Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Jarhyn]

Where are the machines

We are machines. Full stop.

I mean how come machines have not evolved on their own in the world.

They did. We are them.

But moreover, again, it is a genetic fallacy to pay any mind to where the stuff one is looking at came from in ascertaining what it is capable of and how it behaves.

I see the evolution of nervous systems

I see a red herring.

Where are the NAND or Turing devices both named products of brain activity.

What and for why which?

Also, beyond the fact you are spouting nonsense again, they are what they are, regardless of whether they have been named.

Just because we made them doesn't make them any less the things they are. These names are just convenient descriptions for broad aspects of their physical behavior.

As it is outside your red herrings surrounding evolution, and your spouting of literal nonsense, you just make your argument look ridiculous.

Go figure out whether you are a neuroscientist or someone who wants to just spout coocoo nonsense words like some Christian fundamentalist when you don't want to do things like acknowledge that computers are in fact objects, and that the ability of systems to cross-emulate means capability of one is proof of capability of the other.

Martin and I keep trying to explain to you that he, and I, both have points in which we have a series of instructions, so to the point where we could, with effort, use words to describe them: seek to hold that ball; if you hold it, do not move; to move, first throw it at the ground, then catch it, the throw it at the ground, touching it with no more than one hand; attempt to throw the ball, from any position, through this circle of space.

Then, we could have a requirement in that: success is "the ball transits through the space"

Of course neuronally, it looks much different: "Any pattern of activation of this set of neurons which activates this other set of neurons in this set of ways," as the requirement. I don't know the activation pattern characteristics that is inherently the neural result of all the knock-on effects of "the ball went through the hoop".

But we can fairly ascertain it happened when the buzzer goes and everyone starts screaming and cheering and you start screaming too, and your teammates lift you up and you wave the championship trophy around screaming some more.

And when it doesn't happen, we can fairly ascertain that too, from the weeping and screaming and all your teammates giving you a hug telling you it's ok, everyone but that one shithead who thinks you cost him "his shot" because he knows he could have made it even though he's a shithead who slacks off at practice, and that's why he never got "his shot" in the first place.

It's just stupid to pretend that we are not machines, that computers are not objects, that what are clearly series of instructions unto requirements do not exist.

 

[fromderinside]

Where are the machines

We are machines. Full stop.

I mean how come machines have not evolved on their own in the world.

They did. We are them.

But moreover, again, it is a genetic fallacy to pay any mind to where the stuff one is looking at came from in ascertaining what it is capable of and how it behaves.

Where are the NAND or Turing devices both named products of brain activity

computers are in fact objects, and that the ability of systems to cross-emulate means capability of one is proof of capability of the other.

Not true. It is impossible for something not complete to provide anything perfect. The output is as good as the input and systems used to produce the output. The logical results are also limited by the limitations of the logical system. What you spout has two obvious flaws. First the data you use is subjective derived from reality by imperfect sensors. Second the system you propose is based on simplified abstractions of neural information production arguably missing critical elements needed for proper information representation

Martin and I keep trying to explain to you that he, and I, both have points in which we have a series of instructions, so to the point where we could, with effort, use words to describe them: seek to hold that ball; if you hold it, do not move; to move, first throw it at the ground, then catch it, the throw it at the ground, touching it with no more than one hand; attempt to throw the ball, from any position, through this circle of space.

Then, we could have a requirement in that: success is "the ball transits through the space"

Of course neuronally, it looks much different: "Any pattern of activation of this set of neurons which activates this other set of neurons in this set of ways," as the requirement. I don't know the activation pattern characteristics that is inherently the neural result of all the knock-on effects of "the ball went through the hoop".

But we can fairly ascertain it happened when the buzzer goes and everyone starts screaming and cheering and you start screaming too, and your teammates lift you up and you wave the championship trophy around screaming some more.

And when it doesn't happen, we can fairly ascertain that too, from the weeping and screaming and all your teammates giving you a hug telling you it's ok, everyone but that one shithead who thinks you cost him "his shot" because he knows he could have made it even though he's a shithead who slacks off at practice, and that's why he never got "his shot" in the first place.

It's just stupid to pretend that we are not machines, that computers are not objects, that what are clearly series of instructions unto requirements do not exist.

Your structures reflect a serious lack of connectivity to physical reality of the world. We are products. We are not exemplars of reality in the world. Rather we are products surviving in the real world with our own concept of what is our reality derived from what we experience.

You are trying to wedge subjective, that is what we believe we perceive, into a fundamental statement of what is. Can't be done. You have no notion of corrections needed to submit what you call choice and will into a being that is obviously the imperfect, including sensory, product of a determined world.

I've shown in your modelling you don't even include inhibitory correlates to excitatory effects transmitted in the nervous system in your calculus of the system used to produce program rules for NAND objects used to model nervous operations. Even your argument is derivative. Take "shot." I hear Hamilton. Not relevant for existence. We succeed and fail just as we survive or go extinct.

For instance the answer to "What for and for why Which" are Products of previous thought and doing by beings just because doing so, so far, tends to produce progress for beings.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is impossible for something not complete to provide anything perfect

Again more red herrings, and not even true ones. Apparently the wrong clock of christian apologia is right twice a day in that there ARE folks who  blindly worship evolution.

The logical results are also limited by the limitations of the logical system.

And now supporting your arguments with... Tautology?

Again are you really sure you are a neuroscientist?

First the data you use is subjective derived from reality by imperfect sensors

Again more No-True-Scotsman

You are literally arguing that because I observed the objects with a debugger and JTAG probe that they are not there?

You realize we observed and sense DNA and the structure of neurons with less reliable mechanisms at times, ya?

And again, not subjective.

You appear to not understand the word subjective AT ALL.

I have seen plenty of dishonest children arguing their positions from false places of authority in the past. Your arguments remind me much of theirs.

Second the system you propose is based on simplified abstractions of neural information production arguably missing critical elements needed for proper information representation

Again I am not "proposing" a system. I am observing one, of transistors and electron charges in silicon.

That system is entirely representable by NAND structures.

Anything capable of supporting and creating NAND structures can support and operate any algorithm in any other system completely representable by NAND.

Therefore humans are capable of doing anything a Turing machine is in terms of algorithmic behavior.

A specific Turing machine, the one sitting in the next room over from me, has exactly the observed structure "series of instructions + requirement".

Therefore your claim that it is impossible for a computer, human, and deterministic system to have something that meets the definition of "will" and for that "will" to have an observed freedom value is false.

Your structures reflect a serious lack of connectivity to physical reality of the world

No, they are right there, sitting as pieces of stuff in the physical world, in that room right next to me. You're again claiming computers are not objects.

You are trying to wedge subjective, that is what we believe we perceive, into a fundamental statement of what is.

No, I'm leveraging objectivity, what multiple people can observe in parallel and see the same thing of. You think what? That someone else can't pull out the JTAG and tell me that that the processor just stepped to instruction .TEXT+0x640832 while register 3 contained 0x30803232? Or that someone else can't figure out that 0640632 is the GOTO for the failure case that does not lead to will satisfaction, but rather the error case GOTO leads to (TANTRUM)?

It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with reliable cause and effect, things anyone can observe and their belief changes nothing about!

I've shown in your modelling you don't even include..

I'm not particularly trying to include it and I don't really need to. I am trying to prove sufficiency for support.

I am not trying to prove the computer is capable of everything we are, today. I mean, it is since Turing machines can (slowly) emulate reality itself all the way down to dancing quarks and gluons, they can obviously emulate the systems of a neuron (slowly) even one of emulated quarks and gluons, again very slowly.

But it doesn't need to be. Rather, the biological system just needs to be able to emulate the Turing machine for will structures represented in Turing machines to be attainable structures within neural configurations.

This is the point: disproving your bullshit claim that "NeUrOnS CaNt Do ThAt!"

(The set of all things that may exist in a system of transistors) is entirely contained inside (The set of all things that a neural system can do).

(Hosting will structures and making comparisons on requirement structures) is entirely within (the set of all things that may exist in a system of transistors).

Therefore (hosting will structures and making comparisons of requirement structures) is entirely within (the set of all things a neural system can do).

Therefore your claim (neural systems cannot do that) is false.

 

[DBT]

Determinism is defined by prior states evolving into current states and future states.

That's right.

Which eliminates freedom of will because all events are necessitated by prior states of the system. Free will has no place in determinism.

Choosing implies the ability to do otherwise.

That is also correct.

There is no 'do otherwise' in any given instance within a deterministic system. Each and every incremental state of the system evolves from its prior state, with no deviation.

No deviation means 'no doing otherwise.'

Determinism doesn't entail free choice.

But what you seem unable to grasp is that the "ability" to do otherwise never requires that we "actually" do otherwise!

I grasp the idea only too well. What compatibilists seem unable to grasp that with no possible ''do otherwise'' - there is no ability to do otherwise.

So, to say ''do otherwise never requires that we "actually" do otherwise!'' is meaningless.

When someone says "I could have chosen the steak for dinner" it always implies "I did not choose the steak for dinner" and "I only would have chosen the steak under different circumstances".

There is no contradiction between determinism and the ability to do otherwise!

There are no 'different circumstance' within a deterministic system.....if time could be rewound, precisely the same actions would take place over and over again.

Events in any given moment in time are in precise states, with no possible 'different circumstances.'

A fixed progression of events with no deviation is far worse for the notion of free will than mere influence.

A fixed progression of events is how everything, including free will, works.

Free will is being asserted. An act that is performed freely as determined is not an example of free will. Both the will to act and the act itself are fixed by prior states of the system.

Consider the fixed progression of events involved in "choosing what we will do". First, we encounter a problem or issue that requires us to make a decision. For example, we must decide what to order for dinner. Second, we consider multiple options in terms of our own goals and our own reasons. Third, we experience thoughts and feelings about each option. Fourth, based on those thoughts and feelings, we choose the option that we believe will give us the best result. Fifth, we act upon that chosen intent, we say to the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

That is clearly a fixed progression of events. And, that is clearly a choice we made for ourselves while free of coercion and undue influence.

"Determinism, meet Free Will. Free Will, meet Determinism. I'm sure you're going to like each other."

Determinism, by definition, is not a matter of coercion or influence. Everything is fixed by prior states of the system, including situations where you feel coerced or pressured into doing something you don't want to do.

Chef Salad at 8:30pm on Saturday night, if determined by prior states of the system, was inevitable before the person read the menu, before the person was even born.

''All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

The system - the world, the environment - is made up of more than our our brains. Given determinism, our environment determines what goes on in our brains.

And that claim would constitute superstitious nonsense. Our environment refers to everything that is outside of us. And our environment never acts upon us with a single intent. Our environment does not choose what goes on in our brain.

We are inseparable from our environment. The planet brought forth life and evolution, our bodies are composed from the elements of the World, the Universe.

From the moment we are born, our brain acquires information from our environment and constructs an internal mental representation of it.

Our experience of the World including us as conscious entities, is being formed and generated from information acquired from the external world. Our own virtual reality.

Our brain serves our own inner needs. As the plant in the "Little Shop of Horrors" said, "Feed me Seymour!". So, our inner need to have dinner led us to the restaurant. Now that we're here we have to choose what we will order from a menu of alternate possibilities. This process is driven by our own biological need to eat.

Alternate options cater to different tastes. Each according to their own proclivities. One inevitably goes with Chef Salad, another takes Parmigiana, someone else orders Steak.......no alternate actions in any given instance, prior states evolving into current and future states of the system...

External conditions and inputs act upon the brain more surely than external coercion or influence,

Total nonsense. The restaurant menu is not a guy with a gun. And the menu will not select our dinner for us. We still must do that for ourselves.

Nobody mentioned force. Determinism means that prior states of the system evolve precisely as determined, without deviation.

No need for a gun at the head.


''Dr. Robert Sapolsky: The basic theme is that we are biological creatures, which shouldn't be earth-shattering. And thus all of our behavior is a product of our biology, which also shouldn't be earth-shattering—even though it's news to some people.

If we want to make sense of our behavior—all the best, worst, and everything in between—we're not going to get anywhere if we think it can all be explained with one thing, whether it's one part of the brain, one childhood experience, one hormone, one gene, or anything. Instead, a behavior is the outcome of everything from neurobiology one second before the action, to evolutionary pressure dating back millions of years.''

We don't choose.

Look around the restaurant. Watch what the customers are doing. Do you see them each reducing that menu of many possibilities into a single dinner order? We call that "choosing". What do they call it on you planet?

The menu selection of each and every customer must necessarily proceed as determined....unless we are not talking about a deterministic system at all?

Inputs act upon the brain altering its activity.

Really? Do you see the menu acting upon the customer's brain? Or isn't it the case that each customer is acting upon the menu, picking it up, reading it, and deciding for themselves what they will have for dinner?

You can't see it. The person as a conscious entity cannot see, or be aware of the underlying information acquisition and processing that the brain performs in order to make conscious experience possible.

Nevertheless, it is happening unconsciously milliseconds prior to our experience of self and the world.

I have provided ample evidence for this.

Nothing is freely willed.

The intention (will) to order the salad was formed while free of coercion and undue influence. That is all that free will requires.

Asserted.

We lack the right kind of regulative control to qualify as free will.

And yet each person in the restaurant controlled what they would order for dinner.

Determined before they even entered the restaurant. Before they even read the menu....that's the nature of determinism.

You constantly repeat that our actions are determined, but insist that they are not determined by us. That raises the question, "If not by us, then by who or by what?".

They aren't determined by us. If events are determined by prior states of the system, it was determined before we were born.

You stated it yourself in the definition that you gave.

Incompatibilists refer to how determinism is defined in terms of the physical interactions of matter/energy on a macro scale, causal determinism, how objects interact causally in a progression of states and events.

And I've laid out the specific progression of states and events involved in decision making. We encounter a problem the requires a decision. We consider our options. We choose what we will do. This is determinism. And, if our choosing is free from coercion and undue influence, then it is also free will.

Regardless of appearances, limited perspective, etc, nothing just pops out of wild blue yonder. What we are presented with at any given moment in time is inevitable, as is our response to the challenge. The system, if determined, proceeds like clockwork.

Which is why free will is incompatible with determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

Determinism is defined by prior states evolving into current states and future states.

That's right.

Which eliminates freedom of will because all events are necessitated by prior states of the system. Free will has no place in determinism.

Choosing implies the ability to do otherwise.

That is also correct.

There is no 'do otherwise' in any given instance within a deterministic system. Each and every incremental state of the system evolves from its prior state, with no deviation.

No deviation means 'no doing otherwise.'

Determinism doesn't entail free choice.

But what you seem unable to grasp is that the "ability" to do otherwise never requires that we "actually" do otherwise!

I grasp the idea only too well. What compatibilists seem unable to grasp that with no possible ''do otherwise'' - there is no ability to do otherwise.

So, to say ''do otherwise never requires that we "actually" do otherwise!'' is meaningless.

When someone says "I could have chosen the steak for dinner" it always implies "I did not choose the steak for dinner" and "I only would have chosen the steak under different circumstances".

There is no contradiction between determinism and the ability to do otherwise!

There are no 'different circumstance' within a deterministic system.....if time could be rewound, precisely the same actions would take place over and over again.

Events in any given moment in time are in precise states, with no possible 'different circumstances.'

A fixed progression of events with no deviation is far worse for the notion of free will than mere influence.

A fixed progression of events is how everything, including free will, works.

Free will is being asserted. An act that is performed freely as determined is not an example of free will. Both the will to act and the act itself are fixed by prior states of the system.

Consider the fixed progression of events involved in "choosing what we will do". First, we encounter a problem or issue that requires us to make a decision. For example, we must decide what to order for dinner. Second, we consider multiple options in terms of our own goals and our own reasons. Third, we experience thoughts and feelings about each option. Fourth, based on those thoughts and feelings, we choose the option that we believe will give us the best result. Fifth, we act upon that chosen intent, we say to the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

That is clearly a fixed progression of events. And, that is clearly a choice we made for ourselves while free of coercion and undue influence.

"Determinism, meet Free Will. Free Will, meet Determinism. I'm sure you're going to like each other."

Determinism, by definition, is not a matter of coercion or influence. Everything is fixed by prior states of the system, including situations where you feel coerced or pressured into doing something you don't want to do.

Chef Salad at 8:30pm on Saturday night, if determined by prior states of the system, was inevitable before the person read the menu, before the person was even born.

''All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

The system - the world, the environment - is made up of more than our our brains. Given determinism, our environment determines what goes on in our brains.

And that claim would constitute superstitious nonsense. Our environment refers to everything that is outside of us. And our environment never acts upon us with a single intent. Our environment does not choose what goes on in our brain.

We are inseparable from our environment. The planet brought forth life and evolution, our bodies are composed from the elements of the World, the Universe.

From the moment we are born, our brain acquires information from our environment and constructs an internal mental representation of it.

Our experience of the World including us as conscious entities, is being formed and generated from information acquired from the external world. Our own virtual reality.

Our brain serves our own inner needs. As the plant in the "Little Shop of Horrors" said, "Feed me Seymour!". So, our inner need to have dinner led us to the restaurant. Now that we're here we have to choose what we will order from a menu of alternate possibilities. This process is driven by our own biological need to eat.

Alternate options cater to different tastes. Each according to their own proclivities. One inevitably goes with Chef Salad, another takes Parmigiana, someone else orders Steak.......no alternate actions in any given instance, prior states evolving into current and future states of the system...

External conditions and inputs act upon the brain more surely than external coercion or influence,

Total nonsense. The restaurant menu is not a guy with a gun. And the menu will not select our dinner for us. We still must do that for ourselves.

Nobody mentioned force. Determinism means that prior states of the system evolve precisely as determined, without deviation.

No need for a gun at the head.


''Dr. Robert Sapolsky: The basic theme is that we are biological creatures, which shouldn't be earth-shattering. And thus all of our behavior is a product of our biology, which also shouldn't be earth-shattering—even though it's news to some people.

If we want to make sense of our behavior—all the best, worst, and everything in between—we're not going to get anywhere if we think it can all be explained with one thing, whether it's one part of the brain, one childhood experience, one hormone, one gene, or anything. Instead, a behavior is the outcome of everything from neurobiology one second before the action, to evolutionary pressure dating back millions of years.''

We don't choose.

Look around the restaurant. Watch what the customers are doing. Do you see them each reducing that menu of many possibilities into a single dinner order? We call that "choosing". What do they call it on you planet?

The menu selection of each and every customer must necessarily proceed as determined....unless we are not talking about a deterministic system at all?

Inputs act upon the brain altering its activity.

Really? Do you see the menu acting upon the customer's brain? Or isn't it the case that each customer is acting upon the menu, picking it up, reading it, and deciding for themselves what they will have for dinner?

You can't see it. The person as a conscious entity cannot see, or be aware of the underlying information acquisition and processing that the brain performs in order to make conscious experience possible.

Nevertheless, it is happening unconsciously milliseconds prior to our experience of self and the world.

I have provided ample evidence for this.

Nothing is freely willed.

The intention (will) to order the salad was formed while free of coercion and undue influence. That is all that free will requires.

Asserted.

We lack the right kind of regulative control to qualify as free will.

And yet each person in the restaurant controlled what they would order for dinner.

Determined before they even entered the restaurant. Before they even read the menu....that's the nature of determinism.

You constantly repeat that our actions are determined, but insist that they are not determined by us. That raises the question, "If not by us, then by who or by what?".

They aren't determined by us. If events are determined by prior states of the system, it was determined before we were born.

You stated it yourself in the definition that you gave.

Incompatibilists refer to how determinism is defined in terms of the physical interactions of matter/energy on a macro scale, causal determinism, how objects interact causally in a progression of states and events.

And I've laid out the specific progression of states and events involved in decision making. We encounter a problem the requires a decision. We consider our options. We choose what we will do. This is determinism. And, if our choosing is free from coercion and undue influence, then it is also free will.

Regardless of appearances, limited perspective, etc, nothing just pops out of wild blue yonder. What we are presented with at any given moment in time is inevitable, as is our response to the challenge. The system, if determined, proceeds like clockwork.

Which is why free will is incompatible with determinism.

Since you appear to have missed it, this also answers your bullshit.

It is impossible for something not complete to provide anything perfect

Again more red herrings, and not even true ones. Apparently the wrong clock of christian apologia is right twice a day in that there ARE folks who  blindly worship evolution.

The logical results are also limited by the limitations of the logical system.

And now supporting your arguments with... Tautology?

Again are you really sure you are a neuroscientist?

First the data you use is subjective derived from reality by imperfect sensors

Again more No-True-Scotsman

You are literally arguing that because I observed the objects with a debugger and JTAG probe that they are not there?

You realize we observed and sense DNA and the structure of neurons with less reliable mechanisms at times, ya?

And again, not subjective.

You appear to not understand the word subjective AT ALL.

I have seen plenty of dishonest children arguing their positions from false places of authority in the past. Your arguments remind me much of theirs.

Second the system you propose is based on simplified abstractions of neural information production arguably missing critical elements needed for proper information representation

Again I am not "proposing" a system. I am observing one, of transistors and electron charges in silicon.

That system is entirely representable by NAND structures.

Anything capable of supporting and creating NAND structures can support and operate any algorithm in any other system completely representable by NAND.

Therefore humans are capable of doing anything a Turing machine is in terms of algorithmic behavior.

A specific Turing machine, the one sitting in the next room over from me, has exactly the observed structure "series of instructions + requirement".

Therefore your claim that it is impossible for a computer, human, and deterministic system to have something that meets the definition of "will" and for that "will" to have an observed freedom value is false.

Your structures reflect a serious lack of connectivity to physical reality of the world

No, they are right there, sitting as pieces of stuff in the physical world, in that room right next to me. You're again claiming computers are not objects.

You are trying to wedge subjective, that is what we believe we perceive, into a fundamental statement of what is.

No, I'm leveraging objectivity, what multiple people can observe in parallel and see the same thing of. You think what? That someone else can't pull out the JTAG and tell me that that the processor just stepped to instruction .TEXT+0x640832 while register 3 contained 0x30803232? Or that someone else can't figure out that 0640632 is the GOTO for the failure case that does not lead to will satisfaction, but rather the error case GOTO leads to (TANTRUM)?

It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with reliable cause and effect, things anyone can observe and their belief changes nothing about!

I've shown in your modelling you don't even include..

I'm not particularly trying to include it and I don't really need to. I am trying to prove sufficiency for support.

I am not trying to prove the computer is capable of everything we are, today. I mean, it is since Turing machines can (slowly) emulate reality itself all the way down to dancing quarks and gluons, they can obviously emulate the systems of a neuron (slowly) even one of emulated quarks and gluons, again very slowly.

But it doesn't need to be. Rather, the biological system just needs to be able to emulate the Turing machine for will structures represented in Turing machines to be attainable structures within neural configurations.

This is the point: disproving your bullshit claim that "NeUrOnS CaNt Do ThAt!"

(The set of all things that may exist in a system of transistors) is entirely contained inside (The set of all things that a neural system can do).

(Hosting will structures and making comparisons on requirement structures) is entirely within (the set of all things that may exist in a system of transistors).

Therefore (hosting will structures and making comparisons of requirement structures) is entirely within (the set of all things a neural system can do).

Therefore your claim (neural systems cannot do that) is false.

 

[Jarhyn]

There appear to be a number of arguments levelled against "compatibilism", and I would like to recognize for a memento that a couple of them are "non-sequitur".

First, it should be noted that Compatibilism wages that "free" and "will" refer to aspects of a particular deterministic system, as they are apparently contextualized applications of the general ideas of "instructions (will)" and "satisfaction of requirements (freedom)".

The words mean the same thing, except that "will" is reserved for use in discussions about "the list of instructions" in context of "what thinking things do".

The argument of the hard determinist, he who says deterministic systems do not allow "free will", then when translated by the compatibilist says, exactly "deterministic systems do not allow satisfaction of the requirements of a list of instructions".

The compatibilist, especially the compatibilist who is a software engineer, computer scientist, and who has built a computer, processor and all, from transistors to Turing completeness, and actually taken the time to understand the truth tables and state diagrams, well, it just seems a little laughable.

One day a brilliant madman sat in his house and said "how do I make a machine that makes decisions, behaves some way to operate an automated cogitation of math?"

Several, in fact, have done this all throughout time, all the time, their whole lives.

But one of those people, with the help of some others like him, and some people perhaps more brilliant but less lucky, drew out a strategy for making a machine possess levers that would be switched by its own continued operation, in a systematic way allowing it to redirect the course of its own execution as a system.

There's a pretty good movie about this: "The Imitation Game".

Things ended badly for him, from all the heavy metal exposure and the unwanted chemical castration.

RIP Turing. You were glorious and you are in the heaven of my heart!

He even described a mathematical design for generalized instruction execution engines that wasn't implemented*, I believe until some time after his death**.

And not only this, but we observe the operation of systems which, when given sets of instructions, generate behavioral results and are capable of validating their requirements.

As it is, these kinds of systems are not computationally complex.

It is just such a fucking stupid argument to pretend that the general structure of a behavioral agent is all that difficult to comprehend, let alone discuss in terms of "will" and "freedom to requirement" and "choice" seeing as how it's been proven time and again that not only is it real and observed, it's something we can build on purpose, and have.

It has been proven again and again and again that reality can and does host objects which behave as computational engines, that those engines can -- and are in fact sought after mostly by their ability to -- hold a series of instructions unto a requirement usually a single bit being on at a particular time, and operating differentially on that.

The hard part, the majority of that meat, is actually translational.

So, we can dispense with the core argument of hard determinism, that it is not possible.

The remainder of arguments are weaker, the idea that "yes it can be done by that machine you have but it can't be done by us".

The issue with such arguments is that they don't support hard determinism.

They can only support compatibilism, at that point, albeit a lame one where only computers can apparently have wills that are in any way discussed by this language as "free".

I just recognize instead that the language is a general and probably disturbingly apt description of a very simple sort of machine which we instantiate in a complicated way.

*(instantiated as an operational independent systemic object with no necessary human process server except to put the thing together when it shakes apart)
**I am unsure when the first Turing complete computational machine was built.

 

[fromderinside]

It is impossible for something not complete to provide anything perfect

Again more red herrings, and not even true ones. Apparently the wrong clock of christian apologia is right twice a day in that there ARE folks who  blindly worship evolution.

The logical results are also limited by the limitations of the logical system.

And now supporting your arguments with... Tautology?

Again are you really sure you are a neuroscientist?

Second the system you propose is based on simplified abstractions of neural information production arguably missing critical elements needed for proper information representation

Again I am not "proposing" a system. I am observing one, of transistors and electron charges in silicon.

Your structures reflect a serious lack of connectivity to physical reality of the world

No, they are right there, sitting as pieces of stuff in the physical world, in that room right next to me. You're again claiming computers are not objects.

Since I was referring to the data used for your model building being simplistic as rational for your constructions rather whether such things are objects I'll just chock the above up to your demonstrated inability to grasp essential data.

You are trying to wedge subjective, that is what we believe we perceive, into a fundamental statement of what is.

No, I'm leveraging objectivity, what multiple people can observe in parallel and see the same thing of. You think what? That someone else can't pull out the JTAG and tell me that that the processor just stepped to instruction .TEXT+0x640832 while register 3 contained 0x30803232? Or that someone else can't figure out that 0640632 is the GOTO for the failure case that does not lead to will satisfaction, but rather the error case GOTO leads to (TANTRUM)?

It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with reliable cause and effect, things anyone can observe and their belief changes nothing about!

Clinton would be proud. You've actually mastered "Wag the Dog." If you use a tools accepted by scientists as a tool You are not actually using your senses observing what the tool observes, you are observing what the tool reports. Dog wagged!!!

People of a particular time are really quite similar in their capabilities and equipment for sensing. So everyone reporting very similar observations are what psychophysicists depend upon for gathering population tools for sensitivity and accuracy.

You probably remember people like Green, Swets, Tanner, and Robinson etc. from U Michigan after WWII who developed Signal Detection Theory and the construct of the ideal observer which we psychophysicists commonly use as benchmarking human sense effectiveness. Humans never achieve 100% alignment with physical measures. IOW the tools we make as the result of scientific endeavor are better than are the capabilities of human senses.

If you know that then why are you spouting humans sense material reality?

My bottom line about your models is your model fails because your presumptions are incomplete and outdated. Never will a logical construction devised from bad data such as rational constructs result in what is obtained through conscientious use of the scientific method. If the problem is outside the game it is beyond the capacity of the model for the game.

 

[Jarhyn]

Since I was referring to the data used for your model building being simplistic as rational for your constructions rather whether such things are objects I'll just chock the above up to your demonstrated inability to grasp essential data.

This entire statement does not parse at all. @Marvin Edwards I ordered the steak, the service at this restaurant sucks.

I guess my will to order the steak was not free after all, constrained on account of the staff's horrific blunder.

You are not actually using your senses observing what the tool observes, you are observing what the tool reports

"WERE YOU THERE?"

Perfect form, FDI, Perfect form.

It's still a fallacious form or argument.

Otherwise, CERN is a massive waste of time...

the tools we make as the result of scientific endeavor are better than are the capabilities of human senses.

Now there's an observation worth it's weight in gold.

Which is why when I observe on the screen of my tool a measurement of the charge potential on a particular set of transistors, I can know with far better certainty than with human senses (lol, how am I going to sense it otherwise, tongue across the circuit to ground?) That the will was free to some particular outcome, that there is a fundamental object structure, that particular operations have, in fact, happened as described.

It has been been recorded for posterity, and is, owing to the fact that it is a deterministic system, repayable in full original systemic fidelity.

You're rejecting that the thing observed of the object objectively happened.

You are spouting absolute tinfoil hat craziness at this point. Half your post does not even parse.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Determinism is defined by prior states evolving into current states and future states. Which eliminates freedom of will because all events are necessitated by prior states of the system. Free will has no place in determinism.

You repeatedly argue that free will requires freedom from cause and effect.
I repeatedly argue that free will requires nothing more than freedom from coercion and undue influence.

Your free will is certainly impossible. But my free will is certainly possible.

There is no 'do otherwise' in any given instance within a deterministic system. Each and every incremental state of the system evolves from its prior state, with no deviation. No deviation means 'no doing otherwise.'

There is no need, ever, for anyone to actually do otherwise.

It is simply noted that we could have done otherwise if we had chosen to. To say that "we could have done otherwise" logically implies that we did not do otherwise. And that is sufficient to satisfy both determinism.

I grasp the idea only too well. What compatibilists seem unable to grasp that with no possible ''do otherwise'' - there is no ability to do otherwise.

No. You still don't get it. The ability (or possibility) to "do otherwise" never requires that anyone actually does otherwise.

So, to say ''do otherwise never requires that we "actually" do otherwise!'' is meaningless.

What it means is that your version of determinism is incorrect. You assume that necessity precludes abilities. And that is absurdly nonsensical.

It is never necessary that we actually do something in order to be able to do it. I am able to type this note. But I am also able to watch TV instead (been re-watching Dr. Who). I am also able to go out and buy a quart of Hagen-Daaz at the drugstore if I want. I am also able to go out and get a glimpse of the sunset sky ... hey, that's a nice idea ... hang on a mo' ... that's always a nice break.

You see, what I am able to do is not at all limited by what I actually do!

And I assume the same is true for you as well, even though you continually rail against it.

There are no 'different circumstance' within a deterministic system.....if time could be rewound, precisely the same actions would take place over and over again.

Right. So, if we immediately rewind time to, say, 10 minutes ago, then we get this:

What it means is that your version of determinism is incorrect. You assume that necessity precludes all abilities. And that is absurdly nonsensical.

It is never necessary that we actually do something in order to be able to do it. I am able to do type this note. But I am also able to watch TV instead (been re-watching Dr. Who). I am also able to go out and buy a quart of Hagen-Daaz at the drugstore if I want. I am also able to go out and get a glimpse of the sunset sky ... hey, that's a nice idea ... hang on a mo' ... that's always a nice break.

You see, what I am able to do is not at all limited by what I actually do!

And these same facts remain true no matter how many times we repeat this process.

Events in any given moment in time are in precise states, with no possible 'different circumstances.'

And all of the abilities I had the first time we reset the clock remain in place, and true, no matter how many times we reset the clock.

A fixed progression of events is how everything, including free will, works.

Free will is being asserted.

Free will as a choice I make for myself while free of coercion and undue influence has not only been asserted, but has also been demonstrated, right there in front of you.

Free will as a choice I make for myself while free of cause and effect can never be demonstrated, because there is no such thing as freedom without cause and effect. The idea of "freedom from cause and effect" is absurd nonsense.

Both the will to act and the act itself are fixed by prior states of the system.

Correct, as always. The notion of causal necessity is derived logically from the notion of reliable cause and effect. There are no uncaused events. Each event is fixed by prior events.

A simple example of this is when I chose to order the salad rather than the steak for dinner, because I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. The choice for dinner was causally necessitated by my choice for breakfast and my choice for lunch.

The choices were all causally necessary. The choices were also made by me, myself, without any coercion or undue influence by someone or something else. Thus, the choices were both causally necessary and also made of my own free will.

Determinism, by definition, is not a matter of coercion or influence.

But then again, determinism, by definition, does not exclude the possibility of someone forcing their choice upon me against my will.

All kinds of events are possible within a fully deterministic system, even though only one specific set of events will ever be actualized.

Because we often do not know what will actually happen, we've evolved a language and a logic to enable us to deal with this uncertainty. This is the logic of possibilities, things that can happen, but not necessarily will happen.

Everything is fixed by prior states of the system, including situations where you feel coerced or pressured into doing something you don't want to do.

Exactly.

Chef Salad at 8:30pm on Saturday night, if determined by prior states of the system, was inevitable before the person read the menu, before the person was even born.

Correct. And it was also inevitable before I read the menu that it would be me, and no one and nothing else, that would be deciding to order that Chef Salad instead of the steak.

''All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

Exactly. (That guy must be pretty smart!)

We are inseparable from our environment. The planet brought forth life and evolution, our bodies are composed from the elements of the World, the Universe. From the moment we are born, our brain acquires information from our environment and constructs an internal mental representation of it. Our experience of the World including us as conscious entities, is being formed and generated from information acquired from the external world. Our own virtual reality.

Very spiritual. But not helpful to this discussion. And if you want to discuss "virtual reality" you should really take that up with Jarhyn.

We have enough difficulty dealing with actual reality, trying to describe it in a meaningful and relevant fashion.

The person as a conscious entity cannot see, or be aware of the underlying information acquisition and processing that the brain performs in order to make conscious experience possible.

And it would be a bit silly to try to account for the behavior of each neuron in order to describe what we are doing. The meaningful and relevant description of our behavior is found by the usual scientific methods: observe, hypothesize, experiment, revise, "rinse and repeat".

You constantly say that our actions are determined, but insist that they are not determined by us. That raises the question, "If not by us, then by who or by what?".

They aren't determined by us. If events are determined by prior states of the system, it was determined before we were born.

You ducked the question. If it was not determined by me, then who or what determined that I would choose the salad rather than the steak?

The chain of causation is theoretically infinite. What is the most meaningful and relevant cause of my choosing the salad rather than the steak? (Hint: Watch the waiter as he delivers the bill for my dinner. He has already figured this out).

 

[fromderinside]

You are not actually using your senses observing what the tool observes, you are observing what the tool reports

Otherwise, CERN is a massive waste of time...

the tools we make as the result of scientific endeavor are better than are the capabilities of human senses.

Now there's an observation worth it's weight in gold.

Which is why when I observe on the screen of my tool a measurement of the charge potential on a particular set of transistors, I can know with far better certainty than with human senses (lol, how am I going to sense it otherwise, tongue across the circuit to ground?) That the will was free to some particular outcome, that there is a fundamental object structure, that particular operations have, in fact, happened as described.

It has been been recorded for posterity, and is, owing to the fact that it is a deterministic system, repayable in full original systemic fidelity.

At least you admitted your observation of the report by the tool is better than your observation of the phenomenon with your senses which is what you claimed in your prior post.

Actually I claimed your sense observations are subjective since they depend on your brain interpreting them in terms of material reality. Since I was referring to the data used for your model building being simplistic as rational for your constructions rather whether such things are objects I'll just chock the above up to your demonstrated inability to grasp essential data

You are not actually using your senses observing what the tool observes, you are observing what the tool reports

the tools we make as the result of scientific endeavor are better than are the capabilities of human senses.

Now there's an observation worth it's weight in gold.

Which is why when I observe on the screen of my tool a measurement of the charge potential on a particular set of transistors, I can know with far better certainty than with human senses

So we agree. Subjective interpretation of reality is with respect to what one senses from the reality about them through their inherent sense apparatus When you observe a report from a scientifically justified device for measuring material reality you bypass such as making sense of the data since it is provided directly to you by the device. Now if you want to analyze that data as is done with Hadron Collider you apply experimental protocols to the data collected by the collider.

 

[fromderinside]

This entire statement does not parse at all. @Marvin Edwards I ordered the steak, the service at this restaurant sucks.

I guess my will to order the steak was not free after all, constrained on account of the staff's horrific blunder.




"WERE YOU THERE?"

Perfect form, FDI, Perfect form.

It's still a fallacious form or argument.

Otherwise, CERN is a massive waste of time...

- nm

 

[Jarhyn]

Since I was referring to the data used for your model building being simplistic as rational for your constructions rather whether such things are objects I'll...

More salad? I keep telling you I ordered the steak.

@Marvin Edwards does this guy even work here?

Edit: I didn't even see "word salad" anywhere on the menu. Or is that what the "chef salad" is? If it is, that's rather poor service, like calling all your mayo "aioli" just because people refuse to order anything with "mayo" on it.

2 stars.

 

[Jarhyn]

The fact is, computers, owing to the particularity of what computers are, are built with tools that make observing their properties very easy. They have software debuggers and hardware debuggers and probe points you can validate your understanding against.

Everything is there for the aspiring engineer and computer scientist to describe 100% of the nature of the objects they observe, and to understand those objects completely, from source code to assembled machine language.

Pay attention to that term there "machine language". In fact, Google it.

Like, it baffles me insofar as some people get obsessed with using some secondary device to look at data. Yes it's useful but when the original device itself already is built to accurately report data in general, it's just fucking stupid.

I don't need a debugger to validate that the dwarf holds a will at all. I can in fact open an interface and look at the will in the original program.

Of course the program hides details from me, and could potentially lie or omit things, and that's not great: It's further from the original data than I would like. That's why since the beginning of this I've been running with a "hack" between the original software and the OS so that I can access memory more directly.

Again pay attention to discussions of "what the dwarf is" namely a construction of bits on a buffer.

At any rate, again we can observe that these are all objects, tiny, complicated, fairly distributed, and wherein most of the words we use to describe their object properties and interactions are really just metaphors for what is actually happening.

It's really only a problem for folks who are unable to grok more than 2 or 3 layers of abstraction at a time.

 

[DBT]

Determinism is defined by prior states evolving into current states and future states. Which eliminates freedom of will because all events are necessitated by prior states of the system. Free will has no place in determinism.

You repeatedly argue that free will requires freedom from cause and effect.

I don't where that comes from...I don't argue that, not at all. The issue is agency, regulative control. Freedom requires the ability to do otherwise, therefore free will requires the right kind of regulative control. The ability to make a difference.

Determinism does not permit the ability to do otherwise, therefore we lack the right kind of regulative control to qualify as free will.

Again;
''If you accept regulative control as a necessary part of free will, it seems impossible either way:
1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise
2. Indeterminate actions happen randomly and without intent or control
3. Therefore, indeterminism and free will are incompatible
4. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable
5. Therefore, determinism is incompatible with free will

Where is freedom of will without regulative control?

Nowhere.

1. No one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature.
2. No one has power over the fact that the facts of the past and the laws of nature entail every fact of the future (i.e., determinism is true).
3. Therefore, no one has power over the facts of the future.

I repeatedly argue that free will requires nothing more than freedom from coercion and undue influence.

Your free will is certainly impossible. But my free will is certainly possible.

And it has been explained repeatedly that necessitation eliminates any claim to free will.

Necessitated actions are way beyond mere 'undue influence' to the point where actions are absolutely fixed by prior states of the system.

''An action’s production by a deterministic process,even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. ''

There is no 'do otherwise' in any given instance within a deterministic system. Each and every incremental state of the system evolves from its prior state, with no deviation. No deviation means 'no doing otherwise.'

There is no need, ever, for anyone to actually do otherwise.

It is simply noted that we could have done otherwise if we had chosen to. To say that "we could have done otherwise" logically implies that we did not do otherwise. And that is sufficient to satisfy both determinism.

The problem is that you cannot have chosen otherwise, or done otherwise. Determinism means that all actions are determined by prior states of the system. A person is an aspect of the system, not an independent agent. There is no 'could have chosen otherwise within a deterministic system. The state of the determines everything that happens, conditions at time t and how things go ever after fixed by the prior state, incremental change, each and every state an expression of the prior state.

What you think, will and do fixed by prior states.

I grasp the idea only too well. What compatibilists seem unable to grasp that with no possible ''do otherwise'' - there is no ability to do otherwise.

No. You still don't get it. The ability (or possibility) to "do otherwise" never requires that anyone actually does otherwise.

There is no point in saying that. If there are no alternate actions, there is simply no ability to do otherwise. Without the possibility to do otherwise, it's pointless saying ''the ability (or possibility) to "do otherwise" never requires that anyone actually does otherwise.''

It literally cannot be done. It's like saying ''if I had wings, I could fly like a bird'' when you don't have wings, you cannot have wings, you never will have wings and it's impossible for you to fly like a bird.

It's a fantasy.

So, to say ''do otherwise never requires that we "actually" do otherwise!'' is meaningless.

What it means is that your version of determinism is incorrect. You assume that necessity precludes abilities. And that is absurdly nonsensical.

The version I work with is precisely the same as yours. Nor did I even suggest that 'necessity precludes abilities' - where that comes from I could not guess.

The issue is the right kind of regulative control needed to qualify as free will.

It is never necessary that we actually do something in order to be able to do it. I am able to type this note. But I am also able to watch TV instead (been re-watching Dr. Who). I am also able to go out and buy a quart of Hagen-Daaz at the drugstore if I want. I am also able to go out and get a glimpse of the sunset sky ... hey, that's a nice idea ... hang on a mo' ... that's always a nice break.

But we are not able to do otherwise, all events evolve in accordance to prior states of the system. That's the critical point.

It's stipulated in your own definition of determinism. No deviation.

You see, what I am able to do is not at all limited by what I actually do!

You are able to do whatever is determined, run, jump, swim, drive a car, order a meal, get a haircut, argue on the internet ...no restrictions, freely performed precisely as determined, thus not freely willed or subject to alteration, no ''could have done otherwise'' being possible within a determined system.

And I assume the same is true for you as well, even though you continually rail against it.

I don't rail against anything; I merely point out the nature of determinism and its consequences for the idea of free will.


''How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitable consequence of something I have no choice about? And yet ...the compatibilist must deny the No Choice Principle.” - Van Inwagen

 

[Jarhyn]

Freedom requires the ability to do otherwise,

No, it doesn't, and your assertions will not change that one but.

Only a nonsensical meaningless paradox, a myth of your mind, requires this.

Freedom doesn't require anything but a requirement to be in relation to.

The requirement does not need to have ever been capable of even being met, when the will is unfree.

The requirement does not need to have been capable of being failed for the will to be free.

In fact which of these happens determines whether something had freedom.

Saying otherwise is simply failing to speak to compatibilism.

If you cannot speak to compatibilism, please leave the conversation.

I observe a lot of people fail to understand what "choice" is, but you've been having it explained to you for over 3000 posts now! You have no excuse, I'm afraid, at this point.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You repeatedly argue that free will requires freedom from cause and effect.

I don't where that comes from...I don't argue that, not at all.

What do you think determinism is about, if not cause and effect? What do you think necessity is about, if not one event causing the next event to happen? Determinism is entirely about the reliable unfolding of events, as one event causes the next event, such that it will necessarily happen. And then that event in turn causes the next event, such that it will necessarily happen.

All of this is derived from the presumption of a world of reliable cause and effect. That's why we have the term "causal necessity". That's why we have the term "causal determinism".

It is, from top to bottom, logically derived from the notion of reliable causation. The string of dominoes, each falling and causing the next to fall into the next, etc. Where did you think all of this comes from, if not from the presumption of a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect?

And why do you think quantum mechanics enters the picture? It is because there is some evidence from quantum events that this presumption of a world of reliable causation may be incorrect. Personally, I think that is a problem of prediction rather than causation, and I hold to the view that there is perfectly reliable cause and effect even when we do not yet know the causes of certain effects.

The issue is agency, regulative control.

Agency is the ability to cause some effect. Regulative control is the ability to control that effect.

For example, when I choose the salad for dinner, rather than the steak, it is by my agency that the choice was made, and it was by my agency that the waiter was told, "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

Your argument has been that the agency and the control lies elsewhere.

There are two attacks on personal agency, both are argued from the position that the agency and control lies elsewhere. One is argued by causal necessity, that causes prior to me possess that agency by being the causes of me. The other is argued from neuroscience, that the brain is somehow separate from me, and is somehow acting behind my back to cause my choices and actions without my knowledge and consent.

The center of both arguments is cause and effect: Who or what is causing my dinner order? The waiter seems to know, but the hard determinist seems confused about this.

... There is no 'could have chosen otherwise within a deterministic system.

I could have ordered the steak. And there is the "could have" within a deterministic system. The hard determinist's claims are not supported by the evidence.

The evidence only supports the claim that there is no 'would have chosen otherwise'.

What you think, will and do fixed by prior states.

And when you say "fixed" by prior states you mean "caused" by prior states. "Fixing" is a verb, describing, in this case, the causing of something to be a certain way and no other way.

For example, my choosing to have the salad rather than the steak fixed my intent upon ordering the salad. The meaningful and relevant cause of my choice was me. It was my own interests. It was my own earlier choices to have bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. The meaningful and relevant cause that fixed the choice was me.

It's like saying ''if I had wings, I could fly like a bird'' when you don't have wings, you cannot have wings, you never will have wings and it's impossible for you to fly like a bird.

And yet I could have ordered the steak. Fortunately, the restaurant did not require me to have wings or to fly like a bird before I could order the steak. I always could have ordered the steak. It was always a real possibility, something that could happen, even if it never would happen.

It only required my ability to choose what I would have for dinner. And I've demonstrated that every time I went to that restaurant. And I've demonstrated my ability to order the steak by having done so on previous occasions.

But, for dinner last night, I really needed the salad more than the steak, due to my prior choices for breakfast and lunch.

And it was there on the menu, so I could have ordered it, and I even considered ordering it, but I chose to order the salad instead.

All of these events, of course, were causally necessary from any prior point in the past. But it was specifically during the choosing that my intent was finally fixed upon having the salad rather than the steak.

You assume that necessity precludes abilities.

Nor did I even suggest that 'necessity precludes abilities' - where that comes from I could not guess.

Apparently, I understand what you're saying better than you do.

''How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitable consequence of something I have no choice about? And yet ...the compatibilist must deny the No Choice Principle.” - Van Inwagen

We empirically observe choosing happening in the real world. There is no valid "No Choice Principle". It contradicts scientific fact.

 

[fromderinside]

You repeatedly argue that free will requires freedom from cause and effect.

I don't where that comes from...I don't argue that, not at all.

What do you think determinism is about, if not cause and effect? What do you think necessity is about, if not one event causing the next event to happen? Determinism is entirely about the reliable unfolding of events, as one event causes the next event, such that it will necessarily happen. And then that event in turn causes the next event, such that it will necessarily happen.

All of this is derived from the presumption of a world of reliable cause and effect. That's why we have the term "causal necessity". That's why we have the term "causal determinism".

It is, from top to bottom, logically derived from the notion of reliable causation. The string of dominoes, each falling and causing the next to fall into the next, etc. Where did you think all of this comes from, if not from the presumption of a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect?

And why do you think quantum mechanics enters the picture? It is because there is some evidence from quantum events that this presumption of a world of reliable causation may be incorrect. Personally, I think that is a problem of prediction rather than causation, and I hold to the view that there is perfectly reliable cause and effect even when we do not yet know the causes of certain effects.

The issue is agency, regulative control.

Agency is the ability to cause some effect. Regulative control is the ability to control that effect.

For example, when I choose the salad for dinner, rather than the steak, it is by my agency that the choice was made, and it was by my agency that the waiter was told, "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

Your argument has been that the agency and the control lies elsewhere.

There are two attacks on personal agency, both are argued from the position that the agency and control lies elsewhere. One is argued by causal necessity, that causes prior to me possess that agency by being the causes of me. The other is argued from neuroscience, that the brain is somehow separate from me, and is somehow acting behind my back to cause my choices and actions without my knowledge and consent.

The center of both arguments is cause and effect: Who or what is causing my dinner order? The waiter seems to know, but the hard determinist seems confused about this.

... There is no 'could have chosen otherwise within a deterministic system.

I could have ordered the steak. And there is the "could have" within a deterministic system. The hard determinist's claims are not supported by the evidence.

The evidence only supports the claim that there is no 'would have chosen otherwise'.

What you think, will and do fixed by prior states.

And when you say "fixed" by prior states you mean "caused" by prior states. "Fixing" is a verb, describing, in this case, the causing of something to be a certain way and no other way.

For example, my choosing to have the salad rather than the steak fixed my intent upon ordering the salad. The meaningful and relevant cause of my choice was me. It was my own interests. It was my own earlier choices to have bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. The meaningful and relevant cause that fixed the choice was me.

It's like saying ''if I had wings, I could fly like a bird'' when you don't have wings, you cannot have wings, you never will have wings and it's impossible for you to fly like a bird.

And yet I could have ordered the steak. Fortunately, the restaurant did not require me to have wings or to fly like a bird before I could order the steak. I always could have ordered the steak. It was always a real possibility, something that could happen, even if it never would happen.

It only required my ability to choose what I would have for dinner. And I've demonstrated that every time I went to that restaurant. And I've demonstrated my ability to order the steak by having done so on previous occasions.

But, for dinner last night, I really needed the salad more than the steak, due to my prior choices for breakfast and lunch.

And it was there on the menu, so I could have ordered it, and I even considered ordering it, but I chose to order the salad instead.

All of these events, of course, were causally necessary from any prior point in the past. But it was specifically during the choosing that my intent was finally fixed upon having the salad rather than the steak.

You assume that necessity precludes abilities.

Nor did I even suggest that 'necessity precludes abilities' - where that comes from I could not guess.

Apparently, I understand what you're saying better than you do.

''How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitable consequence of something I have no choice about? And yet ...the compatibilist must deny the No Choice Principle.” - Van Inwagen

We empirically observe choosing happening in the real world. There is no valid "No Choice Principle". It contradicts scientific fact.

Reliable is one modifier too far. Necessity is two modifiers to far. Determinism is this then that, full stop. Determined is not necessary nor reliable. It is this then that. No options, certainties, conditionals, need apply.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Reliable is one modifier too far. Necessity is two modifiers to far. Determinism is this then that, full stop. Determined is not necessary nor reliable. It is this then that. No options, certainties, conditionals, need apply.

Determinism is reliable cause and effect. Indeterminism is unreliable cause and effect.

The concept of “causal indeterminism” is impossible to imagine, because we’ve all grown up in a deterministic universe, where, although we don’t always know what caused an event, we always presume that there was a cause.

To give you an idea of a “causally indeterministic universe”, imagine we had a dial we could use to adjust the balance of determinism/indeterminism. We start by turning it all the way to determinism: I pick an apple from the tree and I have an apple in my hand. Then, we turn the dial a little bit toward indeterminism: now if I pick an apple, I might find an orange or banana or some other random fruit in my hand. Turn the dial further toward indeterminism, and when I pick an apple I may find a kitten in my hand, or a pair of slippers, or a glass of milk. One more adjustment toward indeterminism and when I pick an apple gravity reverses!

If objects were constantly popping into and out of existence, or if gravity erratically switched between pulling things one moment to pushing them the next, then any attempts to control anything in our lives would be hopeless. In such a universe, we could not reliably cause any effect, which means we would not be free to do anything. Fortunately, that does not appear to be the case.

 

[fromderinside]

Reliable is one modifier too far. Necessity is two modifiers to far. Determinism is this then that, full stop. Determined is not necessary nor reliable. It is this then that. No options, certainties, conditionals, need apply.

Determinism is reliable cause and effect. Indeterminism is unreliable cause and effect.

'If' isn't a thing. Object1 transfers energy/momentum to Object2.

 

[Jarhyn]

Reliable is one modifier too far. Necessity is two modifiers to far. Determinism is this then that, full stop. Determined is not necessary nor reliable. It is this then that. No options, certainties, conditionals, need apply.

Determinism is reliable cause and effect. Indeterminism is unreliable cause and effect.

'If' isn't a thing. Object1 transfers energy/momentum to Object2.

Sorry, "if" is totally a thing.

There's an JNZ is an instruction and it operates just fine.

If you think it's not, you have a broken understanding of what is meant by "if" at all.

IF doesn't mean it can do otherwise. IF just describes what happens in two broad scenarios. It describes a law of cause and effect to everything it is applied to.

In fact all thought, consideration, operation, intelligence, information processing, is based on this. All math and physics, every bit of knowledge and understanding, the ability of some single cellular thing to seek food rather than inert rocks is predicated on the idea of "if".

IF there is a field here, THEN this stuff will be moved. An object in motion stays in motion IF not acted upon by an outside force.

Physical law, causal necessity in general pivots on the IF of reliable cause and effect because effects only happen IF there are appropriate causes.

If you think there is no IF, then you think there is no point to logic, math, or science, but you don't, really, do you? You just don't seem to understand that reality is not some kind of cheap movie, that there is a process and stuff, not just a schlocky just-so plot of some fatalistic hidden god.

For something that "is not a thing", it sure is useful.