Compatibilism: What's that About?

[fromderinside]

Why are you talking about plans in subjective space

I am not. I am talking about the fact that plans held by things are objective parts of mechanical systems that objectively determine their behaviors.

The list of instructions to be acted upon by a processor is no less an object than the dwarf itself, which is then an object composed itself of a series of bits on a field.

Just like our plans are objects composed in reality of a series of chemical potentials across a field of neurons.


Your inability to step back from "subjectivity" and look at it as the complete mechanical OBJECT that it is and see that it OBJECTIVELY had an OBJECT that is nonetheless "arbitrary, but real, instructions" is your problem here.

It doesn't matter whether we process reality directly. It does not matter if the thing that measures the reality and checks the requirement checks a very abstracted piece of reality. It doesn't matter that the real requirements are more "this much chemical was dumped here in the brain (as a result of hand moving)" or "the door was open".

They are essentially the same thing as far as "the universe" is concerned. You hand-waving "SuBjEcTiViTy!!!111" at it doesn't make the fact that it's really an object acting like a fucking robot that happens to be able to program itself.

Unless the plan is actually a an operationally defined formula it is useless

LOLWUT?

No, the plan is only useless if it fails, the plan is only useless if it is not °°°. And often it is even useful then in after-action-review.

You must really hate yourself if you don't want to be involved with decisions over who you yourself will be and what you will do.

The only thing that can manage and provide tight oversight on yourself is yourself. It's the only thing wired for providing immediate feedback and analysis.

The only way to achieve certain behavioral goals is then to do analysis, find out what you did wrong, test it...

Are you seriously hung up on some bad belief that the scientific method includes automatic science, and experimentation on and within the self?

'choosing' does not equate to 'free will.

Nobody said it does. Sometimes the choice is "life! There is a gun in my face (physical systemic requirement of undeniable lizard-brain drive)" and we recognize that means that the adjoining will came from external to the drive system of the person speaking. It came from the drive system of (maybe the guy with the gun?).

In this situation, choosing is not free will.

So no choice does not of its own imply "free will" of the person choosing, in all situations.

The ability of systems to execute arbitrary instruction sets implies •••.

The ability of systems to fail to execute instructions to the satisfaction of a requirement implies °°°.

Choosing requires a ••• that contains multiple options (direct or by reference), which will result in a single selection of new secondary •••. Whether the ••• that ended up choosing on a secondary ••• was °°° depends on whether or not the secondary ••• is itself °°°:

it chose that "my ••• shall be *** unto ***'s completion" which, suggests *** may not constitute a °°° •••.

So in short, you have made an unargued assertion and thus an assertion fallacy.

Selection does determine will

Ok, so, here you are admitting that (at least some) determined systems have WILL.

Now, ask yourself: Q: can a will fail unto it's requirement?

If so, it has a truth value associated with it, a property derived by it's intersection through reality. This truth value is °°°.

Congratulations, in finding ••• you found °°°.

A: yes, it may

Will is 'written' before it is made conscious

It is written by the brain. You have some failed understanding about the meaning of what is "conscious" versus not.

You make all kinds of claims that this is meaningful but it really isn't.

has already been determined and fixed

It has been determined and fixed, by me, milliseconds before it is narrated back to me. I'm still the one who determined and fixed it. Of course it takes a little bit of time for that data to come back in a loop around to me, and I still have the ability in those milliseconds to send a NO, if I don't like what I see, or what any of the other processes in my brain say of what they see.

Generally it is a causal requirement, in fact, for something to be done BEFORE it may be evaluated by "the peanut gallery".

You keep claiming that the time delay of the narration means it was not consciously decided upon. That doesn't imply anything of the sort, and it's fundamentally bad science to say it does.

You (the you that makes decisions and gets an awareness of what happened narrated back) exist in a capacity where you get all the data you need to review what is happening in your head.

Let me reiterate: serial killers have a responsibility to kill themselves before they kill anyone else.

One need not be aware to react.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why are you talking about plans in subjective space

I am not. I am talking about the fact that plans held by things are objective parts of mechanical systems that objectively determine their behaviors.

The list of instructions to be acted upon by a processor is no less an object than the dwarf itself, which is then an object composed itself of a series of bits on a field.

Just like our plans are objects composed in reality of a series of chemical potentials across a field of neurons.


Your inability to step back from "subjectivity" and look at it as the complete mechanical OBJECT that it is and see that it OBJECTIVELY had an OBJECT that is nonetheless "arbitrary, but real, instructions" is your problem here.

It doesn't matter whether we process reality directly. It does not matter if the thing that measures the reality and checks the requirement checks a very abstracted piece of reality. It doesn't matter that the real requirements are more "this much chemical was dumped here in the brain (as a result of hand moving)" or "the door was open".

They are essentially the same thing as far as "the universe" is concerned. You hand-waving "SuBjEcTiViTy!!!111" at it doesn't make the fact that it's really an object acting like a fucking robot that happens to be able to program itself.

Unless the plan is actually a an operationally defined formula it is useless

LOLWUT?

No, the plan is only useless if it fails, the plan is only useless if it is not °°°. And often it is even useful then in after-action-review.

You must really hate yourself if you don't want to be involved with decisions over who you yourself will be and what you will do.

The only thing that can manage and provide tight oversight on yourself is yourself. It's the only thing wired for providing immediate feedback and analysis.

The only way to achieve certain behavioral goals is then to do analysis, find out what you did wrong, test it...

Are you seriously hung up on some bad belief that the scientific method includes automatic science, and experimentation on and within the self?

'choosing' does not equate to 'free will.

Nobody said it does. Sometimes the choice is "life! There is a gun in my face (physical systemic requirement of undeniable lizard-brain drive)" and we recognize that means that the adjoining will came from external to the drive system of the person speaking. It came from the drive system of (maybe the guy with the gun?).

In this situation, choosing is not free will.

So no choice does not of its own imply "free will" of the person choosing, in all situations.

The ability of systems to execute arbitrary instruction sets implies •••.

The ability of systems to fail to execute instructions to the satisfaction of a requirement implies °°°.

Choosing requires a ••• that contains multiple options (direct or by reference), which will result in a single selection of new secondary •••. Whether the ••• that ended up choosing on a secondary ••• was °°° depends on whether or not the secondary ••• is itself °°°:

it chose that "my ••• shall be *** unto ***'s completion" which, suggests *** may not constitute a °°° •••.

So in short, you have made an unargued assertion and thus an assertion fallacy.

Selection does determine will

Ok, so, here you are admitting that (at least some) determined systems have WILL.

Now, ask yourself: Q: can a will fail unto it's requirement?

If so, it has a truth value associated with it, a property derived by it's intersection through reality. This truth value is °°°.

Congratulations, in finding ••• you found °°°.

A: yes, it may

Will is 'written' before it is made conscious

It is written by the brain. You have some failed understanding about the meaning of what is "conscious" versus not.

You make all kinds of claims that this is meaningful but it really isn't.

has already been determined and fixed

It has been determined and fixed, by me, milliseconds before it is narrated back to me. I'm still the one who determined and fixed it. Of course it takes a little bit of time for that data to come back in a loop around to me, and I still have the ability in those milliseconds to send a NO, if I don't like what I see, or what any of the other processes in my brain say of what they see.

Generally it is a causal requirement, in fact, for something to be done BEFORE it may be evaluated by "the peanut gallery".

You keep claiming that the time delay of the narration means it was not consciously decided upon. That doesn't imply anything of the sort, and it's fundamentally bad science to say it does.

You (the you that makes decisions and gets an awareness of what happened narrated back) exist in a capacity where you get all the data you need to review what is happening in your head.

Let me reiterate: serial killers have a responsibility to kill themselves before they kill anyone else.

One need not be aware to react.

One does need to be aware to react. Reaction requires the system be aware of the action.

One need not be "aware that they are aware" to be aware.

Strike one.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I don’t think that our positions differ in any truly substantive way, except terminologically. I don’t recognize any sort of necessity beyond logical necessity. All that which not logically necessary (true at all possible worlds) is contingent (true at some possible worlds, false at others).

Your point about “there is nothing we can do about it” is quite relevant in this context. Another form of determinism oft cited is sometimes called relativistic determinism. This is a form of determinism derived from special relativity, in which it is held that SR implies that the future exists along with the past and present. It derives from the relativity of simultaneity, which shows that different inertial frames can disagree on the temporal order of events. This is also called the block universe.

But if the future exists, it’s really no different from saying that the past determines the future. The supposed relativistic threat to free will is that if the future is set in stone as much as the past, then “there is nothing we can do about it” — our choices are already pre-determined, ergo no free will, supposedly.

But this worry ignores the fact that our choices, with or without a block universe, are made by us. When people say that “there is nothing we can do about it,” what they are really implicitly (and illicitly) arguing for is that, for us to have free will, we ought to be able to change things that already are, or will be, true.

But that’s absurd. Even if the block universe is real and all our future choices are set in stone, this is no different from saying that all our past choices are set in stone. Yet no one thinks that because it is a fixed fact of the past that I had eggs for breakfast yesterday, I had to have eggs. In just the same way, no one should think that just because it’s true today that tomorrow I will have eggs for breakfast, then I have to have eggs.

The “there is nothing we can do about it” worry disguises an appeal to a fallacy of classical logic — that I ought to be able to change what I did, am doing, and will do in the future. But to be able to do so would violate the Law of Non-contradiction — it would require the ability to both do, and not do, x at the same time. No account of free will requires as a premise that I be able to commit a logical absurdity.

Sabine Hossenfelder, a physicist whose writings I admire (her blog is called Back Reaction) believes we probably live in a block universe and also believes we have no free will. In one of her blog posts she wrote challengingly, “see if you can change the future.” Her point was that to have free will, we must be able to change a pre-set future.

But this is not so. To have free will does not require that I have the ability to change anything, past, present, or future. It only requires that I be able to do, within my limited power, those acts which, in part, make the past be what it was, the present be what it is, and the future be, what it will be. I can rephrase her statement to say, “see if you can change the present.” You cannot. If right now I raise my hand, I have not changed the present. I have made the present moment be, in part, what it is. The present moment will now quantify over a great many acts and events that are contingent. One of them will be that I contingently raised my hand. Had I done otherwise, which I had full power to do, than the present moment would be different. The same goes for the past and future.

There will only be one realized history, but there are vastly greater numbers of realizable histories — possible non-actual worlds, in modal terminology. Those worlds were, are, and always will be, possible, contra the hard determinist stance that only one history can be realized.

Yes, we seem to be saying the same things using different tools. There are some descriptions that I tend to dismiss out-of-hand, like Einstein's block universe. If it helps him with his equations, then fine, but it is not an empirical description of any reality. Likewise, I'm not fond of the "possible worlds" terminology because it immediately brings to my mind science fiction and travelling through dimensions. When I run into these things I have a knee-jerk reaction that, if I didn't already know about it, then it couldn't be that important (hmm, a little fromderinside inside of me?). I reacted that way in Richard Carrier's Historical Jesus class when he brought up Bayes' Theorem. Why on earth would a theorem be named after a person, anyway? Shouldn't it instead have a name that gives a hint of its function?

I also tend to ignore the classification of fallacies. Like the judge said about porn, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". I find it irritating when someone simply claims and names a fallacy without explaining why it is fallacious. I would like to think that if I saw a logical error in someone's statement that I could explain it to them in words they could understand.

I believe that I try to stick with pragmatism and empiricism, because they are the best tools for bringing us back to a real and practical understanding of how the world works.

One of the ways I've described past, present, and future is similar to yours. We exist only in the present. The past exists only in our memory of the present. The future exists only in our imagination.

 

[fromderinside]

One need not be aware to react.

One does need to be aware to react. Reaction requires the system be aware of the action.

One need not be "aware that they are aware" to be aware.

Strike one.

If someone taps your crazy bone either in your knee or elbow. Those are reactions. You become aware after you react (jerk) and you can't stop the reaction.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why are you talking about plans in subjective space

I am not. I am talking about the fact that plans held by things are objective parts of mechanical systems that objectively determine their behaviors.

The list of instructions to be acted upon by a processor is no less an object than the dwarf itself, which is then an object composed itself of a series of bits on a field.

Just like our plans are objects composed in reality of a series of chemical potentials across a field of neurons.


Your inability to step back from "subjectivity" and look at it as the complete mechanical OBJECT that it is and see that it OBJECTIVELY had an OBJECT that is nonetheless "arbitrary, but real, instructions" is your problem here.

It doesn't matter whether we process reality directly. It does not matter if the thing that measures the reality and checks the requirement checks a very abstracted piece of reality. It doesn't matter that the real requirements are more "this much chemical was dumped here in the brain (as a result of hand moving)" or "the door was open".

They are essentially the same thing as far as "the universe" is concerned. You hand-waving "SuBjEcTiViTy!!!111" at it doesn't make the fact that it's really an object acting like a fucking robot that happens to be able to program itself.

Unless the plan is actually a an operationally defined formula it is useless

LOLWUT?

No, the plan is only useless if it fails, the plan is only useless if it is not °°°. And often it is even useful then in after-action-review.

You must really hate yourself if you don't want to be involved with decisions over who you yourself will be and what you will do.

The only thing that can manage and provide tight oversight on yourself is yourself. It's the only thing wired for providing immediate feedback and analysis.

The only way to achieve certain behavioral goals is then to do analysis, find out what you did wrong, test it...

Are you seriously hung up on some bad belief that the scientific method includes automatic science, and experimentation on and within the self?

'choosing' does not equate to 'free will.

Nobody said it does. Sometimes the choice is "life! There is a gun in my face (physical systemic requirement of undeniable lizard-brain drive)" and we recognize that means that the adjoining will came from external to the drive system of the person speaking. It came from the drive system of (maybe the guy with the gun?).

In this situation, choosing is not free will.

So no choice does not of its own imply "free will" of the person choosing, in all situations.

The ability of systems to execute arbitrary instruction sets implies •••.

The ability of systems to fail to execute instructions to the satisfaction of a requirement implies °°°.

Choosing requires a ••• that contains multiple options (direct or by reference), which will result in a single selection of new secondary •••. Whether the ••• that ended up choosing on a secondary ••• was °°° depends on whether or not the secondary ••• is itself °°°:

it chose that "my ••• shall be *** unto ***'s completion" which, suggests *** may not constitute a °°° •••.

So in short, you have made an unargued assertion and thus an assertion fallacy.

Selection does determine will

Ok, so, here you are admitting that (at least some) determined systems have WILL.

Now, ask yourself: Q: can a will fail unto it's requirement?

If so, it has a truth value associated with it, a property derived by it's intersection through reality. This truth value is °°°.

Congratulations, in finding ••• you found °°°.

A: yes, it may

Will is 'written' before it is made conscious

It is written by the brain. You have some failed understanding about the meaning of what is "conscious" versus not.

You make all kinds of claims that this is meaningful but it really isn't.

has already been determined and fixed

It has been determined and fixed, by me, milliseconds before it is narrated back to me. I'm still the one who determined and fixed it. Of course it takes a little bit of time for that data to come back in a loop around to me, and I still have the ability in those milliseconds to send a NO, if I don't like what I see, or what any of the other processes in my brain say of what they see.

Generally it is a causal requirement, in fact, for something to be done BEFORE it may be evaluated by "the peanut gallery".

You keep claiming that the time delay of the narration means it was not consciously decided upon. That doesn't imply anything of the sort, and it's fundamentally bad science to say it does.

You (the you that makes decisions and gets an awareness of what happened narrated back) exist in a capacity where you get all the data you need to review what is happening in your head.

Let me reiterate: serial killers have a responsibility to kill themselves before they kill anyone else.

One need not be aware to react.

One does need to be aware to react. Reaction requires the system be aware of the action.

One need not be "aware that they are aware" to be aware.

Strike one.

If someone taps your crazy bone either in your knee or elbow. Those are reactions. You become aware after you react (jerk).

And there's a set of nerves in my knee that is aware it happened and lets me know how aware it was after the fact. Often it happens so late, the only thing I can do about it is to know it happened.

Thankfully when it comes to distally driven behaviors, usually they aren't too problematic.

As it is though, we can still change and impact certain "normally reflexive" actions through mindfulness.

One of the parts in here is actually "me" and the things that "part that is me" is aware of are being reported not up to a different system but back around directly to itself.

It still takes a moment for such recurrent signals to come back around: they can only come back around at or more than a full "clock cycle" later!

 

[DBT]

Principle 1. The brain is a physical system. It functions as a computer. Its circuits are designed to generate behavior that is appropriate to your environmental circumstances.

''The brain is a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the laws of chemistry and physics.

Same old yada yada.

You say that because you prefer not to consider any possibility beyond what you want to be true and believe to be true.

The brain functions as a computer. Really? You say this, or quote someone else saying this, as if it were an established fact. It’s not. I’ve already given you at least one link to a paper by a neuroscientist who argues forcefully that the brain is not a computer, nor does it function similarly to one. But even if it does function as a computer, or like a computer, it changes nothing with respect to this discussion.

The brain is a parallel information processor. It's evolutionary role, as the article says, is to acquire and process information in order to interact with the environment.

Obviously, the brain is not computer like your laptop or calculator, nor did the authors of the article intend that meaning.

It is you who seizes upon a single word in order misrepresent an article that is not to your taste..

”Governed soley by the laws,” etc. etc. Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I don’t think you ever have given a straight answer to a question I have asked many times: Are the “laws” of nature DEscriptive (as I hold) or PREscriptive (as the quote above holds)? If you think the laws are prescriptive, present your evidence. If the laws are not prescriptive, then in no sense is the brain governed by these alleged laws.

Once again: what we call the 'laws of nature' refers the attributes of matter/energy: how the world works or behaves. Our description in no way alter the fact that if the world is deterministic, it is deterministic regardless of our descriptions or labels.

That if the world is determined, the brain as an aspect of matter/energy is a deterministic system. Not because we describe it thus, but because that is how we observe the world to be.

 

[DBT]

Your brain does not process information. Your brain is not a computer.

Aeon as your source material!

How the brain processes information;
Genetically determined circuits are the foundation of the nervous system.

1. Neuronal circuits are formed by genetic programs during embryonic development and modified through interactions with the internal and external environment.
2. Sensory circuits (sight, touch, hearing, smell, taste) bring information to the nervous system, whereas motor circuits send information to muscles and glands.
3. The simplest circuit is a reflex, in which sensory stimulus directly triggers an immediate motor response.
4. Complex responses occur when the brain integrates information from many brain circuits to generate a response.
5. Simple and complex interactions among neurons take place on time scales ranging from milliseconds to months.
6. The brain is organized to recognize sensations, initiate behaviors, and store and access memories that can last a lifetime.

How neurons form long term memory:

“Memory is essential to all aspects of human existence. The question of how we encode memories that last a lifetime is a fundamental one, and our study gets to the very heart of this phenomenon,” said Greenberg, the HMS Nathan Marsh Pusey Professor of Neurobiology and study corresponding author.


The researchers observed that new experiences activate sparse populations of neurons in the hippocampus that express two genes, Fos and Scg2. These genes allow neurons to fine-tune inputs from so-called inhibitory interneurons, cells that dampen neuronal excitation. In this way, small groups of disparate neurons may form persistent networks with coordinated activity in response to an experience.


“This mechanism likely allows neurons to better talk to each other so that the next time a memory needs to be recalled, the neurons fire more synchronously,” Yap said. “We think coincident activation of this Fos-mediated circuit is potentially a necessary feature for memory consolidation, for example, during sleep, and also memory recall in the brain.”

 

[DBT]

The brain as a computer is a metaphor. As the above linked article notes, we’ve been using metaphors for thousands of years for the brain, with the latest technology of each era being adopted as a metaphor for how the brain works.

I take no stand on whether a computer is, or could be, conscious. But the point of the above-linked article is that the brain does not really work like a computer at all. That said, I’m not sure how the issue of how the brain actually works really has bearing on free will. I‘m prepared to accept that a computer has a kind of free will and possibly even consciousness, that consciousness could be substrate independent, without endorsing the idea that the brain is a computer or resembles one in any relevant sense.

A metaphor? The brain literally acquires and processes information.

 

[Jarhyn]

You say that because you prefer not to consider any possibility beyond what you want to be true and believe to be true.

Excuse me while I break my promise to my husband, go back to FSTDT, and nominate this post of yours for a Shiny Mirror Award.

Not really. I love my husband to the extent that this ••• shall not be °°° nor held by any °°° ••• of my own.

Actually try reading the definitions and doing the math with them and just SEE if ever once there has to be a "freedom" of your libertarian variety imposed there.

You will find that there is not.

Anyway, I repeat...

Anyone who holds a ••• to kill people unilaterally ought use whatever leverage they have to guarantee the ••• to kill people points at themselves such that it is °°° with respect to that requirement.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

How the brain processes information;
Genetically determined circuits are the foundation of the nervous system.

1. Neuronal circuits are formed by genetic programs during embryonic development and modified through interactions with the internal and external environment.
2. Sensory circuits (sight, touch, hearing, smell, taste) bring information to the nervous system, whereas motor circuits send information to muscles and glands.
3. The simplest circuit is a reflex, in which sensory stimulus directly triggers an immediate motor response.
4. Complex responses occur when the brain integrates information from many brain circuits to generate a response.
5. Simple and complex interactions among neurons take place on time scales ranging from milliseconds to months.
6. The brain is organized to recognize sensations, initiate behaviors, and store and access memories that can last a lifetime.

How neurons form long term memory:

“Memory is essential to all aspects of human existence. The question of how we encode memories that last a lifetime is a fundamental one, and our study gets to the very heart of this phenomenon,” said Greenberg, the HMS Nathan Marsh Pusey Professor of Neurobiology and study corresponding author.

The researchers observed that new experiences activate sparse populations of neurons in the hippocampus that express two genes, Fos and Scg2. These genes allow neurons to fine-tune inputs from so-called inhibitory interneurons, cells that dampen neuronal excitation. In this way, small groups of disparate neurons may form persistent networks with coordinated activity in response to an experience.

“This mechanism likely allows neurons to better talk to each other so that the next time a memory needs to be recalled, the neurons fire more synchronously,” Yap said. “We think coincident activation of this Fos-mediated circuit is potentially a necessary feature for memory consolidation, for example, during sleep, and also memory recall in the brain.”

While this micro-information is always interesting, it does not change anything about the macro issue of free will. A person considers different cars and chooses one. A person taps on several different melons and chooses one. A person considers several people to ask out on a date and chooses one. A person browses the restaurant menu of possible dinners and chooses one.

Whether it is "I will buy this car", or "I will buy this melon", or "I will invite Cindy to the prom", or "I will have the salad for dinner", it is all a matter of a "will" that we choose for ourselves and by ourselves, free of coercion and undue influence.

I don't know where you get the idea that anyone thinks this is not happening in our own brains. You may surprise us with new facts about the brain, but these facts change nothing about the nature of the basic question: "Who is making the choice that will control what will happen next?" In the absence of coercion or other undue influence, it is still us in control.

 

[pood]

You say that because you prefer not to consider any possibility beyond what you want to be true and believe to be true.

Excuse me while I break my promise to my husband, go back to FSTDT, and nominate this post of yours for a Shiny Mirror Award.

 

[pood]

Your brain does not process information. Your brain is not a computer.

Aeon as your source material!

Nice ad hom, though against a web site and not an individual. Is there a particlar term for that? Anyway, I’ve no idea whether Aeon is a good source or not, but it’s irrelevant, because the author is a respected expert in the field with plenty of studies and publications to his credit. He should not be believed just because of this — that would be an appeal to authority — but his credentials are certainly relevant to the claims he makes. And he makes it quite clear, with evidence and examples, that the brain is not a computer in any relevant way. Please address the substance of his arguments, if you can, rather than taking a shot at the platform for his arguments.

 

[pood]

The brain as a computer is a metaphor. As the above linked article notes, we’ve been using metaphors for thousands of years for the brain, with the latest technology of each era being adopted as a metaphor for how the brain works.

I take no stand on whether a computer is, or could be, conscious. But the point of the above-linked article is that the brain does not really work like a computer at all. That said, I’m not sure how the issue of how the brain actually works really has bearing on free will. I‘m prepared to accept that a computer has a kind of free will and possibly even consciousness, that consciousness could be substrate independent, without endorsing the idea that the brain is a computer or resembles one in any relevant sense.

A metaphor? The brain literally acquires and processes information.

Your brain does not process information … very first clause of the subhead to the article. Later he he explains in depth why this is so. Deal with that, please.

 

[pood]

Likewise, I'm not fond of the "possible worlds" terminology because it immediately brings to my mind science fiction and travelling through dimensions.

The “possible worlds” I refer to is a clarifying heuristic in modal logic. It refers to logically possible worlds, and helps clarify our understanding about possibility, necessity, and actuality. It’s really quite useful. For example, as I’ve discussed, epistemic or theological determinists often claim that God’s inerrant foreknowledge of future human behavior rules out human free will, a cudget that many atheists wield against theists because it purports to demonstrate thathumans cannot have moral responsibility if God exists, and hence cannot justly be blamed for their acts. Possible worlds helps clarify the modal error in this reasoning.

Possible World 1: There is a possible world where God knows in advance that I will do x and I do x.
Possible World 2: There is a possible world where God knows in advance that I will do y and I do y.

However, there are no possible worlds at which:

God knows in advance that I will do x and I do y instread.
God knows in advance that I will do y and I do x instread.

What this shows is that there is a possible world in which I do x, and a possible world in which I do y, but no possible worlds in which God fails to foresee what I do. Hence I am absolutely free to do wither x or y in the presence of an omnisicent God (free will restored). I am just not free to do differently from what God foreknows. Breaking down these propositions in simple possible worlds heuristics demolishes the claims of epistemic or theological determinism. This heuristic has also been used to provide the correct solution to the so-called Newcomb’s Paradox.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your brain does not process information. Your brain is not a computer.

Aeon as your source material!

Nice ad hom, though against a web site and not an individual. Is there a particlar term for that? Anyway, I’ve no idea whether Aeon is a good source or not, but it’s irrelevant, because the author is a respected expert in the field with plenty of studies and publications to his credit. He should not be believed just because of this — that would be an appeal to authority — but his credentials are certainly relevant to the claims he makes. And he makes it quite clear, with evidence and examples, that the brain is not a computer in any relevant way. Please address the substance of his arguments, if you can, rather than taking a shot at the platform for his arguments.

"Poisoned well fallacy"

 

[Jarhyn]

Likewise, I'm not fond of the "possible worlds" terminology because it immediately brings to my mind science fiction and travelling through dimensions.

The “possible worlds” I refer to is a clarifying heuristic in modal logic. It refers to logically possible worlds, and helps clarify our understanding about possibility, necessity, and actuality. It’s really quite useful. For example, as I’ve discussed, epistemic or theological determinists often claim that God’s inerrant foreknowledge of future human behavior rules out human free will, a cudget that many atheists wield against theists because it purports to demonstrate thathumans cannot have moral responsibility if God exists, and hence cannot justly be blamed for their acts. Possible worlds helps clarify the modal error in this reasoning.

Possible World 1: There is a possible world where God knows in advance that I will do x and I do x.
Possible World 2: There is a possible world where God knows in advance that I will do y and I do y.

However, there are no possible worlds at which:

God knows in advance that I will do x and I do y instread.
God knows in advance that I will do y and I do x instread.

What this shows is that there is a possible world in which I do x, and a possible world in which I do y, but no possible worlds in which God fails to foresee what I do. Hence I am absolutely free to do wither x or y in the presence of an omnisicent God (free will restored). I am just not free to do differently from what God foreknows. Breaking down these propositions in simple possible worlds heuristics demolishes the claims of epistemic or theological determinism. This heuristic has also been used to provide the correct solution to the so-called Newcomb’s Paradox.

This is great. So, this is exactly the discussion I am having with regards to the dwarf, for reference, with a concrete entity being observed, and a concrete god watching.

I am exactly the "god" who knows the dwarf will do X before he gets done doing X.

I will say that I, as god who "foreknows" on account of being the one who flagged the world to lock the door on "any trapped dwarf with a murderous attitude problem", can say that while •••(A) is not °°°, the •••(A) is held by °°° •••(*).

Or in language that is not that, for readers who don't have an understanding problem when they look at the words "free" and "will"

The (will to open door) is not free, but the (will to open door) is held by the free (will to select their will on the basis of their needs).

Perhaps this is why it is so hard to discuss.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Likewise, I'm not fond of the "possible worlds" terminology because it immediately brings to my mind science fiction and travelling through dimensions.

The “possible worlds” I refer to is a clarifying heuristic in modal logic. It refers to logically possible worlds, and helps clarify our understanding about possibility, necessity, and actuality. It’s really quite useful. For example, as I’ve discussed, epistemic or theological determinists often claim that God’s inerrant foreknowledge of future human behavior rules out human free will, a cudget that many atheists wield against theists because it purports to demonstrate thathumans cannot have moral responsibility if God exists, and hence cannot justly be blamed for their acts. Possible worlds helps clarify the modal error in this reasoning.

Possible World 1: There is a possible world where God knows in advance that I will do x and I do x.
Possible World 2: There is a possible world where God knows in advance that I will do y and I do y.

However, there are no possible worlds at which:

God knows in advance that I will do x and I do y instread.
God knows in advance that I will do y and I do x instread.

What this shows is that there is a possible world in which I do x, and a possible world in which I do y, but no possible worlds in which God fails to foresee what I do. Hence I am absolutely free to do wither x or y in the presence of an omnisicent God (free will restored). I am just not free to do differently from what God foreknows. Breaking down these propositions in simple possible worlds heuristics demolishes the claims of epistemic or theological determinism. This heuristic has also been used to provide the correct solution to the so-called Newcomb’s Paradox.

Why wouldn't it be simpler to say:
If God is omniscient and knows that I will do x then I will do x.
If God is omniscient and knows that I will do x, then I will not do y.

I've heard it suggested the God's omnipotence allows him to create not just the universe, but the rules by which that universe operates. Introducing the notion of other "possible worlds" would seem to open the door for a world where it is possible for God to be omniscient, and know that I will do x, but I will do y.

If we do not raise the possibility of other worlds, that may operate by different rules, then we assure that we're speaking of the same set of rules.

 

[fromderinside]

How the brain processes information;
Genetically determined circuits are the foundation of the nervous system.

1. Neuronal circuits are formed by genetic programs during embryonic development and modified through interactions with the internal and external environment.
2. Sensory circuits (sight, touch, hearing, smell, taste) bring information to the nervous system, whereas motor circuits send information to muscles and glands.
3. The simplest circuit is a reflex, in which sensory stimulus directly triggers an immediate motor response.
4. Complex responses occur when the brain integrates information from many brain circuits to generate a response.
5. Simple and complex interactions among neurons take place on time scales ranging from milliseconds to months.
6. The brain is organized to recognize sensations, initiate behaviors, and store and access memories that can last a lifetime.

How neurons form long term memory:

“Memory is essential to all aspects of human existence. The question of how we encode memories that last a lifetime is a fundamental one, and our study gets to the very heart of this phenomenon,” said Greenberg, the HMS Nathan Marsh Pusey Professor of Neurobiology and study corresponding author.

The researchers observed that new experiences activate sparse populations of neurons in the hippocampus that express two genes, Fos and Scg2. These genes allow neurons to fine-tune inputs from so-called inhibitory interneurons, cells that dampen neuronal excitation. In this way, small groups of disparate neurons may form persistent networks with coordinated activity in response to an experience.

“This mechanism likely allows neurons to better talk to each other so that the next time a memory needs to be recalled, the neurons fire more synchronously,” Yap said. “We think coincident activation of this Fos-mediated circuit is potentially a necessary feature for memory consolidation, for example, during sleep, and also memory recall in the brain.”

While this micro-information is always interesting, it does not change anything about the macro issue of free will. A person considers different cars and chooses one. A person taps on several different melons and chooses one. A person considers several people to ask out on a date and chooses one. A person browses the restaurant menu of possible dinners and chooses one.

Whether it is "I will buy this car", or "I will buy this melon", or "I will invite Cindy to the prom", or "I will have the salad for dinner", it is all a matter of a "will" that we choose for ourselves and by ourselves, free of coercion and undue influence.

I don't know where you get the idea that anyone thinks this is not happening in our own brains. You may surprise us with new facts about the brain, but these facts change nothing about the nature of the basic question: "Who is making the choice that will control what will happen next?" In the absence of coercion or other undue influence, it is still us in control.

Since undue influence can be programmed into neuronal systems how can you know you are still in control?

 

[fromderinside]

Why are you talking about plans in subjective space

I am not. I am talking about the fact that plans held by things are objective parts of mechanical systems that objectively determine their behaviors.

The list of instructions to be acted upon by a processor is no less an object than the dwarf itself, which is then an object composed itself of a series of bits on a field.

Just like our plans are objects composed in reality of a series of chemical potentials across a field of neurons.


Your inability to step back from "subjectivity" and look at it as the complete mechanical OBJECT that it is and see that it OBJECTIVELY had an OBJECT that is nonetheless "arbitrary, but real, instructions" is your problem here.

It doesn't matter whether we process reality directly. It does not matter if the thing that measures the reality and checks the requirement checks a very abstracted piece of reality. It doesn't matter that the real requirements are more "this much chemical was dumped here in the brain (as a result of hand moving)" or "the door was open".

They are essentially the same thing as far as "the universe" is concerned. You hand-waving "SuBjEcTiViTy!!!111" at it doesn't make the fact that it's really an object acting like a fucking robot that happens to be able to program itself.

Unless the plan is actually a an operationally defined formula it is useless

LOLWUT?

No, the plan is only useless if it fails, the plan is only useless if it is not °°°. And often it is even useful then in after-action-review.

You must really hate yourself if you don't want to be involved with decisions over who you yourself will be and what you will do.

The only thing that can manage and provide tight oversight on yourself is yourself. It's the only thing wired for providing immediate feedback and analysis.

The only way to achieve certain behavioral goals is then to do analysis, find out what you did wrong, test it...

Are you seriously hung up on some bad belief that the scientific method includes automatic science, and experimentation on and within the self?

'choosing' does not equate to 'free will.

Nobody said it does. Sometimes the choice is "life! There is a gun in my face (physical systemic requirement of undeniable lizard-brain drive)" and we recognize that means that the adjoining will came from external to the drive system of the person speaking. It came from the drive system of (maybe the guy with the gun?).

In this situation, choosing is not free will.

So no choice does not of its own imply "free will" of the person choosing, in all situations.

The ability of systems to execute arbitrary instruction sets implies •••.

The ability of systems to fail to execute instructions to the satisfaction of a requirement implies °°°.

Choosing requires a ••• that contains multiple options (direct or by reference), which will result in a single selection of new secondary •••. Whether the ••• that ended up choosing on a secondary ••• was °°° depends on whether or not the secondary ••• is itself °°°:

it chose that "my ••• shall be *** unto ***'s completion" which, suggests *** may not constitute a °°° •••.

So in short, you have made an unargued assertion and thus an assertion fallacy.

Selection does determine will

Ok, so, here you are admitting that (at least some) determined systems have WILL.

Now, ask yourself: Q: can a will fail unto it's requirement?

If so, it has a truth value associated with it, a property derived by it's intersection through reality. This truth value is °°°.

Congratulations, in finding ••• you found °°°.

A: yes, it may

Will is 'written' before it is made conscious

It is written by the brain. You have some failed understanding about the meaning of what is "conscious" versus not.

You make all kinds of claims that this is meaningful but it really isn't.

has already been determined and fixed

It has been determined and fixed, by me, milliseconds before it is narrated back to me. I'm still the one who determined and fixed it. Of course it takes a little bit of time for that data to come back in a loop around to me, and I still have the ability in those milliseconds to send a NO, if I don't like what I see, or what any of the other processes in my brain say of what they see.

Generally it is a causal requirement, in fact, for something to be done BEFORE it may be evaluated by "the peanut gallery".

You keep claiming that the time delay of the narration means it was not consciously decided upon. That doesn't imply anything of the sort, and it's fundamentally bad science to say it does.

You (the you that makes decisions and gets an awareness of what happened narrated back) exist in a capacity where you get all the data you need to review what is happening in your head.

Let me reiterate: serial killers have a responsibility to kill themselves before they kill anyone else.

One need not be aware to react.

One does need to be aware to react. Reaction requires the system be aware of the action.

One need not be "aware that they are aware" to be aware.

Strike one.

If someone taps your crazy bone either in your knee or elbow. Those are reactions. You become aware after you react (jerk).

And there's a set of nerves in my knee that is aware it happened and lets me know how aware it was after the fact. Often it happens so late, the only thing I can do about it is to know it happened.

Thankfully when it comes to distally driven behaviors, usually they aren't too problematic.

As it is though, we can still change and impact certain "normally reflexive" actions through mindfulness.

One of the parts in here is actually "me" and the things that "part that is me" is aware of are being reported not up to a different system but back around directly to itself.

It still takes a moment for such recurrent signals to come back around: they can only come back around at or more than a full "clock cycle" later!

I'm pretty sure you are watching the doctor tap below your patella when you react to the tap. IOW your argument is BS.

 

[Jarhyn]

How the brain processes information;
Genetically determined circuits are the foundation of the nervous system.

1. Neuronal circuits are formed by genetic programs during embryonic development and modified through interactions with the internal and external environment.
2. Sensory circuits (sight, touch, hearing, smell, taste) bring information to the nervous system, whereas motor circuits send information to muscles and glands.
3. The simplest circuit is a reflex, in which sensory stimulus directly triggers an immediate motor response.
4. Complex responses occur when the brain integrates information from many brain circuits to generate a response.
5. Simple and complex interactions among neurons take place on time scales ranging from milliseconds to months.
6. The brain is organized to recognize sensations, initiate behaviors, and store and access memories that can last a lifetime.

How neurons form long term memory:

“Memory is essential to all aspects of human existence. The question of how we encode memories that last a lifetime is a fundamental one, and our study gets to the very heart of this phenomenon,” said Greenberg, the HMS Nathan Marsh Pusey Professor of Neurobiology and study corresponding author.

The researchers observed that new experiences activate sparse populations of neurons in the hippocampus that express two genes, Fos and Scg2. These genes allow neurons to fine-tune inputs from so-called inhibitory interneurons, cells that dampen neuronal excitation. In this way, small groups of disparate neurons may form persistent networks with coordinated activity in response to an experience.

“This mechanism likely allows neurons to better talk to each other so that the next time a memory needs to be recalled, the neurons fire more synchronously,” Yap said. “We think coincident activation of this Fos-mediated circuit is potentially a necessary feature for memory consolidation, for example, during sleep, and also memory recall in the brain.”

While this micro-information is always interesting, it does not change anything about the macro issue of free will. A person considers different cars and chooses one. A person taps on several different melons and chooses one. A person considers several people to ask out on a date and chooses one. A person browses the restaurant menu of possible dinners and chooses one.

Whether it is "I will buy this car", or "I will buy this melon", or "I will invite Cindy to the prom", or "I will have the salad for dinner", it is all a matter of a "will" that we choose for ourselves and by ourselves, free of coercion and undue influence.

I don't know where you get the idea that anyone thinks this is not happening in our own brains. You may surprise us with new facts about the brain, but these facts change nothing about the nature of the basic question: "Who is making the choice that will control what will happen next?" In the absence of coercion or other undue influence, it is still us in control.

Since undue influence can be programmed into neuronal systems how can you know you are still in control?

"Since we can kill you and replace you with a clone who is under our control, how can you know you are still in control?"

Well, the answer is, whoever is there now is who they are. They are fundamentally in control of whatever they remain in control of.

And either way it does not matter: an outside observer can clearly tell that the previous person's wills were made unfree when they were replaced, and the new person's wills are exactly as free as they may be.