Compatibilism: What's that About?

[DBT]

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.

I argue that free will is incompatible with determinism. That determinism doesn't allow the necessary regulative control to qualify as free will.

The point being; free will is incompatible with determinism (including indeterminism for that matter.)

I argue that the notion of 'free will' does not relate to either determinism or indeterminism.

It's not a matter of 'freedom from cause and effect' but a lack of the right kind of cause.

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".

That a deterministic system evolves from initial state to current and future states without deviation eliminates choice. Choice requires possible alternatives; possible alternatives do not exist within determinism.

Without choice - the system evolving from prior to current and future states of the system - where is freedom of will?

Nowhere to be found.

Determined actions proceeding as determined, without coercion of 'undue influence,' for the given reasons, is not an example of free will.

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?

But not freely willed. The ball starts rolling and its actions proceed as determined, not chosen.

You don't choose your birth, social or cultural circumstances, physical makeup, attributes, features, abilities, language, culture, etc, etc....yet all of these things determine what you are, who you are, how you think and act.

''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.

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.

We are not talking about QM or probabilistic events. The issue is free will in relation to determinism.

QM doesn't help in any case.

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".

Not according to the given definition;

''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.

If your action of ordering the Chef Salad is 'causally necessary' from any point in time, your action cannot be otherwise, it was fixed before you were born...events evolve to the point where they are inevitably carried out: you order Chef Salad because that was determined, not freely willed or chosen.

If time could be rewound, precisely the same action would play out each and every time. No deviation.

That is determinism.

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.

Not at all.

We have abilities.

Our abilities are determined by our physical makeup and circumstances. Thereby is no implication of necessity 'precluding abilities.'

Your assumption was wrong.

''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.

Given a deterministic world, what you are seeing is each and every action evolving from its prior state.

Not having access to the necessary information, all the prior states of the system. the elements that bring you to that that action at that point in time, it appears like you could have done otherwise.

Of course, given the nature of determinism, the very same given and agreed upon definition of determinism, we should know that this is impossible.

If a compatibilist accepts how determinism works, they must accept - by the very definition they give - that there is no choice; that every action that is taken is fixed by prior states of the system.

 

[The AntiChris]

It's not a matter of 'freedom from cause and effect' but a lack of the right kind of cause.

What, in your view, would be the "right kind of cause" required by what you understand as 'free will'?

 

[Jarhyn]

I argue that free will is incompatible with determinism

No, you don't argue it, you assert it. There is a difference and we all keep pointing it out.

We keep pointing out that any understanding of, description of, use of, reliable cause and effect, as a concept at all, depends on accepting the axiom of conditional action: that effects happen if and only if they were caused; that the result is dependent on the condition of the system prior.

It's not like a movie where if you skip a frame you barely notice and the next frame comes regardless; rather it is a system where if you miss a frame it's is already the case that the whole system became incoherent.

Thankfully, incoherence of the universe appears impossible.

Incoherence of DBT's claims, however...

It's not a matter of 'freedom from cause and effect' but a lack of the right kind of cause.

What, in your view, would be the "right kind of cause" required by what you understand as 'free will'?

Watch while he describes something that is nonsense.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I argue that free will is incompatible with determinism. That determinism doesn't allow the necessary regulative control to qualify as free will.

You are obviously incorrect, because we, ourselves, by our own brain, deterministically regulates what we will choose for dinner.

This fact remains empirically true, regardless of the other facts, such as the fact that who and what we were in that moment was the result of prior causes. It was causally necessary, from any prior point in eternity, that it would be us making that choice in that moment.

The point being; free will is incompatible with determinism (including indeterminism for that matter.)

And that too is obviously incorrect, because at no point are we operating outside of the causal chain of events, when we decided what we would order for dinner.

Determinism, and a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and undue influence, are compatible facts. And you have not given any evidence to prove otherwise.

All of your evidence is that our choice is determined. None of your evidence excludes us from being the most meaningful and relevant cause of that choice.

It's not a matter of 'freedom from cause and effect' but a lack of the right kind of cause.

It caused the waiter to bring me the salad that I ordered, and the bill for it. What other kind of causation did you have in mind?

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".

The fact that my choice was inevitable, from any prior point in the past, includes the fact that it would be I, and no one else, that would be making that choice.

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. This makes the Big Bang an incidental cause of all events. However, it does not make the Big Bang a meaningful or relevant cause of any human event.

If a compatibilist accepts how determinism works, they must accept - by the very definition they give - that there is no choice; that every action that is taken is fixed by prior states of the system.

Quite the opposite. We accept how determinism works. It was obviously determined that I would be making a choice. So the claim that "there is no choice" is a bit of silly nonsense.

But, it is quite possible that you will never see the obvious.

 

[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.

Sorry, "if" is totally a thing.

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

Works just fine in the subjective realty of humans.

No. I don't think it's not. I think it is not relevant to deterministic reality.

 

[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.

Works just fine in the subjective realty of humans.

No. I don't think it's not. I think it is not relevant to deterministic reality.

No, because "IF" describes any object which, as a general law of it's function, when the state of one thing is switched by another between two or more states, this state determines the outcome of some secondary event.

In fact the whole idea of you being able to talk or translate anything at all necessitates that real systems of the universe be able to satisfy the structure related to the switch.

It is bonkers that anyone would ever deny that things have switching behaviors just because we happen to use a word to describe them in general.

Rather, our language grew up to describe a real thing, rather than the thing somehow springing up due to language.

 

[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.

Sorry, "if" is totally a thing.

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

Works just fine in the subjective realty of humans.

No. I don't think it's not. 'If' is not relevant to deterministic reality.

No, because "IF" describes any object which, as a general law of it's function, when the state of one thing is switched by another between two or more states, this state determines the outcome of some secondary event.

In fact the whole idea of you being able to talk or translate anything at all necessitates that (subjective) real systems of the universe be able to satisfy the structure related to the switch.

It is bonkers that anyone would ever deny that things have switching behaviors just because we happen to use a word to describe them in general.

Rather, our language grew up to describe a real thing, rather than the thing somehow springing up due to language.

You make that clear yourself. I bolded it for you.

Think of a real world where this then that is absolute and singular, not one where one this interacts with two thats. Because for 'this' to do so it would have to interact with them simultaneously and independently. Neither is possible because such would be three body problem. Either this and that-one interacts with that-two or vice a versa. Else there would be no determination.

Then think of a world where senses interpret reality. Now the senses being evolved to adequately transmit aspects of material reality sufficient for the being to not perish in the real world the being muddles on. What arises is a model whereby the being survives to reproduces and modify senses capabilities enough to provide advantage to the being over other beings. Walla, evolution. Now all that whiz bang you advertise arises and we have a 'useful' subjective reality model based on sensed data and memory advantages.

Which world includes 'if'?

Only one does. It's the real world interpreted by senses as a subjective real world.

 

[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.

Works just fine in the subjective realty of humans.

No. I don't think it's not. 'If' is not relevant to deterministic reality.

No, because "IF" describes any object which, as a general law of it's function, when the state of one thing is switched by another between two or more states, this state determines the outcome of some secondary event.

In fact the whole idea of you being able to talk or translate anything at all necessitates that (subjective) real systems of the universe be able to satisfy the structure related to the switch.

It is bonkers that anyone would ever deny that things have switching behaviors just because we happen to use a word to describe them in general.

Rather, our language grew up to describe a real thing, rather than the thing somehow springing up due to language.

You make that clear yourself. I bolded it for you.

Think of a real world where this then that is absolute and singular, not one where one this interacts with two thats. Because for this to do so would have to interact with them simultaneously and independently.

Then think of a world where senses interpret reality.

Which world includes 'if'?

Only one does. It's the real world interpreted by senses as a subjective real world.

In any world, this one, or any construction within it, of this, then that requires some form of deterministic transition of this to that.

The "then" of this  then that contains switching behaviors, states, state transitions between quantum positions.

It is not frames of a movie it is steps of a process upon the state.

And the real world, the one that is observed, has objects which switch between states.

Do you want me to call in some of the physicists on the board to shame you on how reality has, as a feature of the deterministic advance of the global state, discretely switching states of particles?

 

[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.

Sorry, "if" is totally a thing.

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

Works just fine in the subjective realty of humans.

No. I don't think it's not. 'If' is not relevant to deterministic reality.

No, because "IF" describes any object which, as a general law of it's function, when the state of one thing is switched by another between two or more states, this state determines the outcome of some secondary event.

In fact the whole idea of you being able to talk or translate anything at all necessitates that (subjective) real systems of the universe be able to satisfy the structure related to the switch.

It is bonkers that anyone would ever deny that things have switching behaviors just because we happen to use a word to describe them in general.

Rather, our language grew up to describe a real thing, rather than the thing somehow springing up due to language.

You make that clear yourself. I bolded it for you.

Think of a real world where this then that is absolute and singular, not one where one this interacts with two thats. Because for this to do so would have to interact with them simultaneously and independently.

Then think of a world where senses interpret reality.

Which world includes 'if'?

Only one does. It's the real world interpreted by senses as a subjective real world.

In any world, this one, or any construction within it, of this, then that requires some form of deterministic transition of this to that.

The "then" of this  then that contains switching behaviors, states, state transitions between quantum positions.

It is not frames of a movie it is steps of a process upon the state.

And the real world, the one that is observed, has objects which switch between states.

Do you want me to call in some of the physicists on the board to shame you on how reality has, as a feature of the deterministic advance of the global state, discretely switching states of particles?

That particles can switch states is not in dispute. That, when measured, state is defined is certain else no measurement. There is no problem here. Quantum mechanics works within determined world. It just has to be taken in to account when measurement is made.

 

[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.

Works just fine in the subjective realty of humans.

No. I don't think it's not. 'If' is not relevant to deterministic reality.

No, because "IF" describes any object which, as a general law of it's function, when the state of one thing is switched by another between two or more states, this state determines the outcome of some secondary event.

In fact the whole idea of you being able to talk or translate anything at all necessitates that (subjective) real systems of the universe be able to satisfy the structure related to the switch.

It is bonkers that anyone would ever deny that things have switching behaviors just because we happen to use a word to describe them in general.

Rather, our language grew up to describe a real thing, rather than the thing somehow springing up due to language.

You make that clear yourself. I bolded it for you.

Think of a real world where this then that is absolute and singular, not one where one this interacts with two thats. Because for this to do so would have to interact with them simultaneously and independently.

Then think of a world where senses interpret reality.

Which world includes 'if'?

Only one does. It's the real world interpreted by senses as a subjective real world.

In any world, this one, or any construction within it, of this, then that requires some form of deterministic transition of this to that.

The "then" of this  then that contains switching behaviors, states, state transitions between quantum positions.

It is not frames of a movie it is steps of a process upon the state.

And the real world, the one that is observed, has objects which switch between states.

Do you want me to call in some of the physicists on the board to shame you on how reality has, as a feature of the deterministic advance of the global state, discretely switching states of particles?

That particles can switch states is not in dispute. That, when measured, state is defined is certain else no measurement. There is no problem here. Quantum mechanics works within determined world. It just has to be taken in to account when measurement is made.

Apparently it is, because particles switching states from one into another, reliably, as a course of determinism so as one state depends on another such that one state is selected and the other is not is what is meant by "choice" and "if", not that both can happen but that both DO happen and that the way they happen makes a difference to the resolution of the system.

You really seem to not understand that switching behaviors are core of IF, not some imaginary ability "to do otherwise". It is reliable cause and effect, "IF this THEN that" that is at the heart of all human understanding, of rules based on contingent action.

Without IF, you simply know nothing.

Again, just say the word if you want me to call in some physicists who will rip you a new one for saying such ignorant shit as "there is no IF in nature" and "computers are not objects".

 

[DBT]

It's not a matter of 'freedom from cause and effect' but a lack of the right kind of cause.

What, in your view, would be the "right kind of cause" required by what you understand as 'free will'?

Regulative control. The ability to do otherwise. Without that, there is no free will. If will has no agency, it cannot make a difference. With no ability to make a difference, where is freedom of will? Nowhere to be found. Carefully crafted wording doesn't make it so.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not a matter of 'freedom from cause and effect' but a lack of the right kind of cause.

What, in your view, would be the "right kind of cause" required by what you understand as 'free will'?

Regulative control. The ability to do otherwise. Without that, there is no free will. If will has no agency, it cannot make a difference. With no ability to make a difference, where is freedom of will? Nowhere to be found. Carefully crafted wording doesn't make it so.

Make a difference against what? Make a difference from what?

You absolutely do now and have always had the power to make a difference in terms of not slavishly doing every damn thing that bubbles up from your subconscious in the shape of a will. The difference is not going to change the past or even the future. It just means that you were always going to get that clue.

I doubt you ever will, but...

You can say to yourself "no, I'm not doing that". This is a power humans have. Or at least a power that Marvin and I have...

For anyone who lacks this power, do your best to let the rest of us know so that your wills may be constrained lest you do something stupid and awful just because you thought of it.

 

[The AntiChris]

It's not a matter of 'freedom from cause and effect' but a lack of the right kind of cause.

What, in your view, would be the "right kind of cause" required by what you understand as 'free will'?

Regulative control. The ability to do otherwise. Without that, there is no free will. If will has no agency, it cannot make a difference. With no ability to make a difference, where is freedom of will? Nowhere to be found. Carefully crafted wording doesn't make it so.

But what kind of cause is "regulative control"?

You've said that neither determinism nor indeterminism provides regulative control, so I assume you think of regulative control as a magical ability that cannot exist.

Why would you define free will in this exclusive way? What's the source of your belief that the use of the term 'free will' in any and all circumstances always implies the existence of a magical ability?

 

[DBT]

I argue that free will is incompatible with determinism. That determinism doesn't allow the necessary regulative control to qualify as free will.

You are obviously incorrect, because we, ourselves, by our own brain, deterministically regulates what we will choose for dinner.

This fact remains empirically true, regardless of the other facts, such as the fact that who and what we were in that moment was the result of prior causes. It was causally necessary, from any prior point in eternity, that it would be us making that choice in that moment.

Not so. Determinism is not regulation. Regulation implies the ability to have done otherwise. Determinism means that events progress as determined, present state is fixed by prior state, which fixes the future state of the system.

Nothing is being regulated. There is no 'I'll go with this option than that that option.'

The brain as a deterministic system responds according to its state and condition. The outcome being determined before the event.

Refer to the terms of your own definition of determinism

The point being; free will is incompatible with determinism (including indeterminism for that matter.)

And that too is obviously incorrect, because at no point are we operating outside of the causal chain of events, when we decided what we would order for dinner.

Nobody has said anything about operating outside of the causal web (not chain because events have many causal inputs)

What you have for dinner is fixed by the very same web of causality that brings you to the restaurant to place the order that was determined, not freely chosen as if you had an alternative.

Determinism allows no alternatives. Whatever happens must necessarily happen. One state of the system evolves into the next and the next, fixed and unchangable.

That's how determinism works.

Your own definition entails it.

Determinism, and a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and undue influence, are compatible facts. And you have not given any evidence to prove otherwise.

All of your evidence is that our choice is determined. None of your evidence excludes us from being the most meaningful and relevant cause of that choice.

Our 'choices' being determined have no alternatives, therefore are not freely-willed choices. They are actions proceeding as determined.

This is entailed by your definition.

It's not a matter of 'freedom from cause and effect' but a lack of the right kind of cause.

It caused the waiter to bring me the salad that I ordered, and the bill for it. What other kind of causation did you have in mind?

The ability to do otherwise;

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 happens 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

Freedom of will demands that the agent could have acted otherwise.

Determinism negates the possibility of 'could have acted otherwise'

There is no 'could have done otherwise' within a deterministic system, where all actions are fixed by the prior states of the system.

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

There is no causeless cause within a determined system. Cause is itself caused. Effect is cause, cause is effect as the system evolves, prior state evolving into current state, evolving into future state.

The system progresses without deviation. Cause and effect is too simplistic. There is no control - it is this/then that

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".

Nope, the action evolved inevitably and inexorably from prior states of the system. Both the person and the brain as an information processor are aspects of the system as a whole and can do nothing that is not fixed by prior states of the system.

''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 fact that my choice was inevitable, from any prior point in the past, includes the fact that it would be I, and no one else, that would be making that choice.

If inevitable, it was never a choice. Everything within the system, including us, proceeds as determined, not chosen. If it had to proceed as determined before you entered the restaurant, before you were even born, the choice was never yours to make.

You carry out your actions as determined, no coercion, undue influence or free will.

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. This makes the Big Bang an incidental cause of all events. However, it does not make the Big Bang a meaningful or relevant cause of any human event.

As all events proceed as determined, all the prior states of the system bring you to that specific place and that specific point in time to perform that secific action.

Does that sound like free will?

If a compatibilist accepts how determinism works, they must accept - by the very definition they give - that there is no choice; that every action that is taken is fixed by prior states of the system.

Quite the opposite. We accept how determinism works. It was obviously determined that I would be making a choice. So the claim that "there is no choice" is a bit of silly nonsense.

But, it is quite possible that you will never see the obvious.

If the action is fixed by all the prior states of the system, the action is clearly not a choice. Choice implies the possibility of doing otherwise. Determinism permits no doing otherwise.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not a matter of 'freedom from cause and effect' but a lack of the right kind of cause.

What, in your view, would be the "right kind of cause" required by what you understand as 'free will'?

Regulative control. The ability to do otherwise. Without that, there is no free will. If will has no agency, it cannot make a difference. With no ability to make a difference, where is freedom of will? Nowhere to be found. Carefully crafted wording doesn't make it so.

But what kind of cause is "regulative control"?

You've said that neither determinism nor indeterminism provides regulative control, so I assume you think of regulative control as a magical ability that cannot exist.

Why would you define free will in this exclusive way? What's the source of your belief that the use of the term 'free will' in any and all circumstances always implies the existence of a magical ability?

Hey now, not every ability described as "magic" is non-existent.

Just the crazy one DBT* is on about, thanks.

There's a "fun" discussion on magic, if you count Steve shitting on the topic "fun", wherein I argue that the things commonly discussed and accepted as "magic" by those who use such techniques and language without qualms or reservation often operate by real material phenomena that is  already fairly widely understood by science under different terminology and structure of application.

Further, many things  dismissed as "magic" nonetheless have such fairly well phenomena acknowledged by science that well explain the effects.

For the most part, "magic" just a system of invoking various mental states, phenomena, and occasionally causing major psychological change**.

For example DBT seems to think free will is this "non-existent sort of magic", when you, Marvin, Pood, and I all can acknowledge it's just systems of chained, complex switching behaviors systems which then operate in concert as algorithms, often with aspects which we reference as "requirements" which are just specific applications of a switching behavior.

Between these real functions of nature operating in concert, we observe a regular phenomena of "wills" with identifiable "freedom value" as respects the "requirement".

*Also, look how he waited for your post before responding to Marvin's. Like, I just saw yours pop up, was like "oh, I want to participate with that, I bet DBT will have seen a post after (current local time when he tends to post), and post immediately after it so as to spam away any actual non-boorish content" and look at that, he did.

**Sometimes, this change is to implant contradictions and nonsense into one's own mind, create psychological breaks, to even create personality conditions such as separating subconscious process into formal personalities. It can be really fucking dangerous.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Determinism is not regulation.

Determinism includes every functioning causal mechanism. It includes the force of gravity. It includes the process by which our microwave oven cooks our meals. It includes us getting up and walking to move our body from one place to another. It includes us deciding for ourselves whether to order the steak or the salad from the restaurant menu.

And it must include them all, without exception, because determinism itself is not a functioning causal mechanism. Determinism itself never determines anything. Only the actual objects and forces that make up the physical universe, through their own natural interactions, cause any events to happen.

As to regulation: that which decides what will happen next is exercising regulative control. Determinism, which never decides anything, because it lacks a functioning brain, never exercises regulative control. So, that leaves it to us, and all other intelligent species, to exercise regulative control.

Regulation implies the ability to have done otherwise.

We have the ability to have done otherwise. Watch: I just raised my right hand. Watch again: I just raised my left hand.

We have just establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that I have the ability to raise my right hand and that I also have the ability to raise my left.

Now, watch one more time: I didn't raise either hand! Do you conclude from this that I have somehow magically lost the ability to raise either hand?

This is an empirical demonstration of "the ability to do otherwise".

All of these hand raisings have been consistent with determinism. We presume that each was causally necessary from any prior point in time.

Therefore, we must conclude that determinism does not in any way exclude "the ability to do otherwise", because there we have determinism and there we have the ability to do otherwise, in the same time and place.

Every philosopher, every scientist, every academic institution, who has asserted that determinism implies that there is no ability to do otherwise, is incorrect. Look at the logic, and see it for yourself.

There is no 'I'll go with this option than that that option.'

It is astounding that you, or anyone else, would make such a claim in the face of the objective fact, that "I'll go with this option rather than that option" happens every day!

The brain as a deterministic system responds according to its state and condition. The outcome being determined before the event.

The outcome is being caused by the brain's events, therefore the outcome cannot be caused before the brain shows up and runs the physical processes that produce that event.

An event can be predicted in advance, but it can never be caused in advance.

Nobody has said anything about operating outside of the causal web (not chain because events have many causal inputs)

But you have! You continually deny that the causal web includes us deciding for ourselves what we will order for dinner. So, it is you that is evicting us from the causal web, not me. I'm just pointing out the significant role we play within total scheme of causation. You continually deny us that role, despite the empirical evidence of us simply choosing what we will order for dinner.

What you have for dinner is fixed by the very same web of causality that brings you to the restaurant to place the order that was determined, not freely chosen as if you had an alternative.

And now you wish to make the "web of causality" into an intelligent agent that leads us, blindfolded, to the restaurant and orders our dinner for us?

Hard determinists always want it to be something other than us that is making the decisions. But neuroscience repeatedly confirms that making decisions is a function of our own brains.

So, again, you are denying empirical reality in favor of some delusional view of how things actually work.

If inevitable, it was never a choice.

Unless, of course, it was inevitable that there would be a choice and that we would make that choice!

The incompatibilist position appears to be filled with false claims, paradoxical notions, and a lot of silly nonsense. It is time that it be abandoned by all reasonable people.

 

[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.

Sorry, "if" is totally a thing.

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

Works just fine in the subjective realty of humans.

No. I don't think it's not. 'If' is not relevant to deterministic reality.

No, because "IF" describes any object which, as a general law of it's function, when the state of one thing is switched by another between two or more states, this state determines the outcome of some secondary event.

In fact the whole idea of you being able to talk or translate anything at all necessitates that (subjective) real systems of the universe be able to satisfy the structure related to the switch.

It is bonkers that anyone would ever deny that things have switching behaviors just because we happen to use a word to describe them in general.

Rather, our language grew up to describe a real thing, rather than the thing somehow springing up due to language.

You make that clear yourself. I bolded it for you.

Think of a real world where this then that is absolute and singular, not one where one this interacts with two thats. Because for this to do so would have to interact with them simultaneously and independently.

Then think of a world where senses interpret reality.

Which world includes 'if'?

Only one does. It's the real world interpreted by senses as a subjective real world.

In any world, this one, or any construction within it, of this, then that requires some form of deterministic transition of this to that.

The "then" of this  then that contains switching behaviors, states, state transitions between quantum positions.

It is not frames of a movie it is steps of a process upon the state.

And the real world, the one that is observed, has objects which switch between states.

Do you want me to call in some of the physicists on the board to shame you on how reality has, as a feature of the deterministic advance of the global state, discretely switching states of particles?

That particles can switch states is not in dispute. That, when measured, state is defined is certain else no measurement. There is no problem here. Quantum mechanics works within determined world. It just has to be taken in to account when measurement is made.

Apparently it is, because particles switching states from one into another, reliably, as a course of determinism so as one state depends on another such that one state is selected and the other is not is what is meant by "choice" and "if", not that both can happen but that both DO happen and that the way they happen makes a difference to the resolution of the system.

You really seem to not understand that switching behaviors are core of IF, not some imaginary ability "to do otherwise". It is reliable cause and effect, "IF this THEN that" that is at the heart of all human understanding, of rules based on contingent action.

Without IF, you simply know nothing.

Again, just say the word if you want me to call in some physicists who will rip you a new one for saying such ignorant shit as "there is no IF in nature" and "computers are not objects".

It really doesn't matter since whatever the state the result is fixed. Determined enough for me. Expectation isn't the issue. Consistent outcome given the state is the definer.

 

[Jarhyn]

Consistent outcome given the state is the definer

So "if state then outcome". I would go so far as to say IFF, even, is implied by your use of the word 'given'.

Good to have cleared that up, and to see you agree with me.

Welcome to compatibilism.

 

[DBT]

Determinism is not regulation.

Determinism includes every functioning causal mechanism. It includes the force of gravity. It includes the process by which our microwave oven cooks our meals. It includes us getting up and walking to move our body from one place to another. It includes us deciding for ourselves whether to order the steak or the salad from the restaurant menu.

Gravity, strong force, weak force, etc, don't regulate, they are attributes of the system. Microwave ovens don't regulate the system, they are states and actions of the system fixed by prior states and actions of the system.

The actors play out their parts with no deviation.

The brain doesn't regulate the state of the system, the state of the brain is fixed by prior states of the system.

Nothing is regulated in a deterministic world. Everything, however complex the system, is set by prior states of the system.

If decisions entail the possibility of taking a different action, there are no decisions within a determined world. Everything evolves from prior to current and future states of the system with no deviation.

And it must include them all, without exception, because determinism itself is not a functioning causal mechanism. Determinism itself never determines anything. Only the actual objects and forces that make up the physical universe, through their own natural interactions, cause any events to happen.

As to regulation: that which decides what will happen next is exercising regulative control. Determinism, which never decides anything, because it lacks a functioning brain, never exercises regulative control. So, that leaves it to us, and all other intelligent species, to exercise regulative control.

But nothing is decided in the sense that something else could have happened or been decided. Nothing else can happen, just the evolution from prior to current states of the system.

There are no independent, individual decisions or actions.

Regulation implies the ability to have done otherwise.

We have the ability to have done otherwise. Watch: I just raised my right hand. Watch again: I just raised my left hand.

No, that action is prompted by the challenge to your belief in free will. Without that challenge or prompt, your brain would not have performed the action.

The state of the system progressed from challenge to reaction; 'I shall raise my left arm to prove I have free will.''

The motor action initiated before you experienced the conscious thought.

Input, unconscious processing, conscious response. You know how it works.

We have just establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that I have the ability to raise my right hand and that I also have the ability to raise my left.

Now, watch one more time: I didn't raise either hand! Do you conclude from this that I have somehow magically lost the ability to raise either hand?

This is an empirical demonstration of "the ability to do otherwise".

Nope. A flawed argument and example for the reason described above and supported by numerous pages from neuroscience;


The personal narrative.

''For example, in one study, researchers recorded the brain activity of participants when they raised their arm intentionally, when it was lifted by a pulley, and when it moved in response to a hypnotic suggestion that it was being lifted by a pulley.

Similar areas of the brain were active during the involuntary and the suggested “alien” movement, while brain activity for the intentional action was different. So, hypnotic suggestion can be seen as a means of communicating an idea or belief that, when accepted, has the power to alter a person’s perceptions or behaviour.''

''All this may leave one wondering where our thoughts, emotions and perceptions actually come from. We argue that the contents of consciousness are a subset of the experiences, emotions, thoughts and beliefs that are generated by non-conscious processes within our brains.''

Every philosopher, every scientist, every academic institution, who has asserted that determinism implies that there is no ability to do otherwise, is incorrect. Look at the logic, and see it for yourself.

The logic is flawed for the reasons described.

You yourself gave a definition of determinism that denies the ability to do otherwise. That all events proceed without deviation.

That all events proceed 'without deviation' denies all possibility of doing otherwise. Doing otherwise is a deviation.

''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.

There is no 'I'll go with this option rather than that option.'

It is astounding that you, or anyone else, would make such a claim in the face of the objective fact, that "I'll go with this option rather than that option" happens every day!

It's entailed in the given definition of determinism. There is no way around it. Saying "I'll go with this option rather than that option'' is a reflection of limited knowledge of the state and progression of events within the system.

We act in response to events as we perceive them.

The brain as a deterministic system responds according to its state and condition. The outcome being determined before the event.

The outcome is being caused by the brain's events, therefore the outcome cannot be caused before the brain shows up and runs the physical processes that produce that event.

The system evolves deterministically, things come into existence according to prior states of the system and evolve ever after, life forms, cells, multicellular, dinosaurs, mammals, man typing on computer.....

It's entailed in your own definition, may I remind you.

An event can be predicted in advance, but it can never be caused in advance.

The system evolves deterministically, no deviations.

Nobody has said anything about operating outside of the causal web (not chain because events have many causal inputs)

But you have! You continually deny that the causal web includes us deciding for ourselves what we will order for dinner. So, it is you that is evicting us from the causal web, not me. I'm just pointing out the significant role we play within total scheme of causation. You continually deny us that role, despite the empirical evidence of us simply choosing what we will order for dinner.

That's not it. The causal web unfolds as determined. We are aspects of the system, not separate from it.

Which is why, if the world is deterministic, we have no independent agency or action, and cannot have the ability to do otherwise, ie, something that is not determined, that is not fixed by prior states of the system.

What you have for dinner is fixed by the very same web of causality that brings you to the restaurant to place the order that was determined, not freely chosen as if you had an alternative.

And now you wish to make the "web of causality" into an intelligent agent that leads us, blindfolded, to the restaurant and orders our dinner for us?

Hard determinists always want it to be something other than us that is making the decisions. But neuroscience repeatedly confirms that making decisions is a function of our own brains.

So, again, you are denying empirical reality in favor of some delusional view of how things actually work.

That's not what I am saying. Determinism entails that all actions are fixed by prior states of the system. If the world is determined, we are not being led or forced or coerced, events (including us) evolve as determined. Neither chosen or willed, events must proceed without deviation.

Again, it's entailed in your own definition. The very same definition I use, excluding 'free will'' of course.

If inevitable, it was never a choice.

Unless, of course, it was inevitable that there would be a choice and that we would make that choice!

The incompatibilist position appears to be filled with false claims, paradoxical notions, and a lot of silly nonsense. It is time that it be abandoned by all reasonable people.

There cannot be a realizable alternative action within a determined system, therefore choice is an illusion caused by having limited information about the system. If you had perfect knowledge of the state of the system, you could predict someone's actions without error as they inevitably play their role in life.

That is the nature of determinism.


What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

 

[Jarhyn]

Gravity, strong force, weak force, etc, don't regulate, they are attributes of the system

A false dichotomy. How quaint.

These forces describe causal if/then relationships between the systemic fields: they describe interactions which regulate the state based on the previous state.

The way they are attributes of the system is that they describe the operator of 'then' in 'if this then that' which brings us from 'this', and only IF of this.

Again, like FDI you are attempting to hide the parts of 'if this then that' which define the process of the deterministic resolution.