Demystifying Determinism

[bilby]

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

You appear to be struggling with the difference between the present and the future.

"Alternate actions" and "options" are statements of uncertainty about the future.

Choosing is the act of playing the present forward to that future moment, where we discover what "necessarily happens". It is itself an unavoidable consequence of the prior state of reality.

There can only be one present; But unless you're an omniscient god, the path to discovery of what the future holds runs through your necessity of imagining many potential futures, and necessarily and unavoidably acting to attempt to bring about the one you imagine to be best for you. That imagining is often a very important input into the final situation, and when one individual's imagination becomes reality, we say that he is "responsible" for the situation. Because he is.

Choosing happens all the time. It cannot be otherwise, because we live in a deterministic universe, in which choosing was always destined to happen.

 

[DBT]

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

You appear to be struggling with the difference between the present and the future.

No, there is no struggle. Determinism is defined by prior state determines current state, which in turn determines future states of the system. Determined means fixed. fixed means no alternate actions. That's determinism, not as I define it, but how compatibilists define it....with the contradictory inclusion of 'choosing' where - by definition - there is none.

"Alternate actions" and "options" are statements of uncertainty about the future.

Choosing is the act of playing the present forward to that future moment, where we discover what "necessarily happens". It is itself an unavoidable consequence of the prior state of reality.

There can only be one present; But unless you're an omniscient god, the path to discovery of what the future holds runs through your necessity of imagining many potential futures, and necessarily and unavoidably acting to attempt to bring about the one you imagine to be best for you. That imagining is often a very important input into the final situation, and when one individual's imagination becomes reality, we say that he is "responsible" for the situation. Because he is.

Choosing happens all the time. It cannot be otherwise, because we live in a deterministic universe, in which choosing was always destined to happen.

The definition of choice - selecting between a set of realizable options - contradicts the given definition of determinism - only one possible outcome at any given time, the outcome set by antecedents - therefore incompatibalism.

 

[DBT]

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.

Usage alone doesn't prove the proposition, Sweetie....the terms and references need to be considered, not ignored.

Shoehorning is inserting the term 'choosing' into a concept that does not permit alternatives.

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

The very definition of choice is based on freely selecting between a set of realizable options. Which means that any of the options can be chosen at any given time: the outcome is not fixed.

Determinism on the other hand......

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.

Well, gosh, that's quite a semantic shuffle you have going. You must have given it some thought. Pity it doesn't relate to the issue of compatibility, choice or determinism.

 

[DBT]

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 problem is, as pointed out: if determinism is true, what we perceive to be people selecting between options is a matter of natural necessity, not choice.

We see it as choice because we have no access to the underlying processes that determine that Bob necessarily orders steak, while his wife June necessarily orders salad, which - given the terms of determinism, is the only thing possible in that instance in time, not just possible, but inevitable.



Consequently, the no choice principle of determinism.

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.

There is no choosing within a deterministic process, where there are no possible alternatives.

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

That's where you go astray.

No, I don't. The system - as defined by you - permits no alternate actions.

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.

It's only a choosing operation if alternative are possible. As there are no possible alternatives within a deterministic sytem, what you call choosing is natural necessity, inner necessity, not choice.

Compatibilists make the error of insisting on choice where there is none.

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.''

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.

There is no if, maybe or perhaps if the world was different, the menu was different, if Bob was a different man, "if Bob's brain was in a different state he could have..." This is all irrelevant.

Nothing can be different. Everything must necessarily proceed - not as chosen - but determined as a matter of natural necessity.

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.

The issue is not who accepts or rejects determinism. The issue is the proposition: is free will compatible with determinism as it is defined.

The answer: no it is not.

James called compatibilism a quagmire of evasion, and this remains true because of the given terms of determinism, and remains true regardless of his or anyone's position on determinism.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The problem is, as pointed out: if determinism is true, what we perceive to be people selecting between options is a matter of natural necessity, not choice.

As we've pointed out repeatedly, choice is a matter of natural necessity.

We see it as choice because we have no access to the underlying processes that determine that Bob necessarily orders steak, while his wife June necessarily orders salad, which - given the terms of determinism, is the only thing possible in that instance in time, not just possible, but inevitable.

Access to the underlying processes would not change anything. Suppose, for example, that we took the physicist approach, and reduced every event to the motion of quarks. In order to meaningfully communicate what is happening and what we are doing, we would find meaningful repetitive patterns of quark behavior and give them shortened names. This pattern of quark behavior is "a person walking down the street" and that smaller pattern of quark behavior is "the person's dog walking beside him".

Eventually we will encounter the pattern of quark behavior that we call "a restaurant", containing other patterns we call "customers", and when we see their "hands" holding a "menu" we know that they will soon be telling the "waiter" what they will have for "dinner". We call this operation "making a choice".

Consequently, the no choice principle of determinism.

In the same fashion, given a deterministic description of the universe, we will still see the inevitable person, inevitably walking down the street, with his inevitable dog, inevitably walking beside him. And we will still see the inevitable restaurant, where the inevitable customers will each inevitably open the menu, inevitably go through an inevitable mental operation that inevitably leads them to inevitably tell the waiter, "I will have X for dinner, please."

That inevitable mental operation that inevitably reduces the inevitable menu of inevitable possibilities into a single inevitable dinner order, is what people on Earth call "choosing what I will have for dinner".

And, since it was inevitable that each person would inevitably perform this operation, while they were inevitably free of coercion and undue influence, we would inevitably call this "choosing what I will have for dinner, of my own free will".

Deterministic reductionism doesn't actually change anything. All of the events are the same, and each event still requires a meaningful name if we are to continue to communicate what is actually happening in the real world.

For simplicity, not to mention clarity and utility, we eliminate unnecessary words from our speech. Because deterministic causal necessity/inevitability is a universal constant of all events, the intelligent mind eliminates the unnecessary redundancy of repeating this fact, and we end up with simpler statements, like: "There is a person walking down the street with their dog". And, "There are the people in the restaurant, each choosing for themselves what they will have for dinner."

There is no choosing within a deterministic process, where there are no possible alternatives.

The "no choice principle" does not follow naturally from deterministic inevitability. It is a self-deception, created by figurative thinking.

Compatibilists make the error of insisting on choice where there is none.

Incompatibilists make the error of insisting on "no choice" when everyone else can clearly see choosing actually happening in the real world.

There is no if, maybe or perhaps if the world was different, the menu was different, if Bob was a different man, "if Bob's brain was in a different state he could have..." This is all irrelevant.

The notion of possibility evolved (and survives) because it is a meaningful and useful tool that allows the mind to imagine, create, invent, plan, and choose.

Or, as Roy Baumeister said in the article you referenced:

"For psychological science, however, a belief in choice seems more plausible and useful than determinism. Choice is fundamental in human life. Every day people face choices, defined by multiple possibilities. To claim that all that is illusion and mistake is to force psychological phenomena into an unrealistic straitjacket.

Also, psychological causality as revealed in our labs is arguably never deterministic. Our studies show a change in the odds of one response over another. But changes in the odds entail that more than one response was possible. Our entire statistical enterprise is built on the idea of multiple possibilities. Determinism denies the reality of this. Statistics are just ways of coping with our ignorance, to a determinist—statistics do not reflect how reality actually works."

The issue is not who accepts or rejects determinism.

Correct. What Baumeister and James say about determinism is only useful if it is meaningful and useful. You quoted the top of Baumeister's article because it reflects the incompatibilist's view of determinism. As does the sentence from William James that you interject from time to time without going into which compatibilists he is referring to.

The compatibilist accepts a deterministic view of reality on the basis that it is no more complex than simple cause and effect, something that everyone understands and agrees with. The compatibilist also accepts the normal, operational meaning of free will, as a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and undue influence, something that everyone understands and agrees with.

The issue is the proposition: is free will compatible with determinism as it is defined.

You've seen the operational definition of free will, as a choice we make for ourselves while free from coercion and undue influence.
You've seen the operational definition of determinism, as the natural and orderly progression of events in which each event is reliably caused by prior events.
You've seen the compatibility of these two definitions demonstrated repeatedly.

The only source of incompatibility is figurative thinking, which are imaginary problems, not real problems.

 

[Jarhyn]

Usage alone doesn't prove the proposition

The usage is the usage. the thing the usage applies to clearly exists: set goes in, subset comes out.

There are plenty of processes that implement or reflect this definition of "choice". There is indeed nothing to "prove", as the definition is also functional with respect to the discussions to be had over responsibility, freedom, and will, assuming again that all the terms used are compatibilist usages.

The only thing that determinism forbids is alternalities. It is quite agnostic to alternatives, because alternatives are just "members of a set provided to any process which renders a subset from a set".

The very definition of choice is based on freely selecting between a set of realizable options

You're adding a lot of unnecessary verbs here. I've struck all the extraneous not-even-wrong shit out.

Choice is agnostic to "freedom". Choice must always happen by process.

The options don't even need to be "realizable" although in this context "realizable" is satisfied on the basis that they are members of the set to be rendered to a subset by the process.

If you look back in the thread to yet another post in which I discuss the choice function of ListA.pop(), you would see what is meant by the language.

it doesn't relate to the issue of compatibility, choice or determinism.

It does if you actually pay attention to it. It involves identification of a deterministic (LIFO in this case) function upon which a choice (a choice here of which alternative of the set of alternatives) is made.

Observe there is nothing random, and when the compatibilist definitions of choice and alternative are applied, one can identify the structures responsible for that outcome, namely the narrowness of the tube.

If one wishes, one can modify how the choice function operates by modifying the tube.

This makes for the recognition that when a system created by a configuration of matter causes that configuration to generate choices that cause a failure elsewhere, one has the power to modify the configuration of matter so as to make it choose by a different function.

Or IOW, "when a person has bad behavior, it is possible to adjust and regulate how they behave."

This creates of purely compatibilist terms a recognition of responsibility.

 

[bilby]

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

You appear to be struggling with the difference between the present and the future.

No, there is no struggle. Determinism is defined by prior state determines current state, which in turn determines future states of the system. Determined means fixed. fixed means no alternate actions. That's determinism, not as I define it, but how compatibilists define it....with the contradictory inclusion of 'choosing' where - by definition - there is none.

"Alternate actions" and "options" are statements of uncertainty about the future.

Choosing is the act of playing the present forward to that future moment, where we discover what "necessarily happens". It is itself an unavoidable consequence of the prior state of reality.

There can only be one present; But unless you're an omniscient god, the path to discovery of what the future holds runs through your necessity of imagining many potential futures, and necessarily and unavoidably acting to attempt to bring about the one you imagine to be best for you. That imagining is often a very important input into the final situation, and when one individual's imagination becomes reality, we say that he is "responsible" for the situation. Because he is.

Choosing happens all the time. It cannot be otherwise, because we live in a deterministic universe, in which choosing was always destined to happen.

The definition of choice - selecting between a set of realizable options - contradicts the given definition of determinism - only one possible outcome at any given time, the outcome set by antecedents - therefore incompatibalism.

The only possible outcome at any given time is a consequence of all the prior necessities that have an influence on that outcome.

Key amongst these is the unavoidable and completely determined attempt to predict the future that we call "choosing"; We are completely unable not to do this thing, which is an unavoidable consequence of our internal necessities.

Of course there's only one possible outcome at any given time, but that outcome is dependent upon the choosing that was itself the only possible outcome at some earlier point in time.

We are discussing a set of events happening at different times. Choosing itself is a series of related events, some external (menus, waiter's recommendations, special offers, etc.) and some internal (How hungry I am, what I think the wife will think of my selection, what previous experiences have I had, etc.). These events occur at a range of different times, with each being influenced by its predecessors - to produce one single new event, which then goes on to form part of the basis for the next.

Your objection, which you yourself describe as applying only "at any given time", is therefore irrelevant.

 

[DBT]

The problem is, as pointed out: if determinism is true, what we perceive to be people selecting between options is a matter of natural necessity, not choice.

As we've pointed out repeatedly, choice is a matter of natural necessity.

Natural necessity is not a choice mechanism, there is only one way the world can be and only one way the events of the world can unfold.

That is certainly not the definition of choice, no matter how you look at it.

What happens within the circuits and connection of a brain in response to information input, given determinism, in no more a matter of choice than the progression of numbers A > B > C > D is a choice. It is this, then that, no deviation.

We see it as choice because we have no access to the underlying processes that determine that Bob necessarily orders steak, while his wife June necessarily orders salad, which - given the terms of determinism, is the only thing possible in that instance in time, not just possible, but inevitable.

Access to the underlying processes would not change anything.

It changes your perception because you'd see that one state leads inevitably to the next without the possibility of anything else being chosen, hence what does happen must happen and there was no choice it making it happen. It happens regardless of choice.

Suppose, for example, that we took the physicist approach, and reduced every event to the motion of quarks. In order to meaningfully communicate what is happening and what we are doing, we would find meaningful repetitive patterns of quark behavior and give them shortened names. This pattern of quark behavior is "a person walking down the street" and that smaller pattern of quark behavior is "the person's dog walking beside him".

Eventually we will encounter the pattern of quark behavior that we call "a restaurant", containing other patterns we call "customers", and when we see their "hands" holding a "menu" we know that they will soon be telling the "waiter" what they will have for "dinner". We call this operation "making a choice".

Not if it is fixed before it happens. A fixed race is not a real race because it has a predetermined ending.

The mug punter, having no idea that the race is fixed blows his hard earned cash because he is not privy to insider information....he naively sees a real race.

That's all i have time for, flying home in the morning.

 

[DBT]

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

You appear to be struggling with the difference between the present and the future.

No, there is no struggle. Determinism is defined by prior state determines current state, which in turn determines future states of the system. Determined means fixed. fixed means no alternate actions. That's determinism, not as I define it, but how compatibilists define it....with the contradictory inclusion of 'choosing' where - by definition - there is none.

"Alternate actions" and "options" are statements of uncertainty about the future.

Choosing is the act of playing the present forward to that future moment, where we discover what "necessarily happens". It is itself an unavoidable consequence of the prior state of reality.

There can only be one present; But unless you're an omniscient god, the path to discovery of what the future holds runs through your necessity of imagining many potential futures, and necessarily and unavoidably acting to attempt to bring about the one you imagine to be best for you. That imagining is often a very important input into the final situation, and when one individual's imagination becomes reality, we say that he is "responsible" for the situation. Because he is.

Choosing happens all the time. It cannot be otherwise, because we live in a deterministic universe, in which choosing was always destined to happen.

The definition of choice - selecting between a set of realizable options - contradicts the given definition of determinism - only one possible outcome at any given time, the outcome set by antecedents - therefore incompatibalism.

The only possible outcome at any given time is a consequence of all the prior necessities that have an influence on that outcome.

Not merely influences, but given determinism as it is defined, sets of inputs that determine how the system evolves into the future, which includes the working of the brain and the determined thoughts and actions it generates.

Key amongst these is the unavoidable and completely determined attempt to predict the future that we call "choosing"; We are completely unable not to do this thing, which is an unavoidable consequence of our internal necessities.

Of course there's only one possible outcome at any given time, but that outcome is dependent upon the choosing that was itself the only possible outcome at some earlier point in time.

No, the so called choosing is a process fixed by the evolution or development of the system. The brain and its activity is an inseparable part of the evolution of the system, so is shaped and formed by the system and its events and responds according to, not choice, but state and condition, neural architecture, memory and input.

We know what happens if any of these suffer misfunction.

We are discussing a set of events happening at different times. Choosing itself is a series of related events, some external (menus, waiter's recommendations, special offers, etc.) and some internal (How hungry I am, what I think the wife will think of my selection, what previous experiences have I had, etc.). These events occur at a range of different times, with each being influenced by its predecessors - to produce one single new event, which then goes on to form part of the basis for the next.

Your objection, which you yourself describe as applying only "at any given time", is therefore irrelevant.

It is absolutely relevent because there is no point in time in the evolution of the system where any event could have been different to what it was, is and will be in the future.

Given determinism, every event proceeds in the only way it can proceed, including of course brain activity, thoughts and actions.

That is determinism.

 

[DBT]

Usage alone doesn't prove the proposition

The usage is the usage. the thing the usage applies to clearly exists: set goes in, subset comes out.

There are plenty of processes that implement or reflect this definition of "choice". There is indeed nothing to "prove", as the definition is also functional with respect to the discussions to be had over responsibility, freedom, and will, assuming again that all the terms used are compatibilist usages.

The only thing that determinism forbids is alternalities. It is quite agnostic to alternatives, because alternatives are just "members of a set provided to any process which renders a subset from a set".

The very definition of choice is based on freely selecting between a set of realizable options

You're adding a lot of unnecessary verbs here. I've struck all the extraneous not-even-wrong shit out.

Choice is agnostic to "freedom". Choice must always happen by process.

The options don't even need to be "realizable" although in this context "realizable" is satisfied on the basis that they are members of the set to be rendered to a subset by the process.

If you look back in the thread to yet another post in which I discuss the choice function of ListA.pop(), you would see what is meant by the language.

it doesn't relate to the issue of compatibility, choice or determinism.

It does if you actually pay attention to it. It involves identification of a deterministic (LIFO in this case) function upon which a choice (a choice here of which alternative of the set of alternatives) is made.

Observe there is nothing random, and when the compatibilist definitions of choice and alternative are applied, one can identify the structures responsible for that outcome, namely the narrowness of the tube.

If one wishes, one can modify how the choice function operates by modifying the tube.

This makes for the recognition that when a system created by a configuration of matter causes that configuration to generate choices that cause a failure elsewhere, one has the power to modify the configuration of matter so as to make it choose by a different function.

Or IOW, "when a person has bad behavior, it is possible to adjust and regulate how they behave."

This creates of purely compatibilist terms a recognition of responsibility.

Usage alone doesn't prove the proposition

The usage is the usage. the thing the usage applies to clearly exists: set goes in, subset comes out.

There are plenty of processes that implement or reflect this definition of "choice". There is indeed nothing to "prove", as the definition is also functional with respect to the discussions to be had over responsibility, freedom, and will, assuming again that all the terms used are compatibilist usages.

The only thing that determinism forbids is alternalities. It is quite agnostic to alternatives, because alternatives are just "members of a set provided to any process which renders a subset from a set".

The very definition of choice is based on freely selecting between a set of realizable options

You're adding a lot of unnecessary verbs here. I've struck all the extraneous not-even-wrong shit out.

Yet no matter how I try to put it, you still haven't grasped the basic principles of the nature of choice, and likely never will. Just as with determinism.

Choice is agnostic to "freedom". Choice must always happen by process.

The options don't even need to be "realizable" although in this context "realizable" is satisfied on the basis that they are members of the set to be rendered to a subset by the process.

If you look back in the thread to yet another post in which I discuss the choice function of ListA.pop(), you would see what is meant by the language.

it doesn't relate to the issue of compatibility, choice or determinism.

It does if you actually pay attention to it. It involves identification of a deterministic (LIFO in this case) function upon which a choice (a choice here of which alternative of the set of alternatives) is made.

Determinism by definition does not permit alternatives. That is where you go wrong by trying to circumvent the terms of your own definition through illogical and irrelevant semantics.

Observe there is nothing random, and when the compatibilist definitions of choice and alternative are applied, one can identify the structures responsible for that outcome, namely the narrowness of the tube.

You describe illusions and false labelling, not choice. According to your own definition, there are no alternatives within a deterministic system, yet you and other compatibilists try to shoehorn the idea of choice into a place where, with no alternate actions, it literally cannot exist.

If one wishes, one can modify how the choice function operates by modifying the tube.

This is where you go Tropo. What 'one wishes' does not pop out of a vaccum, what one wishes is subject to the same determinants as everything else that happens as the system unfolds without deviation.

You naively try to slip in an element of freedom from necessity (perhaps sneakily) which is simple not there. You contradict the given terms without realising what you are doing.

 

[Jarhyn]

The very definition of choice is based on freely selecting between a set of realizable options

You're adding a lot of unnecessary verbs here. I've struck all the extraneous not-even-wrong shit out.

Yet no matter how I try to put it, you still haven't grasped the basic principles of the nature of choice, and likely never will. Just as with determinism.

Selection between a set is the entire nature of choice. That's it.

Do you NOT believe that it is "selection from a set"? Tough titties. That's all there is to it.

No matter how you have tried to put it, every way thus far has been WRONG.

You wish to convince me that it is impossible to reduce a set to a subset. To which I say

it doesn't relate to the issue of compatibility, choice or determinism.

It does if you actually pay attention to it. It involves identification of a deterministic (LIFO in this case) function upon which a choice (a choice here of which alternative of the set of alternatives) is made.

Determinism by definition does not permit alternatives. That is where you go wrong by trying to circumvent the terms of your own definition through illogical and irrelevant semantics.

So, you believe that determinism does not permit "sets" or their reduction. You do not understand that all "determinism" means is "all selection of things or states happens by fixed process".

The semantics are absolutely relevant, because identifying responsibility is important, and apparently something you wish to avoid.

Observe there is nothing random, and when the compatibilist definitions of choice and alternative are applied, one can identify the structures responsible for that outcome, namely the narrowness of the tube.

You describe illusions and false labelling, not choice. According to your own definition, there are no alternatives within a deterministic system, yet you and other compatibilists try to shoehorn the idea of choice into a place where, with no alternate actions, it literally cannot exist.

What makes my labeling "false"? Your mere insistence that you do not like it is not enough.

According to my own definition there are alternatives. You are confusing alternatives with alternalities.

In fact entropy is defined as "the number of alternative states some configuration of particles may assume". Do you believe entropy does not exist? Of course in quantum physics terms, sometimes these states exist in superposition. The determinist says that the selection from these states in superposition of which state shall be observed when the superposition is resolved shall be exactly determined by process.

It's a choice function of physics: a selection of a subset from a set.

To claim this does not happen is silly, to proclaim that physicists the world over are wrong about superposition and entropy.

If one wishes, one can modify how the choice function operates by modifying the tube.

This is where you go Tropo. What 'one wishes' does not pop out of a vaccum, what one wishes is subject to the same determinants as everything else that happens as the system unfolds without deviation.

It does not matter where the wish comes from. The ability to modify the responsible element is still available, the function would be predictably different from the differences of the tube.

We are not discussing wishes at this point, we are discussing responsibility, and regulation of choice functions. Trying to change the topic is indicative of dishonest discussion.

You naively try to slip in an element of freedom from necessity (perhaps sneakily) which is simple not there. You contradict the given terms without realising what you are doing.

No, I don't. The tube does not necessitate itself except in the matter of "an object in motion stays in motion, an object at rest stays at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force".

A wish to change the tube does not even arise from a freedom of necessity. Where that force comes from is unimportant in the recognition of the ability to regulate it's choice function.

The tube maybe changed (by an outside force altering it's various moments), and it's choice function maybe altered from "LIFO" to "FIFO".

Your entire argument in this debate is that people cannot change who they are in any respect on any basis of decision, that I cannot choose so much as my hair style.

But this is just plain foolish. I can look at the SET of hair styles I see, select a SUBSET, and then render from all the information available to me the processes which create said subset of hair styles to my own hair, thus I will have chosen my hair style. a
As the entity whose shape effected the selection, I will be responsible for it such that when people see it they say "I like what you did with your hair".

It's not a hard concept.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Natural necessity is not a choice mechanism,

But that's not what I've claimed.

Choice is one mechanism of natural necessity, just like walking and chewing gum. Chewing gum causes the gum to become soft and wet, releasing its flavor. Walking causes us to move from one place to another. Choosing decides what we will order for dinner.

Causal necessity is not a single mechanism. It is the collection of all of the causal mechanisms.

The point is that you cannot pretend that choosing is not happening any more than you can pretend that walking or chewing gum isn't happening.

there is only one way the world can be and only one way the events of the world can unfold.

Sorry, but that is still literally false. You are confusing what "can" happen with what "will" happen. Many different things can happen, even though only one thing will happen. If you insist that what can happen is limited to what will happen, you create an unresolvable paradox. For example:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Due to determinism, there is only one possibility and thus only one thing that you can order."
Diner: "Oh! Then what is the one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I have no clue. But, since it is the same thing as what you will order, if you tell me first what you will order, then I can tell you what you can order".
Diner: "How can I tell you what I will order if I don't know first what I can order?"

You have never been able to solve this paradox which your own words have created.

But we can avoid this paradox by simply using the correct word:
"there is only one way the world will be and only one way the events of the world will unfold."

How the world can be and how events can unfold is limited only by our imagination and our ability to actually carry out what we imagine. A "real" possibilities is realizable, even if it will never be realized. And there is never the requirement that something which "can" happen must actually happen. This language and logic are part of the mechanism of human intelligence. Try not to break it.

That is certainly not the definition of choice, no matter how you look at it.

Choosing is when a person considers several things that they can do, and selects the single thing that they will do. You know, like in the restaurant, where the people read the menu of many dinners that they can order and select what they will order for dinner.

What happens within the circuits and connection of a brain in response to information input, given determinism, in no more a matter of choice than the progression of numbers A > B > C > D is a choice. It is this, then that, no deviation.

A. They open the menu.
B. They consider the many items they can order.
C. They select the single item that they will order.
D. They tell the waiter what they will have for dinner.

There is choosing happening as a deterministic series of events (A causes B, B causes C, C causes D) where one event inevitably leads to the next. Would you like to see a similar analysis of walking or chewing gum? All events that we can actually observe happening are actually happening, and they are happening deterministically.

The logical fact of determinism does not eliminate any of these events. Rather, it makes all events causally necessary from any prior point in time. This, of course, includes the choosing event, as well as the walking event, as well as the chewing gum event.

It changes your perception because you'd see that one state leads inevitably to the next without the possibility of anything else being chosen, hence what does happen must happen and there was no choice it making it happen. It happens regardless of choice.

There is never any need to change our perception when our perception of what is happening and how it is happening conforms to the empirical facts of what is actually happening.

The illusion that causal necessity should change how we look at things is caused by figurative thinking, which leads to figurative statements that are literally false.

This is the simple insight that you've yet to grasp. Every event is always caused by something. We've known that all of our lives. And, we are naturally curious as to what those causes are, because a knowledge of the causes gives us some control over the events that affect us.

But instead of this simple understanding, the hard determinist attempts to convince us that causal determinism changes everything, that it eliminates choosing and free will and responsibility and eventually even eliminates self. And this may be a nice place to visit, because it gives us a feeling of relief from our responsibilities, but we cannot live there, since it would be literally irresponsible to do so.

... A fixed race is not a real race because it has a predetermined ending.

And that brings up the notion of "the incredible shrinking dictionary". Not only have we lost "choosing", "free will", and "responsibility", but now there is no longer such a thing as "racing", because determinism insists the result is already fixed. Not to worry though, once we eliminate "self" there'll be no one around to read the dictionary anyway.

With the correct understanding of deterministic causal necessity, all of the empirical facts are retained, including the many possibilities and the things that we can choose for dinner.

 

[Jarhyn]

Choice is one mechanism of natural necessity, just like walking and chewing gum. Chewing gum causes the gum to become soft and wet, releasing its flavor

I would hazard that these are still choices upon the state of the gum, the fixed choice function being the operation and material properties of the mouth.

Natural necessity is merely a description of how all fundamental choice in a system resolved, amid a state upon which those choices are made and made from.

 

[bilby]

Natural necessity is not a choice mechanism

True. But choice mechanisms are, nonetheless, natural necessities.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Choice is one mechanism of natural necessity, just like walking and chewing gum. Chewing gum causes the gum to become soft and wet, releasing its flavor

I would hazard that these are still choices upon the state of the gum, the fixed choice function being the operation and material properties of the mouth.

Natural necessity is merely a description of how all fundamental choice in a system resolved, amid a state upon which those choices are made and made from.

I'm puzzled by the extended notion of choosing that you seem to be using. It seems you are trying to make every causal mechanism a form of choosing. I think it is important to this discussion to distinguish choosing from other operations, such as chewing, or walking. With the gum we can choose to continue chewing or spit it out (or swallow it). But chewing is not choosing. Chewing is a different causal mechanism that causes a different kind of event to take place, specifically the transformation of the state of the gum. Choosing is a causal mechanism that inputs multiple possibilities (continue to chew the gum, spit it out, or swallow it) and outputs a single chosen action.

 

[DBT]

The very definition of choice is based on freely selecting between a set of realizable options

You're adding a lot of unnecessary verbs here. I've struck all the extraneous not-even-wrong shit out.

Yet no matter how I try to put it, you still haven't grasped the basic principles of the nature of choice, and likely never will. Just as with determinism.

Selection between a set is the entire nature of choice. That's it.

There is no selection because the pathway is fixed. Choice by definition requires the possibility of taking a different option.

Determinism has no different option at any point in the evolution of the system.

If you have only one possible course of action, you have no choice.

That is the no choice principle of determinism.

Do you NOT believe that it is "selection from a set"? Tough titties. That's all there is to it.

Believing that events are somehow selected contradicts determinism. Events are entailed by prior states. That is a process of natural necessity.

Natural necessity is not a matter of choice. Insisting that it is doesn't make it so.

Meanwhile, to qualify as choice, the possibility of taking a different option is required.

Once again;

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

Determinism
All events develop or evolve as they must without deviation, there are no possible alternate actions, consequently determinism does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

''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.''


I don't have time for the rest, nor the patience. It's yet more repeat.

 

[DBT]

Natural necessity is not a choice mechanism

True. But choice mechanisms are, nonetheless, natural necessities.

There are no realizable alternatives. There are no two or more possibilities in any given moment in time, only fixed actions, no deviation, which is the antithesis of choice.

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

 

[DBT]

Natural necessity is not a choice mechanism,

But that's not what I've claimed.

Choice within a deterministic system is being claimed.

Choice is one mechanism of natural necessity, just like walking and chewing gum. Chewing gum causes the gum to become soft and wet, releasing its flavor. Walking causes us to move from one place to another. Choosing decides what we will order for dinner.

What you describe is not choice, not as it is normally defined. The word choice is being asserted, an imposition.

Causal necessity is not a single mechanism. It is the collection of all of the causal mechanisms.

The point is that you cannot pretend that choosing is not happening any more than you can pretend that walking or chewing gum isn't happening.

I don't pretend. I stay within the bounds of the given terms and references. It is the compatibilist who seeks to circumvent the terms and conditions by redefining the nature of freedom and choice...

there is only one way the world can be and only one way the events of the world can unfold.

Sorry, but that is still literally false. You are confusing what "can" happen with what "will" happen. Many different things can happen, even though only one thing will happen. If you insist that what can happen is limited to what will happen, you create an unresolvable paradox. For example:

Sorry, but what I said is not only not false, it is precisely how you, yourself define determinism;

''Each state of the universe and its events are the necessary result of its prior state and prior events. ("Events" change the state of things.)
Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation").
All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Due to determinism, there is only one possibility and thus only one thing that you can order."
Diner: "Oh! Then what is the one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I have no clue. But, since it is the same thing as what you will order, if you tell me first what you will order, then I can tell you what you can order".
Diner: "How can I tell you what I will order if I don't know first what I can order?"

You have never been able to solve this paradox which your own words have created.

There is no paradox to solve. Whatever the waiter and Diner ruminate over has no bearing on the underlying processes that brought about the thoughts and actions.

You could say, look I have free will and choice because in precisely one second, I shall choose to lift my right arm'' - which of course ignores the initial prompt, the driver and the underlying process that brought about your inevitable response.....where you as a conscious entity being generated by a brain had no idea until the related and inevitable thoughts popped into consciousness, Liibet, Haynes, Hallett, Haggard, et al.

In other words, compatibilists habitually ignore inner necessity and the fixed causal progression of deterministic events

But we can avoid this paradox by simply using the correct word:
"there is only one way the world will be and only one way the events of the world will unfold."

The paradox is false. Saying 'will be' in reference to a deterministic system is equivalent to 'must necessarily be' and 'cannot be otherwise' or 'fixed by antecedents.'

Any way you look at it, there is no room for alternative actions within determinism. Playing with words doesn't alter the terms.

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.''

... A fixed race is not a real race because it has a predetermined ending.

And that brings up the notion of "the incredible shrinking dictionary". Not only have we lost "choosing", "free will", and "responsibility", but now there is no longer such a thing as "racing", because determinism insists the result is already fixed. Not to worry though, once we eliminate "self" there'll be no one around to read the dictionary anyway.

With the correct understanding of deterministic causal necessity, all of the empirical facts are retained, including the many possibilities and the things that we can choose for dinner.

We know why dictionaries include these words and terms. Dictionaries concern themselves with how people communicate and use words.

Those who compile and publish dictionaries don't concern themselves with the debate over the nature of determinism and free will.

Yet there is an ongoing debate that has spanned decades. Which now includes neuroscience and the law, instead of merely referring to common perception and word use, taking into consideration the nature of cognition and action and moving away from the simplistic. notion of free will.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Choice within a deterministic system is being claimed.

Of course. Choice within a deterministic system is as real as walking within a deterministic system, or brushing our teeth within a deterministic system, or any other event that we objectively observe to be happening. All of these events are actually happening in empirical reality.

What you describe is not choice, not as it is normally defined. The word choice is being asserted, an imposition.

We open the restaurant menu, consider the many things that we can order, and select the one thing that we will order. Selecting one thing from many is defined as "choosing". Moving forward using our legs and shifting our weight from one to the other is defined as "walking". Applying toothpaste to a toothbrush and rubbing it against the inside and outside surfaces of our teeth is defined as "brushing our teeth".

There's nothing complicated or mysterious about these simple empirical events. And, we may assume that each of them is reliably caused by prior events in the natural course of events. So, none of these events is contradicted by determinism.

Causal necessity is not a single mechanism. It is the collection of all of the causal mechanisms. We cannot pretend that choosing is not happening any more than we can pretend that walking or brushing our teeth isn't happening.

I don't pretend. I stay within the bounds of the given terms and references. It is the compatibilist who seeks to circumvent the terms and conditions by redefining the nature of freedom and choice...

Freedom is the ability to do something we want to do. Choosing is us deciding what we will do. When we choose for ourselves what we will do while free of coercion and undue influence, it is called "a freely chosen 'I will'" or simply "free will".

Like all events, the event in which we choose what we will do of our own free will is a deterministic event, fully consistent with a world of reliable causation in which all events are reliably caused by some prior events. There are prior causes of the choosing event (for example, opening the restaurant menu), the process itself proceeds deterministically (I consider the juicy Steak, recall that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, and select the Salad instead), and becomes the prior cause of the next event (telling the waiter, "I will have the Salad, please", which causes the waiter to tell the chef, which causes the chef to prepare the Salad, etc. ad infinitum).

And that is determinism. Each state of the universe and its events are the necessary result of its prior state and prior events. ("Events" change the state of things.) Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation"). All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.

So, choosing not only happens in empirical reality, it also happens by deterministic causal necessity. The restaurant will inevitably have a menu, we will inevitably consider the selections on the menu, and we will inevitably select what we will order, according to our own inevitable goals and our own inevitable reasons, inevitably of our own free will.

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Due to determinism, there is only one possibility and thus only one thing that you can order."
Diner: "Oh! Then what is the one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I have no clue. But, since it is the same thing as what you will order, if you tell me first what you will order, then I can tell you what you can order".
Diner: "How can I tell you what I will order if I don't know first what I can order?"

You have never been able to solve this paradox which your own words have created.

There is no paradox to solve.

The paradox is that it is impossible to choose if there is only one thing that we "can" do. There must always be many things that we "can" do whenever choosing happens. It is the natural, deterministic unfolding of events (fig.), such as the event in which we unfold the menu (lit.), that inevitably brings us to a point where we must make a choice.

Whatever the waiter and Diner ruminate over has no bearing on the underlying processes that brought about the thoughts and actions.

The Waiter's thoughts and the Diner's thoughts are part of the underlying process that causally necessitate the behavior. For example, the Waiter, being a hard determinist who takes himself literally, supposes that "can" and "will" are the same word, and thus will not tell the Diner what he "can" order without first knowing what the Diner "will" order. The Waiter thinks these two words mean the same thing.

You could say, look I have free will and choice because in precisely one second, I shall choose to lift my right arm'' - which of course ignores the initial prompt, the driver and the underlying process that brought about your inevitable response.....where you as a conscious entity being generated by a brain had no idea until the related and inevitable thoughts popped into consciousness, Libet, Haynes, Hallett, Haggard, et al.

Nothing is being ignored. However, not every fact makes a relevant difference. We assume that the brain's activity includes both unconscious and conscious processes. We cannot see or experience the unconscious processes other than through their results, which is our conscious experience. I was conscious of the desire to order the Steak. I was conscious of considering what I had for breakfast and what I had for lunch. I was conscious of deciding that the Salad would be better for dinner.

Our normal (compatibilist) waiter does not know any of my conscious experiences. All the waiter knows is that I said, "I will have the Salad, please". So, the waiter brings me the Salad and the bill. I am responsible for the bill because I deliberately chose to order the Salad, "of my own free will".

In other words, compatibilists habitually ignore inner necessity and the fixed causal progression of deterministic events

Have you not been paying attention? Or, are you deliberately lying? Or, is there some other explanation for that statement?

Saying 'will be' in reference to a deterministic system is equivalent to 'must necessarily be' and 'cannot be otherwise' or 'fixed by antecedents.'

Saying "will be" is never the same as saying "can be".
Saying "will not be otherwise" is never the same as saying "cannot be otherwise".
Saying "would not do otherwise" is never the same as saying "could not do otherwise".

The words "can" and "will" have two distinct meanings. "Can you take this woman to be your wife" is very different than "Will you take this woman to be your wife". "Can" asks whether you have the "ability" to marry. For example, are you already married, are you old enough to marry, etc. "Will" asks whether it is going to happen or not, and if you answer "Yes" it actually happens right then and there.

Those who compile and publish dictionaries don't concern themselves with the debate over the nature of determinism and free will.

Unfortunately, the definition of "free will" now includes the paradoxical definition as well as the operational definition in general purpose dictionaries.

Yet there is an ongoing debate that has spanned decades. Which now includes neuroscience and the law, instead of merely referring to common perception and word use, taking into consideration the nature of cognition and action and moving away from the simplistic. notion of free will.

Which only demonstrates the extent of the damage that is possible as more and more people become trapped in the paradox. The notion of causal necessity as a causal agent that removes our ability to choose for ourselves what we will do, is a superstitious notion, spread pretty much as any other religion, through false but believable suggestion. It is concocted by metaphors and similes that lead the mind to false conclusions.

The purpose of Philosophy should be to help us to think more clearly, not trap us in silly paradoxes.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is no selection because the pathway is fixed.

This is false. We have extant phenomena of there being a superposition of states prior to an interaction event and only one of those states being expressed in the interaction.

Even if the pathway as to which one is expressed is fixed, it is still a selection.

As the LIFO tube of marbles, the process selects a marble, and the marble is always one of the set of marbles in the tube. A subset is reduced to a set.

POP is still a "choice function".

Believing that events are somehow selected contradicts determinism

No, it doesn't. You may WISH there to be a contradiction there but wish in one hand, shit in the other, and just see which fills first...

As long as the selection happens by a fixed process, it's not incompatible with determinism at all.

The function of a logic gate, for example, selects an output in a fixed way on the basis of the inputs as a result of it's structures.

That output is purely bound by deterministic laws! Look at NOR:
AB:C
- - : +
- +: -
+ -: -
++: -

The output is determined entirely by the input. There is only one state the inputs can be at any one time: there is no "alternality" at any moment. The output is always a fixed function of the input: there is no randomness.

And still the function selects of +/- on C, using AB.

I use NOR here because as long as you can continue compounding this structure, you can in fact build from it ANY more complicated kind of selection or "choice" system.