Demystifying Determinism

[DBT]

How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitably consequence of something I have no choice about?

I have no choice about what is on the menu; It was decided before I ever even heard of the restaurant, and nobody ever consulted me in any way.

Yet, when I arrive at the restaurant, the waiter bizarrely seems to hold the delusion that it's possible for me to choose from this menu, whose contents (and indeed, existence) are an inevitable consequence of something I have no choice about.

What's wrong with that guy? No wonder he got a job as a waiter; He's obviously not cut out for philosophy.

Determinism:
''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.''

 

[Jarhyn]

''How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitably consequence of something I have no choice about?

Indeed, how could a machine build something if the machine didn't build itself

It is a mystery!

Well, being the expert in machine consciousness, you should know.

''I think you are entirely unfounded in the assumption that some form of consciousness does not automatically arise, after some form or another, from any confluence of switching objects.'' - Jarhyn.

So, you fail to argue against two things, holding up your ignorance of one thing as if it gets you out of having to face your ignorance about the other.

Riddle me this:
Does a CNC lathe with a hopper full of steel bars turn out a hopper full of parts?

Would the hopper full of steel bars transform itself, in the absence of a CNC lathe (or analog equivalent), into a hopper full of "parts"?

Did the CNC machine have to make itself to turn out a bin full of parts?

Answers:yes*; no; no.
*Assuming "CNC lathe" implies a rather specific configuration of said lathe.

 

[DBT]

Yet again;......

Once again, an off-the-shelf response complete with multiple random quotes and no attempt whatsoever to engage with what I actually posted.

That's the easy way out, just dismiss whatever does not suit your needs. Like a true fundamentalist, you never actually consider what is said, quoted or cited. Just dismiss, misrepresent or misunderstand. The result is the same each and every time.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yet again;......

Once again, an off-the-shelf response complete with multiple random quotes and no attempt whatsoever to engage with what I actually posted.

That's the easy way out, just dismiss whatever does not suit your needs. Like a true fundamentalist, you never actually consider what is said, quoted or cited. Just dismiss, misrepresent or misunderstand. The result is the same each and every time.

''How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitably consequence of something I have no choice about?

Indeed, how could a machine build something if the machine didn't build itself

It is a mystery!

<An ignorant dismissal>

100%, DBT.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Determinism:
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.

Compatibilism, Thesis that free will, in the sense required for moral responsibility, is consistent with universal causal determinism.

Okay, so now we've established that both Determinism and Compatibilism have entries in the Britannica website. However, a more detailed exploration of the relevance of both is found here:

free will and moral responsibility
free will and moral responsibility, also called problem of moral responsibility, the problem of reconciling the belief that people are morally responsible for what they do with the apparent fact that humans do not have free will because their actions are causally determined. It is an ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle. ...

It explores the topic of Compatibilism from the standpoint of many philosophers, from Aristotle to Frankfort and Strawson. In their conclusion, the article's authors Maya Eddon and Peter Singer say this: "In the end, the important question may be not whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic but whether one is willing to accept a definition of free will that is much weaker than intuition demands."

My position is that intuition does not demand freedom from cause and effect, but simply freedom from coercion and undue influence.

The notion that causal necessity is something that we need to be free of, is the initial delusion at the heart of the longstanding debate. But it is a self-induced hoax, a paradox created by false but believable suggestions, that trap us into trying to be free of that which freedom itself requires, reliable cause and effect.

The escape is simple. Just recognize the fact that, what we will inevitably do by causal necessity, is exactly identical to us just being us, doing what we choose to do.

 

[bilby]

How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitably consequence of something I have no choice about?

I have no choice about what is on the menu; It was decided before I ever even heard of the restaurant, and nobody ever consulted me in any way.

Yet, when I arrive at the restaurant, the waiter bizarrely seems to hold the delusion that it's possible for me to choose from this menu, whose contents (and indeed, existence) are an inevitable consequence of something I have no choice about.

What's wrong with that guy? No wonder he got a job as a waiter; He's obviously not cut out for philosophy.

Determinism:
''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.''

Repeating someone else's iteration of an error doesn't make it less an error on either of your parts.

The determinists in this thread have repeatedly rejected, with reasons, the second part of this definition, which is the common error of conflating the mistaken 'could have made' with the accurate 'would have made'.

If your definition of determinism is wrong (and it is), then it's unsurprising that your reasons for rejecting it as compatible with free will are nonsensical.

 

[fromderinside]

How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitably consequence of something I have no choice about?

I have no choice about what is on the menu; It was decided before I ever even heard of the restaurant, and nobody ever consulted me in any way.

Yet, when I arrive at the restaurant, the waiter bizarrely seems to hold the delusion that it's possible for me to choose from this menu, whose contents (and indeed, existence) are an inevitable consequence of something I have no choice about.

What's wrong with that guy? No wonder he got a job as a waiter; He's obviously not cut out for philosophy.

Determinism:
''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.''

Repeating someone else's iteration of an error doesn't make it less an error on either of your parts.

The determinists in this thread have repeatedly rejected, with reasons, the second part of this definition, which is the common error of conflating the mistaken 'could have made' with the accurate 'would have made'.

If your definition of determinism is wrong (and it is), then it's unsurprising that your reasons for rejecting it as compatible with free will are nonsensical.

Putting one in a position where one appears to have choice is not the same as being one who can make choices in that situation.

In determinism what one will do is determined by what one did, not the apparent situation in which one finds oneself. Did she chose the restaurant? Not specified. If she arrived at the restaurant a determinist would say it was determined by previous actions. Ergo one might conclude one had been, by previous behavior, directed to do so et cetera.

I really feel for that poor non-deterministically driven waiter though. I guess that's why one felt the need to invent choice. Great thing for fiction though.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Putting one in a position where one appears to have choice is not the same as being one who can make choices in that situation.

On the other hand, if it looks like a choice and quacks like a choice, it might actually be a choice.

In determinism what one will do is determined by what one did, not the apparent situation in which one finds oneself. Did she chose the restaurant? Not specified. If she arrived at the restaurant a determinist would say it was determined by previous actions. Ergo one might conclude one had been, by previous behavior, directed to do so et cetera.

Well, yes. Having decided with the girls that they would have dinner at a restaurant after work, they tossed around several options, and they all agreed to go to Ruby Tuesdays. It had enough selections that everyone could find something that they liked. And, as you say, this was both "the apparent situation in which one finds oneself" and simultaneously "it was determined by previous actions", their own choice.

The prior behavior was the group's decisions to eat dinner at Ruby Tuesdays. Once there, each of them made private decisions as to what they would order for their dinner. Choosing is a reliable causal mechanism in a deterministic universe, just like physical actions like walking or logical actions like mathematical calculations.

I really feel for that poor non-deterministically driven waiter though. I guess that's why one felt the need to invent choice. Great thing for fiction though.

It is neither fiction nor non-deterministic. Choosing happens to be a reliable causal mechanism that governs behavior. Choosing also happens to be a deterministic operation. So, each dinner was causally necessary from any prior point in time, which qualifies as determinism, and simultaneously caused by each person's own choosing, which qualifies as free will.

It's not really complicated. Both determinism and free will are right there in front of us.

 

[DBT]

How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitably consequence of something I have no choice about?

I have no choice about what is on the menu; It was decided before I ever even heard of the restaurant, and nobody ever consulted me in any way.

Yet, when I arrive at the restaurant, the waiter bizarrely seems to hold the delusion that it's possible for me to choose from this menu, whose contents (and indeed, existence) are an inevitable consequence of something I have no choice about.

What's wrong with that guy? No wonder he got a job as a waiter; He's obviously not cut out for philosophy.

Determinism:
''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.''

Repeating someone else's iteration of an error doesn't make it less an error on either of your parts.

There is no error. It's quite straightforward.

Given that '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. that ''it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did'' - means that the process of decision making has no alternatives, that what is thought and deliberated and done is entailed by the state of the system in any given instance, the circumstances. That whatever is chosen must be chosen, that there are no alternatives in the instance of selection, that choice is set, fixed, unchangeable, therefore not a matter of free choice or free will.


That it is not only external force, coercion or undue influence but also inner necessity that negates free will, that ''it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did''

it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision

The determinists in this thread have repeatedly rejected, with reasons, the second part of this definition, which is the common error of conflating the mistaken 'could have made' with the accurate 'would have made'.

It's entailed in their given definition of determinism. It can't be denied.

No randomness or deviation in the development of the system negates the ability to do otherwise equates to ''it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision''

Again;

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

Marvin Edwards - ''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.

If your definition of determinism is wrong (and it is), then it's unsurprising that your reasons for rejecting it as compatible with free will are nonsensical.

It's not my definition, nor is it wrong. And it is essentially the same as the definitions quoted above, jus the wording is different.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Determinism:
''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.''

There is no error. It's quite straightforward.

Given that '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. that ''it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did'' - means that the process of decision making has no alternatives, that what is thought and deliberated and done is entailed by the state of the system in any given instance, the circumstances. That whatever is chosen must be chosen, that there are no alternatives in the instance of selection, that choice is set, fixed, unchangeable, therefore not a matter of free choice or free will.

Again, both you and Britannica are trying to limit what "can happen" to what "will happen". It is a standard error in the formulation of determinism to suggest that it is AS IF "we could not have done otherwise" whenever it is the case that "we would not have done otherwise".

But whenever choosing between X and Y begins, it is logically necessary that "I can choose X" is true and "I can choose Y" is also true. If either of them is false, then we only have one option and we do not initiate a choosing operation. For example:
If "I can choose X" is false, then we never consider X to be a real option, and we simply do Y without further consideration.
If "I can choose Y" is false, then we never consider Y to be a real option, and we simply do X without further consideration.
In either case, we never begin choosing.
It is only after we know for certain that "I can choose X" and "I can choose Y" are both true that we begin evaluating our options, to decide which one we will choose.

At the end of the choosing operation, we will have one thing that we will choose, and one thing that we could have chosen but decided not to.

Thus, whenever a choosing operation shows up in the causal chain, "I could have done otherwise" will always be true, and it is only "I would have done otherwise" that will always be false.

If you stick to insisting that what can happen is limited to what will happen, then you create logical paradoxes, like having to know what you will choose before you can know what you can choose.

So, it is always logically true that we could have done otherwise even though we would not do otherwise. And what we will do never constrains what we can do.

Thus, the statement "it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action" is clearly false.
And, the statement " it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did" is clearly false.

It is unfortunate that academic philosophy has apparently overlooked this logical error in the description of determinism. And, we can sympathize with DBT and others who have fallen victim to the traditional errors of other philosophers.

 

[fromderinside]

I for one do not consider myself a philosopher. My trade was that of a scientist who profited using determinism. Feet on the ground so to speak.

Your sympathies are misplaced as clearly are your methodologies.

 

[bilby]

I for one do not consider myself a philosopher.

That's OK, I don't consider you a philosopher either.

 

[DBT]

Determinism:
''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.''

There is no error. It's quite straightforward.

Given that '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. that ''it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did'' - means that the process of decision making has no alternatives, that what is thought and deliberated and done is entailed by the state of the system in any given instance, the circumstances. That whatever is chosen must be chosen, that there are no alternatives in the instance of selection, that choice is set, fixed, unchangeable, therefore not a matter of free choice or free will.

Again, both you and Britannica are trying to limit what "can happen" to what "will happen". It is a standard error in the formulation of determinism to suggest that it is AS IF "we could not have done otherwise" whenever it is the case that "we would not have done otherwise".

The distinction is meaningless. As there are no alternate actions within a deterministic system 'would not have' is equivalent to 'could not have' done otherwise.

The relevant point here being: there are no alternate actions within a deterministic system. Which is not according to me or Brittanica, but how determinism is defined.

Not as defined by me, or Brittanica, but just how determinism works by definition, which includes your own.....

But whenever choosing between X and Y begins, it is logically necessary that "I can choose X" is true and "I can choose Y" is also true. If either of them is false, then we only have one option and we do not initiate a choosing operation. For example:
If "I can choose X" is false, then we never consider X to be a real option, and we simply do Y without further consideration.
If "I can choose Y" is false, then we never consider Y to be a real option, and we simply do X without further consideration.
In either case, we never begin choosing.
It is only after we know for certain that "I can choose X" and "I can choose Y" are both true that we begin evaluating our options, to decide which one we will choose.

At the end of the choosing operation, we will have one thing that we will choose, and one thing that we could have chosen but decided not to.

But there is never a point where anything other than what has been determined can happen. Nothing else can happen.

As it stands that nothing else can happen in each and every moment of action, each and every action is entailed, not freely chosen or freely willed.

That is the point of incompatibilism. That if all actions are entailed, as defined/no deviations, there are no alternatives, and no choice.

Entailment is not a matter of choice or free will.

Which makes the term free will redundant.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Again, both you and Britannica are trying to limit what "can happen" to what "will happen". It is a standard error in the formulation of determinism to suggest that "we could not have done otherwise" when it is only the case that "we would not have done otherwise".

The distinction is meaningless. As there are no alternate actions within a deterministic system 'would not have' is equivalent to 'could not have' done otherwise. The relevant point here being: there are no alternate actions within a deterministic system. Which is not according to me or Brittanica, but how determinism is defined. Not as defined by me, or Brittanica, but just how determinism works by definition, which includes your own.....

Claiming that the distinction between "can" and "will", and between "actuality" and "possibility", are meaningless is nonsense. There are multiple things that we "can" do, but only one thing that we "will" do. We consider multiple possibilities before settling upon our actual vacation, or car, or home, or mode of transportation, or college, or career, or dinner, etc.

The notion of multiple possibilities is essential to human creativity and invention as well as to choosing. And it continues to do its work in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, by shifting to a different language and logic specifically evolved to deal with such matters.

And that is why the claim that "we could not have done otherwise" creates a sense of cognitive dissonance ("a perception of contradictory information"). If, a moment ago, you tell me that I can choose chocolate or vanilla, and then I choose vanilla, and then you tell me that "you could not have chosen chocolate", I would ask whether you are lying now or lying then. If it was true a moment ago that "I CAN choose chocolate", then how can it be true now that "I COULD NOT have chosen chocolate"? COULD is simply the past tense of CAN. So, if "I can" was ever true at some prior point in the past, then "I could have" will forever be true in the future when speaking of that same point in the past.

On the other hand, if you claim that "I WOULD NOT have chosen chocolate", then I would readily agree. I had my reasons for choosing the vanilla. And until those reasons change I will not choose chocolate. So, we do not get any cognitive dissonance with "would not".

Hard determinists embrace a myth about ordinary people. They suggest that people who complain about "could not have done otherwise" are holding some metaphysical view of a supernatural ability to step outside of cause and effect. Hogwash. They are simply objecting to the cognitive dissonance created by an implicit contradiction between claiming "I can" a moment ago and now claiming "I could not have".

When someone decides whether to order the Salad or the Steak for dinner, and they choose the Salad, they can truthfully say "I chose the Salad, even though I could have chosen the Steak". Both "I chose the Salad" and "I could have chosen the Steak" are matters of fact, and there is no contradiction between them.

It is truly unfortunate that many determinists still conflate what "can happen" with what "will happen", when simply using a bit more care with our words would eliminate the contradictions that create the cognitive dissonance.

It may help to clarify why "can" is a logical necessity within the choosing operation:

Whenever choosing between X and Y begins, it is logically necessary that "I can choose X" is true and "I can choose Y" is also true. If either of them is false, then we only have one option and we do not initiate a choosing operation. For example:
If "I can choose X" is false, then we never consider X to be a real option, and we simply do Y without further consideration.
If "I can choose Y" is false, then we never consider Y to be a real option, and we simply do X without further consideration.
In either case, we never begin choosing without first having two real possibilities.
It is only after we know for certain that "I can choose X" and "I can choose Y" are both true that we begin evaluating our options, to decide which one we will choose.

At the end of the choosing operation, we will have one thing that we will choose, and one thing that we could have chosen but decided not to.

But there is never a point where anything other than what has been determined can happen. Nothing else can happen.

Wrong! There is never a point where anything other than what has been determined will happen. Nothing else will happen.

 

[Jarhyn]

How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitably consequence of something I have no choice about?

I have no choice about what is on the menu; It was decided before I ever even heard of the restaurant, and nobody ever consulted me in any way.

Yet, when I arrive at the restaurant, the waiter bizarrely seems to hold the delusion that it's possible for me to choose from this menu, whose contents (and indeed, existence) are an inevitable consequence of something I have no choice about.

What's wrong with that guy? No wonder he got a job as a waiter; He's obviously not cut out for philosophy.

Determinism:
''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.''

Repeating someone else's iteration of an error doesn't make it less an error on either of your parts.

The determinists in this thread have repeatedly rejected, with reasons, the second part of this definition, which is the common error of conflating the mistaken 'could have made' with the accurate 'would have made'.

If your definition of determinism is wrong (and it is), then it's unsurprising that your reasons for rejecting it as compatible with free will are nonsensical.

Even the "indeterminists" in this thread, except Kylie, recognize that free will does not found itself on randomness or deviation but rather upon the fact that a very specific will is in some moment "free".

I expect that it has a lot to do with discussions that happened in the Math forum about the accessibility of a number.

We find ourselves in some respects looking at this concept that there are some things which are "logically true" but have nothing to do with what is real, they are just "logically true", whereas some other things are not merely logically true but are "immediately true".

The difference here is something along the lines of "what is logically true of taking half of 53 quintillion tennis balls and dividing their number by 2?" Which is to say you get 26.5 quintillion tennis balls.

This is not immediately true on account of me not having and then halving 53 quintillion tennis balls. There's no way even to produce that many but logically if I had them and halved them, that's what I would have.

CAN is discussion in the mode of logical truths. Immediate unavailability of a scenario does not prevent these from being logically true.

Much like the fact that X does not cross zero in Y=x^2+1, this function will never cross zero.

This says nothing about other functions. What the function "will" do says nothing about what functions "can" do.

The function y=x^2 for example will cross 0 momentarily. If the only function directly available in a whole universe of activity is y=x^2+1, it doesn't change the availability of zero in y=x^2.

 

[fromderinside]

I for one do not consider myself a philosopher.

That's OK, I don't consider you a philosopher either.

Great. Unfortunately you don't speak for Marvin Edwards

 

[bilby]

I for one do not consider myself a philosopher.

That's OK, I don't consider you a philosopher either.

Great. Unfortunately you don't speak for Marvin Edwards

I never for a moment suggested that I did.

 

[fromderinside]

I for one do not consider myself a philosopher.

That's OK, I don't consider you a philosopher either.

Great. Unfortunately you don't speak for Marvin Edwards

I never for a moment suggested that I did.

Yet, you did.

 

[bilby]

I for one do not consider myself a philosopher.

That's OK, I don't consider you a philosopher either.

Great. Unfortunately you don't speak for Marvin Edwards

I never for a moment suggested that I did.

Yet, you did.

No, I spoke for myself.

 

[Jarhyn]

I for one do not consider myself a philosopher.

That's OK, I don't consider you a philosopher either.

Great. Unfortunately you don't speak for Marvin Edwards

I never for a moment suggested that I did.

Yet, you did.

No, I spoke for myself.

And then I agreed with you.