bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,430
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
We do if we subscribe to astrology as our belief system
-
Features
Demystifying Determinism
- Thread starter Marvin Edwards
- Start date
DBT
Contributor
The words ''free'' and 'will'' have their definitions and references.
If something is 'free,' it can do any number of things at any given time. 'Will' is an urge or prompt to act that's generated in response to information input, the prompt to act.
This is essentially where the compatibilist definition fails.
The issue is freedom of will. Compatibilism doesn't relate to or establish freedom of will, instead it is founded on actions performed according to will, without force, coercion or undue influence.
That is not free will, it is a label applied to acting in accordance with will, while ignoring inner necessity and that will itself is fixed by inputs and antecedents.
This has been explained a thousand times, and not just by me.
DBT
Contributor
Not that again.
There are many elements at work, your own circumstances, nation, city, town, culture, the restaurants in your area, your dining preferences, your wife's preferences, compromises, time frame to dine, where you sit, what is available on the menu in relation to your and your partners proclivities, etc, etc, etc, that is referred to as 'the system at large.
It is all these factors that come together to create an experience and a progression of events.
And as we are talking determinism, it is deterministic progression of events based on all these factors interacting deterministically, and not just you 'making a decision'
That is the point.
As described above.
That's the gist of it, so I'll leave it there, it's Saturday evening and there are other things to do.
The AntiChris
Senior Member
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,045
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Freedom merely means that something will happen, in terms of compatibilism.
When we are treating tight "set theoretic" versions of concepts, the really fundamental and granular ones, things look very different.
Wills have everything to do with function of systematic interpreters, and freedom merely discusses which instructions shall be interpreted.
This creates provisional freedom, freedom gated on an "if" statement. This is discussion of what "can" happen.
Asking "is some will free?" Is not asking can it happen, but whether it actually shall, specifically in context to some known, fixed line of the will.
The universe has laws, fixed laws, truths about how states evolve. You at least will cop to that.
The fact that most people are sloppy, or haven't teased apart the concepts and conflations in their speech is their own problem. It's your problem.
Of course, this is the discussion again of "systemic degrees of freedom", the truth of the system and the laws it is fixed to.
"Can" always assumes "in simulation, under these conditions". The fact that you still do not see this is... Well, it's disappointing to say the least.
Marvin Edwards
Veteran Member
If it was "the system at large" that chose to order the Salad, why did the waiter bring the dinner bill to me?
The notion, that there is a "system at large" that is more responsible for my dinner order than I am, is superstitious nonsense. It is a useless and impractical deterministic mythology, and not deterministic fact.
There is no "system at large" that does anything relevant to my dinner order. The universe does not act as a system. It contains many systems, such as our solar system, which contains our earth, and its biosystem, which in turn contains us, each of us with our own central nervous system. And each of these systems behave separately and deterministically.
And yet none of those factors chose from the menu what I would order for dinner. I made that choice myself.
"I" happens to include all of my goals and reasons, all of my genetic proclivities and prior life experiences, all of my beliefs and values, my own brain and its decision making functions. All of that stuff is "me".
Really? The nation, and the restaurant, and my wife's preferences all got together in a room, behind my back, and chose what I would order for dinner, instead of me?
Again, attributing my choice to "the system at large" is superstitious nonsense. There were only two factors actually interacting: my brain and the restaurant menu. Those two objects were sufficient to causally determine what I would order for dinner. Everything else was already resolved into one of those two objects.
And, since it was my brain that ordered the Salad, the waiter brought the Salad, and the dinner bill to me, and to no one else.
Attempting to shift control and responsibility for the dinner order to something else can only be justified if that something coerced or otherwise unduly influenced me to make a choice that was not my own.
The notion, that there is a "system at large" that is more responsible for my dinner order than I am, is superstitious nonsense. It is a useless and impractical deterministic mythology, and not deterministic fact.
There is no "system at large" that does anything relevant to my dinner order. The universe does not act as a system. It contains many systems, such as our solar system, which contains our earth, and its biosystem, which in turn contains us, each of us with our own central nervous system. And each of these systems behave separately and deterministically.
And yet none of those factors chose from the menu what I would order for dinner. I made that choice myself.
"I" happens to include all of my goals and reasons, all of my genetic proclivities and prior life experiences, all of my beliefs and values, my own brain and its decision making functions. All of that stuff is "me".
Really? The nation, and the restaurant, and my wife's preferences all got together in a room, behind my back, and chose what I would order for dinner, instead of me?
Again, attributing my choice to "the system at large" is superstitious nonsense. There were only two factors actually interacting: my brain and the restaurant menu. Those two objects were sufficient to causally determine what I would order for dinner. Everything else was already resolved into one of those two objects.
And, since it was my brain that ordered the Salad, the waiter brought the Salad, and the dinner bill to me, and to no one else.
Attempting to shift control and responsibility for the dinner order to something else can only be justified if that something coerced or otherwise unduly influenced me to make a choice that was not my own.
DBT
Contributor
What exactly isn't clear?
I suspect that nothing could be said, quoted, cited or produced that would be clear for you.
Leaving me aside. I have quoted numerous authors, academics, philosophers, neuroscientists, etc, who explain the issue in their own way, clearly and concisely, which I have quoted and cited, yet apparently none of it is clear enough for you, you remain in the dark, where you have no idea about the implications of determinism or the incompatibilist argument, nor can anything be said to remedy your condition.
Given this state of affairs, it's obvious that there is nothing I can say or do to help you understand.
Yet you respond regardless.
DBT
Contributor
No it doesn't. Input, distribution and processing precedes output, consciousness and will. Will and action is fixed before conscious awareness and plays no part in regulating behaviour.
All of this has been explained, supported by experiments, quoted and cited. Yet you assert your version of freedom of will based on a fallacy.
DBT
Contributor
Why do you repeat this even after I have described the distinction? Must I repeat it again?
There is far more at work than just you. Nor do you as a conscious entity have access to or control of the means of your own experience.....which is not a matter or will, yet alone free will.
To label a process that has nothing to do with free will is a fallacy.
All of these are beyond the scope of will or conscious regulation. You are what your circumstances produced, genes, environment, society, culture, determining how you think and your immediate circumstances, what you think, decide and do.
Free will? Not at all. A highly evolved, rational system at work. That's all.
The AntiChris
Senior Member
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,045
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
An assertion... Let's see if it is argued with more than other mere assertions...
A mere assertion without a "therefore" or even an argument...
No, it clearly is not, given the fact that, at the point of conscious review I can say 'oh, that's a bad idea' and then stop what I was doing.
But you don't need to even be conscious that such review is happening for it to actually be happening as a function of yourself.
Sometimes review is even a part of the will, a line item in fact, and any such review satisfies the definition of "regulates behavior."
Again, just a mere assertion without argument...
No, it hasn't. Your claims are again and again nothing more than mere assertions, and the occasional red herring.
What fallacy? What is its name? What is its nature? Where are the operational elements of that form of fallacy? Do you even know how to identify fallacies at all?
Marvin Edwards
Veteran Member
There is no "system at large" that does anything relevant to my dinner order. The universe does not act as a system. It contains many systems, such as our solar system, which contains our earth, and its biosystem, which in turn contains us, each of us with our own central nervous system. And each of these systems behave separately and deterministically.
And yet none of those factors chose from the menu what I would order for dinner. I made that choice myself.
"I" happen to include all of my goals and reasons, all of my genetic proclivities and prior life experiences, all of my beliefs and values, my own brain and its decision making functions. All of that stuff is "me".
You're spinning a paradox by inserting the very dualism that you denounced earlier! It is not necessary for me to consciously regulate my individual neurons. I AM those neurons as they read the menu, consider the options, and choose to order the Salad instead of the Steak. Whatever they decide, I have decided.
There are only two objects involved in my choosing what I will have for dinner: the menu and me. All of the prior causes of this event have resolved into one of these two objects. For example:
We can, in theory, trace the causal history of the menu, back through the building of the restaurant, the desires of its founders to operate a restaurant, their choices as to which meals to offer to the public, etc., and all the prior causes of those prior causes.
We can, also in theory, trace the causal history of me, from the time I was born, and all of the influences that shaped me into who and what I was at the time that I decided to have dinner at the restaurant, and what I chose for dinner.
But none of those prior causes of me are able to participate in the choosing operation without first becoming a part of who and what I am today, at the time of my choosing.
Thus, all of the things that you list are resolved into two physical objects: the menu and me. And it will be me that chooses from the menu what I will have for dinner tonight.
The waiter, taking note of this obvious fact, will bring the dinner I ordered to me, and not to any of my prior causes. And he will also bring me the bill for my dinner, holding me responsible for my deliberate action.
Oh, and, of course, we could also, in theory, trace the causal history of the waiter, how it was causally necessary from any prior point in time that he would be the one taking my order in the restaurant.
But, what are we going to do now with all three of these causal histories: of the menu, of me, and of the waiter? Why, dump them in the trash, of course! Because they are useless.
You see, deterministic causal necessity doesn't actually change anything. It is still a simple matter of me, choosing for myself what I will order for dinner, and responsibly paying the bill on the way out.
And yet none of those factors chose from the menu what I would order for dinner. I made that choice myself.
"I" happen to include all of my goals and reasons, all of my genetic proclivities and prior life experiences, all of my beliefs and values, my own brain and its decision making functions. All of that stuff is "me".
You're spinning a paradox by inserting the very dualism that you denounced earlier! It is not necessary for me to consciously regulate my individual neurons. I AM those neurons as they read the menu, consider the options, and choose to order the Salad instead of the Steak. Whatever they decide, I have decided.
There are only two objects involved in my choosing what I will have for dinner: the menu and me. All of the prior causes of this event have resolved into one of these two objects. For example:
We can, in theory, trace the causal history of the menu, back through the building of the restaurant, the desires of its founders to operate a restaurant, their choices as to which meals to offer to the public, etc., and all the prior causes of those prior causes.
We can, also in theory, trace the causal history of me, from the time I was born, and all of the influences that shaped me into who and what I was at the time that I decided to have dinner at the restaurant, and what I chose for dinner.
But none of those prior causes of me are able to participate in the choosing operation without first becoming a part of who and what I am today, at the time of my choosing.
Thus, all of the things that you list are resolved into two physical objects: the menu and me. And it will be me that chooses from the menu what I will have for dinner tonight.
The waiter, taking note of this obvious fact, will bring the dinner I ordered to me, and not to any of my prior causes. And he will also bring me the bill for my dinner, holding me responsible for my deliberate action.
Oh, and, of course, we could also, in theory, trace the causal history of the waiter, how it was causally necessary from any prior point in time that he would be the one taking my order in the restaurant.
But, what are we going to do now with all three of these causal histories: of the menu, of me, and of the waiter? Why, dump them in the trash, of course! Because they are useless.
You see, deterministic causal necessity doesn't actually change anything. It is still a simple matter of me, choosing for myself what I will order for dinner, and responsibly paying the bill on the way out.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,045
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Well, it does in fact. My expectation is that it acts as a vast parallel OISC with a fixed number of processors on a field or set of fields.
That is "a system".
In a broad sense, that's relevant to your dinner order, in the sense it constrains how the system expresses such things as are called "dinners" and "orders".
It just does not have any observable optimization towards that end.
In many ways, the only relevant impacts anything at that level has is to define the most basic and general laws, none of which includes "there shall be a person named Marvin".
In the same way that those rules are abstract and general definitions, they only have an abstract and general impact on the nature of your dinner order: that denizens ordering dinner are a conglomeration of bosons that interact in fixed Deterministic ways.
The universe does act as a system. It acts as a Deterministic system. But as a deterministic system that means that the math of deterministic systems can be leveraged against the fact of what it is so as to exert regulatory control towards locally optimized outcomes.
The system itself is not observably optimized for any particular outcome.
There is no sealed fate, and the future is a blank ticket, just waiting for US to write the name of the destination upon it.
pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,506
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
DBT
Contributor
You made no attempt to address what I said. You just repeat your objection as if nothing was said. Why are you unable to respond to what is being explained?
DBT
Contributor
That‘s not him responding, obviously. It’s the Big Bang. Remember your own position?
I saw your non-response to my architect scenario from about a month back. I’ll deconstruct your non-response as I find time.
Ahem, given that your hit and run comments typically miss, maybe you should take the trouble of getting your facts straight;
''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.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,045
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
And yet you continue to fail to highlight any actual deviation or randomness in any "explosion" of compatibilist choice.
That‘s not him responding, obviously. It’s the Big Bang. Remember your own position?
I saw your non-response to my architect scenario from about a month back. I’ll deconstruct your non-response as I find time.
Ahem, given that your hit and run comments typically miss, maybe you should take the trouble of getting your facts straight;
''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.
Are you going to go off whining again because I didn't link or quote a post, despite the fact that I told you exactly how to do it and even gave you post numbers you can operate on?
Of course, I don't expect much from those who do not know how to discipline themselves, who go so far as to claim it is not possible.
The AntiChris
Senior Member
pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,506
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
That‘s not him responding, obviously. It’s the Big Bang. Remember your own position?
I saw your non-response to my architect scenario from about a month back. I’ll deconstruct your non-response as I find time.
Ahem, given that your hit and run comments typically miss, maybe you should take the trouble of getting your facts straight;
''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.
Hit and run comments? Go back and count how many posts I have made in this thread. Bear in mind I’ve got better things to do with my time than waste it on your time-wasting, quasi-religious inanities. And of course, in this latest little barb of yours, as always you elide the point. When you criticize AntiChris, you write: “Yet you respond regardless.” Did you forget that according to your own bizarre metaphysics, AntiChris has no choice but to respond to you? Did you forget that according to you, it was the Big Bang that responded, or the “system at large,” or whatever other euphemism du jour you come up with in place of the simple fact that it was AntiChris who responded and did so of his own free will? Seriously, have you suddenly forgotten your own position?
DBT
Contributor
And yet you continue to fail to highlight any actual deviation or randomness in any "explosion" of compatibilist choice.
That‘s not him responding, obviously. It’s the Big Bang. Remember your own position?
I saw your non-response to my architect scenario from about a month back. I’ll deconstruct your non-response as I find time.
Ahem, given that your hit and run comments typically miss, maybe you should take the trouble of getting your facts straight;
''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 has nothing to do with what I have said. You are off in your own little world.
It is you whining like a two year old. It's been like that from the beginning.
You gave an example of your error just after I said I wasn't going to trawl back through the thread. I then pointed out why it is an error.
Now you are back to ignoring what I said, with more whining.