Compatibilism: What's that About?

[DBT]

1. If causal determinism is true, all events are necessitated

2. If all events are necessitated, then there are no powers

3. Free will consists in the exercise of an agent’s powers

Therefore, if causal determinism is true, there is no free will; which is to say that free will is incompatible with determinism, so compatibilism is false.''

1. If causal determinism is true, effects reliably follow causes.
2. If effects reliably follow causes, then I have the power to cause an effect.
3. Free will consists in the exercise of an agent’s powers.
4. Therefore, if causal determinism is true, I have free will.

FIFY.

Being determined, thus fixed by antecedents, 'reliable effects' are not freely willed or chosen effects. They are determined effects, thus have nothing to do with free will or choice. Alternate actions, not being possible within a determined system, choosing an alternate option or action is ruled out. The determined path proceeds without deviation without regard to will or wish.

 

[DBT]

To be brief and to the point: Compatibilism fails at the point of neural agency.

Compatibilism assumes that our own brains, through our own neural architecture, is deciding whether we will order the steak or the salad for dinner.

Our own brain's do process information and initiate actions, just not according to free will or free choice in the sense that an alternate action is possible.

Freedom demands alternate possibilities, determinism rules out alternate actions, determined actions are not freely chosen or freely willed actions. A determined action is not subject to will or modification. A determined action - by definition - proceeds as determined.

There is no getting around that.

The brain as a deterministic system by definition lacks the right kind of control or agency to qualify as free will.

The only kind of control or agency required to qualify as free will is the ability to decide what we will do. Our brains routinely do this every day. For example, in the restaurant, our brain inputs the menu of possible dinners, and decides to order the salad.

Determined by antecedents. Nothing to do with will, wish, free choice, free will or conscious agency. Information inputs, processing, behavioral output resulting in thoughts and actions, the system doing what it does.

Form and function, not free will.

This is indisputable proof that our brains have precisely the kind of control and agency to causally determine whether to order the steak or the salad. And if that choice is free of coercion and free of undue influence, then it is a freely chosen will.

Control implies the ability to do otherwise. Determinism rules out the ability to do otherwise.

Function is not free will. Regulation determined by architecture is determined by that architecture (mouse brains, cat brains, chimp brains, human brains, etc, etc).

A brain lacks the right kind of regulation.


There is no escaping agency:

A determined action is not a freely willed action.

Not being a freely willed action, a determined action is not a matter of free will.

Free will playing no part in determined actions, determinism and free will are not compatible.

Free will is therefore not compatible with determinism.

The consequence argument again;

(1) The existence of alternative possibilities (or the agent's power to do otherwise) is a necessary condition for acting freely.

(2) Determinism is not compatible with alternative possibilities (it precludes the power to do otherwise).

(3) Therefore, determinism is not compatible with acting freely.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I'm glad that what we do isn't what early humans did. I prefer the comfort of a warm home and the understanding that I am safe in my environment for most things in the here and now. Would have been a waste of hardware otherwise.

Still, at base we are beings that can disappear in an instant should a large thing hit our earth or some power hungry maniac can bring down our world by simply pushing a button. The world is determined and we will suffer the consequences of it being what it is.

Ironically, today, science is telling us that our behavior is raising the temperature of the world, and suggesting that we burn less fossil fuels to avoid global warming. So, we seem to have some causal influence upon how things turn out.

Everything we are are wrapped up in the existence of that world. We are not consequential just temporary. That we are complex is fortunate for us. But evolution nor the world provided will or any of those other things you fancy we have. They are constructs men imagine as part of their being social animals because that is all we can directly sense or make sense about. Yet, when we look at the world it makes sense to explain it as determined through a system we call science.

I alerted you to the imaginariness of religion and faeries. Now I'm alerting you to the imaginariness of will, choice, and the other which are no more that reinterpretations of our labeled behavior.

Yes, I know what you mean. "Flying machines"! Who ever heard of such things?! Oh, wait...perhaps some of the things that follow from our imagination become objectively real.

Keep it simple.

Hey, that's my motto.

We are strictly materially determined. Evolution out of being determined is not an option. No matter how you connect this to that what comes in this goes out that. The sum of the parts is no more than equal to the parts and emergence isn't a property of the material determined world.

The notion of emergence is simply that if I give you the parts of a bicycle, you will not be able to ride it anywhere until those parts are organized in a specific way. When organized, you can hop on it and ride wherever you like.

If you want to start a subcategory of philosophy based on self observation please be sure to label it as such. It has incomplete derivative association with determinism. We probably can never know how to complete the square for it since it arises from executed behavior among social beings.

No thanks. Philosophy already has too many useless notions as it is. It seems that anytime someone has an opinion about something, philosophy must categorize and store it for posterity, no matter how silly it is.

I'll stick to empiricism and pragmatism, you know, the tools for keeping things simple.

A follow on puzzle. Find the objective elements in the definitions below if you can.

A better puzzle: provide an objective definition of "objective".

 

[Jarhyn]

awareness or perception of an inward psychological or spiritual fact; intuitively perceived knowledge of something in one's inner self

Class thing{
Private:
int quality;
Public:
int doTask(int taskInfo){
If (quality < taskInfo)
{
Return SUCCESS;
}
quality+=taskInfo;
observable_quality = quality;
Return FAILURE;
}
int observable_quality;
}

So, this is well defined: it physically defines relationships between things in a binary field through instantiation.
This class objectively has an awareness of quality: it holds, accesses and modifies this quality.

Moreover it is an "inward" fact of the "psychology" of the Algorighm.

It is intuitively perceived: it is perceived directly rather than through calculation, prediction, or secondary means.

As these are observables of and about an object (in fact the language used to describe this is "object oriented"), and these are object properties, it is 100% objective.

 

[Jarhyn]

fixed by antecedents

... Does not mean that their own structure is not what it is now, a Nexus of those antecedents. The past impacts the present, but the past is not in and of itself the present, nor is the present in and of itself "the past".

It is the same "present" in fact regardless of whether the past drove it from first cause or whether the "past" is merely something that "could have driven it from first cause" but the system was constructed in place Last Thursday.

And so it is THE thing in THE present, and not "prior necessitation" that is operating, responsible, and free (or not, depending on the situation).

The antecedents for the future resolution of stochastic predictions are beyond horizons and operationally this creates a situation where any thing that exists within and of any universe can do is, at best, gamble.

It is the fact that, regardless of the antecedents, they are not known or knowable within the locality that enables free will as a property linked to a locality.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Our own brain's do process information and initiate actions, just not according to free will or free choice in the sense that an alternate action is possible.

We do not expect our brains to act "according to free will or free choice", whatever that means.

But we do expect our brains to determine for us what we will do, when we are faced with a problem or issue that requires us to choose between two or more possible actions. For example, should I have breakfast now, or should I finish this comment first?

Freedom demands alternate possibilities, determinism rules out alternate actions, determined actions are not freely chosen or freely willed actions. A determined action is not subject to will or modification. A determined action - by definition - proceeds as determined.

Freedom doesn't "demand" alternate possibilities. Alternate possibilities simply show up in empirical reality, requiring us to choose what we will do about them. For example, we enter a restaurant and are presented with a literal menu of alternate possibilities.

And there is no getting around that. Either we make a choice or we go without dinner.

So, as evolution would have it, our brains routinely perform choosing operations, every day.

The notions of "free will", and "deliberate", and "voluntary" are used to distinguish choices we make for ourselves versus choices imposed upon us by someone or something else, for example, a mental illness that imposes upon us an irresistible impulse.

Arguments that apply to "free will" would apply to "deliberate" and "voluntary" as well. If free will is eliminated, then so is deliberate and voluntary, by the same methods.

Determined by antecedents.

Every event is always reliably caused by antecedent events. But you seem to think that this fact has supernatural implications, that it simply does not have.

Nothing to do with will, wish, free choice, free will or conscious agency.

For example, "will", "wish", "choice", and "consciousness" can all be antecedent events of the current choice. The fact of antecedent events cannot be used to eradicate or hide the actual antecedent events.

The "wish" to satisfy our hunger is the antecedent event of our "choice" to eat at the restaurant. Our deliberate "will" to have dinner at the restaurant is the antecedent event of us actually getting up, going into the restaurant, reading the menu, and placing our orders.

We cannot claim that antecedent events have causal power to necessitate subsequent events, and then dismiss the actual antecedent events as if they never existed.

Information inputs, processing, behavioral output resulting in thoughts and actions, the system doing what it does.

Exactly. And the system decided to go to the restaurant, read the menu, choose what it would order for dinner, and place its order with the waiter.

Form and function, not free will.

It is an irrefutable fact that one of the brain's functions is to choose from the menu what we will have for dinner.

Whether the term "free will" applies or not depends entirely upon whether the brain performed this function while free of coercion and undue influence or not.

Control implies the ability to do otherwise.

That which decides what will happen next exercises control. The brain that decides what the person will order for dinner controls the voice that tells the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

The "ability" to do otherwise never requires that we actually do otherwise. We have the ability to order the steak and we also have the ability to order the salad. If we order the salad, then, given determinism, we may safely say that it was always the case that we would order the salad. But it would be false to suggest that we could not have ordered the steak. In fact, given determinism, it was always the case that we could have ordered the steak.

"I ordered the salad, but I could have ordered the steak", is a true statement in both its parts.

Determinism rules out the ability to do otherwise.

That is a false claim. Determinism never rules out anything that "can" or "could have" happened. It can only assert that, what could have happened, would not have happened, given the same circumstances. And everyone would find that logically consistent.

But we experience cognitive dissonance when told that "we could not have done otherwise", because the logical representation of the choosing operation requires that there be at least two things that we "can" choose, even when there is only one thing that we "will" choose. At the end of the choice, between our two "I can's", there will be the single thing that "I will" do and at least one other thing that "I could have" done, but didn't.

The logic of the language is this: If "I can" was true at any point in the past, then "I could have" will forever be true in the future. It is a simple matter of present tense and past tense. And that is why we experience cognitive dissonance when told that we "could not have done otherwise", but do not experience it when told that we "would not have done otherwise".

Function is not free will.

That is a false dichotomy. Not all functions are free will, but one of those functions is. When the function is to decide for ourselves what we will do while free of coercion and undue influence, then that specific function is specifically free will.

Regulation determined by architecture is determined by that architecture (mouse brains, cat brains, chimp brains, human brains, etc, etc). A brain lacks the right kind of regulation.

That is another false dichotomy. Not all regulatory functions determined by the brain's architecture is free will. But when the function is to decide for ourselves what we will do while free of coercion and undue influence, then that specific function regulates our subsequent actions, then that regulatory function is specifically free will.

There is no escaping agency:

And yet the incompatibilist continues trying to escape human agency! Their problem is that there is no place else to put it.

A determined action is not a freely willed action.

Another false dichotomy. Not all determined actions are free will events. But the specific determined action, of deciding for ourselves what we will do while free of coercion and undue influence, happens to be a freely chosen "I will". And the specific determined action where our choice is coerced or unduly influenced happens to be not freely chosen.

Not being a freely willed action, a determined action is not a matter of free will.

Except when the determined action happens to be a choice we make for ourselves that is free of coercion and undue influence.

Being determined does not tell us whether or not our choice was free of coercion and undue influence. In most cases it will be causally determined that we will be free of coercion and undue influence. In that case, it is causally necessary that we would make that choice of our own free will.

Free will playing no part in determined actions, determinism and free will are not compatible.

Free will is not an agent with a will of its own. It does not participate in making decisions. A deterministic process makes the decision, by choosing from two or more alternate possibilities what the person will do. Free will is about whether the deterministic process was subject to coercion or undue influence or not. If the deterministic decision making process was free of coercion and undue influence, then it is called a freely chosen will.

Free will is therefore not compatible with determinism.

The logical and physical evidence does not support that position. The logical and physical evidence supports the notion that a deterministic decision making process can be either subject to coercion or undue influence, or, the process can be free of them. Free will, as a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and undue influence, appears to be perfectly compatible with causal determinism.

The consequence argument again;
(1) The existence of alternative possibilities (or the agent's power to do otherwise) is a necessary condition for acting freely.
(2) Determinism is not compatible with alternative possibilities (it precludes the power to do otherwise).
(3) Therefore, determinism is not compatible with acting freely.

1. As I've pointed out, we are commonly faced with empirical circumstances in which there are at least two distinct courses of action, each of which we have the ability to successfully follow, if we choose to do so. And we have the ability to choose either one, even though we will choose only one.
2. Both causal determinism and logical necessity guarantee that there will be alternative possibilities whenever a choice needs to be made.
3. Determinism is never incompatible with anything other than indeterminism. The only freedom that determinism is incompatible with is "freedom from determinism". It is not incompatible with "freedom of speech", or "free of charge", or "freedom to assemble", or "freedom of religion", or "freedom of the press", or "free will".

 

[fromderinside]

fixed by antecedents

... Does not mean that their own structure is not what it is now, a Nexus of those antecedents. The past impacts the present, but the past is not in and of itself the present, nor is the present in and of itself "the past".

It is the same "present" in fact regardless of whether the past drove it from first cause or whether the "past" is merely something that "could have driven it from first cause" but the system was constructed in place Last Thursday.

And so it is THE thing in THE present, and not "prior necessitation" that is operating, responsible, and free (or not, depending on the situation).

The antecedents for the future resolution of stochastic predictions are beyond horizons and operationally this creates a situation where any thing that exists within and of any universe can do is, at best, gamble.

It is the fact that, regardless of the antecedents, they are not known or knowable within the locality that enables free will as a property linked to a locality.

Care to 'splain your 'splaining? From the mind if Mindeaus I believe. ... and there's the rub. U can't.

I handled your nexus 'problem'. There is no fiction (read self defined or emergence) in reality. IOW your model of reality is a self referenced, self defined MODEL!!!! Try again leaving self on the shelf.

 

[Jarhyn]

fixed by antecedents

... Does not mean that their own structure is not what it is now, a Nexus of those antecedents. The past impacts the present, but the past is not in and of itself the present, nor is the present in and of itself "the past".

It is the same "present" in fact regardless of whether the past drove it from first cause or whether the "past" is merely something that "could have driven it from first cause" but the system was constructed in place Last Thursday.

And so it is THE thing in THE present, and not "prior necessitation" that is operating, responsible, and free (or not, depending on the situation).

The antecedents for the future resolution of stochastic predictions are beyond horizons and operationally this creates a situation where any thing that exists within and of any universe can do is, at best, gamble.

It is the fact that, regardless of the antecedents, they are not known or knowable within the locality that enables free will as a property linked to a locality.

Care to 'splain your 'splaining? From the mind if Mindeaus I believe. ... and there's the rub. U can't.

I handled your nexus 'problem'. There is no fiction (read self defined) in reality.

No, you didn't. You just waved your arms around and then claimed you did.

I pointed out all this in my very well defined examples and if you can't grok that, then I guess you can lead a horse to water...

While past configuration becomes the present, the present is not the past configuration, is it exactly what it is, no more and no less.

And in the present, today, "I" am a relativistic "locality" and it is that relativistic locality, that Nexus of causality, that decides.

Other people can identify me as the Nexus of causality for certain things happening and that Nexus, not the past events but their present result, that makes the "decisions" and operates "choice function", again not on the past events but on present realities.

Prior cause stopped existing the moment it became the present.

 

[fromderinside]

awareness or perception of an inward psychological or spiritual fact; intuitively perceived knowledge of something in one's inner self

Class thing{
Private:
int quality;
Public:
int doTask(int taskInfo){
If (quality < taskInfo)
{
Return SUCCESS;
}
quality+=taskInfo;
observable_quality = quality;
Return FAILURE;
}
int observable_quality;
}

So, this is well defined: it physically defines relationships between things in a binary field through instantiation.
This class objectively has an awareness of quality: it holds, accesses and modifies this quality.

Moreover it is an "inward" fact of the "psychology" of the Algorighm.

It is intuitively perceived: it is perceived directly rather than through calculation, prediction, or secondary means.

As these are observables of and about an object (in fact the language used to describe this is "object oriented"), and these are object properties, it is 100% objective.

I'm not asking for object oriented, I'm looking for a materially defined operational definition. All you have are immaterial operations to which you see what you think you know as reality without actually attaching your definition to material, not logical, reality. Not good enough. They are logically manipulated self referenced 'observables' which with about 10 cents are worth nothing.

 

[Jarhyn]

awareness or perception of an inward psychological or spiritual fact; intuitively perceived knowledge of something in one's inner self

Class thing{
Private:
int quality;
Public:
int doTask(int taskInfo){
If (quality < taskInfo)
{
Return SUCCESS;
}
quality+=taskInfo;
observable_quality = quality;
Return FAILURE;
}
int observable_quality;
}

So, this is well defined: it physically defines relationships between things in a binary field through instantiation.
This class objectively has an awareness of quality: it holds, accesses and modifies this quality.

Moreover it is an "inward" fact of the "psychology" of the Algorighm.

It is intuitively perceived: it is perceived directly rather than through calculation, prediction, or secondary means.

As these are observables of and about an object (in fact the language used to describe this is "object oriented"), and these are object properties, it is 100% objective.

I'm not asking for object oriented ,I'm looking for a materially defined operational definition. All you have are immaterial operations to which you see what you think you know as reality without actually attaching the definition to the material reality. Not good enough.

You claim these operations are "immaterial" yet here I am operating them. With material. Material operations.

This goes all the way down to assembly code and physical realities.

I think you don't quite understand that there is no "subjectivity" to discuss when we are discussing literal objects, albeit literal objects composed of charge patterns, and the relationships that their form has had imposed upon them between regions of that binary field by physical necessity of the machine.

I in fact find it ridiculous and a little bit insulting (not to me, mind...) that you fail to realize this: these things that I am writing metamorphose into actual machine code, that defines actual behaviors of an actual physical nature in an actual physical system. All of it is well defined. Physically.

 

[fromderinside]

awareness or perception of an inward psychological or spiritual fact; intuitively perceived knowledge of something in one's inner self

Class thing{
Private:
int quality;
Public:
int doTask(int taskInfo){
If (quality < taskInfo)
{
Return SUCCESS;
}
quality+=taskInfo;
observable_quality = quality;
Return FAILURE;
}
int observable_quality;
}

So, this is well defined: it physically defines relationships between things in a binary field through instantiation.
This class objectively has an awareness of quality: it holds, accesses and modifies this quality.

Moreover it is an "inward" fact of the "psychology" of the Algorighm.

It is intuitively perceived: it is perceived directly rather than through calculation, prediction, or secondary means.

As these are observables of and about an object (in fact the language used to describe this is "object oriented"), and these are object properties, it is 100% objective.

I'm not asking for object oriented ,I'm looking for a materially defined operational definition. All you have are immaterial operations to which you see what you think you know as reality without actually attaching the definition to the material reality. Not good enough.

You claim these operations are "immaterial" yet here I am operating them. With material. Material operations.

This goes all the way down to assembly code and physical realities.

I think you don't quite understand that there is no "subjectivity" to discuss when we are discussing literal objects, albeit literal objects composed of charge patterns, and the relationships that their form has had imposed upon them between regions of that binary field by physical necessity of the machine.

I in fact find it ridiculous and a little bit insulting (not to me, mind...) that you fail to realize this: these things that I am writing metamorphose into actual machine code, that defines actual behaviors of an actual physical nature in an actual physical system. All of it is well defined. Physically.

Amazing. Most every model I know about of mind produces material results usually inline with model designer opinions about how they should produce material results., No reality but actual physical operations. Think of your models as self fulfilling prophesies.

 

[DBT]

fixed by antecedents

... Does not mean that their own structure is not what it is now, a Nexus of those antecedents. The past impacts the present, but the past is not in and of itself the present, nor is the present in and of itself "the past".

It is what it is now because now is determined by antecedents. Which means what it is 'now' is fixed by the past, and the conditions 'now; fix conditions in the next moment, which fixes outcomes in the next moment......which is how determinism works. There are no alternate decisions or actions.

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


There, in your own words, goes the notion of free will in relation to determinism and compatibilism.

Done.

No way out.

 

[DBT]

Our own brain's do process information and initiate actions, just not according to free will or free choice in the sense that an alternate action is possible.

We do not expect our brains to act "according to free will or free choice", whatever that means.

But we do expect our brains to determine for us what we will do, when we are faced with a problem or issue that requires us to choose between two or more possible actions. For example, should I have breakfast now, or should I finish this comment first?

The term 'free will' includes the word 'free' - to be free entails having a range of realizable options and to be free from necessitation.

Inner necessitation/determinism eliminates the ability to do otherwise in any given circumstance, because the brain as a deterministic system necessitates outcomes.

Definition of freedom
1: the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action - Merrium Webster

Freedom demands alternate possibilities, determinism rules out alternate actions, determined actions are not freely chosen or freely willed actions. A determined action is not subject to will or modification. A determined action - by definition - proceeds as determined.

Freedom doesn't "demand" alternate possibilities. Alternate possibilities simply show up in empirical reality, requiring us to choose what we will do about them. For example, we enter a restaurant and are presented with a literal menu of alternate possibilities.

The very definition of freedom entails the ability to do otherwise. Without the possibility to do otherwise, your decision is fixed.

Being fixed, your decision is not free.

Definition of freedom
1: the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action - Merrium Webster

And there is no getting around that. Either we make a choice or we go without dinner.

Yes, with no possible alternative in any given instance in time. Determinism, by definition, fixes all outcomes and actions. You do what is determined, not freely chosen.

Freely chosen, by definition, includes the possibility to have done otherwise... which is impossible within a determined system

So, as evolution would have it, our brains routinely perform choosing operations, every day.

Yes, they do, not through the agency of 'free will' but according to their neuronal makeup, the architecture of the brain determines thought and action.

The notions of "free will", and "deliberate", and "voluntary" are used to distinguish choices we make for ourselves versus choices imposed upon us by someone or something else, for example, a mental illness that imposes upon us an irresistible impulse.

Arguments that apply to "free will" would apply to "deliberate" and "voluntary" as well. If free will is eliminated, then so is deliberate and voluntary, by the same methods.

It's just words. Words are not the thing. If something is more than just words and definitions, it must be shown to operate within the system.

There is nothing like 'free will' to be observed operating within the modular systems of the brain. The state of the mechanisms in relation to the environment is sufficient to explain human. behaviour

1. As I've pointed out, we are commonly faced with empirical circumstances in which there are at least two distinct courses of action, each of which we have the ability to successfully follow, if we choose to do so. And we have the ability to choose either one, even though we will choose only one.
2. Both causal determinism and logical necessity guarantee that there will be alternative possibilities whenever a choice needs to be made.
3. Determinism is never incompatible with anything other than indeterminism. The only freedom that determinism is incompatible with is "freedom from determinism". It is not incompatible with "freedom of speech", or "free of charge", or "freedom to assemble", or "freedom of religion", or "freedom of the press", or "free will".

There are many distinct courses of action, but determinism restricts us to a single course of action in any given circumstance. That is the point. There is no possible alternate action. If there was, it's not determinism.

We are talking about determinism, where outcomes are fixed by antecedents.

Antecedents, not freedom of choice, determine outcomes, which in turn determine future actions. That is how it works.

To say, I could have done otherwise in the same circumstances is not how determinism works.

In your own words;
''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"). - Marvin Edwards.

 

[Jarhyn]

awareness or perception of an inward psychological or spiritual fact; intuitively perceived knowledge of something in one's inner self

Class thing{
Private:
int quality;
Public:
int doTask(int taskInfo){
If (quality < taskInfo)
{
Return SUCCESS;
}
quality+=taskInfo;
observable_quality = quality;
Return FAILURE;
}
int observable_quality;
}

So, this is well defined: it physically defines relationships between things in a binary field through instantiation.
This class objectively has an awareness of quality: it holds, accesses and modifies this quality.

Moreover it is an "inward" fact of the "psychology" of the Algorighm.

It is intuitively perceived: it is perceived directly rather than through calculation, prediction, or secondary means.

As these are observables of and about an object (in fact the language used to describe this is "object oriented"), and these are object properties, it is 100% objective.

I'm not asking for object oriented ,I'm looking for a materially defined operational definition. All you have are immaterial operations to which you see what you think you know as reality without actually attaching the definition to the material reality. Not good enough.

You claim these operations are "immaterial" yet here I am operating them. With material. Material operations.

This goes all the way down to assembly code and physical realities.

I think you don't quite understand that there is no "subjectivity" to discuss when we are discussing literal objects, albeit literal objects composed of charge patterns, and the relationships that their form has had imposed upon them between regions of that binary field by physical necessity of the machine.

I in fact find it ridiculous and a little bit insulting (not to me, mind...) that you fail to realize this: these things that I am writing metamorphose into actual machine code, that defines actual behaviors of an actual physical nature in an actual physical system. All of it is well defined. Physically.

Amazing. Most every model I know about of mind produces material results usually inline with model designer opinions about how they should produce material results., No reality but actual physical operations. Think of your models as self fulfilling prophesies.

Here's the thing: you are here claiming determinism itself, the property of "existing in a deterministic universe makes ALL concepts of free will meaningless"

If I can make any "self fulfilling prophecy" in "a deterministic universe" which rejects your hypothesis THEN THE HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN DISPROVEN.

Neurons in our universe MAY encode all these algorithms, and our universe MAY have situations where our internal behavioral models are not accurate.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are no alternate decisions or actions.

There are until one passes a point of no return.

The switch may not be on and off at the same time but it will be on, or off, and may be alternated.

I cannot have chosen differently in the past, but lo! I harken into the light switch a d doth pull the cord... And now I have chosen differently in the present.

Part of the requirement of a choice function is "many go in". The "many that go in" are not actual actions, but are much like sperms against an egg, which are themselves not people but parts of instruction sets that will make them.

Similarly, the "many" that go in are merely instruction sets that will be evaluated by a preprocessor. The job of that algorithm is to spit out fewer. Generally, this is done to short circuit "known/visible constraints": don't try what won't work.

This is done until there is just one*, or possibly two if there are compatible or parallel paths that by being retained, one has options later in case things go south on one of the paths due to currently invisible constraints.

Then one* set of instructions with a general set of things that "satisfy" the requirement of the goal is executed at any given time and the thing gets done or it doesn't. Whether it got done or didn't depends on whether satisfaction of the requirement happened. This ultimately determines whether the will was "free" in the strictest sense. Not whether they could do anything else, but whether it was destined to succeed or fail against the requirement.

*Sometimes it's going to be more of a stack, popping off possibilities organized by "Plan A; Plan B; Plan C"

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The term 'free will' includes the word 'free' - to be free entails having a range of realizable options and to be free from necessitation.

Actually, the word 'free' is meaningless until you know what the constraint is, what you are "free of" or "free from".

In the case of "free will", we are talking about "choosing for ourselves what we will do", and the meaningful and relevant constraints would be anything that prevents us from making that choice for ourselves. Coercion, which is when someone forces us to do what he chooses instead of what we would choose, would meaningfully constrain free will. The undue influence of a mental illness or brain injury could prevent us from making a rational choice. The undue influence of hypnosis could put the hypnotist in charge of what we do. The undue influence of someone in a superior power position, such as parent over child, doctor over patient, commanding officer over soldier, etc., could also remove our control over the choice.

So, we can summarize the constraints upon our choosing for ourselves what we do into "coercion and undue influence".

A "range of realizable options" is not necessary if the single available option happens to be exactly what we wanted.

However, two or more realizable options are always logically required for choosing to happen. One cannot choose between a single possibility. So, there must always be at least two realizable options for choosing to happen. In the restaurant example, I was considering whether to order the steak or the salad. Both were on the menu, so both were realizable. I could order the steak or I could order the salad. I decided that the salad would be best for dinner, because I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. So, I decided I would order the salad, even though I could have ordered the steak.

What about "inner necessitation"? Well, that's me deciding to order the salad instead of the steak. The choice was necessitated by my own interest in avoiding three fatty meals in one day. That is not something that we can or need to be free of in order to choose for ourselves what we will do. Inner necessitation is us choosing for ourselves what we will do.

Inner necessitation/determinism eliminates the ability to do otherwise in any given circumstance, because the brain as a deterministic system necessitates outcomes.

The brain did not eliminate the ability to order the steak when it chose to order the salad instead. To test this ability, we can come in tomorrow and order the steak.

The brain is indeed a deterministic system, but it is a system that can consider multiple options and choose between them. For example, considering the steak and the salad, the brain chose the salad. And if you ask it why it chose the salad, it will tell you that it already had two fatty meals earlier in the day.

Definition of freedom
1: the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action - Merrium Webster

Dude, first, you really have to lookup the correct name of your dictionary! I've pointed this out before.

Second, the "absence of necessity" is not the "absence of causal necessity". There actually is such a thing as the absence of necessity (e.g., a law that is repealed). But there is no such thing as the absence of causation.

To interpret "the absence of necessity" as the absence of something that is never absent would make the definition paradoxical, a self-contradiction. So, please stop doing that.

To say, I could have done otherwise in the same circumstances is not how determinism works.

To say, "I could have done otherwise" always logically implies that (1) I didn't do otherwise and (2) that I would have done otherwise only under different circumstances.

So, your phrase as "I could have done otherwise in the same circumstances" logically expands to the absurdity "I would have done otherwise only under different circumstances in the same circumstances".

In your own words;
''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"). - Marvin Edwards.

And I still stand by them, because:
As long as all of the events are reliably caused by prior events, determinism is satisfied.
As long as the choosing event was free of coercion and undue influence, free will is satisfied.

 

[fromderinside]

awareness or perception of an inward psychological or spiritual fact; intuitively perceived knowledge of something in one's inner self

Class thing{
Private:
int quality;
Public:
int doTask(int taskInfo){
If (quality < taskInfo)
{
Return SUCCESS;
}
quality+=taskInfo;
observable_quality = quality;
Return FAILURE;
}
int observable_quality;
}

So, this is well defined: it physically defines relationships between things in a binary field through instantiation.
This class objectively has an awareness of quality: it holds, accesses and modifies this quality.

Moreover it is an "inward" fact of the "psychology" of the Algorighm.

It is intuitively perceived: it is perceived directly rather than through calculation, prediction, or secondary means.

As these are observables of and about an object (in fact the language used to describe this is "object oriented"), and these are object properties, it is 100% objective.

I'm not asking for object oriented ,I'm looking for a materially defined operational definition. All you have are immaterial operations to which you see what you think you know as reality without actually attaching the definition to the material reality. Not good enough.

You claim these operations are "immaterial" yet here I am operating them. With material. Material operations.

This goes all the way down to assembly code and physical realities.

I think you don't quite understand that there is no "subjectivity" to discuss when we are discussing literal objects, albeit literal objects composed of charge patterns, and the relationships that their form has had imposed upon them between regions of that binary field by physical necessity of the machine.

I in fact find it ridiculous and a little bit insulting (not to me, mind...) that you fail to realize this: these things that I am writing metamorphose into actual machine code, that defines actual behaviors of an actual physical nature in an actual physical system. All of it is well defined. Physically.

Amazing. Most every model I know about of mind produces material results usually inline with model designer opinions about how they should produce material results., No reality but actual physical operations. Think of your models as self fulfilling prophesies.

Here's the thing: you are here claiming determinism itself, the property of "existing in a deterministic universe makes ALL concepts of free will meaningless"

If I can make any "self fulfilling prophecy" in "a deterministic universe" which rejects your hypothesis THEN THE HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN DISPROVEN.

Neurons in our universe MAY encode all these algorithms, and our universe MAY have situations where our internal behavioral models are not accurate.

Ah. But your interpretation is not reality. Reality is this follow that. Your little pretend world, self visualized, self explained, not real at all, is reinterpreting things so you can 'feel' at the center of it and has all the things you need to make it seem something other than what it is. Basically you are living in a delusional other world where you are important, created not to live, but to be the center of. Your neurons and brain have only what is sensed to build with so your consciousness is in a different place than the reality in which you exist.

Now that consciousness can be associated with input indirectly which is never this follows that but is derived from this and output in to the real world becomes that. How we devise our understanding however is much more related to other basic systems evolved. We don't yet understand how mind and consciousness impact that output, nor do we understand the relation of mind and consciousness to input.

I'm interested in finding those things so I invest time in understanding how input is related to mind and consciousness and how all genetically derived functions intersect with output. In every instance my goal is to find the connection between input with mind and consciousness thereby it effects in driving other genetically derived functions either through chemical or through some aspect of mind and consciousness to input such as love, anger, hunger, reaction, etc. All of this needs to be worked out if we are to understand how humans are determined.

Philosophy isn't going to get us there unless it is radically restructured. Nor is behavioral science, neuroscience, chemistry or physics going to provide all the necessary tools. Early psychology was on the right track setting up the paradigm S-O-R. But the interfaces between S and O and O and R need to be radically modified since O is not strictly translating E to eO nor is R reflecting eO.

 

[DBT]

There are no alternate decisions or actions.

There are until one passes a point of no return.

The switch may not be on and off at the same time but it will be on, or off, and may be alternated.

I cannot have chosen differently in the past, but lo! I harken into the light switch a d doth pull the cord... And now I have chosen differently in the present.

Part of the requirement of a choice function is "many go in". The "many that go in" are not actual actions, but are much like sperms against an egg, which are themselves not people but parts of instruction sets that will make them.

Similarly, the "many" that go in are merely instruction sets that will be evaluated by a preprocessor. The job of that algorithm is to spit out fewer. Generally, this is done to short circuit "known/visible constraints": don't try what won't work.

This is done until there is just one*, or possibly two if there are compatible or parallel paths that by being retained, one has options later in case things go south on one of the paths due to currently invisible constraints.

Then one* set of instructions with a general set of things that "satisfy" the requirement of the goal is executed at any given time and the thing gets done or it doesn't. Whether it got done or didn't depends on whether satisfaction of the requirement happened. This ultimately determines whether the will was "free" in the strictest sense. Not whether they could do anything else, but whether it was destined to succeed or fail against the requirement.

*Sometimes it's going to be more of a stack, popping off possibilities organized by "Plan A; Plan B; Plan C"

Here is a basic rundown for you

Circular reasoning:

As Douglas Walton puts it: "Arguing in a circle becomes a fallacy of petitio principii or begging the question where an attempt is made to evade the burden of proving one of the premises of an argument by basing it on the prior acceptance of the conclusion to be proved."

Begging the question

Compatibilist: "free will is compatible with determinism"
Incompatibilist: "How do you know."
Compatibilist: "Because our definition says so."
Incompatibilist: "Why should I accept your definition?"
Compatibilist:"Because our definition allows free will to be compatible with determinism."

''Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent.[1] It may, however, be more accurate to say that compatibilists define 'free will' in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism.'' - wiki.

 

[DBT]

Definition of freedom
1: the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action - Merrium Webster

Dude, first, you really have to lookup the correct name of your dictionary! I've pointed this out before.

Second, the "absence of necessity" is not the "absence of causal necessity". There actually is such a thing as the absence of necessity (e.g., a law that is repealed). But there is no such thing as the absence of causation.

To interpret "the absence of necessity" as the absence of something that is never absent would make the definition paradoxical, a self-contradiction. So,

Dude? It was just a typo, I didn't notice. I don't have enough time to read or proof check everything.

The quote comes from Merriam Webster dictionary.

The link; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

Definition of freedom
1: the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

A typo doesn't change anything.

please stop doing that.

To say, I could have done otherwise in the same circumstances is not how determinism works.

To say, "I could have done otherwise" always logically implies that (1) I didn't do otherwise and (2) that I would have done otherwise only under different circumstances.

So, your phrase as "I could have done otherwise in the same circumstances" logically expands to the absurdity "I would have done otherwise only under different circumstances in the same circumstances".

But circumstances cannot be different. We are talking about determinism. There are no different circumstances. Events unfold as determined and there is no 'could have done otherwise if circumstances were different.'

Without the possibility of different circumstances, there is only what is: the determined action that allows no alternate possibilities.

In your own words;
''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"). - Marvin Edwards.

And I still stand by them, because:
As long as all of the events are reliably caused by prior events, determinism is satisfied.
As long as the choosing event was free of coercion and undue influence, free will is satisfied.

Determinism far more than 'reliable' - as if we are using a reliable tool to fulfill our wants - determinism entails events that are fixed by antecedents, not willed or used because determinism is 'reliable.'

 

[Jarhyn]

Your little pretend world, self visualized, self explained, not real at all

You don't understand the concept of mathematical/logical proof at all, do you?

It's not "pretend" it is "actually deterministic".

Some thing can clearly be identified as a "will" as in a goal with a concrete requirement that is being vectored towards because of the shape it is defined of within the network that has to physically interact with that shape: it encompasses a state.

It is mathematically "deterministic" and fundamentally real: I have never claimed it is any more than a binary field upon which a complex interaction takes place, wherever this interaction against the field happens to be happening!

Moreover that binary field is absolutely, quite really, implemented. In this, it is implemented case by a bunch of transistors (and other things).

It's real. I don't really view the door as a door. I view it as a series of bits, an absurd but determined series of charges in memories. It's harder to do than to pretend it's a "door, a piece of wood made of molecules", but I do this sort of de-abstraction every day!

The door is really just a very large number with a structure defined by the way the world interacts with it imposed by the shape of the way its world.only ever interacts with it thus.

Assuming no bit flips from errant cosmic rays, this is a proven math problem as real as real can be.

What is clear is that a deterministic system may hold a state within a locality that defines a course of actions within that system through time that may be constrained.

This is all I need for "free will". It's proven, huzzah, that "a will may be constrained, or not constrained, given some requirement".

I look upon the path and see it's forks and splits, the path not taken to wither away as I pass it, perhaps to present again in it's own time perhaps not.

Compatibilist: "free will is compatible with determinism"
Incompatibilist: "How do you know."
Compatibilist: "Because our definition says so."
Incompatibilist: "Why should I accept your definition?"

Compatibilist: "because it relevant to a real set of properties that you wish to reject the very existence of re: responsibility, used functionally in the ethical calculus of billions of people every day."

Or IOW; because our definition is the actual operational definition.

You might as well be asking "why should I accept your definition of equality" or "why should I accept your definition of addition".