Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Jarhyn]

can't include within reality something that is derived from material reality as part of it

"Reality does not include what reality includes"

So do we pin that up next to "objects are not objects" and "then, which implies 'if', does not imply 'if'"

This is not the first time your confused, addled arguments have amounted to nonsense.

In your language what I wrote was subjective material derived from material reality is different from material reality because it is self referent. Don't work so hard trying to get things wrong sir. It reflects poorly on you.

Material itself cannot be "subjective". Material merely is what it is. Try again.

Something can be material that contains some interpretable thing the interpretation of which is dependent on the form of the Interpreter, and so we call what happens of this relationship "subjective" with respect to other interpreters but both the objects are just objects with an objective relationship between them when not considering  other objects with different relationships.

Such that 01011101 may make one processor jump and one processor sigill. Even so, it is not the other processor being presented with this objective form of 01011101. It has an objective effect on this specific processor, and there is nothing "subjective" about what that effect is or why it happens.

What is subjective is it's meaning  across processors.

Just like there is nothing subjective about the relationship between a protein and a string of DNA: it is a mechanical system with an objective form and predictable function of that form with regards to the surrounding chemistry.

Sure, the DNA might have different effects in the presence of different enzymes and proteins, but it is also an object in it's own right and their behavior is not arbitrary in context.

That you would even try to wave away the objective form of a real system, the predictable and regular function of it, as "subjective" is laughable.

What the receptors receive are partial bits of specific energy types which have evolved over time as options become more clear for being fitness. No way such can be very representative of what is reality is providing as input. So I called what is received and passed through nervous system is derivative of reality. You go off on a tangent.

Fine.

Try again.

As for wave away all I'm doing is cautioning that what is received and processed is a bare minimum of what is the reality possible for each form of sensing. Now if you think that what is received is good enough for one to form decent judgements as to the nature of what one is sensing be my guest. I intend to stick with the Scientific Method for such.

DNA is the thing that permits change to capabilities. It is not the thing that processes what is received. That is left to the resultant being and the machinery and it's genetically evolved nature.

No way mind, or choice, or will, etc, obvious derivative processes based on bad transduction of reality to neural information are material reality. They are convenient constructs, placeholders, based on how we think - another one - we behave.

If you can't see the difference between the material world and the mental world derived from fragments of intersection with bits of reality you are, as they say, in deep doo doo.

Where they came from has nothing to do with what they are currently.

What is being discussed is not even "representations of reality" as such. I am discussing the things themselves and their exact objective function as they are, in their context.

Just like the dwarves, I am not discussing a "door: a plank of wood across a hole". I am discussing a particular arrangement of activation patterns being expressed to a surface which doesn't need to correspond to anything, but is what happens when the mind thinks "door: a plank of wood".

And "open" is similar. It is a description of some object, not some relationship of space regarding an orientation of bits of metal, but rather a specific set of neurons arrayed just so, and which which happens in general whenever those bits happen to be arranged that way when the hand is pushing down on the handle, as opposed to "locked" which happens when bits of metal happen to be blocking the handle from moving as the hand pushes it.

Each of these things objectively leads to a specific experience of the mind, and in fact can't not.

And so when the "will" which objectively is "open door" executed and encountered "locked" it is objectively true that the "will to open the door" was not "free".

Because all of these things being discussed are being discussed of objects, namely objects which we discuss with words (or their neural objective equivalent) which image other objects which we ostensibly interact with in some way.

Because we are talking about an observable, objective machine, albeit a hellishly complicated machine.

 

[fromderinside]

can't include within reality something that is derived from material reality as part of it

"Reality does not include what reality includes"

So do we pin that up next to "objects are not objects" and "then, which implies 'if', does not imply 'if'"

This is not the first time your confused, addled arguments have amounted to nonsense.

In your language what I wrote was subjective material derived from material reality is different from material reality because it is self referent. Don't work so hard trying to get things wrong sir. It reflects poorly on you.

Material itself cannot be "subjective". Material merely is what it is. Try again.

Something can be material that contains some interpretable thing the interpretation of which is dependent on the form of the Interpreter, and so we call what happens of this relationship "subjective" with respect to other interpreters but both the objects are just objects with an objective relationship between them when not considering  other objects with different relationships.

Such that 01011101 may make one processor jump and one processor sigill. Even so, it is not the other processor being presented with this objective form of 01011101. It has an objective effect on this specific processor, and there is nothing "subjective" about what that effect is or why it happens.

What is subjective is it's meaning  across processors.

Just like there is nothing subjective about the relationship between a protein and a string of DNA: it is a mechanical system with an objective form and predictable function of that form with regards to the surrounding chemistry.

Sure, the DNA might have different effects in the presence of different enzymes and proteins, but it is also an object in it's own right and their behavior is not arbitrary in context.

That you would even try to wave away the objective form of a real system, the predictable and regular function of it, as "subjective" is laughable.

What the receptors receive are partial bits of specific energy types which have evolved over time as options become more clear for being fitness. No way such can be very representative of what is reality is providing as input. So I called what is received and passed through nervous system is derivative of reality. You go off on a tangent.

Fine.

Try again.

As for wave away all I'm doing is cautioning that what is received and processed is a bare minimum of what is the reality possible for each form of sensing. Now if you think that what is received is good enough for one to form decent judgements as to the nature of what one is sensing be my guest. I intend to stick with the Scientific Method for such.

DNA is the thing that permits change to capabilities. It is not the thing that processes what is received. That is left to the resultant being and the machinery and it's genetically evolved nature.

No way mind, or choice, or will, etc, obvious derivative processes based on bad transduction of reality to neural information are material reality. They are convenient constructs, placeholders, based on how we think - another one - we behave.

If you can't see the difference between the material world and the mental world derived from fragments of intersection with bits of reality you are, as they say, in deep doo doo.

Where they came from has nothing to do with what they are currently.

What is being discussed is not even "representations of reality" as such. I am discussing the things themselves and their exact objective function as they are, in their context.

Just like the dwarves, I am not discussing a "door: a plank of wood across a hole". I am discussing a particular arrangement of activation patterns being expressed to a surface which doesn't need to correspond to anything, but is what happens when the mind thinks "door: a plank of wood".

And "open" is similar. It is a description of some object, not some relationship of space regarding an orientation of bits of metal, but rather a specific set of neurons arrayed just so, and which which happens in general whenever those bits happen to be arranged that way when the hand is pushing down on the handle, as opposed to "locked" which happens when bits of metal happen to be blocking the handle from moving as the hand pushes it.

Each of these things objectively leads to a specific experience of the mind, and in fact can't not.

And so when the "will" which objectively is "open door" executed and encountered "locked" it is objectively true that the "will to open the door" was not "free".

Because all of these things being discussed are being discussed of objects, namely objects which we discuss with words (or their neural objective equivalent) which image other objects which we ostensibly interact with in some way.

Because we are talking about an observable, objective machine, albeit a hellishly complicated machine.

Yeah, the mind. That parcel of BS that does nothing exactly ever. Door not a plank, open not a solid construct except it is different from the other.

"but rather a specific set of neurons arrayed just so, and which which happens in general whenever those bits happen to be arranged that way when the hand is pushing down on the handle"

Yep. Not the way it works bud. That it's not a plank is OK. I've spent decades following this then that path for tracing activity within and between or among systems and structures in the brain. Never happened.

That things are just so is not OK. Your machine is BS in and BS out. It's no more meaningful than the same activity going on when the foot is on the pedal. The brain is so far from computer you may as well be describing how the Russians are planning and the Ukrainians are drinking tea.

So much hogwash so little understanding. Mind, closed. You putting precision around general terms doesn't make them precision or real.

 

[The AntiChris]

I think most people would understand the claim that one has the ability to do otherwise in the same circumstances as the claim that different actions could actually be instantiated given the same circumstances. In any event, this is how I'd interpret this claim.

Well, it may surprise you when I say: different actions could actually be instantiated given the same circumstances, but they simply won't actually be instantiated given the same circumstances.

Ok. I'll try to explain my problem with your claim and you can tell me where I'm going wrong. I'm going to use CDO as shorthand for 'ability to do otherwise in the same circumstances'.

A central requirement of incompatibilist theories of free will is CDO. Hard determinists (such as DBT) claim that CDO is impossible in a deterministic universe. Libertarians say we do have CDO and therefore determinism is false. Both agree CDO is incompatible with determinism.

If you're using CDO in the same way as incompatibilists, then you're effectively denying determinism and endorsing libertarian free will.

If you're not using CDO in the same way as incompatibilists then you're at best just making things confused and at worst you'll be accused of not genuinely defending compatibilism.

It seems to me all this is unnecessary because, as many philosophers have argued, CDO is nonsensical and unnecessary for freedom. I'd originally thought this was what you were arguing.

 

[Jarhyn]

That parcel of BS that does nothing exactly ever

Apparently you did nothing exactly ever than either because where you see nothing happen, ostensibly because you slacked off at your job I see neurons increasing and decreasing charge potentials all over the place: I see objects doing things.

This is because you have FAILED MISERABLY in observing that every "subjective thing" is also an object. Every single one.

"Tall" is "subjective" between people: it means something different to me than you normally.

But when I define "tall", we can objectively say whether something meets that subjective definition. Because while you do not consider the thing subjectively "tall" it is unarguably "3 meters in length".

Fundamentally, we cannot say that there is an objective standard of beauty either, but we can objectively say whether something meets a subjective standard of beauty.

When we get to such precise things as "NAND gate" and "requirement" we are in fact talking about general object types which have objectively met those definitions.

This is what you seem to not want to acknowledge. That it isn't subjective that these objects have these properties.

It's just not up for subjective debate whether the dwarf feels happy. "Happy" for the dwarf is defined to semantic completeness.

What makes him happy is arbitrary, subjective, but the happiness itself is objectively happening.

 

[DBT]

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.

''The No Choice Principle implies that I cannot have a choice about anything that is an unavoidable consequence of something I have no control of.''

And there you go again, cherry-picking an essay you apparently did not read. I have addressed this upthread.

You miss the point. That is the nature of necessitation within a determined system. It's entailed in the definition given by compatibilists on this forum. No deviation from the big bang and ever after means that events proceed precisely what as described in the quote.

There is no wriggle room. Stomp your feet, wail and gnash your teeth, given no possible deviation or alternate action: ''In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated.''

That is the point, like it or not.

 

[Jarhyn]

That is the nature of necessitation within a determined system.

Well, you have asserted this without argument yet again.

Yet again you blithely conflate "cannot" with "will not".

Your failure to read the rest of the article where it explains why this form of thinking is in fact fallacious is apparent.

 

[DBT]

It’s really strange. DBT quoted the opening paragraph of an article that then went on to refute the opening paragraph! How can he not be aware of this?

That is how necessitation is defined. The article doesn't refute it. It gives a history of the thought on the subject, indeterminism, quantum probability, etc.

None of which is relevant to this issue because what I quoted represents the definition of determinism given by compatibilists.

And of course, the argument here is whether the notion of free will is compatible with the given definition of determinism, which is necessitation as described in my quote.

Marvin, Jarhyn, et al, must necessarily agree with quoted definition of necessitation because it represents the very definition of determinism they gave.

Sorry that you have yet to grasp the basics of this issue. Given that you don't understand the implications of determinism, I don't hold much hope of that ever happening.

 

[Jarhyn]

That is how necessitation is defined.

... what I quoted represents the definition of determinism given by compatibilists.

... it represents the very definition of determinism they gave.

No, it does not. You conflated words "can" and "will".

To do so is not honestly preserving the definition.

If you read the article I'm sure it would point out this conflation of "can" and "will". Which has been pointed out has a special name all its own for how common it is: The Modal Fallacy.

 

[DBT]

The action - according to your own definition - was determined to happen precisely as it happens before the customers were born or the restaurant built.

To be precise, nothing back then was sitting around drawing up a plan as to how events would eventually play out today. Events simply played out over time as the objects and forces interacted in a reliable fashion from one event to the next.

Nothing back then was planning for me to order the salad instead of the steak. Nothing back then was a meaningful or relevant cause of anything happening today. At best they are incidental causes.

Determinism does not claim that it was the Big Bang, rather than me, that ordered the Chef Salad for dinner. If that were the actual case then the waiter would be giving the Big Bang the bill for my salad.

Determinism only asserts that all of the events in which the objects and forces interacted over time were reliably caused by the events that directly preceded them, such that there would be an unbroken chain of causation from those original events to our current events.

The only causes that concern us today are the meaningful and relevant causes that efficiently explain why a current event happened (meaning), so that we might exercise some control over similar events in the future (relevance).

Nobody has suggested that a deterministic system is planned. Just that every action entails the next without deviation by the states and properties of the system, ie, that universe evolved unconsciously and without a plan according to the properties of matter/energy, gravity, space/time.

To remind you again, it's entailed in your given definition.

Were you suggesting a plan when you said:

''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.

That is not choice.

Your conclusion not logically follow from determinism. If we assume, as I do, that 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, then we must conclude that my making the choice for myself, between the steak and the salad, would inevitably be made by me of my own free will.

Of course it's logical. If there is no deviation from the big bang and the way things go ever after, everything that happens, including what you think and do is entailed in the initial conditions and how the system evolves.

There is no choice to be found. You said it yourself without realizing the implications:

'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.

Play a video, do you think the actors are able to do something that is not recorded? The Rhett character decides "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" is too harsh, instead saying ''peace be with you my dear?''

Determinism, once again, allows no deviation.

If determinism is true, we are actors playing out our parts without deviation, and we can no more think or do differently than what you see on a video.

The choosing was inevitable. Me being the chooser was inevitable. The absence of coercion and undue influence was inevitable. Thus, the fact that it would be a choice of my own free will was inevitable.

The so-called "no-choice principle" fails, because it contradicts the empirical fact that choosing would inevitably happen and I myself would have at least two possibilities to choose from, the steak and the salad.

The thought and action that proceed as determined are inevitable. They are not chosen, they are entailed by the system as it evolves.

They happen as determined/necessitated/fixed by prior states of the system, not chosen.

Neural function is neither willed or subject to will

Intelligence is neither willed or subject to will .

Decision making (determined) is not willed or subject to will.

Response, determined by the state and condition of the system as it evolvs is not willed, chosen or subject to regulation.

Which comes down to: Determinism makes it impossible for us to cause or control our actions in the right kind of way to qualify as free will.

Given the conditions above, free will is a false claim.

 

[Jarhyn]

The action - according to your own definition - was determined to happen precisely as it happens before the customers were born or the restaurant built.

To be precise, nothing back then was sitting around drawing up a plan as to how events would eventually play out today. Events simply played out over time as the objects and forces interacted in a reliable fashion from one event to the next.

Nothing back then was planning for me to order the salad instead of the steak. Nothing back then was a meaningful or relevant cause of anything happening today. At best they are incidental causes.

Determinism does not claim that it was the Big Bang, rather than me, that ordered the Chef Salad for dinner. If that were the actual case then the waiter would be giving the Big Bang the bill for my salad.

Determinism only asserts that all of the events in which the objects and forces interacted over time were reliably caused by the events that directly preceded them, such that there would be an unbroken chain of causation from those original events to our current events.

The only causes that concern us today are the meaningful and relevant causes that efficiently explain why a current event happened (meaning), so that we might exercise some control over similar events in the future (relevance).

Nobody has suggested that a deterministic system is planned. Just that every action entails the next without deviation by the states and properties of the system, ie, that universe evolved unconsciously and without a plan according to the properties of matter/energy, gravity, space/time.

To remind you again, it's entailed in your given definition.

Were you suggesting a plan when you said:

''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.

That is not choice.

Your conclusion not logically follow from determinism. If we assume, as I do, that 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, then we must conclude that my making the choice for myself, between the steak and the salad, would inevitably be made by me of my own free will.

Of course it's logical. If there is no deviation from the big bang and the way things go ever after, everything that happens, including what you think and do is entailed in the initial conditions and how the system evolves.

There is no choice to be found. You said it yourself without realizing the implications:

'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.

Play a video, do you think the actors are able to do something that is not recorded? The Rhett character decides "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" is too harsh, instead saying ''peace be with you my dear?''

Determinism, once again, allows no deviation.

If determinism is true, we are actors playing out our parts without deviation, and we can no more think or do differently than what you see on a video.

The choosing was inevitable. Me being the chooser was inevitable. The absence of coercion and undue influence was inevitable. Thus, the fact that it would be a choice of my own free will was inevitable.

The so-called "no-choice principle" fails, because it contradicts the empirical fact that choosing would inevitably happen and I myself would have at least two possibilities to choose from, the steak and the salad.

The thought and action that proceed as determined are inevitable. They are not chosen, they are entailed by the system as it evolves.

They happen as determined/necessitated/fixed by prior states of the system, not chosen.

Neural function is neither willed or subject to will

Intelligence is neither willed or subject to will .

Decision making (determined) is not willed or subject to will.

Response, determined by the state and condition of the system as it evolvs is not willed, chosen or subject to regulation.

Which comes down to: Determinism makes it impossible for us to cause or control our actions in the right kind of way to qualify as free will.

Given the conditions above, free will is a false claim.

That is how necessitation is defined.

... what I quoted represents the definition of determinism given by compatibilists.

... it represents the very definition of determinism they gave.

No, it does not. You conflated words "can" and "will".

To do so is not honestly preserving the definition.

If you read the article I'm sure it would point out this conflation of "can" and "will". Which has been pointed out has a special name all its own for how common it is: The Modal Fallacy.

 

[DBT]

That is how necessitation is defined.

... what I quoted represents the definition of determinism given by compatibilists.

... it represents the very definition of determinism they gave.

No, it does not. You conflated words "can" and "will".

To do so is not honestly preserving the definition.

If you read the article I'm sure it would point out this conflation of "can" and "will". Which has been pointed out has a special name all its own for how common it is: The Modal Fallacy.

No deviation, as you yourself define determinism eliminates all possibility of alternate actions, consequently ''can'' and ''will'' are irrelevant within a system where actions proceed precisely as determined without deviation, where not 'can' or 'will' but ''must necessarily'' is the principal rule.


Jarhyn - ''A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.''


Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

This is precisely what you, yourself agreed to when you gave your definition.

 

[Jarhyn]

eliminates all possibility

And again, conflating can and will.

Will, btw, is just an application of "must, necessarily" in a given context "X 'must necessarily', as a result of Y". Is the effective shape of "will".

"This system must necessarily behave this way because of this objective part of it's form" is equivalent to "the system will:shall, because of its will:that which creates the causal bridge between prior and latter states"

Possibility operates instead in "can" land.

Again, the marbles in the bag are no less "possibilities on the choice function" for the fact that the bag will never be squeezed ever again. They only cease being "possibilities" when the bag is cut open and they spill out on the ground, and in that case they are only lost as possibilities of that, by becoming actualities of a different choice function "spill out all the marbles from a different hole".

 

[pood]

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.

''The No Choice Principle implies that I cannot have a choice about anything that is an unavoidable consequence of something I have no control of.''

And there you go again, cherry-picking an essay you apparently did not read. I have addressed this upthread.

You miss the point. That is the nature of necessitation within a determined system. It's entailed in the definition given by compatibilists on this forum. No deviation from the big bang and ever after means that events proceed precisely what as described in the quote.

There is no wriggle room. Stomp your feet, wail and gnash your teeth, given no possible deviation or alternate action: ''In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated.''

That is the point, like it or not.

It is you who misses the point. Why don’t you address the rest of the article, which refutes the opening lines that you chery-picked? It seems strange to invoke an essay or a writer that disagrees with your position, but you’ve done that inthe past, so …

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Ok. I'll try to explain my problem with your claim and you can tell me where I'm going wrong. I'm going to use CDO as shorthand for 'ability to do otherwise in the same circumstances'.

A central requirement of incompatibilist theories of free will is CDO. Hard determinists (such as DBT) claim that CDO is impossible in a deterministic universe. Libertarians say we do have CDO and therefore determinism is false. Both agree CDO is incompatible with determinism.

If you're using CDO in the same way as incompatibilists, then you're effectively denying determinism and endorsing libertarian free will.

If you're not using CDO in the same way as incompatibilists then you're at best just making things confused and at worst you'll be accused of not genuinely defending compatibilism.

It seems to me all this is unnecessary because, as many philosophers have argued, CDO is nonsensical and unnecessary for freedom. I'd originally thought this was what you were arguing.

I have an apple and an orange. Take your pick. I'll have the one that you don't choose. But, before you choose, tell me whether you have the ability to do otherwise at this moment. Do you have the ability to choose the apple right now? Do you have the ability to choose the orange right now?

If you have the ability to choose the apple and you also have the ability to choose the orange, then you logically have the ability to do otherwise. The ability to choose the apple is otherwise than choosing the orange. The ability to choose the orange is otherwise than choosing the apple. Thus, the ability to do otherwise appears before you even make your choice.

This has nothing to do with determinism or free will. This is purely a matter of the logic of the language that we humans have evolved over thousands of years. It is how we make sense of things.

If I were to tell you, "You can have this apple or you can have this orange" and you pick the apple, and then I tell you "You could not have picked the orange", you would call me a liar.

Either I was lying when I said "you can have this orange", or I am lying now when I claim "You could not have picked the orange".

What you're experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance", a perceived contradiction. If I can have this orange now, then it is a direct contradiction to say I could not have had the orange at that same point in time. So, it is incorrect to say that someone "could not have done" something that at that time they actually "could have done".

The correct expression of causal necessity (determinism) is that, "given those same circumstances you would not have chosen the orange". Is there any cognitive dissonance now? No. You had your own good reasons for choosing the apple rather than the orange under those circumstances (perhaps you always prefer apples to oranges, or perhaps peeling the orange would be inconvenient and messy, etc.), so why would you choose the orange given those same circumstances? You would only do so under different circumstances. And that makes perfect sense.

In the same fashion, it would be incorrect to tell someone that in the future they "can" only do one thing or that only one thing is "possible". Causal necessity simply points out that the future will turn out one way or the other, either you will decide to go to college or you will decide to take up a trade, but it is up to us to choose from multiple possible futures the single actual future that we will pursue.

Our own choices will causally determine which future becomes the single inevitable one. This is how causal necessity actually works. It includes our choices, because it will be our own choices that causally necessitate which future becomes the inevitable single actual future.

 

[pood]

It’s really strange. DBT quoted the opening paragraph of an article that then went on to refute the opening paragraph! How can he not be aware of this?

Sorry that you have yet to grasp the basics of this issue. Given that you don't understand the implications of determinism, I don't hold much hope of that ever happening.

We grasp it much better than you, I’m afraid. But unwarranted condescension duly noted. And yes, the article you cherry-picked clearly goes on to refute your position. Shall I cite quotes?

 

[Jarhyn]

It’s really strange. DBT quoted the opening paragraph of an article that then went on to refute the opening paragraph! How can he not be aware of this?

Sorry that you have yet to grasp the basics of this issue. Given that you don't understand the implications of determinism, I don't hold much hope of that ever happening.

We grasp it much better than you, I’m afraid. But unwarranted condescension duly noted. And yes, the article you cherry-picked clearly goes on to refute your position. Shall I cite quotes?

Please do, for my sake. If for no other reason than for the humor of what is about to ensue..

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("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.

Among these inevitable events was my reading the restaurant menu, considering the possibility of ordering the juicy steak, but recalling that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. So I decided that the salad would be a better choice for dinner.

It would also be inevitable that my choice would be free of coercion and free of any undue influence. No one was pointing a gun to my head. My reasoning was not distorted by mental illness. Thus, it was a choice of my "own free will", as the notion of free will is commonly understood.

Please note that causal necessity has not changed anything. Everything happened just so.

Determinism cannot exclude the effects of our deliberate choices, choices reliably caused by our own goals and our own reasoning. That would invalidate determinism.

That is not choice.

Your conclusion does not logically follow from determinism. If we assume, as I do, that 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, then we must conclude that my making the choice for myself, between the steak and the salad, would inevitably be made by me of my own free will.

There is no choice to be found. You said it yourself without realizing the implications

There is no such implication from causal necessity. Causal necessity includes me choosing to order the salad rather than the steak. If you attempt to eliminate that fact, you contradict causal necessity and your notion of determinism becomes incomplete and invalid.

 

[The AntiChris]

I have an apple and an orange. Take your pick. I'll have the one that you don't choose. But, before you choose, tell me whether you have the ability to do otherwise at this moment. Do you have the ability to choose the apple right now? Do you have the ability to choose the orange right now?

If you have the ability to choose the apple and you also have the ability to choose the orange, then you logically have the ability to do otherwise. The ability to choose the apple is otherwise than choosing the orange. The ability to choose the orange is otherwise than choosing the apple. Thus, the ability to do otherwise appears before you even make your choice.

This has nothing to do with determinism or free will. This is purely a matter of the logic of the language that we humans have evolved over thousands of years. It is how we make sense of things.

If I were to tell you, "You can have this apple or you can have this orange" and you pick the apple, and then I tell you "You could not have picked the orange", you would call me a liar.

Either I was lying when I said "you can have this orange", or I am lying now when I claim "You could not have picked the orange".

I agree with all this but it doesn't address my concerns - probably my fault, I'll try again.

You said:

different actions could actually be instantiated given the same circumstances,

As I understand it if determinism is true, given a specific state of the universe S, A will always follow. For anything other than A to occur, S would have to be different.

If we take what you say literally, you seem to be claiming that A or B or C etc. could follow S (be instantiated by S). How does this tally with determinism?

 

[Jarhyn]

I have an apple and an orange. Take your pick. I'll have the one that you don't choose. But, before you choose, tell me whether you have the ability to do otherwise at this moment. Do you have the ability to choose the apple right now? Do you have the ability to choose the orange right now?

If you have the ability to choose the apple and you also have the ability to choose the orange, then you logically have the ability to do otherwise. The ability to choose the apple is otherwise than choosing the orange. The ability to choose the orange is otherwise than choosing the apple. Thus, the ability to do otherwise appears before you even make your choice.

This has nothing to do with determinism or free will. This is purely a matter of the logic of the language that we humans have evolved over thousands of years. It is how we make sense of things.

If I were to tell you, "You can have this apple or you can have this orange" and you pick the apple, and then I tell you "You could not have picked the orange", you would call me a liar.

Either I was lying when I said "you can have this orange", or I am lying now when I claim "You could not have picked the orange".

I agree with all this but it doesn't address my concerns - probably my fault, I'll try again.

You said:

different actions could actually be instantiated given the same circumstances,

As I understand it if determinism is true, given a specific state of the universe S, A will always follow. For anything other than A to occur, S would have to be different.

If we take what you say literally, you seem to be claiming that A or B or C etc. could follow S (be instantiated by S). How does this tally with determinism?

It is the difference in meaning behind could and did.

Could is a consideration of imagination or simulation. It applies the regular rules that are known to operate on scales large enough for us to commonly understand, and applies different inputs than the ones observed (or a set of inputs which represent the variety of possible values of unknowns of the system), and then operate the system forward through that model.

As such they are images, imaginary events but real things which contain such images nonetheless.

We select from these images the conclusion which we most desire and then it becomes no longer a "provisional will" provisional upon the outcome of the choice function but rather an actualized will, provisional only upon the success of it's execution and accuracy of it's model.

Could.

Note that "could" is "will, on the provision that X is true"

It is always true that "the system will, from here, if X is true, do this thing" even if X was false. Thus is the meaning of "it always could have, but it did not."

The X is just implicit there.

To equivocate "will" and "could" drops the additional structure "could" adds to "will" and thus is the reason the modal fallacy generates a problem in the first place.

 

[The AntiChris]

It is the difference in meaning behind could and did.

Thanks but I don't think this adresses my question.