Demystifying Determinism

[Jarhyn]

So what part of 'compatibilism does not relate to either random or probabilistic events' do you find hard to understand?

As I said, if you want to make such a claim and sway anyone with the power to do logical reasoning you will find where I invoke either randomness deviation in that post. Just highlight it red*.

Next time you accuse me of trying to bolster an argument with something I do not use to bolster an argument I will make a hyperbolic example of the same caliber just so people see how ridiculous and dishonest you are being here.

*This is a trick question. You cannot because it is not there.

You have invoked deviations and alternate actions on many occasions, just quickly:

"There is, after all, a real world we return to when we wake from our simulations inside ourselves. Even these dreams are in their own way real, real enforced relationships between data whose manipulation acts relatively to objects outside. But still... one must dream of deviations for us to make choice of these dreams as to which to realize." Jarhyn Post 1302

Except that fantasies aren't actual deviations. They are dreams and fantasies, images, and while the rules applied for generating them, when used to this end, are strictly enforced as the same general rules of function of reality, imagined deviations are not actually deviations at all.

The line on the menu that says steak represents a series of the actions the kitchen MAY do IF you say "steak". It doesn't actually contain a whole universe where you say steak. It only suggests that the laws of the universe are aligned such that IF you say "steak please" THEN the predictable result WOULD be the steak on your plate.

This is not a deviation in reality so determinism does not have the power to rule it out, because there is nothing ruling it in! The only thing that would rule such a thing in is the decision to do so, and the person evaluating it in the diner that we are hypothetically observing is not going to. They are going to do exactly one thing, and only after reading and evaluating the menu: they will say "salad".

Nowhere does that change the fact that IF any diner sits in a seat and says STEAK, then they will get a steak and a bill for steak and IF any diner sits in a seat and says SALAD, they will get a salad and a bill for salad.

No actual deviations are happening here.

Actual alternatives do not necessitate alternalities. They are just objects in a set presented to decision.

If I send an array to a POP function, the elements of the array are there and are defined as alternatives not because they are selected or ever will be; they are identified as alternatives because that's just the contextual word for "members" when the "members" are in the set presented to a choice function.

 

[DBT]

The determinism I am using is precisely the same determinism that you use, minus the inclusion of `choosing,` because all actions are fixed by prior states of the system, with no deviations - just as you defined - therefore events within the system, including the brain activity that fixes the following action, are not chosen, they are determined, entailed, fixed, set, an immutable progression of events that involve no randomness or deviation.

No, the denial of choosing as a real event makes your determinism invalid. Choosing is just as real as walking, adding numbers, or brushing your teeth. These are all real events that actually happen in the real world. And every one of these events is as deterministically entailed as any other.

It's not my determinism. It is determinism. There is no mention of 'choosing' in determinism except when it slipped in by compatibilists seeking to support their contention of free will.....which is not actually based on choosing between options because there are no alternate actions within the system.

Every one of these events is a causal mechanism that alters the state of things. Choosing something from the menu causes the waiter to bring you that meal. Walking is how you got from the restaurant door to your table. The waiter adding the cost of the main course, the dessert, and the drinks produces the bill you must pay on the way out. Brushing your teeth helps prevent cavities and improves your smile.

Events don't alter because they are chosen. They alter according to prior states of the system where all events progress and evolve as they are determined, not chosen, and proceed without deviation.

Now that certainly is a problem for both choice and the idea of free will.

No, the problem is that the incompatibilist is denying that real events, events that we all can see, are actually happening, leaving us to conclude that the incompatibilist's claims are delusional.

You know that your definition does not permit deviations or choosing alternate actions.

So insisting that real choices are being made is to ignore the very terms and conditions that compatibilists describe.

Determined actions of course proceed freely, without impediment and restriction just as determined, as they must.

Choosing, just like walking, adding, or brushing your teeth must happen. If we claim that all events are determined to happen in exactly the way that they do happen, then all events must necessarily be included.

If all events must necessarily happen as determined, there is no choice involved.

A singular action that has no alternatives is hardly a matter of choice.

The determinism I'm using is fleshed out with all the causal mechanisms in play. It can be safely embraced by science without becoming entrapped by all of the nonsensical statements that result from figurative thinking. Scientists are empiricists.

The figurative thinking lies at the feet of compatibilism, with those who insist on inserting the word 'choosing' within the definition of a system that has none because there are no alternate actions.

The only difference is the assertion of choosing. Choosing by definition requires the possibility of taking any one of a number of options at any time.

Another problem with the incompatibilist's notion of determinism is that it conflates the notion of possibility with the notion of actuality. It figuratively assumes that if there is only one actuality, then it is AS IF there is only one possibility, and that if there is only one thing that will happen, then it is AS IF there is only one thing that can happen.

Nope, the terms of your own definition of determinism does not permit alternate actions.

Incompatibilists abide by the given terms. Compatibilists try to circumvent their given definition through word play and subterfuge.

The flaw in that theory is that the notion of possibility is the logical token by which we deal with matters of uncertainty. When we do not know what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare for what does happen. Will the traffic light be red or green when we arrive? We don't know. But we do know that it COULD be red and it also COULD be green when we arrive.

That has no bearing on how the system evolves. In fact every step of our process of thoughts and imaginings must necessarily lead to the inevitable action, every thought and imagining being themselves a part of the unfolding system, therefore inevitable.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

For heavens sake, common usage alone does not prove the proposition, God, satan, angels, etc, are no more established as actual entities by common usage than does the common usage of the term 'free will' establish that will is indeed free.

Well, let's go to the restaurant(). If we saw God, Satan, or angels in the restaurant, then that would convince us that they were actual entities. But, we don't see them, not there nor anywhere else. So it is reasonable to presume that they do not exist.

But we do see people open the menu, consider their options, and tell the waiter what they will have for dinner. So, we cannot reasonably deny that choosing exists. Choosing, like walking or chewing gum, is something that we all observe people doing. So these are not imaginary events. They are quite real.

A determinist cannot deny the existence of any real event, because the whole notion of determinism is based upon the assumption that every event is reliably caused by prior events. And if you start erasing events, the causal chains collapse.

There is no way to get from the event "opening the menu" to the event "ordering a meal" without "choosing from the menu what we will order" between them.

Although you would like to use some other term, such as "information processing", the proper term is "choosing", because it distinguishes one form of information processing from another, such as "performing math calculations" or "reading a book" or "solving a puzzle". All of these mental activities are included within "information processing". And you will find all of them: choose, calculate, read, and solve described in our dictionaries. Each represents a different real operation that actual people actually perform. Thus, we cannot reasonably claim that these operations do not exist.

 

[Jarhyn]

DBT, no matter how many times you screech that because there are no alternalities that there are no alternatives it does not establish your claim.

Alternatives are observable all over. And you're right, determinism does not mention choices any more than the definition of television makes mention about jumping over sharks on waterskis.

The problem with your reasoning on that front is that while determinism does not mention choosing in the definition and while television does not mention shark jumping, neither does this omission of a possible state rule* it out!

All that is required is the formulation of a menu and the presentation of that menu to an entity which will read it and make a choice of it's elements such that a subset, determined by the predelictions of the entity, is returned.

That's it. That's all that's required. It requires the statement "IF this then that" to be true. It does not require "this" to be true; It is a statement about the rules of entailment, not the contents of what is being entailed upon.

*Note the use of RULE here. The RULES do not forbid it. The state, however, may.

 

[DBT]

So what part of 'compatibilism does not relate to either random or probabilistic events' do you find hard to understand?

As I said, if you want to make such a claim and sway anyone with the power to do logical reasoning you will find where I invoke either randomness deviation in that post. Just highlight it red*.

Next time you accuse me of trying to bolster an argument with something I do not use to bolster an argument I will make a hyperbolic example of the same caliber just so people see how ridiculous and dishonest you are being here.

*This is a trick question. You cannot because it is not there.

You have invoked deviations and alternate actions on many occasions, just quickly:

"There is, after all, a real world we return to when we wake from our simulations inside ourselves. Even these dreams are in their own way real, real enforced relationships between data whose manipulation acts relatively to objects outside. But still... one must dream of deviations for us to make choice of these dreams as to which to realize." Jarhyn Post 1302

Except that fantasies aren't actual deviations. They are dreams and fantasies, images, and while the rules applied for generating them, when used to this end, are strictly enforced as the same general rules of function of reality, imagined deviations are not actually deviations at all.

You imply it in your wording when you say: "one must dream of deviations for us to make choice of these dreams as to which to realize" - you must realize that 'dreaming of deviations' does not make the outcome a choice because, as you say, the dreaming of deviations is itself fixed by the system as it evolves, as is the following action.

Which makes you use 'make choice' misleading and false, because at no point is there a deviation or choice. Not in the necessary primary imagining of deviations (an illusion) or the action that follows.

What you say is inheritly contradictory.

And you imply it here: "I may not know which dinner I want. It may take some mental exercise to figure it out, put together some choices, and actually choose." - Jarhyn post #1297

You so called clarification does not work "put together some choices and actually choose" does not work because every mental event is subject to natural necessity and leads inevitably to the one action, where nothing is chosen, not your musings, not your thoughts, not your imagining and not the action that necessarily follows.

So, again, be it intentional or unintentional, your wording - "put together some choices, and actually choose" is false and misleading.

 

[DBT]

DBT, no matter how many times you screech that because there are no alternalities that there are no alternatives it does not establish your claim.

Alternatives are observable all over. And you're right, determinism does not mention choices any more than the definition of television makes mention about jumping over sharks on waterskis.

The problem with your reasoning on that front is that while determinism does not mention choosing in the definition and while television does not mention shark jumping, neither does this omission of a possible state rule* it out!

All that is required is the formulation of a menu and the presentation of that menu to an entity which will read it and make a choice of it's elements such that a subset, determined by the predelictions of the entity, is returned.

That's it. That's all that's required. It requires the statement "IF this then that" to be true. It does not require "this" to be true; It is a statement about the rules of entailment, not the contents of what is being entailed upon.

*Note the use of RULE here. The RULES do not forbid it. The state, however, may.

Screech? I remind you of the terms of your own definition of determinism. To no evail because you still bang on about "put together some choices and actually choose" regardless of this assertion contradicting your own terms of reference.

That you are yet to grasp the nature of choice or the terms of your own definition of determinism by invoking "actually choose" demonstrates that you don't undersand either.

You don't understand that to 'actually choose' requires the possibility of alternate actions.

Which you both imply and deny.

The screeching you hear is yours, Sweetie.

 

[DBT]

For heavens sake, common usage alone does not prove the proposition, God, satan, angels, etc, are no more established as actual entities by common usage than does the common usage of the term 'free will' establish that will is indeed free.

Well, let's go to the restaurant(). If we saw God, Satan, or angels in the restaurant, then that would convince us that they were actual entities. But, we don't see them, not there nor anywhere else. So it is reasonable to presume that they do not exist.

But we do see people open the menu, consider their options, and tell the waiter what they will have for dinner. So, we cannot reasonably deny that choosing exists. Choosing, like walking or chewing gum, is something that we all observe people doing. So these are not imaginary events. They are quite real.

A determinist cannot deny the existence of any real event, because the whole notion of determinism is based upon the assumption that every event is reliably caused by prior events. And if you start erasing events, the causal chains collapse.

There is no way to get from the event "opening the menu" to the event "ordering a meal" without "choosing from the menu what we will order" between them.

Although you would like to use some other term, such as "information processing", the proper term is "choosing", because it distinguishes one form of information processing from another, such as "performing math calculations" or "reading a book" or "solving a puzzle". All of these mental activities are included within "information processing". And you will find all of them: choose, calculate, read, and solve described in our dictionaries. Each represents a different real operation that actual people actually perform. Thus, we cannot reasonably claim that these operations do not exist.

Once again, your own definition of determinism does not permit alternate actions, and without the possibility of alternate actions, there is no 'choosing' because 'choosing' by definition requires the possibility of alternate actions.

Given that the system just evolves without deviation, all events are subject to natural necessity, not choice.

 

[The AntiChris]

You simply don't understand how language usage works. When a word/term has more than one meaning in common usage then no single usage is 'correct'.

The problem is that you fail to grasp the simple fact that the word is not the thing, that the word `tree` is no more a tree than the compatibilist definition of free will is free will.

This response bears absolutely no relationship to the text you quoted

It is relevant to your rationale; 'that's how people use words and terms.'

Don't you think that was the point?

No.

Your "the word `tree` is no more a tree than the compatibilist definition of free will is free will" is baffling. Of course the compatibilist definition of free will is free will - that's the point of a definition. I suspect what you really mean is that it's not your preconceived notion of free will.

Or more to the point, why it fails as a definition.

The only reason a dictionary definition could possibly fail is if it doesn't accurately reflect common usage.

For heavens sake, common usage alone does not prove the proposition,

I have no idea what "the proposition" is here. Claiming common usage simply establishes that a community of competent English speakers use a word/term in a particular way, nothing more.

God, satan, angels, etc, are no more established as actual entities by common usage than does the common usage of the term 'free will' establish that will is indeed free.

The fact is that they can be, dependent on the referents of the particular definition (usage). Remember my Clapton is God example (Clapton exists, supernatural beings don't exist)? Are you aware that wealthy entrepreneurial investors are also known as angels?

The referent of libertarian free will (contra-causal will) doesn't exist in reality. Given the libertarian definition, free will does not exist.

The referent of compatibilist free will (human activity without coercion or other forms of undue influence) clearly does exist. Given the compatibilist definition, free will does exist.

So, it turns out that it is possible for free will to exist and to not exist, dependent on the definition in use. That's the nature of language.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The denial of choosing as a real event makes your determinism invalid. Choosing is just as real as walking, adding numbers, or brushing your teeth. These are all real events that actually happen in the real world. And every one of these events is as deterministically entailed as any other.

... There is no mention of 'choosing' in determinism except when it slipped in by compatibilists seeking to support their contention of free will.....

There is no mention of 'brushing your teeth' in determinism either. But, just like choosing, it is a deterministic event. Would you deny that 'teeth brushing' is a real event, claiming it is slipped in by the American Dental Association, to support their contention that the 'teeth brushing' event is a true causal mechanism that reduces cavities?

The definition of determinism does not require a list of all of the events that it encompasses. Determinism simply asserts that ALL events are reliably caused by prior events. This includes the events of walking, talking, chewing gum, calculating sums, and choosing what we will have for dinner.

... which is not actually based on choosing between options because there are no alternate actions within the system.

And yet there is the menu, filled with alternate actions, and we must choose one of them if we are to have our dinner. And if you smile in a mirror, you can see the multiple teeth that you need to brush. And you had best hope that if you ever get a cavity, that your dentist will choose the correct tooth to drill!

Choosing is a real event that takes place in the real world. Determinism, to be valid, may not erase any real events, because if it does, the causal chains collapse. So, choosing not only will happen, it necessarily must happen in a deterministic world.

Events don't alter because they are chosen. They alter according to prior states of the system where all events progress and evolve as they are determined, not chosen, and proceed without deviation.

Nothing is being altered. Choosing causally determines what we will have for dinner. And it was always going to happen that we would be making that choice from the restaurant menu, according to our own goals and reasons, exactly as we did.

Determinism doesn't change anything that happens. Determinism doesn't change why anything happens. It simply asserts that all events will be reliably caused by prior events. Choosing is the prior event that causes our dinner order. And, because it was actually us doing the choosing, the waiter will bring the meal, and the bill for it, to us, and to no one else.

You know that your definition does not permit deviations or choosing alternate actions.

My definition permits everything that actually does happen to happen. Choosing happens, and determinism does not prevent it from happening, but rather necessitates that it will happen, exactly as it does happen.

The incompatibilist cripples their determinism, by asserting that events that obviously are happening are not "really" happening. It is a delusion caused by figurative thinking.

So insisting that real choices are being made is to ignore the very terms and conditions that compatibilists describe.

I have explicitly given you the very terms and conditions that my compatibilism describes. Everything that happens is reliably caused by prior events. We, ourselves, in nearly all cases, happen to be the most meaningful and relevant prior causes of our deliberate actions. The act of deliberation is normally the most meaningful and relevant cause of the deliberate act (exceptions would include things like a significant mental illness, in which case the illness is held responsible).

If all events must necessarily happen as determined, there is no choice involved.

Clearly false, as easily demonstrated in any restaurant.

A singular action that has no alternatives is hardly a matter of choice.

The alternatives are there on the restaurant menu. We have no alternative but to consider the alternatives. The series of events that takes us through the choosing process are deterministic, of course. But that series of events, that proceed without deviation, constitute the choosing operation itself.

Choosing is a deterministic event. And free will is likewise a deterministic event.

Free will does not require freedom from deterministic causal necessity, it only requires freedom from coercion and undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

We may be tempted into figurative thinking, such as picturing causal necessity AS IF it were someone holding a gun to our head or otherwise forcing us to do something against our will. But that is never the case with causal necessity. What we will inevitably do by causal necessity is exactly identical to us just being us, doing what we choose to do. It is not a meaningful constraint. It is never something that we can or need to be "free of". It is nothing more than ordinary cause and effect, something that we all take for granted.

The determinism I'm using is fleshed out with all the causal mechanisms in play. It can be safely embraced by science without becoming entrapped by all of the nonsensical statements that result from figurative thinking. Scientists are empiricists.

The figurative thinking lies at the feet of compatibilism, with those who insist on inserting the word 'choosing' within the definition of a system that has none because there are no alternate actions.

The test for figurative thinking is simple: compare what is said to what is actually observed to be happening. Are the people in the restaurant actually choosing from the menu what they will order for dinner? Yes. Choosing is a logical operation that inputs multiple options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice. There is the literal menu containing multiple options, there is the literal dinner order given to the waiter. The criteria of evaluation is not directly observable to us, but we can ask any customer how they went about deciding to order that meal, and most of them will be able to tell us.

So, choosing literally (actually, objectively, really and truly) happened. The compatibilist's claim is literal. Only the incompatibilist's claim is figurative.

 

[Jarhyn]

Screech? I remind you of the terms of your own definition of determinism. To no evail because you still bang on about "put together some choices and actually choose" regardless of this assertion contradicting your own terms of reference

Yes. Screech. And here in the above is yet more screeching.

You claim a contradiction, I challenge you to find it. You have not, do not, and cannot.

You don't understand that to 'actually choose' requires the possibility of alternate actions

You really don't understand what is meant by possibility.

Again, "possibility" just says "given some set of rules and some presented momentary state under those rules, this is what would happen".

It is possible for a neutron star to continue to exist below the Chandrasekhar limit, IF it already existed.

It is not possible for a neutron star to form well below the Chandrasekhar limit in this region of spacetime, as far as we know.

Thus while it is possible for such a small neutron star to exist, it is not possible for it to exist here and now. It is not clear whether one would ever exist anywhere, ever, be without having been engineered on purpose.

you must realize that 'dreaming of deviations' does not make the outcome a choice because, as you say, the dreaming of deviations is itself fixed by the system as it evolves, as is the following action.

Your error in logic comes in your accusation that it is the dreaming that makes it a choice. It is it. It is not the dreaming but the material reality that the dreams were dreamed, and the images of them now exist.

What makes it a choice is that there is a list of objects, the list is presented to some algorithm, and the algorithm returns some subset of a set on the basis of the set presented to it.

Of set, select subset. That's a "choice". "Of set, select subset" is allowed to be determined by fixed process. It is in fact totally agnostic to the "how" of the selection.

The point is that we can watch and identify the fixed process, and in many cases modify it, knowing the nature of the selection from the apparatus of the selector. By so identifying responsible elements in a choice process, we can change what choices it makes.

This is why we make identification of which wills are free and why and in identifying responsibility unto corrections.

 

[DBT]

You simply don't understand how language usage works. When a word/term has more than one meaning in common usage then no single usage is 'correct'.

The problem is that you fail to grasp the simple fact that the word is not the thing, that the word `tree` is no more a tree than the compatibilist definition of free will is free will.

This response bears absolutely no relationship to the text you quoted

It is relevant to your rationale; 'that's how people use words and terms.'

Don't you think that was the point?

No.

Your "the word `tree` is no more a tree than the compatibilist definition of free will is free will" is baffling. Of course the compatibilist definition of free will is free will - that's the point of a definition. I suspect what you really mean is that it's not your preconceived notion of free will.

It's baffling to you because it doesn't suit your needs.

Otherwise it's quite simple: words being symbols used for the purpose of communication, using words doesn't mean the object that is being referred to necessarily exists. Anyone should be able to understand this.

Or more to the point, why it fails as a definition.

The only reason a dictionary definition could possibly fail is if it doesn't accurately reflect common usage.

For heavens sake, common usage alone does not prove the proposition,

I have no idea what "the proposition" is here. Claiming common usage simply establishes that a community of competent English speakers use a word/term in a particular way, nothing more.

God, satan, angels, etc, are no more established as actual entities by common usage than does the common usage of the term 'free will' establish that will is indeed free.

The fact is that they can be, dependent on the referents of the particular definition (usage). Remember my Clapton is God example (Clapton exists, supernatural beings don't exist)? Are you aware that wealthy entrepreneurial investors are also known as angels?

For Heavens sake! Hey, I used the word 'Heaven,' does that mean that Heaven is a proven proposition?

The referent of libertarian free will (contra-causal will) doesn't exist in reality. Given the libertarian definition, free will does not exist.

The referent of compatibilist free will (human activity without coercion or other forms of undue influence) clearly does exist. Given the compatibilist definition, free will does exist.

So, it turns out that it is possible for free will to exist and to not exist, dependent on the definition in use. That's the nature of language.

Lordy, Lordy, what a muddle.

 

[DBT]

Screech? I remind you of the terms of your own definition of determinism. To no evail because you still bang on about "put together some choices and actually choose" regardless of this assertion contradicting your own terms of reference

Yes. Screech. And here in the above is yet more screeching.

That's you Sweetie. It's called desperation.

You claim a contradiction, I challenge you to find it. You have not, do not, and cannot.

I have just pointed out your contradiction using quotes of what you have said.

Here it is again.

"I may not know which dinner I want. It may take some mental exercise to figure it out, put together some choices, and actually choose." - Jarhyn post #1297

The contradiction lies between the claim that you can "actually choose" and your definition of determinism that allows no alternate actions, randomness or deviation.

The reasons why you have presented a contradict lies in the nature and definition of choice or choosing.

Choice requires two or more realizable options, the actual possibility of taking any option at any given time, that is choice and in your words, 'actually choosing."

However, as it happens that your definition of determinism does not have sets of realizable options at any given moment in time, there can be none of you claimed 'actual choosing' at any time.

So you have a contradiction between your claim of 'actually choosing' and your definition of determinism that has no alternate action and no 'actually choosing'

Here is what said;
You imply it in your wording when you say:

You imply it in your wording when you say: "one must dream of deviations for us to make choice of these dreams as to which to realize" - you must realize that 'dreaming of deviations' does not make the outcome a choice because, as you say, the dreaming of deviations is itself fixed by the system as it evolves, as is the following action.

Which makes you use 'make choice' misleading and false, because at no point is there a deviation or choice. Not in the necessary primary imagining of deviations (an illusion) or the action that follows.

What you say is inheritly contradictory.

And you imply it here: "I may not know which dinner I want. It may take some mental exercise to figure it out, put together some choices, and actually choose." - Jarhyn post #1297

You so called clarification does not work "put together some choices and actually choose" does not work because every mental event is subject to natural necessity and leads inevitably to the one action, where nothing is chosen, not your musings, not your thoughts, not your imagining and not the action that necessarily follows.

So, again, be it intentional or unintentional, your wording - "put together some choices, and actually choose" is false and misleading.


So how is 'actually choosing' within a deterministic system supposed work? Random or probabilistic events in the brain?

 

[The AntiChris]

it's quite simple: words being symbols used for the purpose of communication, using words doesn't mean the object that is being referred to necessarily exists. Anyone should be able to understand this.

Right now, it looks as if you're deliberately attempting to misrepresent me. I've clearly responded to this mistaken criticism of my position on at least 4 previous occasions:

I guess what you're trying to say is that defining a concept doesn't establish its existence in reality and, of course, you're right...

You may define God as the Creator of the universe, for instance, but your definition has absolutely no bearing on whether a Creator of the universe exists or not.

That's exactly what I said in the piece you quoted : "I guess what you're trying to say is that defining a concept doesn't establish its existence in reality and, of course, you're right, "

You missed the point. Which is that words are just symbols, language, used to convey information in the form of references to objects, events, ideas, concepts, etc. Which doesn't mean that because words have meanings that what they refer exists; God, gods, angels, demons, etcetera.

No, I haven't missed your point. If you recall I already agreed with the point you're making in post #1247 ("If you define God as a supernatural entity, then many reasonable people would agree God doesn't exist").

God, satan, angels, etc, are no more established as actual entities by common usage than does the common usage of the term 'free will' establish that will is indeed free.

The fact is that they can be, dependent on the referents of the particular definition (usage). Remember my Clapton is God example (Clapton exists, supernatural beings don't exist)? Are you aware that wealthy entrepreneurial investors are also known as angels?

The referent of libertarian free will (contra-causal will) doesn't exist in reality. Given the libertarian definition, free will does not exist.

The referent of compatibilist free will (human activity without coercion or other forms of undue influence) clearly does exist. Given the compatibilist definition, free will does exist.

So, it turns out that it is possible for free will to exist and to not exist, dependent on the definition in use. That's the nature of language.

Lordy, Lordy, what a muddle.

Please explain.

What precisely do you disagree with? What's the "muddle"?

 

[DBT]

The denial of choosing as a real event makes your determinism invalid. Choosing is just as real as walking, adding numbers, or brushing your teeth. These are all real events that actually happen in the real world. And every one of these events is as deterministically entailed as any other.

It's not a denial. The issue here is choice or 'choosing' in relation to determinism.
The problem is that choice is defined as the ability to take any one of a number of options at any given moment, while determinism on the other hand does not permit alternate actions at any given moment.

The singular action that is taken at any given moment must necessarily be taken, with no possible alternate action....consequently there is no choosing between options within a deterministic system, and no choice.

Everything that you think and do is related to and entailed by external and internal conditions that were set in motion - according to your own definition - before you were born (no randomness or deviation within a deterministic system)

... There is no mention of 'choosing' in determinism except when it slipped in by compatibilists seeking to support their contention of free will.....

There is no mention of 'brushing your teeth' in determinism either. But, just like choosing, it is a deterministic event. Would you deny that 'teeth brushing' is a real event, claiming it is slipped in by the American Dental Association, to support their contention that the 'teeth brushing' event is a true causal mechanism that reduces cavities?

Determined events are not chosen. Natural necessity, not choice is the driver of determinism.

The definition of determinism does not require a list of all of the events that it encompasses. Determinism simply asserts that ALL events are reliably caused by prior events. This includes the events of walking, talking, chewing gum, calculating sums, and choosing what we will have for dinner.

It's more than reliable. Fixed is the word you are looking for. That which is fixed by the prior state of the system cannot be claimed to be freely chosen.

... which is not actually based on choosing between options because there are no alternate actions within the system.

And yet there is the menu, filled with alternate actions, and we must choose one of them if we are to have our dinner. And if you smile in a mirror, you can see the multiple teeth that you need to brush. And you had best hope that if you ever get a cavity, that your dentist will choose the correct tooth to drill!

We have been through all of this. Different people, different tastes, different sets of proclivities equates to different actions and a menu that caters for those who are attracted to the style of food on offer, Thai, Italian, Greek, Chinese....

Choosing is a real event that takes place in the real world. Determinism, to be valid, may not erase any real events, because if it does, the causal chains collapse. So, choosing not only will happen, it necessarily must happen in a deterministic world.

If the world is deterministic, every action is a matter of natural necessity, not choice.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

Events don't alter because they are chosen. They alter according to prior states of the system where all events progress and evolve as they are determined, not chosen, and proceed without deviation.

Nothing is being altered. Choosing causally determines what we will have for dinner. And it was always going to happen that we would be making that choice from the restaurant menu, according to our own goals and reasons, exactly as we did.

No, what you call "choosing" is not exempt from natural necessity, where every incremental step in the process must necessarily lead to its inevitable conclusion: the determined action.

That is the antithesis of choice.

A determined action is clearly not a choice. No event is an isolated action, there are no independent agents, everything that happens is an interaction between many events. Every cause an effect and every effect a cause. A web of causality that does not allow freedom of will or taking alternatives/choosing.

 

[Jarhyn]

The contradiction lies between the claim that you can "actually choose" and your definition of determinism that allows no alternate actions, randomness or deviation

The reasons why you have presented a contradict lies in the nature and definition of choice or choosing.

The definition of "choice" being discussed here is "set presented to process being reduced to subset."

Nowhere does this require that the process returns "any".

Nowhere does this deny process or causal necessity.

The problem is that when I say choice, I mean something completely different than you.

Real alternatives, things that would happen IF there were a situation as described as it's preconditions, do not require real deviations, they just require a combination of facts to be true, which generally are.

They don't require the test of the IF statement to pass for the "then" of the statement to be executable... it merely requires it for it to be executed.

Dreaming of deviations does not "make" the choice it makes the options of the choice. Without the dreams there are no options. The choice is made by a fixed process of evaluation upon the options.

On one hand you deny or hand wave away the process which creates options (dreaming, creating simulations as opposed to creating alternalities), and on the other hand you hand wave away the process which reduces those options on the basis of mutual exclusion and feasibility.

You cannot choose something that is not an option. You cannot choose from multiple options if you don't make yourself develop multiple options before choosing, and you cannot review your choice process unless you make an effort to observe it and it's reasons.

But that's hard work, and you really seem to have an aversion to that.

Your persistent failure to understand that is the problem at hand.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The issue here is choice or 'choosing' in relation to determinism.

Agreed.

The problem is that choice is defined as the ability to take any one of a number of options at any given moment, while determinism on the other hand does not permit alternate actions at any given moment.

An 'ability' is defined as something that you 'can' do, if you choose to do it. An ability does not disappear just because you decide not to do it. So, we are having more than just a problem with the definition of choosing, we are also having a problem with the definition of an 'ability'. To have an ability means that it is possible for you to do it, even if you do not actually do it.

Whether you 'will' do it, or not, is fully addressed by determinism. Whether you are 'able' to do it or not is a separate question, a question that is not answered by knowing what you 'will' do.

Regardless what you will choose for dinner, you are able to choose any item on the menu and the restaurant is able to provide you with that meal. Every item on the menu is a realizable alternative, a real possibility.

Am I making an empty assertion? No, and here is why. The series of deterministic events that make up the choosing operation include certain assumptions that are part of the logical operation. First, it is logically necessary that we see two or more options. Second, it is logically necessary that we believe that we can choose either one of them. If we believe we can only choose one option, then the series of mental events immediately stops, and we order that option without any further consideration of anything else on the menu. So, in order for the deterministic series of events to continue, it is logically necessary that it is true that we have at least two real possibilities and we have the ability to choose either one.

Thus, the "ability to do otherwise" is hard coded into the deterministic series of events. It is part of the logical operation, just like having at least two numbers that can actually be added together is required by the logical operation of addition.

The singular action that is taken at any given moment must necessarily be taken,

Yes. And in this deterministic series of events each item that we consider choosing will appear to the mind as a realizable option. Any item that appears unrealizable will be rejected as impossible, and is never given any consideration at all. Thus, every item that you spent a single thought considering was necessarily believed to be a real possibility, something that you could actually order if you chose to.

The individual thoughts, of each of the many things that you 'could' order, were just as causally necessary as the final thought of what you 'would' order.

with no possible alternate action....consequently there is no choosing between options within a deterministic system, and no choice.

And that's where you fork things up. There is no alternate to the actual series of thoughts that will take place. But within that actual series of thoughts we find the thoughts of each item on the menu being considered as a real possibility, even though we decide not to order it.

The ability to see the menu this way is necessary to produce our dinner order. And if you break the ability to see the menu as a list of real possibilities, each of which is something that we can order, then you break the human ability to have dinner in a restaurant. So, please, stop trying to fork this up.

I've demonstrated the logical paradox that results when conflating what we can do with what we will do. There must be multiple things that we 'can' choose to do in order to logically work our way to the single thing that we 'will' choose to do. Limiting what we 'can' do to what we 'will' do is a blunder of language and logic.

Everything that you think and do is related to and entailed by external and internal conditions that were set in motion - according to your own definition - before you were born (no randomness or deviation within a deterministic system)

Yes, but that doesn't really matter. Universal causal necessity doesn't actually change anything, because what I will inevitably do is exactly identical to me just being me, doing what I choose to do. That's not a meaningful constraint. It is not something that anyone can or needs to be 'free of'. It's basically 'what I would have done anyway'.

Oh, and we ourselves have been a part of that causal chain from the day we were born. So, please stop forgetting that we are causal agents that go about in the world causing stuff to happen, and doing so for our own reasons and interests, which are not found in any other objects.

Nothing is being altered. Choosing causally determines what we will have for dinner. And it was always going to happen that we would be making that choice from the restaurant menu, according to our own goals and reasons, exactly as we did.

... what you call "choosing" is not exempt from natural necessity, where every incremental step in the process must necessarily lead to its inevitable conclusion: the determined action.

Of course. But it is not just what I call "choosing", I'm pretty sure you call it choosing as well. If you didn't, then you could not answer the simple question: "What did you choose for dinner?" or "Which college did you choose to attend?" or "Why do you choose to spend so much time arguing over determinism and free will?"

That is the antithesis of choice.

Obviously it is not. Choosing actually happens. It is a real event that happens in the real world. From a determinist's viewpoint, it necessarily happens, and cannot be avoided.

 

[DBT]

The contradiction lies between the claim that you can "actually choose" and your definition of determinism that allows no alternate actions, randomness or deviation

The reasons why you have presented a contradict lies in the nature and definition of choice or choosing.

The definition of "choice" being discussed here is "set presented to process being reduced to subset."

Nowhere does this require that the process returns "any".

Nowhere does this deny process or causal necessity.

The problem is that when I say choice, I mean something completely different than you.

Real alternatives, things that would happen IF there were a situation as described as it's preconditions, do not require real deviations, they just require a combination of facts to be true, which generally are.

They don't require the test of the IF statement to pass for the "then" of the statement to be executable... it merely requires it for it to be executed.

Dreaming of deviations does not "make" the choice it makes the options of the choice. Without the dreams there are no options. The choice is made by a fixed process of evaluation upon the options.

On one hand you deny or hand wave away the process which creates options (dreaming, creating simulations as opposed to creating alternalities), and on the other hand you hand wave away the process which reduces those options on the basis of mutual exclusion and feasibility.

You cannot choose something that is not an option. You cannot choose from multiple options if you don't make yourself develop multiple options before choosing, and you cannot review your choice process unless you make an effort to observe it and it's reasons.

But that's hard work, and you really seem to have an aversion to that.

Your persistent failure to understand that is the problem at hand.

It's not my persistent failure to understand how choice is defined, or what choice means, it is yours.

It is not my persistent failure to understand the implication of determinism as you define it, it is yours.

It is not my persistent failure to understand that how choice is defined, or that what it means does not relate to determinism as you define it, that's you, Sweetie.

It is you who fails to grasp that determinism - as you define it - does not permit alternate actions, therefore no choosing between options, where what is done in any moment happens necessarily with no possible alternatives (as you define determinism), so given there is no 'actual choosing' - as you put - to make that claim contradicts the terms of your definition.

That you are unable or unwilling to grasp such a simple thing is surprising, yet in other ways, not all that surprising.

You do know how choice is defined, right?
You do know how you defined determinism, right?

Now try to put two and two together.

 

[DBT]

The issue here is choice or 'choosing' in relation to determinism.

Agreed.

The problem is that choice is defined as the ability to take any one of a number of options at any given moment, while determinism on the other hand does not permit alternate actions at any given moment.

An 'ability' is defined as something that you 'can' do, if you choose to do it. An ability does not disappear just because you decide not to do it. So, we are having more than just a problem with the definition of choosing, we are also having a problem with the definition of an 'ability'. To have an ability means that it is possible for you to do it, even if you do not actually do it.

The definition of 'choice' or 'choosing' is not controversial;

Choice; an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.

The terms of the definition of determinism has been agreed to be that events proceed without deviation based on antecedents, which includes brain activity and thought processes that must necessarily result in a single action regardless of the number of options that are presented. They are options for other people, each their own necessary action.

That determinism. The non controversial definition of choice does not relate to a system that permits no deviations, no alternate actions, therefore no choice.

Whether you 'will' do it, or not, is fully addressed by determinism. Whether you are 'able' to do it or not is a separate question, a question that is not answered by knowing what you 'will' do.

Determinism is a matter of what must happen, as determined, not chosen, no picking or choosing.
It is not choice but natural necessity that drives a deterministic system.

Regardless what you will choose for dinner, you are able to choose any item on the menu and the restaurant is able to provide you with that meal. Every item on the menu is a realizable alternative, a real possibility.

That completely and utterly contradicts the terms and conditions of your own definition of determinism....all events fixed as a matter of natural law, no deviation.

Am I making an empty assertion? No, and here is why. The series of deterministic events that make up the choosing operation include certain assumptions that are part of the logical operation.

There is no 'choosing operation' because fixed by natural necessity permits no alternate actions. Everything that happens, happens necessarily, set, fixed, immutable, no negotiation.

First, it is logically necessary that we see two or more options. Second, it is logically necessary that we believe that we can choose either one of them. If we believe we can only choose one option, then the series of mental events immediately stops, and we order that option without any further consideration of anything else on the menu. So, in order for the deterministic series of events to continue, it is logically necessary that it is true that we have at least two real possibilities and we have the ability to choose either one.

What we see and what must necessarily happen in any given moment are two different things.
''To a determinist, all choice is illusory. The literal meaning of choice is that there are multiple options, and the person selects one of them. Thus, choice requires multiple possible outcomes, which is a no-no to determinism. To the determinist, the march of causality will make one outcome inevitable, and so it is wrong to believe that anything else was possible. The chooser does not yet know which option he or she is going to choose, hence the subjective experience of choice. Thus, the subjective choosing is simply a matter of one's own ignorance - ignorance that those other outcomes are not really possibilities at all."

And of course, we are talking about determinism, and compatibilists are 'determinists.'

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not my persistent failure to understand how choice is defined, or what choice means, it is yours

No, it's pretty clearly that you persistently fail to understand what I mean when I say "choice"

[No] alternate actions, therefore no choosing between options

And yet again you fail to accept anyone else's usage, instead shoehorning your own in.

Choosing between options does not require "alternalities". It just requires a process that takes a set and returns a subset.

A set of marbles is contained in a narrow tube. They are undeniably inside the tube.

A subset of marbles pops out the end of the narrow tube.

This choice process is "last in, first out."

That only the last in that has not been taken out is selected by this process does not change the fact that it conforms to the compatibilist definition of choice. It may only return a single specific marble, and yet it is still a "choice: a process by which a subset is selected from a set".

What makes the alternatives alternatives are not their ability to be selected at random access; they cannot be selected at random access. Rather, they are "alternatives to the choice process" because they are in the tube.

You could ask "which alternative is next to be picked" and then say "the top one, duh". It doesn't make them any less alternatives because they won't be picked immediately. They are alternatives because they are in a tube waiting to be shaken out, even if they never are.

You have invented a flimsy stick that you can interject into your wheel spokes because you don't like being expected to try riding a bike, metaphorically speaking.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The definition of 'choice' or 'choosing' is not controversial; Choice; an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.

Yes, that is called "choosing". It is a logical operation that inputs two or more possibilities, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice. When we observe someone doing this, such as our customers in the restaurant who open the menu, consider their options, and place their order, we correctly say that "choosing" has just happened.

The terms of the definition of determinism has been agreed to be that events proceed without deviation based on antecedents, which includes brain activity and thought processes that must necessarily result in a single action regardless of the number of options that are presented.

Correct. Choosing is a deterministic process. Given the person's current dietary goals and reasons, what they had earlier for breakfast and lunch, and any other factors in play, their choice is theoretically predictable even if not practically predictable.

They are options for other people, each their own necessary action.

That's where you go astray. The multiple options on the menu are input to each person's own choosing operation. They cannot be discarded as "options for other people". Each person is inputting the same menu with its multiple options. The choices are different because the people are different. Different people have different dietary goals and reasons. Different people had different thigs for breakfast and lunch. It is the difference in the people that account for the different choices. But every person has exactly the same menu.

Every person has multiple possibilities to choose from. The menu is an indisputable empirical fact.

The notion that only one option is a possible choice for each person is another example of figurative thinking. It seems to you that it is AS IF each person had a different menu, and each person's menu had only one item. That accounts for your claim that "they are options for other people". The fact is that all of the options on the menu are there for each customer.

That determinism. The non controversial definition of choice does not relate to a system that permits no deviations, no alternate actions, therefore no choice.

When reason leads you to contradict empirical facts, you need to examine your reasoning. For example, the fact that each step in the choosing operation was inevitable does not contradict the fact that choosing is happening.

You continually insist that it must be one or the other, either by causal necessity or by choice. But that is a false dichotomy. Choice, like every other logical operation, proceeds deterministically according to its specific steps. These steps include the consideration of multiple options, estimating the likely outcomes of each, and selecting the option with the best outcome.

The same is true for other logical operations, like simple mathematical calculations such as adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing.
All of these operations are deterministic, proceeding according to its own logical process, the same inputs reliably producing the same outputs.

For choosing, the inputs include the restaurant menu, our memory of what we ate earlier in the day, our current dietary goals, and probably many other factors. When those things are all the same, the choice will also be the same.


Regardless what you will choose for dinner, you are able to choose any item on the menu and the restaurant is able to provide you with that meal. Every item on the menu is a realizable alternative, a real possibility.

There is no 'choosing operation' because fixed by natural necessity permits no alternate actions. Everything that happens, happens necessarily, set, fixed, immutable, no negotiation.

Again, there is no contradiction between the fact that choosing proceeds deterministically and that choosing is actually happening. Your constant posing of "necessity versus choice" is an illusion. Choosing is both deterministically necessitated (for example, when we open the restaurant menu) and proceeds logically through a deterministic series of steps (we consider the various options in terms of our goals and reasons and choose the one that seems best to us at that time).

And any negotiation with ourselves as to what best fits our goals for this specific dinner will be performed deterministically as well.

It is not one or the other. It is both.

What we see and what must necessarily happen in any given moment are two different things.
''To a determinist, all choice is illusory. The literal meaning of choice is that there are multiple options, and the person selects one of them. Thus, choice requires multiple possible outcomes, which is a no-no to determinism. To the determinist, the march of causality will make one outcome inevitable, and so it is wrong to believe that anything else was possible. The chooser does not yet know which option he or she is going to choose, hence the subjective experience of choice. Thus, the subjective choosing is simply a matter of one's own ignorance - ignorance that those other outcomes are not really possibilities at all."

And of course, we are talking about determinism, and compatibilists are 'determinists.'

Hello, Roy Baumeister! I know of you indirectly through the studies of the ill effects of free will skepticism on behavior that Eddy Nahmias and others have quoted. And I notice that you follow William James, another psychologist, who rejects determinism.

But I wonder how you would approach treating a patient who, like DBT, is fixated upon your "hard" definition of determinism. Can you provide the key insights needed to escape the paradox? Or will you insist that your patient reject the notion of reliable cause and effect?

Key Insight #1: There is no "no-no" in deterministic causal necessity. Everything that we empirically observe happening is actually happening, including the multiple possibilities on the menu and our ability to choose any one of those options for dinner. The fact that every event is causally necessary from any prior point in time does not change any of the meaningful and relevant causes of those events. Choosing still happens, and it is still us doing the choosing.

Key Insight #2: The single actuality does not constrain the many possibilities. So, it is wrong to believe that nothing other than the inevitable was every possible. Possibilities are part of the logic and language that we evolved to cope with our uncertainty as to what will happen or what we will choose. We invoke the context of possibilities whenever there are multiple things that can happen or multiple things that we can choose. The very notion of such things are encoded in the words 'can', 'may', 'might', etc. And while what can happen constrains what will happen (if it can't happen then it won't), what will happen never constrains what can happen (the fact that it won't happen does not imply that it could not have happened under different circumstances). Trying to limit what can happen to what will happen creates a paradox, because it conflates two entirely different contexts.