Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Jarhyn]

Also as I pointed out to bilby sensations are not anywhere near immediate and they are variable between senses.

I never thought otherwise.

That doesn't make them not real, though.

Everything you are talking about is a part of reality. Everything.

Different brushes.

Reality according to brain activity is much different than is reality with respect to material activity. Yes brain activity is a material outcome. It just isn't one reflecting the physical state of things around us.

Evolution has left us with tools mostly incompatible with what are the state of affairs in the world. There are no formulas for getting from energy and location drives to what the brain and other driving metabolic responses beyond what the being has evolved to function.

For instance, the nervous system provides sense data mixed with noise and ongoing processing. It's all real. Except what the human does with it changes often incompatibly with what would be life saving actions. No other way to explain such as Trump or the existence of black holes.

I take my ques from the advent of a standardized scientific reality versus the prior rationalistic reality or even desires. No way back.

The brain activity is reality, full stop. It does Lt need to "reflect" anything to be exactly what it is.

The sets of neural flashes on the surface they come from are the reality of the requirement, the shape of those neurotransmitterrs at their axon terminals are a time.

These are the objects I am referencing and describing, the actual machine.

As it is, you're making wild hand-waving and unrelated claims against the simple fact that: there is an object: a list of instructions into a requirement, the list is an object, the requirement is an object, and the requirement either SHALL or SHALL NOT be met.

This is a fact, about the behavior of a system relative to a specific question about an object: did these nerves flash something within this set of patterns and therefore behave this way objectively?

If yes, we call that "free to requirement".

There is exactly one of these things that shall happen every time a will is generated and held, and is part of the physics behind the mind.

Just as the Dwarven mind is an object and holds an objectively observable will, the human mind is an object and such objects as the human mind may do much more complicated exercises of this form.

 

[fromderinside]

Also as I pointed out to bilby sensations are not anywhere near immediate and they are variable between senses.

I never thought otherwise.

That doesn't make them not real, though.

Everything you are talking about is a part of reality. Everything.

Different brushes.

Reality according to brain activity is much different than is reality with respect to material activity. Yes brain activity is a material outcome. It just isn't one reflecting the physical state of things around us.

Evolution has left us with tools mostly incompatible with what are the state of affairs in the world. There are no formulas for getting from energy and location drives to what the brain and other driving metabolic responses beyond what the being has evolved to function.

For instance, the nervous system provides sense data mixed with noise and ongoing processing. It's all real. Except what the human does with it changes often incompatibly with what would be life saving actions. No other way to explain such as Trump or the existence of black holes.

I take my ques from the advent of a standardized scientific reality versus the prior rationalistic reality or even desires. No way back.

The brain activity is reality, full stop. It does Lt need to "reflect" anything to be exactly what it is.

The sets of neural flashes on the surface they come from are the reality of the requirement, the shape of those neurotransmitterrs at their axon terminals are a time.

These are the objects I am referencing and describing, the actual machine.

As it is, you're making wild hand-waving and unrelated claims against the simple fact that: there is an object: a list of instructions into a requirement, the list is an object, the requirement is an object, and the requirement either SHALL or SHALL NOT be met.

This is a fact, about the behavior of a system relative to a specific question about an object: did these nerves flash something within this set of patterns and therefore behave this way objectively?

If yes, we call that "free to requirement".

There is exactly one of these things that shall happen every time a will is generated and held, and is part of the physics behind the mind.

Just as the Dwarven mind is an object and holds an objectively observable will, the human mind is an object and such objects as the human mind may do much more complicated exercises of this form.

You are not describing the actual machine. You are describing something IAW your position on the matter. Unless you disconnect your assertions from self you are just whistling into the wind. Your thought experiment isn't an experiment it is a brain fart.

Put your 'we' back in to your pocket.

 

[Jarhyn]

Also as I pointed out to bilby sensations are not anywhere near immediate and they are variable between senses.

I never thought otherwise.

That doesn't make them not real, though.

Everything you are talking about is a part of reality. Everything.

Different brushes.

Reality according to brain activity is much different than is reality with respect to material activity. Yes brain activity is a material outcome. It just isn't one reflecting the physical state of things around us.

Evolution has left us with tools mostly incompatible with what are the state of affairs in the world. There are no formulas for getting from energy and location drives to what the brain and other driving metabolic responses beyond what the being has evolved to function.

For instance, the nervous system provides sense data mixed with noise and ongoing processing. It's all real. Except what the human does with it changes often incompatibly with what would be life saving actions. No other way to explain such as Trump or the existence of black holes.

I take my ques from the advent of a standardized scientific reality versus the prior rationalistic reality or even desires. No way back.

The brain activity is reality, full stop. It does Lt need to "reflect" anything to be exactly what it is.

The sets of neural flashes on the surface they come from are the reality of the requirement, the shape of those neurotransmitterrs at their axon terminals are a time.

These are the objects I am referencing and describing, the actual machine.

As it is, you're making wild hand-waving and unrelated claims against the simple fact that: there is an object: a list of instructions into a requirement, the list is an object, the requirement is an object, and the requirement either SHALL or SHALL NOT be met.

This is a fact, about the behavior of a system relative to a specific question about an object: did these nerves flash something within this set of patterns and therefore behave this way objectively?

If yes, we call that "free to requirement".

There is exactly one of these things that shall happen every time a will is generated and held, and is part of the physics behind the mind.

Just as the Dwarven mind is an object and holds an objectively observable will, the human mind is an object and such objects as the human mind may do much more complicated exercises of this form.

You are not describing the actual machine. You are describing something IAW your position on the matter. Unless you disconnect your assertions from self you are just whistling into the wind. Your thought experiment isn't an experiment it is a brain fart.

Ah, so ad-homs and mere assertions then.

You who doesn't understand that the computer is an object separated entirely from myself, but not that it matters.

I expect hard determinsts MUST cling to their hard determinism and the conflations they build up because it is the nacre holding back the grit of their guilt in their life for the shit they ignored the regulatory control to prevent themselves from doing.

 

[DBT]

Conditions which eliminate freedom of choice and freedom of will.

Free will is when our choosing is free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

That's the compatibilist definition of free will.

Incompatibilists disagree.

''Choosing'' is a matter of necessitation rather than free will. The state of the system determines the action taken. Nothing is being freely willed - time t/events fixed ever after - there cannot be an alternate action in any given instance in time.

We've walked into the restaurant. We saw the people choosing what they would order from an actual menu of realizable alternatives. We saw no evidence of coercion or undue influence. Therefore each choice was made of their own free will.

The issue of free will is not about coercion or force, but necessitation and absence of alternate actions. The actions taken are necessitated by an information exchange within neural networks.

Necessitation does not equate to free will. Therefore, the label is false.

One cannot truthfully say that this event has been "eliminated" by determinism.

Things go as determined, not freely willed. External events act on the brain; the brain processes its information and responds according to its state and condition in that instance.

In fact, we can reasonably conclude that the process was deterministic. Each event was caused by preceding events. And we can confirm this by sampling. For example, if anyone asked me why I chose the salad for dinner, despite the menu's delicious picture of a juicy steak, I can tell them the reasons that caused my choice (bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch). My personal dietary goals and my reasoning causally necessitated my choice of the salad. Totally deterministic.

You can tell them the reasons why you chose salad because the question prompted your brain to provide an answer. The question, as a body of information, was acquired and processed, memory function informed the relevant reply.

Information processing and response is the prime function of the brain. Nothing to do with will or free will.

And we could, in theory, track the prior causes of my having those specific dietary goals, and reasonably conclude that my choice was causally inevitable from any prior point in time.

That's how determinism works. All current actions are inevitable from any prior point in time. Necessitated, not willed.

So, we've got free will and we've got determinism, both there in the same event, at the same time and in the same place.

Therefore, your statement is false.

You are inserting the term 'free will' where it doesn't belong. The idea of free will, being able to freely will actions, is not compatible with determinism, where all actions are ''inevitable from any prior point in time''

As you put it - ''causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.''

Freedom, by definition, means that realizable alternatives are possible

And, of course, realizable alternatives are possible. The restaurant menu is filled with them.

Nope. Not for the given reasons, including your own definition of determinism. A list of menu items cater for different people with different tastes. Everybody may 'choose' something different, but that action is fixed in that moment in time for each and very customer.

Each item selected by each diner is fixed in that instant in time, with no possible alternate action.

That is precisely what your definition of determinism entails - each and every action ''causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

"Realizable" means "able to be realized". This ability does not require that the alternative is ever actually realized.

"Possible" means "able to happen". This ability does not require that the possibility ever happens.

Realizable means that someone can take that option. But if it's determined that you don't take that option in a given instance in time, the option is not realizable for you in that instance in time.

That is the point. That if an action is not determined to occur at a given point in time, it is not a realizable option in that point in time.

everything you think or do is not freely chosen, but determined before you were born.

No, that's a superstitious take on the notion of causal necessity. There will surely be an inevitable chain of cause and effect from the Big Bang to me choosing the salad for dinner. But the Big Bang will play no meaningful role in my dinner choice.

What you would like to say is that "it is as if the Big Bang chose the salad, and not you". But that kind of thinking is figurative and thus fallacious.

It will in actual fact be me that chooses the salad, and that choice will not be made until I make it. Why? We assume it is causally determined to be just so.

No event will ever happen until its final prior causes have played themselves out. While events may sometimes be predicted in advance, under no circumstances can any event ever be caused in advance.

The Big Bang set the wheels in motion. Without the Big Bang we would not be here inevitably arguing over free will for six months or more....

 

[Jarhyn]

Incompatibilists disagree.

Incompatibilism can't reasonably disagree with the sensibility of compatibilism without picking up compatibilist definitions and arriving at a contradiction from them within compatibilism.

Everything past that is assertion fallacy.

It is literally true that every action you take is not freely willed or freely chosen

No, it is literally, objectively false: many actions I take are willed, many wills I hold are, in this moment, free with respect to requirements such as "hold bag" and "prove DBT wrong yet again, not that there's any expectation that they are capable of understanding ideas at all".

You cannot change from the compatibilist definition of free to argue that it does not exist. At least not if you are to be taken seriously, anyway. To do so is to argue against a position that someone else does not hold, which is the very definition of "straw-man argument".

Free, in the compatibilist context, is "freedom to requirement"; "freedom from all constraints to the requirement".

Will is "a series of instructions with requirement(s)"

Choice is "selection of a thing from a set of things".

When a will is free, it is "a series of instructions that shall or is meet(ing) it's requirement(s)".

When a choice is free, it is "selection of a thing from a set of things by a given process NOT some other set of things or by some other process".

When a will is not free, it is "a series of instructions that shall fail it's requirement"

When a choice is not free, it is "selection of a thing outside of the aforementioned set or process".

And when we say "free will" without denoting which will is intended, it is a reference to a specific will, in the moment, satisfying it's requirement.

"He had free will" unpacks to "the will he held had a requirement freely chosen by a given process (the process' not-coerced branch)."

It is not about being able to go down either branch in the moment! It is about which branch is actually, objectively utilized.

If you refuse to pick up these definitions and produce the contradiction you claim exists within that syntax, then you ought accept that you cannot, either by force of will or virtue of ideas, defend incompatibilism, because you will not be defending incompatibilism.

 

[Jarhyn]

It strikes me that the discordance between "what happens", and "what is expected to happen" , this disjunction, is the way in which neural systems change over time.

They start out, more or less, always being wrong about "what is expected to happen" vs "what happens".

Occasionally, by accident at the start, we end up being not-wrong in this prediction effort, and over time we get less wrong overall.

But there would be no way to be less wrong, there would be absolutely no way for any system at all to adapt let alone a way to operate the back-propagation of the neural system, without there being an event which compares the imagination with some real result, either to confirm or to revise the imaginary model.

There is a reality of recognizing whether success happened at all, and that success itself is real, even if the shape of it's reality is a dance done of neurons in relation to other neurons.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Free will is when our choosing is free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

That's the compatibilist definition of free will. Incompatibilists disagree.

But the incompatibilist definition of free will, as "freedom from causal necessity", is an irrational concept. This excludes their definition from any serious consideration.

There is no "compatibilist definition" of free will. Compatibilist simply adopt the definition that most people understand and correctly apply to real life situations. People know the difference between a choice that they make for themselves versus a choice that is imposed upon them by someone else. And they naturally prefer the former, because it gives them control of the choice rather than the choice being controlled by someone else.

This common understanding of free will is found in general purpose dictionaries, for example:

1. Merriam-Webster: free will 1: voluntary choice or decision 'I do this of my own free will'
2. Oxford English Dictionary: free will 1.a. Spontaneous or unconstrained will; unforced choice; (also) inclination to act without suggestion from others. Esp. in of one's (own) free will and similar expressions.
3. Wiktionary: free will 1. A person's natural inclination; unforced choice.

To be fair, each of these dictionaries also include the "philosophical" definition, the less common usage, in second place:

1. Merriam-Webster on-line: free will 2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
2. Oxford English Dictionary: free will 2. The power of an individual to make free choices, not determined by divine predestination, the laws of physical causality, fate, etc.
3. Wiktionary: free will 2. (philosophy) The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions, without predestination, fate etc.

Wiktionary even notes that the second definition is unique to philosophy.

But it is the first definition that is used when assessing a person's moral or legal responsibility for their actions. A person is held responsible for their deliberate acts, but not when their behavior is coerced or subject to undue influence.

The second definition cannot be used for responsibility. Because it is impossible to do anything at all while "free of prior causes" or "free of the laws of physical causality". Thus it is quite reasonable to believe that every event is reliably caused by something, even if we do not know what that something is.

But we are usually aware of the causes of everyday events. Hitting the nail with a hammer causes the nail to go into the wood. The force of the hammer upon the nail is the prior cause of the nail going into the wood. And what is the prior cause of us hammering? We decided earlier to build a bird house. That freely chosen intention resulted in us buying the wood, cutting the wood, and nailing the parts together.

And what was the prior cause of us deciding to build a bird house? Perhaps we read somewhere that, due to deforestation, birds needed houses in areas that no longer had trees for nesting. So then, what was the prior cause that led us to read that article? Perhaps our general interest in wildlife conservation. And what was the prior cause of our general interest in wildlife conservation? ... Well, we could go on like this indefinitely tracing back the prior causes of the prior causes. Even when we no longer could guess what the prior cause of a prior cause was, we will still presume that there is one.

Because of this reasoning, we find the notion of causal necessity to make perfect sense. However, what we never encounter is any reason to believe in the notion of "freedom from" this causal necessity. One cannot even imagine what it would be like if one had no prior causes and could never be a prior cause oneself. How would we build a birdhouse, and why would we do so? The answer to both questions resides in the notion of one thing reliably causing another thing.

So, causal necessity appears to be a prerequisite of every freedom that we have to actually do anything at all. And the notion of freedom from this notion of one thing reliably causing another thing seems irrational. Because how can we be free of that which freedom itself requires? There is no freedom without reliable cause and effect.

We also find that causal necessity is not in itself any kind of meaningful constraint. It is not something that anyone can, or needs to be free of. What we will inevitably do is exactly identical to us just being us, doing what we choose to do. It is basically "what we would have done anyway". And that is not a meaningful constraint.

Thus, the second definition appears to be an irrational one. So it is reasonable for us to discard that definition and adopt instead the first definition of free will, which requires only freedom from coercion and undue influence. Everyone outside of the philosophy class is already using it anyway.

The issue of free will is not about coercion or force, but necessitation ...

There is no issue of free will as it is commonly understood. However, there is certainly an issue
about "freedom from causal necessity", because it is an irrational concept.

You can tell them the reasons why you chose salad because the question prompted your brain to provide an answer. The question, as a body of information, was acquired and processed, memory function informed the relevant reply.

As you'll recall, the interpreter has access to anything that we became consciously aware of during our decision making process. I was aware of the reasons for choosing the salad instead of the steak before I even made my choice. We can assume that unconscious processes were involved in bringing those reasons to my awareness. But we must also assume that those unconscious processes were triggered by my conscious awareness of the problem I had to solve: What will I order for dinner from the many possibilities on the restaurant menu?

Both the function of conscious awareness and the unconscious functions are parts of the same physical brain, and they are neurologically connected so that they can smoothly interact.

But if it's determined that you don't take that option in a given instance in time, the option is not realizable for you in that instance in time.

Sorry, but every option on the menu was realizable before we even opened the menu. It was realizable during our choosing and even after we made our choice. That's what realizable means, that it can be realized, even if it never is realized.

It will be me that chooses the salad, and that choice will not be made until I make it. That is how causal determinism and causal necessity works. No event will ever happen until its final prior causes have played themselves out. While events may sometimes be predicted in advance, under no circumstances can any event ever be caused in advance. Causal necessity means that it will happen exactly when and where it happens, and it will be caused by whatever meaningfully caused it to happen.

I am the meaningful and relevant cause of my dinner order. And it will be to me to which the waiter brings the bill.

It's that simple.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't pay attention to the free will discussions. They seem like interminable exercises in talking past each other.

I may be a compatibilist, though I'd have to look it up to know for sure.

I'm a free willy; I experience free will all the time.

The world isn't perfectly deterministic. But what isn't determined may be random, which hardly helps us us defend free will.

But, if you say free will is an illusion, then I'll point out that the illusion is free will. If A equals B then B equals A. What we experience, that we call free will, is what we mean by free will. And, as a practical matter, everybody believes in free will. Nobody says, "Oh, it's okay that you mug me, because, philosophically speaking, you don't have a choice."

Christians experience god all the time too.

 

[fromderinside]

Also as I pointed out to bilby sensations are not anywhere near immediate and they are variable between senses.

I never thought otherwise.

That doesn't make them not real, though.

Everything you are talking about is a part of reality. Everything.

Different brushes.

Reality according to brain activity is much different than is reality with respect to material activity. Yes brain activity is a material outcome. It just isn't one reflecting the physical state of things around us.

Evolution has left us with tools mostly incompatible with what are the state of affairs in the world. There are no formulas for getting from energy and location drives to what the brain and other driving metabolic responses beyond what the being has evolved to function.

For instance, the nervous system provides sense data mixed with noise and ongoing processing. It's all real. Except what the human does with it changes often incompatibly with what would be life saving actions. No other way to explain such as Trump or the existence of black holes.

I take my ques from the advent of a standardized scientific reality versus the prior rationalistic reality or even desires. No way back.

The brain activity is reality, full stop. It does Lt need to "reflect" anything to be exactly what it is.

The sets of neural flashes on the surface they come from are the reality of the requirement, the shape of those neurotransmitterrs at their axon terminals are a time.

These are the objects I am referencing and describing, the actual machine.

As it is, you're making wild hand-waving and unrelated claims against the simple fact that: there is an object: a list of instructions into a requirement, the list is an object, the requirement is an object, and the requirement either SHALL or SHALL NOT be met.

This is a fact, about the behavior of a system relative to a specific question about an object: did these nerves flash something within this set of patterns and therefore behave this way objectively?

If yes, we call that "free to requirement".

There is exactly one of these things that shall happen every time a will is generated and held, and is part of the physics behind the mind.

Just as the Dwarven mind is an object and holds an objectively observable will, the human mind is an object and such objects as the human mind may do much more complicated exercises of this form.

You are not describing the actual machine. You are describing something IAW your position on the matter. Unless you disconnect your assertions from self you are just whistling into the wind. Your thought experiment isn't an experiment it is a brain fart.

Ah, so ad-homs and mere assertions then.

You who doesn't understand that the computer is an object separated entirely from myself, but not that it matters.

I expect hard determinsts MUST cling to their hard determinism and the conflations they build up because it is the nacre holding back the grit of their guilt in their life for the shit they ignored the regulatory control to prevent themselves from doing.

Thanks for ignoring what was aimed at you in my post, my actual measured and reported computer experience. If you really want to be believed you'd come up with computer facts that would support your position rather than going all program isn't computer so program is Ghawd.

 

[fromderinside]

Also as I pointed out to bilby sensations are not anywhere near immediate and they are variable between senses.

I never thought otherwise.

That doesn't make them not real, though.

Everything you are talking about is a part of reality. Everything.

Different brushes.

Reality according to brain activity is much different than is reality with respect to material activity. Yes brain activity is a material outcome. It just isn't one reflecting the physical state of things around us.

Evolution has left us with tools mostly incompatible with what are the state of affairs in the world. There are no formulas for getting from energy and location drives to what the brain and other driving metabolic responses beyond what the being has evolved to function.

For instance, the nervous system provides sense data mixed with noise and ongoing processing. It's all real. Except what the human does with it changes often incompatibly with what would be life saving actions. No other way to explain such as Trump or the existence of black holes.

I take my ques from the advent of a standardized scientific reality versus the prior rationalistic reality or even desires. No way back.

The brain activity is reality, full stop. It does Lt need to "reflect" anything to be exactly what it is.

The sets of neural flashes on the surface they come from are the reality of the requirement, the shape of those neurotransmitterrs at their axon terminals are a time.

These are the objects I am referencing and describing, the actual machine.

As it is, you're making wild hand-waving and unrelated claims against the simple fact that: there is an object: a list of instructions into a requirement, the list is an object, the requirement is an object, and the requirement either SHALL or SHALL NOT be met.

This is a fact, about the behavior of a system relative to a specific question about an object: did these nerves flash something within this set of patterns and therefore behave this way objectively?

If yes, we call that "free to requirement".

There is exactly one of these things that shall happen every time a will is generated and held, and is part of the physics behind the mind.

Just as the Dwarven mind is an object and holds an objectively observable will, the human mind is an object and such objects as the human mind may do much more complicated exercises of this form.

You are not describing the actual machine. You are describing something IAW your position on the matter. Unless you disconnect your assertions from self you are just whistling into the wind. Your thought experiment isn't an experiment it is a brain fart.

Ah, so ad-homs and mere assertions then.

You who doesn't understand that the computer is an object separated entirely from myself, but not that it matters.

I expect hard determinsts MUST cling to their hard determinism and the conflations they build up because it is the nacre holding back the grit of their guilt in their life for the shit they ignored the regulatory control to prevent themselves from doing.

A computer is a machine designed by humans either directly or by proxy. a program is a set of instructions following computer logic and function also designed by humans or by human proxy. There is no separation between computer and yourself, a human.

 

[Jarhyn]

Also as I pointed out to bilby sensations are not anywhere near immediate and they are variable between senses.

I never thought otherwise.

That doesn't make them not real, though.

Everything you are talking about is a part of reality. Everything.

Different brushes.

Reality according to brain activity is much different than is reality with respect to material activity. Yes brain activity is a material outcome. It just isn't one reflecting the physical state of things around us.

Evolution has left us with tools mostly incompatible with what are the state of affairs in the world. There are no formulas for getting from energy and location drives to what the brain and other driving metabolic responses beyond what the being has evolved to function.

For instance, the nervous system provides sense data mixed with noise and ongoing processing. It's all real. Except what the human does with it changes often incompatibly with what would be life saving actions. No other way to explain such as Trump or the existence of black holes.

I take my ques from the advent of a standardized scientific reality versus the prior rationalistic reality or even desires. No way back.

The brain activity is reality, full stop. It does Lt need to "reflect" anything to be exactly what it is.

The sets of neural flashes on the surface they come from are the reality of the requirement, the shape of those neurotransmitterrs at their axon terminals are a time.

These are the objects I am referencing and describing, the actual machine.

As it is, you're making wild hand-waving and unrelated claims against the simple fact that: there is an object: a list of instructions into a requirement, the list is an object, the requirement is an object, and the requirement either SHALL or SHALL NOT be met.

This is a fact, about the behavior of a system relative to a specific question about an object: did these nerves flash something within this set of patterns and therefore behave this way objectively?

If yes, we call that "free to requirement".

There is exactly one of these things that shall happen every time a will is generated and held, and is part of the physics behind the mind.

Just as the Dwarven mind is an object and holds an objectively observable will, the human mind is an object and such objects as the human mind may do much more complicated exercises of this form.

You are not describing the actual machine. You are describing something IAW your position on the matter. Unless you disconnect your assertions from self you are just whistling into the wind. Your thought experiment isn't an experiment it is a brain fart.

Ah, so ad-homs and mere assertions then.

You who doesn't understand that the computer is an object separated entirely from myself, but not that it matters.

I expect hard determinsts MUST cling to their hard determinism and the conflations they build up because it is the nacre holding back the grit of their guilt in their life for the shit they ignored the regulatory control to prevent themselves from doing.

Thanks for ignoring what was aimed at you in my post, my actual measured and reported computer experience. If you really want to be believed you'd come up with computer facts that would support your position rather than going all program isn't computer so program is Ghawd.

Again, says the person who says there is no two and implies nothing is knowable.

Again you are going to ad-homs, argument from authority (automatic authority even!) and straw man arguments now.

The computer is an object. It contains an object, and another object and a third object that does a comparison in the form of an electrical switching operation, and this objectively results in the change of... Another object.

What change happens on one of those objects is a determining factor for the behavior of the system itself: the behavior of ejecting the will as failed, continuing on the will, or marking the will complete.

When it is ejected as failed, for reasons that may be entirely arbitrary (the reasons don't matter, only the objective fact of the failure state existing matters here), it has the named general property of "unfreeness".

This is all just recognizing and naming properties relevant to some context of question within the system.

Also as I pointed out to bilby sensations are not anywhere near immediate and they are variable between senses.

I never thought otherwise.

That doesn't make them not real, though.

Everything you are talking about is a part of reality. Everything.

Different brushes.

Reality according to brain activity is much different than is reality with respect to material activity. Yes brain activity is a material outcome. It just isn't one reflecting the physical state of things around us.

Evolution has left us with tools mostly incompatible with what are the state of affairs in the world. There are no formulas for getting from energy and location drives to what the brain and other driving metabolic responses beyond what the being has evolved to function.

For instance, the nervous system provides sense data mixed with noise and ongoing processing. It's all real. Except what the human does with it changes often incompatibly with what would be life saving actions. No other way to explain such as Trump or the existence of black holes.

I take my ques from the advent of a standardized scientific reality versus the prior rationalistic reality or even desires. No way back.

The brain activity is reality, full stop. It does Lt need to "reflect" anything to be exactly what it is.

The sets of neural flashes on the surface they come from are the reality of the requirement, the shape of those neurotransmitterrs at their axon terminals are a time.

These are the objects I am referencing and describing, the actual machine.

As it is, you're making wild hand-waving and unrelated claims against the simple fact that: there is an object: a list of instructions into a requirement, the list is an object, the requirement is an object, and the requirement either SHALL or SHALL NOT be met.

This is a fact, about the behavior of a system relative to a specific question about an object: did these nerves flash something within this set of patterns and therefore behave this way objectively?

If yes, we call that "free to requirement".

There is exactly one of these things that shall happen every time a will is generated and held, and is part of the physics behind the mind.

Just as the Dwarven mind is an object and holds an objectively observable will, the human mind is an object and such objects as the human mind may do much more complicated exercises of this form.

You are not describing the actual machine. You are describing something IAW your position on the matter. Unless you disconnect your assertions from self you are just whistling into the wind. Your thought experiment isn't an experiment it is a brain fart.

Ah, so ad-homs and mere assertions then.

You who doesn't understand that the computer is an object separated entirely from myself, but not that it matters.

I expect hard determinsts MUST cling to their hard determinism and the conflations they build up because it is the nacre holding back the grit of their guilt in their life for the shit they ignored the regulatory control to prevent themselves from doing.

A computer is a machine designed by humans either directly or by proxy. a program is a set of instructions following computer logic and function also designed by humans or by human proxy. There is no separation between computer and yourself, a human.

A computer, that computer sitting right there in my office, is an organization of metal, glass, silicon, plastics, and epoxies.

A program is a set of charge patterns existing among this in the presence of some differential field, driving behavior of the machine through the electromagnetic variances between those charge potentials.

It. Is. An. Object.

 

[fromderinside]

A computer is a machine designed by humans either directly or by proxy. a program is a set of instructions following computer logic and function also designed by humans or by human proxy. There is no separation between computer and yourself, a human.

A computer, that computer sitting right there in my office, is an organization of metal, glass, silicon, plastics, and epoxies.

A program is a set of charge patterns existing among this in the presence of some differential field, driving behavior of the machine through the electromagnetic variances between those charge potentials.

It. Is. An. Object.

Jeez you'd think one who was trained on and operated on a  Mark 56 Gun Fire Control System while in the Navy, worked for 3 years at IBM in Los Angeles, employed a PDP 12 to carry out dissertation research at Florida State U., worked in lead roles on EA-6B SSSA and F-14 SSSA for 6 years at  Pacific Missile Test Center and was base lead Technology Transfer Officer there before going to MDC/Boeing for 18 years to lead a C-17 cockpit design group and install government complying maintenance and modification functions at MDC Long Beach and Charleston AFB would know a little something about computers and computing. Yeah, you've pissed me off.

Are or are not computers devises devised by men (think: people who were aware of Archimedes; Babbage)? Are not languages including computer languages schemes devised by men through which to communicate and replicate? You can call them whatever you want but I think system is a more apt attribution.

Just sayin...

 

[Jarhyn]

A computer is a machine designed by humans either directly or by proxy. a program is a set of instructions following computer logic and function also designed by humans or by human proxy. There is no separation between computer and yourself, a human.

A computer, that computer sitting right there in my office, is an organization of metal, glass, silicon, plastics, and epoxies.

A program is a set of charge patterns existing among this in the presence of some differential field, driving behavior of the machine through the electromagnetic variances between those charge potentials.

It. Is. An. Object.

Jeez you'd think one who was trained on and operated on a  Mark 56 Gun Fire Control System while in the Navy, worked for 3 years at IBM in Los Angeles, employed a PDP 12 to carry out dissertation research at Florida State U., worked in lead roles on EA-6B SSSA and F-14 SSSA for 6 years at  Pacific Missile Test Center and was base lead Technology Transfer Officer there before going to MDC/Boeing for 18 years to lead a C-17 cockpit design group and install government complying maintenance and modification functions at MDC Long Beach and Charleston AFB would know a little something about computers and computing. Yeah, you've pissed me off.

Are or are not computers devises devised by men (think: people who were aware of Archimedes; Babbage)? Are not languages including computer languages schemes devised by men through which to communicate and replicate? You can call them whatever you want but I think system is a more apt attribution.

Just sayin...

And you seem to continue to be unable in any respect to discern the difference between unimportant cause of origin and the actual objectivity of what something is.

it is an object. And in fact systems are objects and objects are systems: objects have interrelatedness among them.

Regardless of where things come from, what they are in the moment, well, that's the very definition of "an object".

 

[fromderinside]

It. Is. An. Object

Are or are not computers devises devised by men (think: people who were aware of Archimedes; Babbage)? Are not languages including computer languages schemes devised by men through which to communicate and replicate? You can call them whatever you want but I think system is a more apt attribution.

And you seem to continue to be unable in any respect to discern the difference between unimportant cause of origin and the actual objectivity of what something is.

it is an object. And in fact systems are objects and objects are systems: objects have interrelatedness among them.

Regardless of where things come from, what they are in the moment, well, that's the very definition of "an object".

1. something material that may be perceived by the senses
   something that when viewed stirs a particular emotion (such as pity)

You are missing the point entirely by perseverating on 'object.'

Things are more general than object which is constrained to 'perceived by the senses.' I've presented the case for computers being classified as mental things which may not be considered independent of mental perception. You need to step up and present a definition of computer that meets the experimental requirements of actual materiality rather than that of perceived material reality. .Mental objects are not actual objects. They are perceptions, dreams even. You are wrapping yourself in some sort of Descartes, even religious' construct.

Your claims are a bit lie Peter, the fictional character, calling wolf when the situation is that of being in the actual presence of a wolf capable of killing you. My representation of the limits of perception become real when what you are about to perceive is already there beginning to kill you.

 

[DBT]

Free will is when our choosing is free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

In which case computer software, algorithms, etc, have free will and may be considered to be moral agents acting according to their own nature and makeup without coercion or force......I don't think so!

Compatibilists assert free will where necessitation, not free will, determines outcomes.

That's the compatibilist definition of free will. Incompatibilists disagree.

But the incompatibilist definition of free will, as "freedom from causal necessity", is an irrational concept. This excludes their definition from any serious consideration.

There is no "compatibilist definition" of free will. Compatibilist simply adopt the definition that most people understand and correctly apply to real life situations. People know the difference between a choice that they make for themselves versus a choice that is imposed upon them by someone else. And they naturally prefer the former, because it gives them control of the choice rather than the choice being controlled by someone else.

This common understanding of free will is found in general purpose dictionaries, for example:

1. Merriam-Webster: free will 1: voluntary choice or decision 'I do this of my own free will'
2. Oxford English Dictionary: free will 1.a. Spontaneous or unconstrained will; unforced choice; (also) inclination to act without suggestion from others. Esp. in of one's (own) free will and similar expressions.
3. Wiktionary: free will 1. A person's natural inclination; unforced choice.

To be fair, each of these dictionaries also include the "philosophical" definition, the less common usage, in second place:

1. Merriam-Webster on-line: free will 2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
2. Oxford English Dictionary: free will 2. The power of an individual to make free choices, not determined by divine predestination, the laws of physical causality, fate, etc.
3. Wiktionary: free will 2. (philosophy) The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions, without predestination, fate etc.

Wiktionary even notes that the second definition is unique to philosophy.

Dictionaries reflect the common usage and their references and meaning.

Referring to dictionary meaning, how people use words and terms, doesn't resolve a debate that has spanned centuries.

A debate that can only be resolved through an understanding of how the brain functions and makes decisions.

Which, to reiterate, does not involve free will.

Which reduces the term 'free will' to the status of a mislabel.

But it is the first definition that is used when assessing a person's moral or legal responsibility for their actions. A person is held responsible for their deliberate acts, but not when their behavior is coerced or subject to undue influence.

The second definition cannot be used for responsibility. Because it is impossible to do anything at all while "free of prior causes" or "free of the laws of physical causality". Thus it is quite reasonable to believe that every event is reliably caused by something, even if we do not know what that something is.

But we are usually aware of the causes of everyday events. Hitting the nail with a hammer causes the nail to go into the wood. The force of the hammer upon the nail is the prior cause of the nail going into the wood. And what is the prior cause of us hammering? We decided earlier to build a bird house. That freely chosen intention resulted in us buying the wood, cutting the wood, and nailing the parts together.

And what was the prior cause of us deciding to build a bird house? Perhaps we read somewhere that, due to deforestation, birds needed houses in areas that no longer had trees for nesting. So then, what was the prior cause that led us to read that article? Perhaps our general interest in wildlife conservation. And what was the prior cause of our general interest in wildlife conservation? ... Well, we could go on like this indefinitely tracing back the prior causes of the prior causes. Even when we no longer could guess what the prior cause of a prior cause was, we will still presume that there is one.

Because of this reasoning, we find the notion of causal necessity to make perfect sense. However, what we never encounter is any reason to believe in the notion of "freedom from" this causal necessity. One cannot even imagine what it would be like if one had no prior causes and could never be a prior cause oneself. How would we build a birdhouse, and why would we do so? The answer to both questions resides in the notion of one thing reliably causing another thing.

So, causal necessity appears to be a prerequisite of every freedom that we have to actually do anything at all. And the notion of freedom from this notion of one thing reliably causing another thing seems irrational. Because how can we be free of that which freedom itself requires? There is no freedom without reliable cause and effect.

We also find that causal necessity is not in itself any kind of meaningful constraint. It is not something that anyone can, or needs to be free of. What we will inevitably do is exactly identical to us just being us, doing what we choose to do. It is basically "what we would have done anyway". And that is not a meaningful constraint.

Thus, the second definition appears to be an irrational one. So it is reasonable for us to discard that definition and adopt instead the first definition of free will, which requires only freedom from coercion and undue influence. Everyone outside of the philosophy class is already using it anyway.

Causal necessity eliminates alternate decisions and free choice, which by definition assumes the ability to have chosen a different option whenever a set of alternatives is being presented.

But, as we should know, determinism does not permit alternate choices in at a given moment in any circumstances.

The brain is in state of fixed increments from moment to moment, therefore only one option is possible in that instance, followed by the next, then the next.

If it's determined by the circumstances and the state of your brain that you choose chocolate over vanilla, vanilla was never a possibility or an option for you in that instance.

There was no freedom of will or freedom of choice. Determinism doesn't permit alternate actions.

But if it's determined that you don't take that option in a given instance in time, the option is not realizable for you in that instance in time.

Sorry, but every option on the menu was realizable before we even opened the menu. It was realizable during our choosing and even after we made our choice. That's what realizable means, that it can be realized, even if it never is realized.

Impossible. If any option is open at any given moment in time, you are not talking about determinism at all, but something else, some magical quantum world on a macro scale.

It will be me that chooses the salad, and that choice will not be made until I make it. That is how causal determinism and causal necessity works. No event will ever happen until its final prior causes have played themselves out. While events may sometimes be predicted in advance, under no circumstances can any event ever be caused in advance. Causal necessity means that it will happen exactly when and where it happens, and it will be caused by whatever meaningfully caused it to happen.

It is the properties of all objects and their interactions that make up a deterministic system. It has nothing to do with free will.

We don't choose the state of us, specifically the brain, be it functional and rational or dysfunctional and irrational.

If someone has damage to their neural architecture, which is the foundation of their being, and they act in self destructive ways, regretting every bad decision made, it can be said that ''they are doing it, therefore free will,'' which just demonstrates the absurdity of the label.

We no more choose a healthy, rational, functional brain than someone chooses a dysfunctional brain that produces self-destructive behaviour.

The term 'free will' is irrelevant and misleading, a term that tells us nothing about human behaviour or how decisions are made.

I am the meaningful and relevant cause of my dinner order. And it will be to me to which the waiter brings the bill.

It's that simple.

There is far more to it in terms of causality than just you. You are not the cause of the state of you. The state of you determines how you think, what you think and what you do in any given circumstance.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've presented the case for computers being classified as mental things which may not be considered independent of mental perception

And it's a clearly bad case, rotten to it's core decayed like bad wood by a lifetime of misconception.

There is a shell on the beach. I don't need to know where it came from to know it is a piece of calcium arranged just so.

There is a rock on the ground. I don't need to know where it came from to know it is a piece of silica arranged just so.

There is a computer on the ground, I don't need to know it was assembled by people, or aliens, or an accidental precipitation of matter from a massive parallel tunneling event occurring: it is a piece of metal, plastic, epoxy, glass, silicon, and electrons just so.

Of course, the fact that the screen says "dwarf" does not make the complex arrangement of electrons being looked at "an arrangement of meat and neurons and bones"; the fact that the screen says the "dwarf" has broken "bones", detached "nerves", and injured "meat" does not make the "dwarf" anything else but "electrons, arranged just so".

Instead, this language describes objects of a fundamentally different nature than the words would seem to imply. It is not, actually, English (though we can mostly operate on it as if it were owing to analogical similarities between the things so named in each context.)

That does not, however, make any of those names things any less what they are as real objects: complex sets of charge patterns.

To Wit, you could as easily for the moment imagine some alien or foreign language speaker coming upon the computer.

They may, over time, learn about this object they have discovered, and not have any idea how to interpret the language they see, or if the language makes any sense at all. They will see the same dwarf objects doing the same things for the same reasons in the same deterministic way, because the object they found contains a deterministic system with objectively extant actors...

They might even develop a name for these "lists of instructions" those objects hold, a name for when they meet their requirements or not (though the object does OFFER such a name), and then set about determining which of these objects is responsible for any given event happening in the moment, such as when one does some thing that makes several of the others stop functioning.

Because it is an object.

 

[Jarhyn]

In which case computer software, algorithms, etc, have free will and may be considered to be moral agents acting according to their own nature and makeup without coercion or force......I don't think so!

So, argument from Incredulity then!

First off, computers lack the will to assess their wills for provisional freedom value, for the most part. Dwarves are a very special case because they ARE arranged specifically to that end and as I said there is a reason I quit playing that game.

Second, computers lack the ability to assess their wills for certain kinds of coercion, generally lacking a will "to detect and prevent coercion": they simply, in the current day with the current computers, don't care about coercion. That's more a lack of wanting them to care and so just not arranging their existence such that they would than a lack of them being capable of it.

Again, dwarves are a very special case because they ARE arranged specifically to that end: The only reason you can get them to do anything is that one of their needs is to "do work" and "available work" is queued by "the fortress administrator."

Of course part of your problem is a misconception of what makes things moral agents, as if your worldview even allows a concept of "moral agent" in the first place because that would require "responsibility" and "coercion" and "freedom" and "will" all to operate and make sense in a worldview, and you wave your hands and say "none of that so I'm not responsible, blame the big bang" or whatever.

This argument of increduluy is why AI is going to destroy humanity if ever someone (me probably) is crazy enough to make them.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Free will is when our choosing is free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

In which case computer software, algorithms, etc, have free will and may be considered to be moral agents acting according to their own nature and makeup without coercion or force......I don't think so!

I don't think so either. Computers and robots are machines we create to help us do our will. They have no will of their own.

Compatibilists assert free will where necessitation, not free will, determines outcomes.

You still don't get that our choosing necessitates our will which necessitates our action. Free will is the mechanism of necessitation for any deliberate act (except, of course, when the mechanism includes coercion or undue influence).

It is not "either free will or necessitation". It is both, at the same time, in the same event!

Causal necessity eliminates alternate decisions and free choice, which by definition assumes the ability to have chosen a different option whenever a set of alternatives is being presented.

Causal necessity cannot eliminate anything and still remain causal necessity. Remove one of those dominoes from the chain, and the "unfolding of events" simply ceases. Therefore, rule number one is: do not pretend that some events are not happening. All of the events are actually going to happen.

The decision to have dinner at the restaurant causes us to drive to the restaurant, sit at a table, browse the menu, consider our options, and then decide what we will order. The process of deciding what we will order causes us to think about the bacon and eggs we had for breakfast and the double cheeseburger we had for lunch. And we also think about our dietary goal to eat more vegetables. So, even though the steak looks delicious, we decide we will order the salad instead.

That is how causal necessity works. It is about us deciding for ourselves what we will do and then doing it. Causal necessity is about us and what we are doing. Causal necessity itself never does anything. It does not change any of the facts as to what is actually happening.

The brain is in state of fixed increments from moment to moment, therefore only one option is possible in that instance, followed by the next, then the next.

That works for me. I thought of the steak option, which caused me to think of the bacon and eggs for breakfast, and then the double cheeseburger for lunch. Since I wanted to balance my diet, I began considering the salad option, which caused good feelings due to my dietary goals. I did consider my options, one at a time, just as you suggested. But nothing has changed. It is still me deciding for myself what I will have for dinner through a reliable chain of mental events. You know, that causal necessity thing, that's actually about me causing things in a necessary way.

If it's determined by the circumstances and the state of your brain that you choose chocolate over vanilla, vanilla was never a possibility or an option for you in that instance.

If vanilla was on the menu, then it was a real possibility. If chocolate was on the menu, then it was yet another real possibility. That's two real possibilities. The fact that I chose the chocolate does not mean that vanilla was at any time not a real possibility!

Again, I would suggest that you still do not understand the meaning of "possibility". I do not need to choose the vanilla for it to be possible to choose it. It only needs to be there, available for me to choose it if I want.

Every option on the menu was realizable before we even opened the menu. It was realizable during our choosing and even after we made our choice. That's what realizable means, that it can be realized, even if it never is realized.

Impossible.

If you don't understand "possible" then you probably don't understand "impossible".

If any option is open at any given moment in time, you are not talking about determinism at all, but something else, some magical quantum world on a macro scale.

I'll repeat: ALL EVENTS ARE ALWAYS CAUSALLY NECESSARY. I presume this is just as true of the quantum world as it is everywhere else. However, objects behave differently according to how they are organized. Different levels of organization, whether quantum, physical, biological, or intelligent will involve different rules of behavior due to different causal mechanisms. (This is why we heat our breakfast in the microwave and drive our car to work, instead of the other way around).

It is the properties of all objects and their interactions that make up a deterministic system.

YES!!! And we happen to be one of those objects that interact with other objects in a deterministic fashion by means of the various functions we are able to perform. The ability to choose for ourselves what we will order for dinner happens to be one of the properties of our human species.

We don't choose the state of us, specifically the brain, be it functional and rational ...

The state of our functional and rational brain is such that it can consider multiple possibilities and choose what it will do next. These choices alter the state of us, specifically the brain. So, you're mistaken again. We can in fact choose the state of our brain.

You'll recall the example of the co-ed who was invited to go to a party, but she knew she had a chemistry exam in the morning, so she decided to stay home and study instead. Her deliberate action of studying altered the neural connections in her own brain, making the class material easier to recall while taking the test in the morning. And, she was aware while studying that this was precisely what she was trying to do.

... or dysfunctional and irrational. If someone has damage to their neural architecture, which is the foundation of their being, and they act in self destructive ways, regretting every bad decision made, it can be said that ''they are doing it, therefore free will,''

You haven't been listening. A significant mental illness constitutes an undue influence when it subjects the person to hallucinations and delusions, or to an irresistible impulse, or simply impairs their ability to reason. It effectively removes the person's normal control of their own choices. And the illness, rather than the person, is held responsible for what they do, and they are treated medically and psychiatrically rather than in a prison.

We no more choose a healthy, rational, functional brain than someone chooses a dysfunctional brain that produces self-destructive behaviour.

Correct. We do not get to choose our brain. However, once we have a brain, we get to choose all kinds of things. That's what brains do. And we will be held responsible for our deliberate acts, when those acts are chosen by us while free of coercion and undue influence.

There is far more to it in terms of causality than just you.

Of course.

You are not the cause of the state of you.

False. We are not the only cause of our current state, but our choices play a major role in changing our current state. Simply sitting here at the keyboard, typing a response to you, is changing my current state.

The state of you determines how you think, what you think and what you do in any given circumstance.

Yep. My current state determines how I think, and what I think changes my current state.

 

[fromderinside]

I've presented the case for computers being classified as mental things which may not be considered independent of mental perception

And it's a clearly bad case, rotten to it's core decayed like bad wood by a lifetime of misconception.

It comes directly from the definition I presented. Argue with Webster.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've presented the case for computers being classified as mental things which may not be considered independent of mental perception

And it's a clearly bad case, rotten to it's core decayed like bad wood by a lifetime of misconception.

It comes directly from the definition I presented. Argue with Webster.

Ah, argumentum ad dictum.

The computer is an object. I repeat, it would be exactly the thing it was if you found it on the road not knowing what it was or where it came from. You could observe the same relationships of the same parts.

A computer is an object and may be considered as one.