Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Marvin Edwards]

But I was going in that direction anyway, so I am not constrained.

I could have taken the other path, and perhaps someday I'll want to explore to see what's down that way. But not today. Even though I did not choose it, it remains a real possibility. It does not become impossible by my not choosing it.

If you have no choice you have no freedom. It's called Determinism, not "Well if I wanted to,.." or "Well there are options ..."

Well, I don't know. How should I respond to this?
Since this reply was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity, it too is called "Determinism".

Confronting an issue that requires choosing is inevitable. Considering my options is inevitable. Each option being a "real" possibility (something that I could make happen if I chose to) is also inevitable. Imagining how each option would play out was inevitable. Finding that one option played out better than the others was inevitable. Thus, all of the events in my choosing were inevitable. And, thus my choice was inevitable. And, finally, it was inevitable that it would be I, myself, and no other object in the physical universe that would be doing the choosing was also inevitable.

Universal causal necessity/inevitability is a logical fact, but not a meaningful nor a relevant fact. The "meaning" that it has within the notion of determinism is a fake.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Put them together and add detail to get a more comprehensive description of determinism.

Correct. We may assume that all three causal mechanisms (physical, biological, and rational) are reliable within their own domain, and thus every event is reliably caused by some specific combination of physical, biological, and rational mechanisms.

It is all of these element and more that shape our being and behaviour.

Well, the only thing we've left out is quantum mechanics, but my presumption is that quantum events are a fourth level of organization (or lack of organization) operating reliably under its own set of rules. But it is not helpful to examine human events under a quantum microscope.

On the other hand, physical events, like floods and drought, are useful to know about. And biological events, like birth and death, are significant. And mental events, like imagination, calculation, and reasoning are very significant as well.

It is the treatment or therapy applied to the bank robber that modifies his neural networks, which in turn result in lines of thought that were not present before he got caught, even the act of getting caught changes his outlook.

Exactly.

''Free will'' is just a term. A term that tells us nothing about our makeup or what drives our behaviour, be they psychological
How we treat the offender acts upon his brain and mind. The treatment the offender gets effects their mind and and behaviour.
Telling someone that they have no 'free will' would most likely not be understood.
Why? Because the common perception of free will is the ability to make decisions. Decision making is taken to be free will.

Yes, decision making is taken to be free will. And, decision making is fully deterministic. A reasonable conclusion would be that free will is a deterministic event, just like every other event that ever happens.

I am a bit confused as to why you have posted that quote for a third time. I've explained what "basic-desert" (aka "just-deserts") means, and I'm happy to explain it again (it is an issue of our philosophy of justice, not an issue of free will). But perhaps you're reading something else into that quote that I've missed. Could you explain what you think that quote is saying?

I posted it to make sure the point that actions produced by deterministic processes are no less of a challenge to freedom of will than compulsion by external agents is being considered rather than brushed aside. It's a point that seems to be treated far too lightly.

Oh. Okay. You know, of course, that free will, being a deterministic event, cannot possibly be defined as "freedom from determinism". Therefore, free will must mean something else. Ordinary people, those who have not been infected with the paradox, usually consider free will to be a choice that a person makes for themselves, while free of coercion and insanity and manipulation and other forms of undue influence.

If we limit our notion of free will to the meaningful and relevant constraints that might prevent someone from rationally choosing for themselves what they will do, then we get a definition that actually works.

I'm pretty sure that conscious awareness will always play a role in any significant decisions we make. You will not find any significant decisions in the Libet-style experiments. A significant decision is one that requires an explanation. Constructing an explanation requires conscious awareness. For example, as I write these words I'm also hearing them, and critiquing them, and often changing them.

But if I'm instructed to squeeze my fist 40 times over 2 minutes, and to do so "randomly" whenever I "felt" like it, then I will be waiting upon some inner sensation to trigger my responses.

Whether conscious awareness is involved upfront, or as an after-effect, is not important. In either case it will still be my own brain that is exercising control, based not just upon external inputs, but more significantly upon its internal inputs. All of those internal inputs are integral parts of who and what I am, and they will control my response to any external inputs. Both the brain itself and all of the internal inputs are me. It is still me making the choices and controlling my own actions.

Of course conscious awareness plays a role. An indispensable role. It is our conscious 'map' of the external world and our place in it. But it is not free will.

Right, "free will" is a label we use to distinguish a certain kind of event, just like "dog" and "cat" are used to distinguish different animals. Free will specifically identifies events where the prior cause of the choice was the person's own deliberation process, as opposed to events where the choice was imposed upon us by someone with a gun, or insanity, etc. All of these events would be equally causally necessary. But we do need to label these events differently to distinguish the nature of the event. We call one a freely chosen "I will". We call another "coercion". We call another "insanity".

You do something 'whenever you feel like it' because the brain has already processed the necessary information and sent signals to muscle groups milliseconds before you 'felt like it.'

Exactly. I believe that is how other neuroscientists interpret Libet's experiments.

''When it comes to the human brain, even the simplest of acts can be counter-intuitive and deceptively complicated. For example, try stretching your arm.

Nerves in the limb send messages back to your brain, but the subjective experience you have of stretching isn't due to these signals. The feeling that you willed your arm into motion, and the realization that you moved it at all, are both the result of an area at the back of your brain called the posterior parietal cortex. This region helped to produce the intention to move, and predicted what the movement would feel like, all before you twitched a single muscle.

I would say that "try stretching your arm" is an instruction that you must be aware of in order to know what to do. It had to be heard and then interpreted and converted to lower level instructions below awareness.

Yes. But the causal determinants of my deliberate actions is me. Determinism does not cause anything. It's still me, myself, my own brain, my own thoughts and feelings, my own beliefs and values, that are driving and controlling what the choice will be.

But it's not only ''you'' - countless external elements act upon 'your' system, body/mind/brain, in ways that you are not aware of or have control over. Your conscious experience of the world and self has no access to brain activity, we don't know what our neural networks are doing. Consciousness comes after the event, thoughts form because the underlying information processing is generating conscious activity in response to stimuli. You encounter something, read this post, then lines of thought are brought to mind.

I disagree with the word "external" here. The vast majority of the elements that are controlling my brain's activity are internal, mostly from within the brain itself. If my brain controls the choice, and then informs my consciousness of that choice, then it still qualifies as a deliberate choice, one actually made by my own brain, to serve my own goals and reasons. And one that I experience as a choice that I have made for myself.

This experience is not an "illusion", but rather a meaningful model of what just happened in physical reality.

 

[fromderinside]

But I was going in that direction anyway, so I am not constrained.

I could have taken the other path, and perhaps someday I'll want to explore to see what's down that way. But not today. Even though I did not choose it, it remains a real possibility. It does not become impossible by my not choosing it.

If you have no choice you have no freedom. It's called Determinism, not "Well if I wanted to,.." or "Well there are options ..."

Well, I don't know. How should I respond to this?
Since this reply was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity, it too is called "Determinism".

Confronting an issue that requires choosing is inevitable. Considering my options is inevitable. Each option being a "real" possibility (something that I could make happen if I chose to) is also inevitable. Imagining how each option would play out was inevitable. Finding that one option played out better than the others was inevitable. Thus, all of the events in my choosing were inevitable. And, thus my choice was inevitable. And, finally, it was inevitable that it would be I, myself, and no other object in the physical universe that would be doing the choosing was also inevitable.

Universal causal necessity/inevitability is a logical fact, but not a meaningful nor a relevant fact. The "meaning" that it has within the notion of determinism is a fake.

What is.one confronting? What one does is determined so it can't be that. One needs revert to what one believes need be confronted or considered since all is already realized, already determined. That leaves consciousness, humans sub vocalizations by one, as the only thing in need of being confronted.

OK. I'll buy that. Responding to what one is thinking isn't free, nor, other than an imperfect replay of what is determined. IOW one is deceiving oneself into believing what one is thinking is what is going on.

You are trying to repeat what one thinks is what makes one be. Nope. It's pure imagination that something one does justifies one's belief in an imagined reality.

"He/She doesn't exist," said the professor, "it's all in one's head."

 

[DBT]

Oh. Okay. You know, of course, that free will, being a deterministic event, cannot possibly be defined as "freedom from determinism". Therefore, free will must mean something else. Ordinary people, those who have not been infected with the paradox, usually consider free will to be a choice that a person makes for themselves, while free of coercion and insanity and manipulation and other forms of undue influence.

If we limit our notion of free will to the meaningful and relevant constraints that might prevent someone from rationally choosing for themselves what they will do, then we get a definition that actually works.

If we have a determined world, there is neither freedom from determinism or freedom of will, just necessitated actions performed without interference because that is the only possible action in that instance.

I'm pretty sure that conscious awareness will always play a role in any significant decisions we make.

As I said, consciousness plays an indispensable role as our subjective representation of the external world and self. It's just not a freely willed role. The brain just plays its evolutionary role.

Right, "free will" is a label we use to distinguish a certain kind of event, just like "dog" and "cat" are used to distinguish different animals. Free will specifically identifies events where the prior cause of the choice was the person's own deliberation process, as opposed to events where the choice was imposed upon us by someone with a gun, or insanity, etc. All of these events would be equally causally necessary. But we do need to label these events differently to distinguish the nature of the event. We call one a freely chosen "I will". We call another "coercion". We call another "insanity".

Some do apply the free will label, others disagree....hence two opposing views; compatibilism and incompatibilism.

I would say that "try stretching your arm" is an instruction that you must be aware of in order to know what to do. It had to be heard and then interpreted and converted to lower level instructions below awareness.

No, impulses to muscle groups happen before awareness, I have posted several sources.


Quote;
''When it comes to the human brain, even the simplest of acts can be counter-intuitive and deceptively complicated. For example, try stretching your arm.

Nerves in the limb send messages back to your brain, but the subjective experience you have of stretching isn't due to these signals. The feeling that you willed your arm into motion, and the realisation that you moved it at all, are both the result of an area at the back of your brain called the posterior parietal cortex. This region helped to produce the intention to move, and predicted what the movement would feel like, all before you twitched a single muscle.''

I disagree with the word "external" here. The vast majority of the elements that are controlling my brain's activity are internal, mostly from within the brain itself. If my brain controls the choice, and then informs my consciousness of that choice, then it still qualifies as a deliberate choice, one actually made by my own brain, to serve my own goals and reasons. And one that I experience as a choice that I have made for myself.


This experience is not an "illusion", but rather a meaningful model of what just happened in physical reality.

Internal neural mechanisms responds to external inputs, neural architecture and its activity is not subject to will or wish as it produces our experience of the world and our response to it in the form of perception, thought and action.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Oh. Okay. You know, of course, that free will, being a deterministic event, cannot possibly be defined as "freedom from determinism". Therefore, free will must mean something else. Ordinary people, those who have not been infected with the paradox, usually consider free will to be a choice that a person makes for themselves, while free of coercion and insanity and manipulation and other forms of undue influence.

If we limit our notion of free will to the meaningful and relevant constraints that might prevent someone from rationally choosing for themselves what they will do, then we get a definition that actually works.

If we have a determined world, there is neither freedom from determinism or freedom of will, just necessitated actions performed without interference because that is the only possible action in that instance.

Well, we do not have a "determined world", we have a "deterministic world". There is no causal agent that has laid out a plan in advance for how things will turn out. There is no causal agent that is now unfolding that plan event by event. Such notions are superstitious nonsense. Wouldn't you agree?

We know for certain that there will be a single actual future, because we have only a single actual past to put it in. And this single future will come about through reliable interactions between the objects and forces that make up the physical universe. These reliable interactions are called "causes" and "effects". The effects of these causes become the causes of new effects, such that all events are the reliable result of prior events.

And this is what is meant when we say that we live in a "deterministic universe". It is AS IF some supernatural causal agent had laid out a plan for the future. But, of course, no such agent exists and no such plan exist. It all comes down to the actual interactions of the objects and forces themselves. Only the actual objects and forces can be said to cause events. To avoid superstitious beliefs, and faulty conclusions, we need to keep this fact clear in our heads.

Oh, and of course, we happen to be one of those objects that goes about exerting force upon other objects, and causing new events. For example, I broke open three eggs, scrambled them, cooked them in the microwave, and ate them. That was one object, me, exerting force upon three other objects, the eggs, becoming the prior cause of the resulting event "me, eating the eggs".

Determinism did not break the eggs, scramble them, or eat them. That was me, I did that.

As I said, consciousness plays an indispensable role as our subjective representation of the external world and self. It's just not a freely willed role. The brain just plays its evolutionary role.

Well, almost. To get it right is to realize that one of the evolved roles of the brain is to decide what the body will do. For example, will my body fix pancakes for breakfast, or will my body fix eggs? "Hey, brain! Wake up! I need to know what I will fix for breakfast. Get up and do your job."

Right, "free will" is a label we use to distinguish a certain kind of event, just like "dog" and "cat" are used to distinguish different animals. Free will specifically identifies events where the prior cause of the choice was the person's own deliberation process, as opposed to events where the choice was imposed upon us by someone with a gun, or insanity, etc. All of these events would be equally causally necessary. But we do need to label these events differently to distinguish the nature of the event. We call one a freely chosen "I will". We call another "coercion". We call another "insanity".

Some do apply the free will label, others disagree....hence two opposing views; compatibilism and incompatibilism.

Then, by what label do you distinguish the deliberate choice from the coerced choice or the insane choice or, for that matter, from an accident? What do you wish to call the deliberate choice that you made for yourself?

I would say that "try stretching your arm" is an instruction that you must be aware of in order to know what to do. It had to be heard and then interpreted and converted to lower level instructions below awareness.

No, impulses to muscle groups happen before awareness, I have posted several sources.

Quote;
''When it comes to the human brain, even the simplest of acts can be counter-intuitive and deceptively complicated. For example, try stretching your arm. Nerves in the limb send messages back to your brain, but the subjective experience you have of stretching isn't due to these signals. The feeling that you willed your arm into motion, and the realisation that you moved it at all, are both the result of an area at the back of your brain called the posterior parietal cortex. This region helped to produce the intention to move, and predicted what the movement would feel like, all before you twitched a single muscle.''

So, are you saying that, for no reason at all, I stretched out my arm? And that the author's instruction to "try stretching out your arm" was merely a coincidence? That is highly improbable.

I disagree with the word "external" here. The vast majority of the elements that are controlling my brain's activity are internal, mostly from within the brain itself. If my brain controls the choice, and then informs my consciousness of that choice, then it still qualifies as a deliberate choice, one actually made by my own brain, to serve my own goals and reasons. And one that I experience as a choice that I have made for myself.

This experience is not an "illusion", but rather a meaningful model of what just happened in physical reality.

Internal neural mechanisms responds to external inputs, neural architecture and its activity is not subject to will or wish as it produces our experience of the world and our response to it in the form of perception, thought and action.

I can only agree with the "perception, thought, and action" if we acknowledge that the words "try stretching out your arm" were perceived, then thought about to the point where I chose to follow that instruction, and then action. Otherwise you're missing a step, because, normally, I would not follow that instruction, I would simply read about it. So, if the events described were to actually take place, I would have to first deliberately choose to stretch out my arm. Wouldn't you? I mean, as you read that paragraph, did your arm suddenly stretch out of its own accord?

 

[DBT]

Oh. Okay. You know, of course, that free will, being a deterministic event, cannot possibly be defined as "freedom from determinism". Therefore, free will must mean something else. Ordinary people, those who have not been infected with the paradox, usually consider free will to be a choice that a person makes for themselves, while free of coercion and insanity and manipulation and other forms of undue influence.

If we limit our notion of free will to the meaningful and relevant constraints that might prevent someone from rationally choosing for themselves what they will do, then we get a definition that actually works.

If we have a determined world, there is neither freedom from determinism or freedom of will, just necessitated actions performed without interference because that is the only possible action in that instance.

Well, we do not have a "determined world", we have a "deterministic world". There is no causal agent that has laid out a plan in advance for how things will turn out. There is no causal agent that is now unfolding that plan event by event. Such notions are superstitious nonsense. Wouldn't you agree?

Seems like moot point. A deterministic world has determined outcomes. If the distinction of 'deterministic' allows chance to enter, this still doesn't help compatibilism because the claim is that free will is compatible with determinism.

Nor does a deterministic (or determined) world entail a privileged causal agent or some sort of higher plan, moving the world in a different direction, etc.

We know for certain that there will be a single actual future, because we have only a single actual past to put it in. And this single future will come about through reliable interactions between the objects and forces that make up the physical universe. These reliable interactions are called "causes" and "effects". The effects of these causes become the causes of new effects, such that all events are the reliable result of prior events.

And this is what is meant when we say that we live in a "deterministic universe". It is AS IF some supernatural causal agent had laid out a plan for the future. But, of course, no such agent exists and no such plan exist. It all comes down to the actual interactions of the objects and forces themselves. Only the actual objects and forces can be said to cause events. To avoid superstitious beliefs, and faulty conclusions, we need to keep this fact clear in our heads.

Sure, not much to disagree with. Faulty conclusions based on limited perspective can be a problem, like freedom being compatible with determinism (freedom presumably requires regulative control and the possibility to do otherwise).

Oh, and of course, we happen to be one of those objects that goes about exerting force upon other objects, and causing new events. For example, I broke open three eggs, scrambled them, cooked them in the microwave, and ate them. That was one object, me, exerting force upon three other objects, the eggs, becoming the prior cause of the resulting event "me, eating the eggs".

Determinism did not break the eggs, scramble them, or eat them. That was me, I did that.

Whatever you do is done because countless elements (mostly unconscious) determine what you are and who you are, physically and mentally, language, culture, needs and wants driving thoughts and actions enabled by a brain capable of processing information and responding to it; an intelligent responsive system driven not by free will, not even by will, but by an interaction of biology and environment forming the drive or the will to act.

Well, almost. To get it right is to realize that one of the evolved roles of the brain is to decide what the body will do. For example, will my body fix pancakes for breakfast, or will my body fix eggs? "Hey, brain! Wake up! I need to know what I will fix for breakfast. Get up and do your job."

Doesn't quite work like that, you are not separate from your brain. It is the brain that constructs you, a conscious self in order interact with the world, puts it to sleep at night and reactivates it to face a new day in the morning, generating thoughts and impulses, hunger, thirst, make breakfast, go to work....

Then, by what label do you distinguish the deliberate choice from the coerced choice or the insane choice or, for that matter, from an accident? What do you wish to call the deliberate choice that you made for yourself?

Labels tend to be inadequate. We act out of our own volition, ie, the cognitive process. Instead of saying 'he acted of own free will' it would be more accurate to say 'he acted according to his own will'

We have will, but will is not free. Will is not the driver.

''Prior events have caused the person’s current desire to do X. Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes. Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X.''

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If we have a determined world, there is neither freedom from determinism or freedom of will, just necessitated actions performed without interference because that is the only possible action in that instance.

Well, we do not have a "determined world", we have a "deterministic world". There is no causal agent that has laid out a plan in advance for how things will turn out. There is no causal agent that is now unfolding that plan event by event. Such notions are superstitious nonsense. Wouldn't you agree?

Seems like moot point. A deterministic world has determined outcomes. If the distinction of 'deterministic' allows chance to enter, this still doesn't help compatibilism because the claim is that free will is compatible with determinism.

Nor does a deterministic (or determined) world entail a privileged causal agent or some sort of higher plan, moving the world in a different direction, etc.

Well, I wouldn't call it a special "privilege", but the quarterback causally determines which receiver to throw the football to, and the receiver then causally determines his route through the defense, and that route causally determines the directions of the defenders as they attempt to tackle the receiver.

Each event and each choice is causally necessary from any prior point in eternity, but causal necessity itself is never the agent of causation. The quarterback, the runner, and the tacklers are the causal agents. Causal necessity simply describes how each event, although uniquely caused, was reliably caused by prior events.

We enter the world of illusion when we ascribe causal agency to causal necessity.

We know for certain that there will be a single actual future, because we have only a single actual past to put it in. And this single future will come about through reliable interactions between the objects and forces that make up the physical universe. These reliable interactions are called "causes" and "effects". The effects of these causes become the causes of new effects, such that all events are the reliable result of prior events.

And this is what is meant when we say that we live in a "deterministic universe". It is AS IF some supernatural causal agent had laid out a plan for the future. But, of course, no such agent exists and no such plan exist. It all comes down to the actual interactions of the objects and forces themselves. Only the actual objects and forces can be said to cause events. To avoid superstitious beliefs, and faulty conclusions, we need to keep this fact clear in our heads.

Sure, not much to disagree with. Faulty conclusions based on limited perspective can be a problem, like freedom being compatible with determinism (freedom presumably requires regulative control and the possibility to do otherwise).

Well, yes, "faulty conclusions based upon a limited perspective" can be a problem, especially when we mistakenly assume that, since every event is causally necessary, the quarterback, the receiver, and the defenders have no significant role in determining what takes place on the football field.

A second faulty conclusion is that causal necessity implies the absence of all freedom. There is only one freedom that is absent due to causal necessity, and that would be "freedom from causal necessity". All other freedoms would still be relevant and meaningful. The bird can still be set free from its cage even though it is not free from causal necessity. We can still enjoy freedom of speech even though we are not free of causal necessity. The ice cream store can still offer us free samples, even though their offering and our acceptance of the offer would be causally necessary. And, we are free to decide for ourselves whether we wish to participate in Libet's experiment, even though the experiment and our choice to volunteer (or not) were causally necessary from any prior point in time.

Oh, and of course, we happen to be one of those objects that goes about exerting force upon other objects, and causing new events. For example, I broke open three eggs, scrambled them, cooked them in the microwave, and ate them. That was one object, me, exerting force upon three other objects, the eggs, becoming the prior cause of the resulting event "me, eating the eggs".

Determinism did not break the eggs, scramble them, or eat them. That was me, I did that.

Whatever you do is done because countless elements (mostly unconscious) determine what you are and who you are, physically and mentally, language, culture, needs and wants driving thoughts and actions enabled by a brain capable of processing information and responding to it; an intelligent responsive system driven not by free will, not even by will, but by an interaction of biology and environment forming the drive or the will to act.

One is exactly identical to the other. The countless factors that have determined "who and what I am" are now me. All of their influences and effects that are relevant to what I choose to do right now, are effects that exist solely within me at this moment. For example, I am alone in a room, sitting at a table with a bowl of apples on it. I'm hungry, and dinner won't be ready for a while, so I decide I will have an apple now.

If we look around, where do we find the prior causes of me, that made me "who and what I am" at this moment of decision? The hunger is me. The choosing to eat an apple rather than waiting for dinner, was performed by me. None of the others who may have influenced my dietary choices are in the room. Whatever influences they may have had are only present within me. There's just me and the apple. And in a few moments, the apple will also be part of me.

None of the prior causes of me get to participate in my choice without first becoming an integral part of who and what I am. So, it really is me, and no other object or force in the entire universe that is causally determining that I will eat that apple right now.

Well, almost. To get it right is to realize that one of the evolved roles of the brain is to decide what the body will do. For example, will my body fix pancakes for breakfast, or will my body fix eggs? "Hey, brain! Wake up! I need to know what I will fix for breakfast. Get up and do your job."

Doesn't quite work like that, you are not separate from your brain. It is the brain that constructs you, a conscious self in order interact with the world, puts it to sleep at night and reactivates it to face a new day in the morning, generating thoughts and impulses, hunger, thirst, make breakfast, go to work....

One is exactly identical to the other. What my brain has decided that I will do, I have decided that I will do. Even the unconscious functions, are included in the model of who and what I am. For example, if my brain has a tumor, then I have a tumor in my brain. If my heart has a dysrhythmia, then I have a dysrhythmia in my heart. If my toe is broken, then I have a broken toe.

The notion that my brain is somehow separate from me, and that I exist as an entity separate from my brain, is called "dualism". And that's where the notion of a "soul" comes from.

It might help to clarify things if we point out that it is the brain itself, and not a separate "soul", that is both producing and experiencing the thoughts and impulses you described.

Then, by what label do you distinguish the deliberate choice from the coerced choice or the insane choice or, for that matter, from an accident? What do you wish to call the deliberate choice that you made for yourself?

Labels tend to be inadequate.

Yet, labels are necessary to make meaningful distinctions, like identifying whether the animal is a "dog" or a "cat". Or, whether the controlling cause of a person's behavior was their own "deliberate choosing" or a "choice imposed upon them by a man with a gun".

We act out of our own volition, ie, the cognitive process. Instead of saying 'he acted of own free will' it would be more accurate to say 'he acted according to his own will'

That would work assuming "our own will" implies that we were free to choose for ourselves what we would do, rather than being compelled by someone else.

We have will, but will is not free.

Right. But "free will" never implies that the will is free, but only that it was freely chosen.

Will is not the driver.

I strongly disagree with that. Will is the mind's intent to do something, and that intent drives the doing. But other than driving the behavior it does not drive anything else. For example, deliberate will does not choose itself. It is the choosing that drives the will.

''Prior events have caused the person’s current desire to do X. Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes. Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X.''

Technically correct. But the source of the person's current desire is within the person. The desire does not exist outside of the person, and it is formed within the person. It can be influenced by external stimuli, like a television ad that is designed to form such a desire within the person. But it is still up to the person to decide what to do about that desire, to assess that desire in terms of other desires, and to choose for themselves which desires they will attempt to satisfy.

 

[steve_bank]

When you say the qb causally determines which receiver gets that ball it again comes down to how the brain works along with the experience and conditioning leading up to a specific pass.

You end up with an infinite regression back in time before the formation of the solar system. Did how the Sun developed one particle at a time predetermine what the qb did?

Was it Preder mined at the BB event that the particles in qb's brain that selected a receiver?

Is here a ransmess in the brain. Given the exact same conditions will the qb always do the same thing?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

When you say the qb causally determines which receiver gets that ball it again comes down to how the brain works along with the experience and conditioning leading up to a specific pass.

Yes. When we refer to the "quarterback", we are including his brain, his legs and his arms, his skills and his knowledge, and all that other stuff that makes the quarterback who and what he is. Each of these things has its own chain of reliable causes leading back to any prior point in eternity. But, that's quite a mouthful, so most people just refer to the quarterback as Mr. Armstrong (UVa Cavaliers).

You end up with an infinite regression back in time before the formation of the solar system. Did how the Sun developed one particle at a time predetermine what the qb did?

Well, nothing really "pre" determines anything. Everything is determined (finalized) when its last prior causes have all played themselves out. Nothing can actually happen before it happens. And as we trace prior causes backward from the event, they each become a little less meaningful, less relevant, and more coincidental.

So, the Sun was a necessary event for there being a livable planet called Earth. And the formation of the Sun would show up in the causal chain of all subsequent events happening on Earth, but the Sun's formation could hardly be called the cause of any event on Earth. So, the most meaningful and relevant causes of the quarterback's behavior are all located within the quarterback at the time he selects a receiver for his pass.

Was it Preder mined (ME: predetermined) at the BB event that the particles in qb's brain that selected a receiver?

Same with the Big Bang. The events during the Big Bang play no meaningful or relevant roles in the quarterback's decision to pass, who to pass it to, and, had there been no receivers available, which direction to run the ball. Those decisions are all based upon the current conditions on the field, not the conditions of the Big Bang.

Is here a ransmess (ME: randomness) in the brain. Given the exact same conditions will the qb always do the same thing?

If the physical, biological, and rational conditions were all the same, then the quarterback would always do the same thing at that point in time. Why would he do anything different, other than decide what to do based upon the conditions on the field?

On the other hand, he could have done many other things. What he could have done is not limited by what he actually did.

The notions of "can" and "will" are distinct, and must not be conflated or confused. What we "will" do is constrained by what we "can" do. But what we "can" do is only constrained by our imagination.

 

[steve_bank]

That is where your thinking breaks down, IMO.

Our brains are composed of particles that in the Standard Model trace their genesis to the BB.

The functions of our mind are based in interactions of atoms and subatomic particles.

If not, you are left with arguing mind as separate from physical reality. Mind body duality. The attoms in the bran have no causl effect on thinking? What about genes?

Without the Erath which traces to the BB there are no humans to begin with,

Are we having fun yet?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

That is where your thinking breaks down, IMO.
Our brains are composed of particles that in the Standard Model trace their genesis to the BB.
The functions of our mind are based in interactions of atoms and subatomic particles.
If not, you are left with arguing mind as separate from physical reality. Mind body duality. The attoms in the bran have no causl effect on thinking? What about genes?
Without the Erath which traces to the BB there are no humans to begin with,
Are we having fun yet?

Well, you seem to be having fun, but I'm currently sobering up.

Physical matter behaves differently according to how it is organized. The atoms of Hydrogen and the atoms of Oxygen are gaseous until you drop their temperature to several hundred degrees below zero. But when you combine two atoms of Hydrogen with one atom of Oxygen you get water, a liquid at room temperature and something we can skate on in winter.

Combine the appropriate atoms into a molecule of DNA and you get a blueprint and the tools for building a living organism. Given an appropriate environment where other essential molecules are nearby, and it will build you a tree, or a worm, or a butterfly, or a human being.

And if you provide an environment in which these living organisms can survive, thrive, and reproduce, they will produce new variations of their species. Eventually, some of these these variations will evolve a new machine, a brain, that can imagine, evaluate, and choose for itself what its body will do.

But the water molecule on its own will not attempt to survive, thrive, and reproduce. That's not something that most molecules do. You need a special machine to do that, a machine that the DNA molecule builds, a living organism.

A living organism behaves differently than inanimate matter. Place a bowling ball on a slope and it will always roll downhill, its behavior governed by the force of gravity. But place a squirrel on that same slope, and he may go up, down, or any other direction where he hopes to find his next acorn. While the squirrel is affected by gravity, he is not governed by it. Instead he is governed by biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce.

So, to get special behavior, you need a special machine, one built to perform that behavior. The individual atoms that make up a squirrel have little control over what the squirrel does. But another machine within the squirrel, called a brain, can deliberately choose what the squirrel will do, and the squirrel will damn well do it.

The mind is a physical process running upon the neural architecture of the brain. Turn off the brain's processes, and the brain reverts to an inert lump of matter.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, I daresay one thing is most determined: that there ARE things out there planning our future step by step, decision by decision, if badly, and those things are US, and when there are conflicts between those plans they are conflicts of "free will" as relates to our local indeterminabilities..

 

[steve_bank]

Well, I daresay one thing is most determined: that there ARE things out there planning our future step by step, decision by decision, if badly, and those things are US, and when there are conflicts between those plans they are conflicts of "free will" as relates to our local indeterminabilities..

Not just the US. Ethiopia is breaking down into utter chaos and violence, widespread starvation. All over aa choice of a contest of wills over a compromise.

 

[steve_bank]

That is where your thinking breaks down, IMO.
Our brains are composed of particles that in the Standard Model trace their genesis to the BB.
The functions of our mind are based in interactions of atoms and subatomic particles.
If not, you are left with arguing mind as separate from physical reality. Mind body duality. The attoms in the bran have no causl effect on thinking? What about genes?
Without the Erath which traces to the BB there are no humans to begin with,
Are we having fun yet?

Well, you seem to be having fun, but I'm currently sobering up.

Physical matter behaves differently according to how it is organized. The atoms of Hydrogen and the atoms of Oxygen are gaseous until you drop their temperature to several hundred degrees below zero. But when you combine two atoms of Hydrogen with one atom of Oxygen you get water, a liquid at room temperature and something we can skate on in winter.

Combine the appropriate atoms into a molecule of DNA and you get a blueprint and the tools for building a living organism. Given an appropriate environment where other essential molecules are nearby, and it will build you a tree, or a worm, or a butterfly, or a human being.

And if you provide an environment in which these living organisms can survive, thrive, and reproduce, they will produce new variations of their species. Eventually, some of these these variations will evolve a new machine, a brain, that can imagine, evaluate, and choose for itself what its body will do.

But the water molecule on its own will not attempt to survive, thrive, and reproduce. That's not something that most molecules do. You need a special machine to do that, a machine that the DNA molecule builds, a living organism.

A living organism behaves differently than inanimate matter. Place a bowling ball on a slope and it will always roll downhill, its behavior governed by the force of gravity. But place a squirrel on that same slope, and he may go up, down, or any other direction where he hopes to find his next acorn. While the squirrel is affected by gravity, he is not governed by it. Instead he is governed by biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce.

So, to get special behavior, you need a special machine, one built to perform that behavior. The individual atoms that make up a squirrel have little control over what the squirrel does. But another machine within the squirrel, called a brain, can deliberately choose what the squirrel will do, and the squirrel will damn well do it.

The mind is a physical process running upon the neural architecture of the brain. Turn off the brain's processes, and the brain reverts to an inert lump of matter.

A rock is organized matter. Your entire body and thinking are based on reactions at the atomic scale. Just like a computer is based on atomic scale actions in the circuits.

Our brains are hard wired by genetics and evolution with the capacity to learn and adapt. A philosophical case can be made that our thoughts are predetermined before we are born.



I don't know what fun is, I am deadly serious all the time and these are most serious questions ... .I do enjoy watching a cat trying to catch a string dangled in front of it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, I daresay one thing is most determined: that there ARE things out there planning our future step by step, decision by decision, if badly, and those things are US, and when there are conflicts between those plans they are conflicts of "free will" as relates to our local indeterminabilities..

Not just the US. Ethiopia is breaking down into utter chaos and violence, widespread starvation. All over aa choice of a contest of wills over a compromise.

No, I mean, us, the things as translate forces on units of "person", and also on scales of "executive bodies" and also "corporate bodies" and also other forms of organization, some religious and some not.

Edit: sometimes, the deterministic aspects of the universe do not just give us leverage within our idea space to point our vector towards our goals.

Also, it is sometimes the case that they disabuse us of our models through whatever learning model applies to what we are, and we have to adjust those models.

We learn, adapt, and grow.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

A rock is organized matter.

And the behavior of the rock is fully governed by physical forces, like gravity, inertia, etc.

Your entire body and thinking are based on reactions at the atomic scale.

Everything is running on atoms, but atoms are not running anything.

Just like a computer is based on atomic scale actions in the circuits.

The computer is running on electricity, which is a transfer of electrons from one end of a circuit to another. But those electrons have no clue as to what's going on. Nor do any of the atoms. The only ones that know what's happening are the engineers and programmers, you know, the guys who built the machines and programmed them to serve us humans.

Our brains are hard wired by genetics and evolution with the capacity to learn and adapt.

And that ability to adapt enables us to modify our brains. A coed is invited to a party, but she remembers she has a chemistry test in the morning. So, she decides it would be better to stay home and study tonight. As she reviews her textbook and lecture notes, she is reinforcing the neural pathways related to that data, so that when she sees the question on the test, the answer will pop into her consciousness. She is, by her deliberate choice, modifying her own brain.

A philosophical case can be made that our thoughts are predetermined before we are born.

Sure. But the critical question is, "So what?" Causal necessity is a logical fact. But it is not a meaningful fact. And it is not a relevant fact to any human problem, question, or issue. So, why bring it up? The intelligent mind simply acknowledges it, and then ignores it.

 

[DBT]

Well, I wouldn't call it a special "privilege", but the quarterback causally determines which receiver to throw the football to, and the receiver then causally determines his route through the defense, and that route causally determines the directions of the defenders as they attempt to tackle the receiver.

Each event and each choice is causally necessary from any prior point in eternity, but causal necessity itself is never the agent of causation. The quarterback, the runner, and the tacklers are the causal agents. Causal necessity simply describes how each event, although uniquely caused, was reliably caused by prior events.


We enter the world of illusion when we ascribe causal agency to causal necessity.

By 'privileged' I meant autonomous mental access to the means of production, neural activity/information processing, with the ability to modify deterministic activity, thereby endowing oneself with an ability to do otherwise, which is to have free will.

But of course, nobody can do that. Which means that free will is an illusion, a figure of speech; she acted of her own free will, meaning - she acted of her own accord, she acted according to her own will.

A second faulty conclusion is that causal necessity implies the absence of all freedom. There is only one freedom that is absent due to causal necessity, and that would be "freedom from causal necessity". All other freedoms would still be relevant and meaningful. The bird can still be set free from its cage even though it is not free from causal necessity. We can still enjoy freedom of speech even though we are not free of causal necessity. The ice cream store can still offer us free samples, even though their offering and our acceptance of the offer would be causally necessary. And, we are free to decide for ourselves whether we wish to participate in Libet's experiment, even though the experiment and our choice to volunteer (or not) were causally necessary from any prior point in time.

Causal necessity allows no alternate action. Actions are necessitated/determined. Without alternate actions possible, where is the freedom to have done otherwise? Where is the freedom of choice or will - it is an illusion.

Freedom refers to necessitated actions which are necessarily performed without impediment or constraint; 'Prior events have caused the person’s current desire to do X. Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes. Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X.'

A certain kind of freedom, no doubt, just not freedom of will.

Whether or not we decide to participate in Libet type experiments doesn't come out of the blue....what we do depends on our underlying drivers, our motives and interests.

Somebody may believe in free will, they see an opportunity to prove their power of veto, to make a point, so they are eager to participate. There are any number of factors that drives behaviour, desire, fear, pleasure...

Technically correct. But the source of the person's current desire is within the person. The desire does not exist outside of the person, and it is formed within the person. It can be influenced by external stimuli, like a television ad that is designed to form such a desire within the person. But it is still up to the person to decide what to do about that desire, to assess that desire in terms of other desires, and to choose for themselves which desires they will attempt to satisfy.

Well, yes, whatever information is within a person is acted upon by external stimuli. But what we have isnot only acted upon, everything that we see, hear, believe, know, think, do, is information that has been acquired by the brain from the external world. We are being shaped and formed by the world even as we respond to it.

 

[steve_bank]

Both rocks and bodies are determined by physical laws.

Your nervous system is electrical. Does a neuron know anything? Your sense of self is the sum of a number of discrete states at any given time. Analogous to digital video. It looks like continuous motion, in reality it is a sequence of still images changing faster than the persistence of the eye.

Your brain is a biological computer, just not of the Turing Machine form of a PC processor. Your neural net has logic functions at the neuron level. You would need to understand Boolean Algebra, digital logic, and state machines to see it.

John Lily went off the deep end a bit combining LSD with salt water isolation tanks as in the movie Altered States, but it is a good read. He staed by doing research on live dolphin brans until he concluded they were aware thinking creatures with a language.

Amazon product ASIN B003Y34SSA

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Both rocks and bodies are determined by physical laws.

Your nervous system is electrical. Does a neuron know anything? Your sense of self is the sum of a number of discrete states at any given time. Analogous to digital video. It looks like continuous motion, in reality it is a sequence of still images changing faster than the persistence of the eye.

Your brain is a biological computer, just not of the Turing Machine form of a PC processor. Your neural net has logic functions at the neuron level. You would need to understand Boolean Algebra, digital logic, and state machines to see it.

John Lily went off the deep end a bit combining LSD with salt water isolation tanks as in the movie Altered States, but it is a good read. He staed by doing research on live dolphin brans until he concluded they were aware thinking creatures with a language.

Amazon product ASIN B003Y34SSA

Did you ever catch the "Fringe" tv series? The guy had a tank in his lab and used it in the first episode. (Great series by the way, John Noble's character was amazing...in both universes).

 

[Marvin Edwards]

By 'privileged' I meant autonomous mental access to the means of production, neural activity/information processing, with the ability to modify deterministic activity ...

All activity is deterministic, and there is nothing anyone can do to alter that logical fact.

... thereby endowing oneself with an ability to do otherwise

The "ability to do otherwise" is part of the choosing operation, which operates entirely deterministically. The notion of an "ability" serves as a logical token for something that we "can" do if we choose to. An "ability to do otherwise" is part of the choosing operation.

These notions of things that "we may or may not choose to do" are part of a larger category of "matters of uncertainty". These are summed up as follows: When we do not know what "will" happen, we imagine what "can" happen, to better prepare for what "does" happen.

What "will" happen in a choosing operation is unknown. "Will I choose A, or, will I choose B? I don't know yet." So, we replace the "will" with a "can" to help us remember that what we "will" do is as yet unknown. The "can" stands in for the "will" until we are no longer uncertain as to what we "will" do.

At the beginning of the choosing operation, "I can choose A" and "I can choose B" must both be true, by logical necessity. Causal necessity, which guarantees that we will perform a choosing operation at this point, causally necessitates that it will be logically necessary at this point that "I can choose A" and "I can choose B" will in fact be true.

Continuing with the choosing operation, we evaluate option A, then evaluate option B, compare their results, and choose the one that seems best to us.

, which is to have free will. But of course, nobody can do that. ...

I just did it. Right there in front of you. Did you want to check my sleeves?

Which means that free will is an illusion, a figure of speech; she acted of her own free will, meaning - she acted of her own accord, she acted according to her own will.

The only illusion here is that determinism is a causal agent that makes our decisions for us. If she decided for herself what she would do, then she is the causal agent. And that is empirical reality.

Determinism has no interest in the outcome. But she had skin in the game, an interest in seeing the best outcome for herself and perhaps others.

Pretending that some other object was controlling her for its own interests is a delusion created by the false suggestions that build the "determinism versus free will" paradox.

A paradox is created by false, but believable, suggestions. Take, Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. Achilles, the fastest runner in the world, confidently gives the tortoise a huge head start. Then Achilles runs to where the tortoise is. But, when he gets there, the tortoise, even going very slowly, has advanced further ahead. So, Achilles runs to where the tortoise is now. But, just as before, the tortoise is now a little farther down the road. So, it is impossible for Achilles to ever catch the tortoise. Right?