Compatibilism: What's that About?

[pood]

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."

Begging the question

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

 

[Marvin Edwards]

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

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 There actually is such a thing as the absence of necessity (e.g., a law that is repealed, or one from which you are exempt such as when you turn 21). 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 of "freedom" 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 did not 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.

The fact that there are no different circumstances within determinism means only that circumstances "will" not be different. And that would be the end of it, if we had perfect knowledge of those circumstances. We would limit our speech to statements declaring things that we knew would actually happen.

But we often do not know what "will" happen. To deal this this, humans have evolved the notion of "possibilities", and a language that enables us to logically deal with matters of uncertainty. When we do not know what "will" happen, we imagine what "can" happen, to prepare for what does happen.

Something that "will" happen will definitely happen. Something that "can" happen may or may not happen. And while only one single thing "will" happen (and "would have" happened), multiple things "can" happen (and "could have" happened).

The language and the logic of "possibilities" evolved to help us choose the best course of action. When choosing what we will do, we begin with a state of uncertainty. We do not know what we "will" do. We enter the logical context of possibilities, and call these possibilities things that we "can" choose. We cannot call them things that we "will" choose, because we will not know that until choosing is completed.

So, within a perfectly deterministic world, there will necessarily be multiple possibilities whenever we do not know what will happen or what we will choose to do. And these "possibilities" will appear empirically as actual mental events corresponding to actual physical processes within the brain. They will never, of course, appear empirically outside the brain in the real world, because as soon as they do they are immediately relabeled as "actualities", in order to keep what is real and what is imagined distinct.

Something that "could have happened" is imagined, but not imaginary or an illusion, because it is a logical token used in the brain's own functioning as it causally determines what we will do.

Events unfold as determined and there is no 'could have done otherwise if circumstances were different.'

Events unfold as determined and these events include the many possibilities that we consider while making a choice. When the notion of what we 'could have done otherwise' appears in the logic of our thinking, it was causally necessary that it would do so, exactly when it did.

Determinism and causal necessity eliminate nothing. Any event that is eliminated falsifies your version of determinism. My determinism, being based upon the assumption of a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, is perfect determinism, in that it never eliminates any events, including the freely chosen "I will's".

Any determinism that denies the causal agency of humans making choices for themselves is incomplete and therefore false.

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

There is always the possibility of different circumstances, even though there never will be any actual different circumstances. A possibility exists solely within the imagination, as a logical token that enables us to see different futures, and choose from them the single inevitable future. You know, the future in which I have the steak, which is less desirable to me than the future in which I have the salad.

So, in choosing to have the salad, I control which imagined future becomes the single inevitable future.

And that's just how things work. Within the domain of human influence (things we can make happen if we choose to), we will choose the single inevitable future from among the many possible futures we imagine.

Determinism far more than 'reliable' ...

Determinism is reliable cause and effect, where a given cause reliably causes the same effect.
Indeterminism is unreliable cause and effect, where the effects of a given cause cannot be predicted.

So, the notion of reliability is the true distinction between "determinism" and "indeterminism".

 

[fromderinside]

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.

OK. Show the material experiment where will is proved. Logical systems can, with the right assumptions, prove anything to the satisfaction of those who believe that one needn't provide material experimental demonstration. If one insists on such proof the believers repeat their logical statements which isn't proof of any material fact.

I accept the principle of addition because I can add one apple to another apple and find there are two apples, then add another and find there are three apples. I agree that math is a deterministic function. Will has not been proven even when one takes a statement of what one subjectively believes is will and gets consistent results. The reason for that is that the construct will has not been materially operationally demonstrated. Will is a construct which is missing its apple.

 

[DBT]

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."

Begging the question

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

Incompatibilists are merely pointing out why compatibilism fails to make a case.

Basically, the brain is the sole agent of response. The brain works on the principles of neural architecture, information processing and memory function.

None of this is 'free will' - Will is not the controller or regulator. Rather, will is generated by information processing and is a result of it.

Labelling actions that are not coerced or forced as examples of free will is not enough when it is the underlying mechanism itself that necessitates actions.

It's like theists and atheists, theists believe in their god, atheists point out that there is no evidence for the existence of this thing called god.

Compatibilism, a matter of words and definitions, is similar to theism in that respect.

 

[DBT]

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

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, or one from which you are exempt such as when you turn 21). But there is no such thing as the absence of causation.

It is in this case. As we happen to be talking about free will in relation to determinism, my use of necessitation is by default related to causal necessitation/determinism.

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

That's not what I meant. The point is that there is no 'absence of necessity' within a determined system, which is why free will is not compatible with determinism. Carefully selected definitions can't change 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 did not 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".

''I would have done otherwise only under different circumstances' is a Red Herring. There is no 'would have' in a determined system. It's just word play.

Could have, would have, should have, might have are words and dreams of impossible things. Sad laments over hope and loss.

But circumstances cannot be different. We are talking about determinism. There are no different circumstances.

The fact that there are no different circumstances within determinism means only that circumstances "will" not be different. And that would be the end of it, if we had perfect knowledge of those circumstances. We would limit our speech to statements declaring things that we knew would actually happen.

What we think and believe and hope for is not necessarily the way things are, or how they will go.

But we often do not know what "will" happen. To deal this this, humans have evolved the notion of "possibilities", and a language that enables us to logically deal with matters of uncertainty. When we do not know what "will" happen, we imagine what "can" happen, to prepare for what does happen.

Something that "will" happen will definitely happen. Something that "can" happen may or may not happen. And while only one single thing "will" happen (and "would have" happened), multiple things "can" happen (and "could have" happened).

The language and the logic of "possibilities" evolved to help us choose the best course of action. When choosing what we will do, we begin with a state of uncertainty. We do not know what we "will" do. We enter the logical context of possibilities, and call these possibilities things that we "can" choose. We cannot call them things that we "will" choose, because we will not know that until choosing is completed.

So, within a perfectly deterministic world, there will necessarily be multiple possibilities whenever we do not know what will happen or what we will choose to do. And these "possibilities" will appear empirically as actual mental events corresponding to actual physical processes within the brain. They will never, of course, appear empirically outside the brain in the real world, because as soon as they do they are immediately relabeled as "actualities", in order to keep what is real and what is imagined distinct.

Something that "could have happened" is imagined, but not imaginary or an illusion, because it is a logical token used in the brain's own functioning as it causally determines what we will do.

''Could have happened'' is said when we don't have the necessary information to understand past conditions, current conditions and what must necessarily follow.

Events unfold as determined and there is no 'could have done otherwise if circumstances were different.'

Events unfold as determined and these events include the many possibilities that we consider while making a choice. When the notion of what we 'could have done otherwise' appears in the logic of our thinking, it was causally necessary that it would do so, exactly when it did.

Determinism only allows what is determined, each action following from the last in a path that does not deviate. When we talk of possibilities, we speak from a position of limited understanding of the system.

Not fully understanding the conditions in which we live and function, we look at 'possibilities' based on the limited information we have.

Determinism and causal necessity eliminate nothing. Any event that is eliminated falsifies your version of determinism. My determinism, being based upon the assumption of a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, is perfect determinism, in that it never eliminates any events, including the freely chosen "I will's".

Any determinism that denies the causal agency of humans making choices for themselves is incomplete and therefore false.

I don't have a 'version' of determinism. The definition of determinism I work with is exactly the same as yours.

''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.

The difference is that within a determined system, humans are inseparable from the system as a whole, therefore do not 'choose for themselves' without countless determinants acting upon the decision making process (neural activity), which is neither willed or regulated by free will.

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

There is always the possibility of different circumstances, even though there never will be any actual different circumstances. A possibility exists solely within the imagination, as a logical token that enables us to see different futures, and choose from them the single inevitable future. You know, the future in which I have the steak, which is less desirable to me than the future in which I have the salad.

Correct. Determinism doesn't allow different circumstances, therefore any mention of different circumstances is irrelevant to the issue of free will. It shouldn't even come up.

So, in choosing to have the salad, I control which imagined future becomes the single inevitable future.

And that's just how things work. Within the domain of human influence (things we can make happen if we choose to), we will choose the single inevitable future from among the many possible futures we imagine.

Imagination is not the means by which choice is made.

“It might be true that you would have done otherwise if you had wanted, though it is determined that you did not, in fact, want otherwise.” - Robert Kane


Decision-Making
''Decision-making is such a seamless brain process that we’re usually unaware of it — until our choice results in unexpected consequences. Then we may look back and wonder, “Why did I choose that option?” In recent years, neuroscientists have begun to decode the decision-making process. What they’re learning is shedding light not only on how the healthy brain performs complex mental functions, but also on how disorders, such as stroke or drug abuse, affect the process.’

''Researchers can study decision-making in animals. As monkeys decide which direction a moving target is headed, researchers record the activity in brain cells called neurons. These studies have helped to reveal the basis for how animals and humans make everyday decisions.''

Thanks to advances in technology, researchers are beginning to unravel the mysterious processes by which humans make decisions. New research is helping scientists develop:

A deeper understanding of how the human brain reasons, plans, and solves problems.
Greater insight into how sleep deprivation, drug abuse, neurological disorders, and other factors affect the decision-making process, suggesting new behavioral and therapeutic approaches to improve health.

Our brains appear wired in ways that enable us, often unconsciously, to make the best decisions possible with the information we’re given. In simplest terms, the process is organized like a court trial. Sights, sounds, and other sensory evidence are entered and registered in sensory circuits in the brain. Other brain cells act as the brain’s “jury,” compiling and weighing each piece of evidence. When the accumulated evidence reaches a critical threshold, a judgment — a decision — is made.''

 

[pood]

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."

Begging the question

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

Incompatibilists are merely pointing out why compatibilism fails to make a case.

Basically, the brain is the sole agent of response.

Right! Exactly! The brain is the sole agent of response, not the Big Bang, or something that happened 10,000 years ago. The brain! And you have agreed that you are your brain. Therefore your statement logically reduces to: “I am the sole agent of response.” Again, welcome to compatibilism.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

As we happen to be talking about free will in relation to determinism, my use of necessitation is by default related to causal necessitation/determinism.

Agreed. And, could you give us an example of an event that is free from causal necessity?

The point is that there is no 'absence of necessity' within a determined system,

Exactly. So, there are no events that are free of causal necessity. We can be offered a sample that is free of charge, but not free of causal necessity. We can take a test to find out that we are free of covid-19, but not free of causal necessity. We may enjoy free speech, that is free from censorship, but it will not be free from causal necessity.

which is why free will is not compatible with determinism.

Any freedom that requires freedom from causal necessity would be impossible. And that is why most people do not assume that the freedom they are speaking of must be free from causal necessity. Instead, it is free from some other meaningful and relevant constraint, unique to that specific freedom.

For example, a woman would like to be free of her physically abusive husband. So, she takes out a restraining order to prevent him from coming within a distance that could threaten her safety. There will be no mention of "freedom from causal necessity" in that restraining order, because there is no such freedom.

Carefully selected definitions can't change that.

Well, I notice that you are trying to construct your own definition of free will by using the Merriam-Webster definition of "freedom", rather than the Merriam-Webster definition of "free will". So, it appears that you are carefully selecting your definitions.

The Merriam-Webster definition of "free will" has two entries:
1: voluntary choice or decision, "I do this of my own free will"
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

You are obviously selecting the 2nd definition of "free will".
I am selecting the 1st definition of "free will". The one that is most commonly used and understood.

''I would have done otherwise only under different circumstances' is a Red Herring. There is no 'would have' in a determined system. It's just word play. Could have, would have, should have, might have are words and dreams of impossible things. Sad laments over hope and loss.

Or, they are simple recognitions that we can behave differently next time. The consideration of what we could have done differently is how we reprogram ourselves to behave differently in the future. It is the basis of rehabilitation.

What we think and believe and hope for is not necessarily the way things are, or how they will go.

But what we think and believe and hope is the motivation behind our actions to make things go differently.

''Could have happened'' is said when we don't have the necessary information to understand past conditions, current conditions and what must necessarily follow.

Exactly. And it plays a critical role in our ability to do otherwise in the future. It is an essential notion when learning to do better.

Determinism only allows what is determined, each action following from the last in a path that does not deviate. When we talk of possibilities, we speak from a position of limited understanding of the system.

Exactly. Possibilities are a part of our tool chest of algorithms that we use to alter our future behavior to obtain better results.

Not fully understanding the conditions in which we live and function, we look at 'possibilities' based on the limited information we have.

Exactly.

I don't have a 'version' of determinism. The definition of determinism I work with is exactly the same as yours.

Great! Then we're half-way there. Once you stop using "freedom from causal necessity" as a requirement of "free will" you will be a compatibilist. (I hope that is not too scary a notion for you!)

There is always the possibility of different circumstances, even though there never will be any actual different circumstances. A possibility exists solely within the imagination, as a logical token that enables us to see different futures, and choose from them the single inevitable future. You know, the future in which I have the steak, which is less desirable to me than the future in which I have the salad.

Correct. Determinism doesn't allow different circumstances, therefore any mention of different circumstances is irrelevant to the issue of free will. It shouldn't even come up.

But the issue of free will does come up until you insist that free will must be free of causal necessity, rather than just free of coercion and undue influence.

Determinism, causal necessity, does not allow different circumstances. But it does not disallow the notion of different circumstances. In fact, causal determinism insures that these notions will appear as mental events (with the corresponding physical brain events), whenever we review a past decision to see what we can learn from it.

The notion of what we "could have done otherwise" is an essential element of the logic by which we learn from our mistakes. And that is why evolution selected in favor of this notion.

Imagination is not the means by which choice is made.

No, you are pretending that imagination is something outside of our neural architecture. It is a critical function of the brain that is used when making decisions.

Which is attested to by your own neurological evidence:

Decision-Making
''Decision-making is such a seamless brain process that we’re usually unaware of it — until our choice results in unexpected consequences. Then we may look back and wonder, “Why did I choose that option?” In recent years, neuroscientists have begun to decode the decision-making process. What they’re learning is shedding light not only on how the healthy brain performs complex mental functions, but also on how disorders, such as stroke or drug abuse, affect the process.’

''Researchers can study decision-making in animals. As monkeys decide which direction a moving target is headed, researchers record the activity in brain cells called neurons. These studies have helped to reveal the basis for how animals and humans make everyday decisions.''

Thanks to advances in technology, researchers are beginning to unravel the mysterious processes by which humans make decisions. New research is helping scientists develop:

A deeper understanding of how the human brain reasons, plans, and solves problems.
Greater insight into how sleep deprivation, drug abuse, neurological disorders, and other factors affect the decision-making process, suggesting new behavioral and therapeutic approaches to improve health.

Our brains appear wired in ways that enable us, often unconsciously, to make the best decisions possible with the information we’re given. In simplest terms, the process is organized like a court trial. Sights, sounds, and other sensory evidence are entered and registered in sensory circuits in the brain. Other brain cells act as the brain’s “jury,” compiling and weighing each piece of evidence. When the accumulated evidence reaches a critical threshold, a judgment — a decision — is made.''

Note that the person's own brain cells consider the evidence and make a decision. That is the function called "free will".

 

[Jarhyn]

What we think and believe and hope for is not necessarily the way things are, or how they will go.

And this observation, one you recognize as a real relationship between what we think/hope and how things go...

Is a recognition that will can be "free" or "not free".

There is still "causal responsibility" for any event in any given moment.

 

[fromderinside]

Determinism doesn't allow different circumstances, therefore any mention of different circumstances is irrelevant to the issue of free will. It shouldn't even come up.

Note that the person's own brain cells consider the evidence and make a decision. That is the function called "free will".

Its more or less of what DBT wrote.

That brain cells treat with inputs from the world should make clear that what the individual is doing is processing best evidence of what is going on in the world according to what the brain cells suggest. What the brain cells transduce into action potentials is controlled by evolution in that senses are arraigned by type and magnitude of domain used to sense.

Sensing is relative and it is not really aligned with the information carried to the organism. That is it is recorded as type, strength, duration. pattern and direction of a digital record what is sensed. As I've been forced to admit we don't know color, texture, etc. except by association. We are not deciding based on what is out there rather we are reacting to well established patterns and directing response to those most of then received.

That is not choice, decision making, especially not exercise of will free or otherwise. It is an improving and very successfully determining reaction to previous transactions. We say before and during our actions confirms the building and reinforcing of memory, not executing self determined will.

 

[DBT]

in the form of inner necessitation

So, in the form of "will"

A man can do what he wants, but not choose or select what he wants

And then Schopenhauer was wrong.

No, he wasn't. It's you who is wrong. You are wrong because it appears that in spite of giving a reasonable definition of determinism, you don't understand the implications of your definition or the nature of determinism.


If determinism is true, what happens within the brain is fixed by an interaction of information prior to conscious representation.

Your will is set before you are aware of it.

Not being aware of what is happening in terms of neural information processing and being powerless to alter outcomes, your will is not free to change a thing....merely carry out whatever is determined.

I mean shit, if we couldn't change what we want, what the fuck do people advertise for?

Holy Mackerel, you really don't understand the basics, that information acting upon a system changes the system? This has been explained over and over and over....did you say something about taking a course?

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."

Begging the question

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

Incompatibilists are merely pointing out why compatibilism fails to make a case.

Basically, the brain is the sole agent of response.

Right! Exactly! The brain is the sole agent of response, not the Big Bang, or something that happened 10,000 years ago. The brain! And you have agreed that you are your brain. Therefore your statement logically reduces to: “I am the sole agent of response.” Again, welcome to compatibilism.

It's not enough to say; ''you are your brain, therefore free will'' when decisions, thoughts, actions, are not being willed, yet alone freely willed.

The concept of free will demands that something is actually being 'freely willed' - but if you have kept up with the neuroscience of cognition, you'd see that the process is not a matter of will, or free will, just information exchange between cells and networks, some of which is reported consciously.

That is not a free will process regardless of how often the term 'free will' is asserted.

Brain agency, therefore free will is an assertion that ignores the nature of coognition.

 

[DBT]

What we think and believe and hope for is not necessarily the way things are, or how they will go.

And this observation, one you recognize as a real relationship between what we think/hope and how things go...

Is a recognition that will can be "free" or "not free".

There is still "causal responsibility" for any event in any given moment.

Thoughts and actions are not willed into consciousness. They emerge in response to inputs and memory/past experience, which provides sets of criteria. Most of the brain's information processing activity being unconscious and unwilled, a matter of inherent neural architecture.

Call that 'free will' if it brings you comfort in life, but don't imagine that you have proved the proposition.

 

[DBT]

There is always the possibility of different circumstances, even though there never will be any actual different circumstances. A possibility exists solely within the imagination, as a logical token that enables us to see different futures, and choose from them the single inevitable future. You know, the future in which I have the steak, which is less desirable to me than the future in which I have the salad.

What can be imagined is not necessarily what can happen, or what is even possible. Imagination is a flight of fancy, people can be superheroes, fly through the air, be invulnerable to bombs or bullets....

Correct. Determinism doesn't allow different circumstances, therefore any mention of different circumstances is irrelevant to the issue of free will. It shouldn't even come up.

But the issue of free will does come up until you insist that free will must be free of causal necessity, rather than just free of coercion and undue influence.

Determinism, causal necessity, does not allow different circumstances. But it does not disallow the notion of different circumstances. In fact, causal determinism insures that these notions will appear as mental events (with the corresponding physical brain events), whenever we review a past decision to see what we can learn from it.

The notion of what we "could have done otherwise" is an essential element of the logic by which we learn from our mistakes. And that is why evolution selected in favor of this notion.

I don't insist. It's just a matter of how freedom is defined. Without possible alternate actions, where is the ability to choose otherwise? With no alternatives, where is freedom of will?

Nowhere to be found, that's where.

Imagination is not the means by which choice is made.

No, you are pretending that imagination is something outside of our neural architecture. It is a critical function of the brain that is used when making decisions.

Which is attested to by your own neurological evidence:

I'm pretending nothing. I'm not saying that imagination is outside of our neural architecture. I've never suggested such a thing.

The opposite in fact. The question being; is neural architecture and its activity a matter of free will?

The answer, based on numerous experiments, case studies, pathologies, conditions, etc, no it is not;

''This review deals with the physiology of the initiation of a voluntary movement and the appreciation of whether it is voluntary or not. I argue that free will is not a driving force for movement, but a conscious awareness concerning the nature of the movement. Movement initiation and the perception of willing the movement can be separately manipulated.

Movement is generated subconsciously, and the conscious sense of volition comes later, but the exact time of this event is difficult to assess because of the potentially illusory nature of introspection. Neurological disorders of volition are also reviewed.

The evidence suggests that movement is initiated in the frontal lobe, particularly the mesial areas, and the sense of volition arises as the result of a corollary discharge likely involving multiple areas with reciprocal connections including those in the parietal lobe and insular cortex.''' Volitional control of movement: The physiology of free will
Clinical Neurophysiology, Volume 118, Issue 6, Pages 1179-1192
M. Hallett

Decision-Making
''Decision-making is such a seamless brain process that we’re usually unaware of it — until our choice results in unexpected consequences. Then we may look back and wonder, “Why did I choose that option?” In recent years, neuroscientists have begun to decode the decision-making process. What they’re learning is shedding light not only on how the healthy brain performs complex mental functions, but also on how disorders, such as stroke or drug abuse, affect the process.’

''Researchers can study decision-making in animals. As monkeys decide which direction a moving target is headed, researchers record the activity in brain cells called neurons. These studies have helped to reveal the basis for how animals and humans make everyday decisions.''

Thanks to advances in technology, researchers are beginning to unravel the mysterious processes by which humans make decisions. New research is helping scientists develop:

A deeper understanding of how the human brain reasons, plans, and solves problems.
Greater insight into how sleep deprivation, drug abuse, neurological disorders, and other factors affect the decision-making process, suggesting new behavioral and therapeutic approaches to improve health.

Our brains appear wired in ways that enable us, often unconsciously, to make the best decisions possible with the information we’re given. In simplest terms, the process is organized like a court trial. Sights, sounds, and other sensory evidence are entered and registered in sensory circuits in the brain. Other brain cells act as the brain’s “jury,” compiling and weighing each piece of evidence. When the accumulated evidence reaches a critical threshold, a judgment — a decision — is made.''

Note that the person's own brain cells consider the evidence and make a decision. That is the function called "free will".

No, compatibilists label decision making as 'free will' when no such conclusion is warranted. Nobody is denying that the brain acquires and processes information, producing thoughts and actions as a result....it's only a question of whether this can be defined as free will.

For the reasons given in numerous posts, the answer is: no the cognitive process does not qualify as being 'free will' because it lacks the right kind of regulatory control, ie, it is not being willed, it does not have alternatives.

It doesn't have alternatives because each and every state of incremental change is fixed by antecedents.

''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"). - M. Edwards.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

That brain cells treat with inputs from the world should make clear that what the individual is doing is processing best evidence of what is going on in the world according to what the brain cells suggest. What the brain cells transduce into action potentials is controlled by evolution in that senses are arraigned by type and magnitude of domain used to sense.

Sensing is relative and it is not really aligned with the information carried to the organism. That is it is recorded as type, strength, duration. pattern and direction of a digital record what is sensed. As I've been forced to admit we don't know color, texture, etc. except by association. We are not deciding based on what is out there rather we are reacting to well established patterns and directing response to those most of then received.

That is not choice, decision making, especially not exercise of will free or otherwise. It is an improving and very successfully determining reaction to previous transactions. We say before and during our actions confirms the building and reinforcing of memory, not executing self determined will.

If it is not choosing or decision making, then what do you call the operation where the customer in the restaurant reads the menu and then places their order?

 

[Jarhyn]

That brain cells treat with inputs from the world should make clear that what the individual is doing is processing best evidence of what is going on in the world according to what the brain cells suggest. What the brain cells transduce into action potentials is controlled by evolution in that senses are arraigned by type and magnitude of domain used to sense.

Sensing is relative and it is not really aligned with the information carried to the organism. That is it is recorded as type, strength, duration. pattern and direction of a digital record what is sensed. As I've been forced to admit we don't know color, texture, etc. except by association. We are not deciding based on what is out there rather we are reacting to well established patterns and directing response to those most of then received.

That is not choice, decision making, especially not exercise of will free or otherwise. It is an improving and very successfully determining reaction to previous transactions. We say before and during our actions confirms the building and reinforcing of memory, not executing self determined will.

If it is not choosing or decision making, then what do you call the operation where the customer in the restaurant reads the menu and then places their order?

Ackamarackus?

 

[Jarhyn]

compatibilists label decision making as 'free will' when no such conclusion is warranted.

No, we label decision making "free will" when the decision is going to result in the requirement of the decision's goal mechanism, and we label it "constrained/unfree" when the decision is going to result in the requirement being missed.

not qualify as being 'free will' because it lacks the right kind of regulatory control, ie, it is not being willed, it does not have alternatives.

You are conflating freely held will (a will held due to free will of the thing holding it) and free will (a will whose requirements are going to be inevitably be met):

I could program a "will" into a robot to find and follow any "brightly painted line on the floor". In reality "brightly painted line on the floor" and "follow" are defined by a set of physical requirements: switches with activation energies and some operational logic.

Whether it's will is free depends on a lot of things: foremost whether there is a brightly painted line on the floor at all (really, some thing that validates it's requirements), whether that line can be 'followed' by the control logic, etc.

I Could even then write another robot which can tell me whether the other robot's unfreely held will is itself free: is the first robot on a line in this moment? Can it reach such a line? Did it get launched off the line by external vectors?

At any rate, I can also determine in any moment whether the failure of that freedom is due to external forces and events to the robot (was it picked up and moved) or the model function of the robot itself (does it have a hard time following around this corner such that it loses the line and must search for it, indicating a failure of state due to "stupidity" rather than "maliciousness").

I can both observe when "that thing fucked up the robot" in which case I can do nothing directly and also when "the robot was unable to corner here because..." and then change that unfreely held will to include different plans or requirements that allow it to more readily follow the damn line.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

What can be imagined is not necessarily what can happen, or what is even possible. Imagination is a flight of fancy, people can be superheroes, fly through the air, be invulnerable to bombs or bullets....

Correct. We can imagine many things that are impossible. So, a real possibility is something that we can actually do, if we choose to do it. An impossibility is something that we cannot do, even if we choose to.

In the restaurant, it is possible for me to have the steak, if I choose to. It is also possible for me to have the salad, if I choose to. So, there are two real possibilities.

It is also possible for me to choose the steak, if I prefer it over the salad. And, it is also possible for me to choose the salad, if I prefer it over the steak.

Both the steak and the salad are real possibilities, and it is really possible for me to choose either one.

I will choose the salad, because I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. But the fact that I will choose the salad does not contradict the fact that I could have chosen the steak.

That's how the logic of the language works to enable us to adapt to environmental issues that evolution was unable to predict, like the fact that different restaurants have different menus. So, we have instead the ability to consider multiple things that we "can" do before deciding the single thing we "will" do.

So, let's not try to undo this evolutionary advantage.

Without possible alternate actions, where is the ability to choose otherwise? With no alternatives, where is freedom of will? Nowhere to be found, that's where.

Again, may I bring your attention to the restaurant's menu, filled with alternate possibilities. The claim that there are no alternate possibilities within a deterministic universe is easily proven to be false. And it is repeatedly proven every time we make a choice.

The question being; is neural architecture and its activity a matter of free will?

That depends. When the neural architecture actively chose to order the salad instead of the steak, was anyone pointing a gun at the neural architecture?

Like I've said before, "free will" is when the neural architecture chooses for itself what it will do, while free of coercion and undue influence.

The definition of free will does not change when you substitute "neural architecture" for "brain" or when you substitute "brain" for "person". They are all synonyms referring to the same object performing the same function.

The answer, based on numerous experiments, case studies, pathologies, conditions, etc, no it is not;

And that is only because philosophy has imposed upon them a notion of free will that is either supernatural or logically impossible. It has trapped them, and you, in a paradox, that even caught intelligent people like Albert Einstein.

When free will is understood with its original meaning, an event in which a person decides for themselves what they will do, free of coercion and undue influence (you know, the one used in courts and the one used by parents when they ask their child "Did you do that on purpose?"), then neuroscience consistently backs up the notion that the brain routinely chooses what the person will do next (whether consciously or unconsciously).

''This review deals with the physiology of the initiation of a voluntary movement and the appreciation of whether it is voluntary or not. I argue that free will is not a driving force for movement, but a conscious awareness concerning the nature of the movement. Movement initiation and the perception of willing the movement can be separately manipulated.

Movement is generated subconsciously, and the conscious sense of volition comes later, but the exact time of this event is difficult to assess because of the potentially illusory nature of introspection. Neurological disorders of volition are also reviewed.

The evidence suggests that movement is initiated in the frontal lobe, particularly the mesial areas, and the sense of volition arises as the result of a corollary discharge likely involving multiple areas with reciprocal connections including those in the parietal lobe and insular cortex.''' Volitional control of movement: The physiology of free will
Clinical Neurophysiology, Volume 118, Issue 6, Pages 1179-1192
M. Hallett

We can appreciate Mr. Hallett examining the sequence of volition and movement in simple experiments involving few if any choices. But he does not address the more common everyday sequence of events in real life. For example:

We did not walk to the restaurant and then make up a story to try to explain how we got there. We considered several places where we liked to eat, and decided upon a specific restaurant. That decision was when we first became aware of our volition to go to that restaurant. The motion of our legs followed that volition as we walked into the selected restaurant, sat down, browsed the menu of possibilities, and placed our orders. In this case, the volition preceded the motion of our legs, and it was that volition that causally determined that we would walk to the restaurant.

Decision-Making
''Decision-making is such a seamless brain process that we’re usually unaware of it — until our choice results in unexpected consequences. Then we may look back and wonder, “Why did I choose that option?” In recent years, neuroscientists have begun to decode the decision-making process. What they’re learning is shedding light not only on how the healthy brain performs complex mental functions, but also on how disorders, such as stroke or drug abuse, affect the process.’

''Researchers can study decision-making in animals. As monkeys decide which direction a moving target is headed, researchers record the activity in brain cells called neurons. These studies have helped to reveal the basis for how animals and humans make everyday decisions.''

Thanks to advances in technology, researchers are beginning to unravel the mysterious processes by which humans make decisions. New research is helping scientists develop:

A deeper understanding of how the human brain reasons, plans, and solves problems.
Greater insight into how sleep deprivation, drug abuse, neurological disorders, and other factors affect the decision-making process, suggesting new behavioral and therapeutic approaches to improve health.

Our brains appear wired in ways that enable us, often unconsciously, to make the best decisions possible with the information we’re given. In simplest terms, the process is organized like a court trial. Sights, sounds, and other sensory evidence are entered and registered in sensory circuits in the brain. Other brain cells act as the brain’s “jury,” compiling and weighing each piece of evidence. When the accumulated evidence reaches a critical threshold, a judgment — a decision — is made.''

Note that the person's own brain cells consider the evidence and make a decision. When that decision is made while free of coercion and undue influence, then the function called "free will". If it was coerced, then it is called "coercion".

No, compatibilists label decision making as 'free will' when no such conclusion is warranted.

Not at all. Compatibilists label decision making, "decision making". Whether the decision making was a matter of free will or not depends entirely upon whether the decision was free of coercion, insanity, and other undue influences.

If the decision making was free of coercion and undue influence, then it was an example of free will.
If the decision making was coerced, then it is not an example of free will, but rather an example of coercion.

Nobody is denying that the brain acquires and processes information, producing thoughts and actions as a result....it's only a question of whether this can be defined as free will.

Well, let's see. Was the brain's decision making free of coercion and undue influence? If it was, then it was a freely chosen "I will". If it was coerced or unduly influenced, then it was not.

QUOTE="DBT, post: 990533, member: 170"]
For the reasons given in numerous posts, the answer is: no the cognitive process does not qualify as being 'free will' because it lacks the right kind of regulatory control, ie, it is not being willed, it does not have alternatives. [/QUOTE]

"For the reasons given in numerous posts, the answer" is that the cognitive process qualifies as free will whenever it is deciding what the person will do, while free of coercion and undue influence.

And we have precisely the kind of regulatory control to decide that we will have the salad even though we could have had the steak. It's right there, staring us in the face.

The alternatives are on the menu, also right there, staring us in the face.

QUOTE="DBT, post: 990533, member: 170"]
It doesn't have alternatives because each and every state of incremental change is fixed by antecedents.[/QUOTE]

The appearance of alternatives happens to be one of those states, and one of the necessary antecedent events that causally fix the choice. The claim that they are not there among the antecedent events is debunked by simply looking at the menu.

QUOTE="DBT, post: 990533, member: 170"]
''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"). - M. Edwards.
[/QUOTE]

It's nice that you have listened and understood and even quoted those words of mine. Now, if you could do the same with some of the other words that I've said.

 

[fromderinside]

That brain cells treat with inputs from the world should make clear that what the individual is doing is processing best evidence of what is going on in the world according to what the brain cells suggest. What the brain cells transduce into action potentials is controlled by evolution in that senses are arraigned by type and magnitude of domain used to sense.

Sensing is relative and it is not really aligned with the information carried to the organism. That is it is recorded as type, strength, duration. pattern and direction of a digital record what is sensed. As I've been forced to admit we don't know color, texture, etc. except by association. We are not deciding based on what is out there rather we are reacting to well established patterns and directing response to those most of then received.

That is not choice, decision making, especially not exercise of will free or otherwise. It is an improving and very successfully determining reaction to previous transactions. We say before and during our actions confirms the building and reinforcing of memory, not executing self determined will.

If it is not choosing or decision making, then what do you call the operation where the customer in the restaurant reads the menu and then places their order?

A very complex reaction by a language endowed being to satisfying biological demands for nutrition.

 

[fromderinside]

That brain cells treat with inputs from the world should make clear that what the individual is doing is processing best evidence of what is going on in the world according to what the brain cells suggest. What the brain cells transduce into action potentials is controlled by evolution in that senses are arraigned by type and magnitude of domain used to sense.

Sensing is relative and it is not really aligned with the information carried to the organism. That is it is recorded as type, strength, duration. pattern and direction of a digital record what is sensed. As I've been forced to admit we don't know color, texture, etc. except by association. We are not deciding based on what is out there rather we are reacting to well established patterns and directing response to those most of then received.

That is not choice, decision making, especially not exercise of will free or otherwise. It is an improving and very successfully determining reaction to previous transactions. We say before and during our actions confirms the building and reinforcing of memory, not executing self determined will.

If it is not choosing or decision making, then what do you call the operation where the customer in the restaurant reads the menu and then places their order?

Ackamarackus?

That works if it means what I wrote answering Marvin.

 

[The AntiChris]

Let me get this straight.

CHOOSING

We (compatibilists and incompatibilists) all agree that it happens.

The problem is that incompatibilists (FDI at least) insist that the word "choosing" should not be used.

This isn't philosophy.

 

[DBT]

compatibilists label decision making as 'free will' when no such conclusion is warranted.

No, we label decision making "free will" when the decision is going to result in the requirement of the decision's goal mechanism, and we label it "constrained/unfree" when the decision is going to result in the requirement being missed.

Crock. Compatibilists simply define 'free will' in a way that allows it to be compatible with determinism.

not qualify as being 'free will' because it lacks the right kind of regulatory control, ie, it is not being willed, it does not have alternatives.

You are conflating freely held will (a will held due to free will of the thing holding it) and free will (a will whose requirements are going to be inevitably be met):

I could program a "will" into a robot to find and follow any "brightly painted line on the floor". In reality "brightly painted line on the floor" and "follow" are defined by a set of physical requirements: switches with activation energies and some operational logic.

You confuse function with will. Robots have function not will. You are imposing your own meaning in order to give the impression of making a point.

It is not will that processes information and produces outcomes. Will is not something that acts upon the process in order to bend outcomes according to one's will.

It's not even an argument. You may as well be invoking soul or spirit agency.

Besides that, it is not related to the compatibilist definition of free will.