breakfast, and about the double cheeseburger for lunch, will be represented in some fashion within the physical processes of the brain, and that these will cause the choice that orders the salad for dinner.

People must necessarily perform their actions as determined.

People must necessarily perform the actions determined by their own choosing. Their own choosing will necessarily be preceded by antecedent causes resulting in the person being who and what they are at that moment, that moment when they, and they alone, actually do the choosing for themselves.

It's an interaction of inputs and brain state.

No kidding.

Sensory inputs come from the external world.

Sensory inputs also come from within ourselves. For example, the hunger that causes me to seek a restaurant at dinner time, is an integral part of who and what I am. (A variation in species that lacked that hunger would quickly become extinct).

It would be misleading to suggest that sensory inputs only come from the external world.

Input is information from the external world.
Information input is the external world acting upon the system.

Not all information is external either. When choosing what to have for dinner, we have food preferences that we've learned from our own internal reactions to each food we tasted. This is all part of who and what we are, rather than about the external world.

The brain itself is an aspect of the system at large.

No no. Not in this venue. You are speaking of the universe or the world at large as if it created the brain for its own purposes. That's supernatural nonsense.

Social Conditioning
''Human behavior is affected both by genetic inheritance and by experience. The ways in which people develop are shaped by social experience and circumstances within the context of their inherited genetic potential. The scientific question is just how experience and hereditary potential interact in producing human behavior. ...

"Hereditary potential". If we were to look about in the world, where would we expect to find this "hereditary potential"? It is uniquely located within each individual. Hereditary potential includes all of the person's innate abilities. Among these abilities is the ability to make choices. As babies grow, parents give them more choices, "would you like the peas or the carrots?". Parents encourage the development of the child's ability to exercise more control over their lives, making bigger choices. They choose for themselves what college they will attend. They grow into adults and become fully responsible for their own choices.

The ability to imagine alternative possibilities, to evaluate them, and to choose from among these possibilities the specific things that they will do is a hereditary potential of every human being.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why is the menu full of real possibilities? Because, assuming this is Marvin's Cafe, where they don't let people order off-menu, those are the only things you could possibly order, even if you ordered "the lot, and a bucket".

 

[DBT]

You appear to be misconstruing determinism. Quite simply, without realizable alternatives, there is no choice.

And yet we objectively observe people in a restaurant making choices from a literal menu of realizable alternatives. So, obviously determinism cannot claim that this is not happening.

I am saying that you are misconstruing determinism if you believe determinism makes such menus and such choices impossible.

My claim is that determinism simply makes possibilities and choices inevitable. This is the correct understanding of determinism.

Determinism entails events set in motion on fixed pathways.

There are no alternate possibilities.

What happens must necessarily happen.

What you perceive to be possibilities are necessary actions for some and impossibilities for others, actions that can never to be taken or realized.

A system where every action is determined by the previous state has no place for choice.

And yet there is choice, and choosing, right there in front of us. So, you need to adjust your understanding of determinism to match reality, or you should leave the explanation of determinism to those of us who can.

Not if there is no alternative. A choice requires the possibility of taking another option.

Taking another option (in any given instance) cannot happen within a determined system.

What you see are people necessarily 'selecting' (performing) their only possible action in any given instance in time, with no possible or realizable alternative.....where, by the accepted definition of free choice - the possibility of choosing an alternative - does not exist.

Actions performed through a process of necessitation means that there is no freedom to choose something else.

If actions are determined they are not chosen. They are set by antecedent states of the system.

And what if choosing happens to be the antecedent state of the system that brought about the next state in which we had a choice in hand?

The state of the self in relation to the state of the system at large (being an aspect of it) any given moment in time is it. There is nothing else, no homunculus, no special quality that overrides the process of events as they unfold as determined.

There is no leeway in determinism.

''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.

By your own definition of determinism, what you call 'deliberate choices' are fixed by the progression of events before you even think of them or carry them out - ''they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.' - Marvin Edwards.

There is no possibility of choosing or doing something different.

Whenever there is choosing there will always be the possibility of doing something different. This is a logical necessity of the choosing operation. And we see that operation happening every day.

No there is not.

There is absolutely no possibility of doing something different within a determined system.

The operation of what you call 'choosing' is a process of necessitation of events, which being determined, must necessarily proceed as determined.

No deviation. No alternate action. No choosing otherwise. No multiple options for anyone in any given moment in time.

Each and every action leading precisely as determined to the next, which determines the state of the next moment, ad infinitum.

A system where there is no room for freedom of will: choosing or doing otherwise.

A system where all actions proceed unforced, unrestricted as determined.....which is the point where Compatibilists pin their hope for the notion of free will - acting according to one's will without coercion or force, but fail to prove the proposition - freedom of will - for the given reasons.

Put simply, according to your given and accepted definition of determinism, actions are not freely willed, they are determined, ie, all actions including brain activity is fixed by antecedents.

 

[Jarhyn]

Determinism entails events set in motion on fixed pathways.

Yes. This statement is true. Some of those events are along the pathway "us deciding ourselves what we will do and whether."

There are no alternate possibilities.

And then you stepped off the definition of compatibilism of "alternate possibility"

When a compatibilist, or anyone really, says "alternate possibilities" they mean one of two things. Either they are taking of the contents of the set the choice function operates upon, or that they do not understand the choice function being executed and that the result from their position appears chaotic (a discussion of subjective imaginary possibility). The second of these is not what we are talking about in this thread as compatibilists in the discussion here. We are talking about the set the choice function operates on.

They are not in any way saying all or any of these things necessarily shall happen.

They are saying "this is the contents of the set upon which the choice function operates".

It is not about the results of listA.pop() as to what the "possibilities" are. It is about the contents of the listA object, about "what it objectively contains".

After the choice function operates, listA still contains the possibilities. they can be observed in the structure of listA, and in fact listA can pop a second, third, fourth time, until it is empty, and THEN it will contain no more possibilities. It will contain "the empty set" of "possibilities" which in this case, for listA, is "a real number".

"Possibilities" here encompass "the set the choice function operates upon".

In the case of the menu, the menu actually MUST be there for the choice function to operate on the possibilities as it does. Different possibilities mean a different choice function output!

If salad were not on the menu, he would have selected soup. If there was no soup, he would have selected the fried veggie wrap.

If the only option on the menu was steak, he would have sighed and ordered the steak.

A choice function is any object of the form "select X from Set".

A possibility is "an element of a set that has been presented to a choice function".