Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Marvin Edwards]

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

A person's brain makes decisions that regulate the person's deliberate actions. The prior states of the universe do not get to participate in these decisions that the person makes. The belief that the universe is acting as a whole to make my decisions for me is superstitious nonsense.

Everything, however complex the system, is set by prior states of the system.

No problem. It is my brain's own physical processes that create my mental experiences as I consider whether I will order the steak or the salad for dinner. And because this all happens while free of coercion and undue influence, it is a freely chosen "I will have the salad for dinner".

The mental experiences, which accurately reflect the reasons behind my choice, include recalling that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and recalling that I had a double cheeseburger for lunch. Thus, it is my own goals and my own reasons that caused me to choose the salad instead of the steak.

If decisions entail the possibility of taking a different action, there are no decisions within a determined world.

Decisions do entail the possibility of taking a different action. However, the possibility of taking a different action never entails the necessity of taking that action.

And that is how necessity and possibility are compatible notions.

Possibilities never require necessity. Necessity never rules out any possibilities.

It is possible for me to order each and every item on the restaurant menu.
It is necessary for me to order only one.

Under the exact same circumstances:
1. There are many things that I could have ordered.
2. There is only one thing that I would have ordered.

Everything evolves from prior to current and future states of the system with no deviation.

I think we've established that point of agreement. Our dispute has to do with what this logical fact implies in the real world.

My point is simple: Within this system that proceeds without deviation, we will still imagine possibilities and we will still make choices. There will still be things that we will choose to do, and there will still be things that we could have chosen, even though we never would have chosen them under those circumstances.

Why should we believe me rather than you? Because we have seen these things happening in objective reality with our own eyes. People walk into a restaurant. They browse the menu, imagining what it would be like to have different items for dinner. And then they place their order with the waiter. The waiter brings them their dinner and also their bill, which they are responsible to pay.

There are no independent, individual decisions or actions.

And yet we see them happening every day. The fact that they are happening inevitably doesn't change the fact that they are actually happening. Yet, you make the false claim that they are not actually happening.

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.''

Every action has a cause. Every choice we make, to do anything at all, is reliably caused by one thing or another. When the cause happens to be our own goals and our own reasoning, our own thoughts and our own feelings, then these causes of our choices are us. And if we are free to make these choices for ourselves (free of coercion and undue influence) then it is our own freely chosen will.

The motor action initiated before you experienced the conscious thought. Input, unconscious processing, conscious response. You know how it works.

No. That's not how it works. First, I had the conscious thoughts about the hand-raising demonstration. Then I consciously wrote "Watch this:" and then I raised my hand. The intent was already conscious before the motor activity began. That's when I observed myself raising my hand.

Now, within this sequence, at the point just before I raised my hand, we may say that the motor activity began before I was aware that I was actually raising my hand. I believe that is the delay you're speaking of. That would be the point in the experiments you cited where motor activity preceded awareness of intent, and where the awareness of intent was manipulated by transcranial magnetic stimulation (or other methods) was used to give the sense of movement without actual movement.

But the plan to raise one hand, and then the other, was already hatched well ahead of any actual hand raising. It was that intention that was driving the operation.

The point of the hand-raising was to demonstrate that an ability continues even if we choose not to exercise it. The ability to raise my right hand does not disappear when I am no longer raising it. I still can raise my right hand even if I never choose to do so. And I could have ordered the steak, even though I chose to order the salad instead.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

... which is why I remain a happy determinist. 'If' isn't part of the paradigm. There is cause then effect.

'If' requires options. Cause (state) is singular. Objects exist.

You need something other than cause to construct an if. 'If cause' is identical to 'cause' in that either signals cause. Ergo 'if' is irrelevant. Only an object can be 'cause'. Object equals cause or effect. It's ludicrous to suggest 'if effect', consequent absent effect there is no cause. So no to 'if' cause as well.

 

[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.

... which is why I remain a happy determinist. 'If' isn't part of the paradigm. There is cause then effect.

'If' requires options. Cause (state) is singular.

You need something other than cause to construct an if. 'If cause' is identical to 'cause' in that either signals cause. Ergo if is irrelevant. Only an object can be 'cause'. Object equals cause or effect. It's ludicrous to suggest 'if effect', consequent absent effect there is no cause. So no to if cause as well.

There is cause, then effect, IFF there is cause. "Then" as an operator both implies cause and an operation on that cause, specific to the cause and general across the a set of characteristic inputs.

Physics operates not with just so fairy mechanics but with general, structured, scalable rules.

Those rules operate on a state. Only if state then next state, and next state depends on state.

That is how physics is described. "If this is the precedent, then this is the result".

 

[fromderinside]

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.

... which is why I remain a happy determinist. 'If' isn't part of the paradigm. There is cause then effect.

'If' requires options. Cause (state) is singular.

You need something other than cause to construct an if. 'If cause' is identical to 'cause' in that either signals cause. Ergo if is irrelevant. Only an object can be 'cause'. Object equals cause or effect. It's ludicrous to suggest 'if effect', consequent absent effect there is no cause. So no to if cause as well.

There is cause, then effect, IFF there is cause. "Then" as an operator both implies cause and an operation on that cause, specific to the cause and general across the a set of characteristic inputs.

Physics operates not with just so fairy mechanics but with general, structured, scalable rules.

Those rules operate on a state. Only if state then next state, and next state depends on state.

That is how physics is described. "If this is the precedent, then this is the result".

I prefer to presume existence. So drop the if. IFF is if and only if or which can be said to assume existence thus making introductory if meaningless.

So when object either cause or effect which I discussed above. You go for unnecessary structure producing unnecessary conditions.

 

[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.

... which is why I remain a happy determinist. 'If' isn't part of the paradigm. There is cause then effect.

'If' requires options. Cause (state) is singular.

You need something other than cause to construct an if. 'If cause' is identical to 'cause' in that either signals cause. Ergo if is irrelevant. Only an object can be 'cause'. Object equals cause or effect. It's ludicrous to suggest 'if effect', consequent absent effect there is no cause. So no to if cause as well.

There is cause, then effect, IFF there is cause. "Then" as an operator both implies cause and an operation on that cause, specific to the cause and general across the a set of characteristic inputs.

Physics operates not with just so fairy mechanics but with general, structured, scalable rules.

Those rules operate on a state. Only if state then next state, and next state depends on state.

That is how physics is described. "If this is the precedent, then this is the result".

I prefer to presume existence. So drop the if. IFF is if and only if or which can be said to assume existence thus making introductory if meaningless.

So when object either cause or effect which I discussed above. You go for unnecessary structure producing unnecessary conditions.

If you presume no if, you propose just-so determinism in a completely unpredictable, indescribable, unknowable sort.

As has been observed, the universe has structural formal rules that may be understood.

The rules are shaped "if this, then that".

It's not my fault you can't recognize that contingent action is built into the rules, though it is entirely your fault you keep trying to bury the fact that the universe operates on rules of contingent action, perhaps even just one singular very complicated rule.

Even so, there's an IF in there, owing to the regularity of these effects.

Again, physics has regular, structured processes, it is not "unknowable fairy mechanics"

 

[DBT]

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

A person's brain makes decisions that regulate the person's deliberate actions. The prior states of the universe do not get to participate in these decisions that the person makes. The belief that the universe is acting as a whole to make my decisions for me is superstitious nonsense.

''Decision'' implies realizable alternatives, the ability to have done otherwise, to have chosen otherwise. There are no decisions within a determined system. All events evolve from prior states to current states to future states with absolutely no deviation.

That is entailed in your own definition.

Events that unfold without deviation are not deliberated on or decided, it is this, then that.

The brain as an aspect of the system is not exempt from the process, the state of each and every cell is fixed by prior states of the system.

There are no deviations.

Everything, however complex the system, is set by prior states of the system.

No problem. It is my brain's own physical processes that create my mental experiences as I consider whether I will order the steak or the salad for dinner. And because this all happens while free of coercion and undue influence, it is a freely chosen "I will have the salad for dinner".

But it's not just your brain that acts. It is the whole system that brings you to this time and place to carry out precisely this action and no other,

Your brain evolves deterministically, prior state to current and future state, without deviation, in relation to the system at large.

My brain did it, therefore free will does not work.

The mental experiences, which accurately reflect the reasons behind my choice, include recalling that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and recalling that I had a double cheeseburger for lunch. Thus, it is my own goals and my own reasons that caused me to choose the salad instead of the steak.

Your goals are not freely chosen. They form in relation to your biology (not chosen), social and economic and personal circumstances (not chosen) and the events that brought you to this time and place to carry out the only possible action you have in this moment in time, no alternatives in this instance. Every instance is the same; this, then that.

That's 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.''

If decisions entail the possibility of taking a different action, there are no decisions within a determined world.

Decisions do entail the possibility of taking a different action. However, the possibility of taking a different action never entails the necessity of taking that action.

Determinism negates all possibility of taking a different action.

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.''

And that is how necessity and possibility are compatible notions.

Possibilities never require necessity. Necessity never rules out any possibilities.

It is possible for me to order each and every item on the restaurant menu.
It is necessary for me to order only one.

Under the exact same circumstances:
1. There are many things that I could have ordered.
2. There is only one thing that I would have ordered.

There are no other things that you could have ordered in any given instance in time. Each and every customer has their own state and condition and action to perform.

The list of options on the menu are there to cater for a range of customers.

If determinism is true, the 'choice' of each and every customer is fixed, one customer must necessarily take Lasagna, the other must necessarily order Steak, etc. No deviation. That's determinism

Everything evolves from prior to current and future states of the system with no deviation.

I think we've established that point of agreement. Our dispute has to do with what this logical fact implies in the real world.

My point is simple: Within this system that proceeds without deviation, we will still imagine possibilities and we will still make choices. There will still be things that we will choose to do, and there will still be things that we could have chosen, even though we never would have chosen them under those circumstances.

What we imagine is also determined by information exchange between the environment and the brain. Information is acquired, processed, ruminations, imaginings and thoughts formed and a necessitated action taken.

The thoughts and imaginings and the consequent action are of course fixed by prior states of the system.

There is no way around it. If the world is determined, there are no loopholes, the system proceeds as determined, not chosen or freely willed.

No. That's not how it works. First, I had the conscious thoughts about the hand-raising demonstration. Then I consciously wrote "Watch this:" and then I raised my hand. The intent was already conscious before the motor activity began. That's when I observed myself raising my hand.

The hand raising exercise has antecedents. The challenge to your belief in free will prompted a response.

A response that would not have happened had there been no challenge to your belief.

The brain first acquires information and processes that information before forming and carrying out the given response.

Your explanation ignores the underlying means and mechanisms of your response.

Unconscious information acquisition and processing must precede and determine conscious thought and action.

That's just how it works.

Now, within this sequence, at the point just before I raised my hand, we may say that the motor activity began before I was aware that I was actually raising my hand. I believe that is the delay you're speaking of. That would be the point in the experiments you cited where motor activity preceded awareness of intent, and where the awareness of intent was manipulated by transcranial magnetic stimulation (or other methods) was used to give the sense of movement without actual movement.

The point being: that whatever you think, feel or do is determined before it happens.

But the plan to raise one hand, and then the other, was already hatched well ahead of any actual hand raising. It was that intention that was driving the operation.

The intent is determined by input - the challenge to your belief - and brain state in that moment in time, no deviation. Different circumstances produce different outcomes and action.... yet all fixed by prior states of the system.

The point of the hand-raising was to demonstrate that an ability continues even if we choose not to exercise it. The ability to raise my right hand does not disappear when I am no longer raising it. I still can raise my right hand even if I never choose to do so. And I could have ordered the steak, even though I chose to order the salad instead.

Ability is determined by the neural architecture of a brain (state and condition, processing power) and information inputs.

Ask ten people an ambiguous question and you'll likely get ten different answers, each reply composed according to the mental state of the listener rather than the question asked.

 

[The AntiChris]

There are no decisions within a determined system.

This is a semantic dispute.

DBT believes every use of the word "decision" is mistaken in a deterministic universe.

One wonders how DBT believes we attribute meaning to words.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

There are no decisions within a determined system.

This is a semantic dispute.

DBT believes every use of the word "decision" is mistaken in a deterministic universe.

One wonders how DBT believes we attribute meaning to words.

I like to call it "The Incredible Shrinking Dictionary" (after a couple of old sci-fi movies). First "freedom" disappears, then "free will", then "responsibility", and eventually "self". Then, after self is gone, there is no one left to need a dictionary. Poof! It's gone.

 

[Jarhyn]

In math, when describing a mathematical operation there are two parts.

These essentially boil down to the object(s) and the rules governing them.

Rules are of the form "if this, then that", not merely of laws of physics but in terms of laws of math.

All structural descriptions of all systems rely on this form IF this THEN that in all theory of operation, and in all regular systemic operation. It is the very heart of this idea of "understanding", this axiom which we generally accept that things may be known.

These are in fact the very most fundamental parts of the smallest operation of logic possible. It is the basis not just by which we describe things but the basis by which we actually make those descriptions useful.

It is one of the very first things the computer scientist learns when learning how to build logical systems, particularly generating truth tables.

For the uninitiated, truth that are tables of the extant, objective "if-then" relationships within a system excluding a set of boundary conditions.

I'm going to skip past some stuff about activation functions and boundary conditions and places where we don't quite define what happens because while something will happen, that "something" is the result of chaos more than anything else, so is computationally expensive to predict. We leave it out of the equation because it is in fact avoided by the way the object gets built in the end.

AND is a simple transistor, a resistor, and some wires.

AND is also, in some cases, a few pipes, some ball bearings, and a pressure operated piston valve.

There are in fact many structures in our universe that operate, in large or even sometimes very small scales, as AND.

First, all the stuff that operates on it is treated in groups based on how the fields of the system constrain the motion of it's parts. Let's look at pipes instead of wires because big scales are easier.

There's fluid, but the fluid is constrained during this discussion by the pipes.

There is metal, and this metal is in place separated by small gaps of air or grease or water in particular ways, of pinched lines to an open drain.

The overall result as pertains fluid pressure at the output pipe is that pressure will be higher than some amount only when pressure at two points is higher than some pair of amounts, wherein A=C+(pulldown_loss) if B>activation_threshold, which in the binary domains of the function evaluates to :

A B C
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 1 0
1 1 1

This is a truth about the system, a reliable function by reliable and regular laws of physics demanded by determinism.

Uttering simple sentences to speak and communicate acknowledges the reality of such structures. Relying on the computer keys to produce the letters you wish when you type them is tacit acceptance of such!

Having any expectations of any thing at all, even the expectation that the laws of physics continue to be regular, accepts "if".

In some ways this is an axiom, but it is is foundation to any discussion of knowledge at all!

So, DBT, FDI, go ahead and pretend you are anything but something predicated on the reliable function of regular systems, and we will all still see how nonsensical you are being.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

''Decision'' implies realizable alternatives, the ability to have done otherwise, to have chosen otherwise. There are no decisions within a determined system. All events evolve from prior states to current states to future states with absolutely no deviation.

Decision making is an actual event that takes place in physical reality. The claim that it does not happen is repeatedly falsified by every occurrence of this event within the causal chain.

Events that unfold without deviation are not deliberated on or decided, it is this, then that.

It is "this", deliberation, and then it is "that", decided. There is nothing about determinism that eliminates any event from the causal chain!

There are no deviations.

Correct. There is no deviation from the sequence (1) deliberation upon the many options on the restaurant menu, and then (2) our dinner order is decided. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

It is my brain's own physical processes that create my mental experiences as I consider whether I will order the steak or the salad for dinner. And because this all happens while free of coercion and undue influence, it is a freely chosen "I will have the salad for dinner".

It is the whole system that brings you to this time and place to carry out precisely this action and no other,

And, what exactly is the whole universe's interest in whether I order the salad or the steak? The decision is important to me, because I'm the one that decided to have bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. But I would suggest to you that my interest in my health is not shared by the universe. I'm sure that the universe does not really care one way or the other.

My brain did it, therefore free will does not work.

It works for me. I must assume that the only reason it does not work for you is that your view of reality is distorted by the paradoxical definition of free will. Stop using the paradoxical definition, and everything will be clear once more.

Your goals are not freely chosen. They form in relation to your biology (not chosen), social and economic and personal circumstances (not chosen) and the events that brought you to this time and place to carry out the only possible action you have in this moment in time, no alternatives in this instance. Every instance is the same; this, then that.

A list of the things I did not choose, however long, never eliminates a single item from the list of things that I do choose. (I'm sure there's a named logical fallacy out there for this, but I don't keep track of them).

That's the nature of determinism.

Determinism is the reasonable belief (-ism) that all events are reliably caused by prior events. This does not rule out any events. In fact, it must include all events to be a correct belief. One such event is the operation of choosing, where multiple realizable options are considered, evaluated, and, based on that evaluation, a single option is selected and realized.

To pretend that choosing doesn't happen in the real world would be delusional. It obviously happens. We observe ourselves making choices. We observe others making choices. And, we also observe that these choices are reliably caused by a person's own thoughts and feelings about their options. So, choosing is a deterministic operation.

There is no empirical evidence that choosing does not happen. There is only the figurative statement that, "since every choice is causally necessary, it is AS IF choosing was not happening." But, like all figurative statements, it is literally false, because we empirically observe choosing actually happening in the real world.

Within this system that proceeds without deviation, we will still imagine possibilities and we will still make choices. There will still be things that we will choose to do, and there will still be things that we could have chosen, even though we never would have chosen them under those circumstances.

What we imagine is also determined by information exchange between the environment and the brain. Information is acquired, processed, ruminations, imaginings and thoughts formed and a necessitated action taken.

In the environment, the restaurant, we encounter the menu. We acquire information from the menu, which includes all of our realizable possibilities. We compare these options to our own goals, and by our own reasoning select the best choice for dinner. This is a causally necessary event called "choosing".

The thoughts and imaginings and the consequent action are of course fixed by prior states of the system.

The prior state of the system was our entering the restaurant, sitting at the table, and picking up the menu. Every event the reliable result of prior events. You know, that determinism thing. These prior states of the system insured that what happened next would be our thoughts and imaginings about our dinner options. Those prior thoughts and imaginings insured that we would choose the salad, even though we could have chosen the steak.

There is no way around it. If the world is determined, there are no loopholes, the system proceeds as determined,

And, it was likewise determined, without any loopholes, that we would be making this choice for ourselves, while free of coercion and undue influence. Thus, it was of our own free will, by causal necessity, with no loopholes.

Ability is determined by the neural architecture of a brain (state and condition, processing power) and information inputs.

And the ability of our neural architecture to make decisions is soundly confirmed by neuroscience. That ability does not disappear when we are doing other things. This ability includes both our ability to choose the steak and our ability to choose the salad. Our ability to choose the steak remains consistent before, during, and after choosing the salad.

That's what an "ability" is. It is something we "can" do. It is not necessary that we actually do it at any given place and time.

The fact that we necessarily chose the salad does not contradict the fact that we could have chosen the steak instead. Believing that we could not have chosen the steak is a false belief.

 

[fromderinside]

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'.

... which is why I remain a happy determinist. 'If' isn't part of the paradigm. There is cause then effect.

'If' requires options. Cause (state) is singular.

You need something other than cause to construct an if. 'If cause' is identical to 'cause' in that either signals cause. Ergo if is irrelevant. Only an object can be 'cause'. Object equals cause or effect. It's ludicrous to suggest 'if effect', consequent absent effect there is no cause. So no to if cause as well.

There is cause, then effect, IFF there is cause. "Then" as an operator both implies cause and an operation on that cause, specific to the cause and general across the a set of characteristic inputs.

Physics operates not with just so fairy mechanics but with general, structured, scalable rules.

Those rules operate on a state. Only if state then next state, and next state depends on state.

That is how physics is described. "If this is the precedent, then this is the result".

I prefer to presume existence. So drop the if. IFF is if and only if or which can be said to assume existence thus making introductory if meaningless.

So when object either cause or effect which I discussed above. You go for unnecessary structure producing unnecessary conditions.

Again, physics has regular, structured processes, it is not "unknowable fairy mechanics"

I eliminated your pedantic fluttering's about with an without whom surrounding 'if'. My opinion is determinism and act react answer your pleadings.

OK you didn't like my parsing. Your not liking doesn't make my parsing wrong.
There are objects. check

Since objects are, the only only possible contingency is whether the object is the one acting or the one acted upon. check

No need for if when the paradigm is act-react (self defining and self limiting)
Unknowable doesn't appear in the paradigm. check

Its determined by definition. check
Physics structured? NSRR. Top down, top down. QED

 

[DBT]

''Decision'' implies realizable alternatives, the ability to have done otherwise, to have chosen otherwise. There are no decisions within a determined system. All events evolve from prior states to current states to future states with absolutely no deviation.

Decision making is an actual event that takes place in physical reality. The claim that it does not happen is repeatedly falsified by every occurrence of this event within the causal chain.

Events that unfold without deviation are not deliberated on or decided, it is this, then that.

It is "this", deliberation, and then it is "that", decided. There is nothing about determinism that eliminates any event from the causal chain!

There are no deviations.

Correct. There is no deviation from the sequence (1) deliberation upon the many options on the restaurant menu, and then (2) our dinner order is decided. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

It is my brain's own physical processes that create my mental experiences as I consider whether I will order the steak or the salad for dinner. And because this all happens while free of coercion and undue influence, it is a freely chosen "I will have the salad for dinner".

It is the whole system that brings you to this time and place to carry out precisely this action and no other,

And, what exactly is the whole universe's interest in whether I order the salad or the steak? The decision is important to me, because I'm the one that decided to have bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. But I would suggest to you that my interest in my health is not shared by the universe. I'm sure that the universe does not really care one way or the other.

My brain did it, therefore free will does not work.

It works for me. I must assume that the only reason it does not work for you is that your view of reality is distorted by the paradoxical definition of free will. Stop using the paradoxical definition, and everything will be clear once more.

Your goals are not freely chosen. They form in relation to your biology (not chosen), social and economic and personal circumstances (not chosen) and the events that brought you to this time and place to carry out the only possible action you have in this moment in time, no alternatives in this instance. Every instance is the same; this, then that.

A list of the things I did not choose, however long, never eliminates a single item from the list of things that I do choose. (I'm sure there's a named logical fallacy out there for this, but I don't keep track of them).

That's the nature of determinism.

Determinism is the reasonable belief (-ism) that all events are reliably caused by prior events. This does not rule out any events. In fact, it must include all events to be a correct belief. One such event is the operation of choosing, where multiple realizable options are considered, evaluated, and, based on that evaluation, a single option is selected and realized.

To pretend that choosing doesn't happen in the real world would be delusional. It obviously happens. We observe ourselves making choices. We observe others making choices. And, we also observe that these choices are reliably caused by a person's own thoughts and feelings about their options. So, choosing is a deterministic operation.

There is no empirical evidence that choosing does not happen. There is only the figurative statement that, "since every choice is causally necessary, it is AS IF choosing was not happening." But, like all figurative statements, it is literally false, because we empirically observe choosing actually happening in the real world.

Within this system that proceeds without deviation, we will still imagine possibilities and we will still make choices. There will still be things that we will choose to do, and there will still be things that we could have chosen, even though we never would have chosen them under those circumstances.

What we imagine is also determined by information exchange between the environment and the brain. Information is acquired, processed, ruminations, imaginings and thoughts formed and a necessitated action taken.

In the environment, the restaurant, we encounter the menu. We acquire information from the menu, which includes all of our realizable possibilities. We compare these options to our own goals, and by our own reasoning select the best choice for dinner. This is a causally necessary event called "choosing".

The thoughts and imaginings and the consequent action are of course fixed by prior states of the system.

The prior state of the system was our entering the restaurant, sitting at the table, and picking up the menu. Every event the reliable result of prior events. You know, that determinism thing. These prior states of the system insured that what happened next would be our thoughts and imaginings about our dinner options. Those prior thoughts and imaginings insured that we would choose the salad, even though we could have chosen the steak.

There is no way around it. If the world is determined, there are no loopholes, the system proceeds as determined,

And, it was likewise determined, without any loopholes, that we would be making this choice for ourselves, while free of coercion and undue influence. Thus, it was of our own free will, by causal necessity, with no loopholes.

Ability is determined by the neural architecture of a brain (state and condition, processing power) and information inputs.

And the ability of our neural architecture to make decisions is soundly confirmed by neuroscience. That ability does not disappear when we are doing other things. This ability includes both our ability to choose the steak and our ability to choose the salad. Our ability to choose the steak remains consistent before, during, and after choosing the salad.

That's what an "ability" is. It is something we "can" do. It is not necessary that we actually do it at any given place and .

The fact that we necessarily chose the salad does not contradict the fact that we could have chosen the steak instead. Believing that we could not have chosen the steak is a false belief.

There are no decisions within a determined system.

This is a semantic dispute.

DBT believes every use of the word "decision" is mistaken in a deterministic universe.

One wonders how DBT believes we attribute meaning to words.

I like to call it "The Incredible Shrinking Dictionary" (after a couple of old sci-fi movies). First "freedom" disappears, then "free will", then "responsibility", and eventually "self". Then, after self is gone, there is no one left to need a dictionary. Poof! It's gone.

Freedom to do otherwise is the issue.

Freedom to do otherwise doesn't disappear, it just cannot exist within a determined system.

There can be no ''could have done otherwise'' in determinism because all events must necessarily proceed without deviation.

''Could have done otherwise'' is a deviation that cannot happen.

''Could have done otherwise,'' but didn't, is a fantasy.

Compatibilists tend to skirt around around the no choice principle.

Quote;
''determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

 

[Jarhyn]

freedom to do otherwise is the issue

Only for you. You are asking for this one "special" "freedom" that cannot exist rather than turning and viewing all the freedoms that do exist.

Nobody of compatibilists asked to do "otherwise". We asked to do "what we want, free of coercion".

We all recognize we can't go back and do it again different.

Most of us recognize that it was still us doing it the first time.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Freedom to do otherwise is the issue.

Freedom is the ability to do something that you want to do. If you want to have the salad rather than the steak, you are free to order the salad. If you want to have the steak rather than the salad, you are free to order the steak.

Both freedoms exist simultaneously. Nothing prevents you from ordering the salad. Nothing except than your own personal dietary goals (the bacon and eggs for breakfast and the double cheeseburger for lunch) prevents you from ordering the steak for dinner.

The choice is ultimately up to you. The universe has no interest either way. Determinism has no interest in your choice. Causation has no interest in your choice. Only you have an interest in the outcome of your choosing.

Freedom to do otherwise doesn't disappear, it just cannot exist within a determined system.

I disagree. The freedom to do otherwise is indelibly written into every choosing operation. There must, by logical necessity, be at least two real possibilities to choose from, and it must, by logical necessity, be possible to choose either one.

Within a determined system, only one of these possibilities will be chosen at that point in time. And that single inevitable choice will have always have been inevitable, by causal necessity, from any prior point in time.

There can be no ''could have done otherwise'' in determinism because all events must necessarily proceed without deviation.

Not only can there be a "could have done otherwise" in determinism but there absolutely will be a "could have done otherwise" in every choosing operation within a fully deterministic system.

''Could have done otherwise'' is a deviation that cannot happen.

There is no deviation. Whenever there is a choosing operation there will always be the single thing that we will do and at least one other thing that we could have done but did not do.

Compatibilists tend to skirt around around the no choice principle.

I'm not "skirting around" anything. I'm telling you to your face that any assertion that there is no choosing happening in the real world is blatantly false. And if you disagree, I can take you to any restaurant where we can both watch the people browsing the menu and placing their orders.

Quote;
''determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

So, as you can probably guess from my comments above, the implication that determinism means that "it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did" is false! However, the corrected statement, "it is never true that people would have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did", is true!

The conflation of what "can" happen with what "will" happen is a logical fallacy. The notions of "can" and "will" are quite distinct. For example, many things can happen, but only one thing will happen.

Something that can happen is known as a "possibility". Something that will happen is known as an "actuality". A possibility exists solely within the imagination. We cannot drive a car across the possibility of a bridge. We can only drive across an actual bridge. However it is impossible to build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge. So, possibilities serve a real function in that they enable us to imagine many different bridge designs that we can build before we choose the single bridge that we will build.

What can happen constrains what will happen, because if it cannot happen then it will not happen.
But what will happen never constrains what can happen. What we can do is only limited by our imagination and our ability to carry out the plan that we choose.

The misstatement that determinism means we "could not have done otherwise", when what is actually meant is that we "would not have done otherwise" is a pretty widespread error. So, don't take it personally. The error has probably been around longer than either of us. But it is an error. And it has injected its own confusion into the discussion of these issues.

 

[DBT]

Freedom to do otherwise is the issue.

Freedom is the ability to do something that you want to do. If you want to have the salad rather than the steak, you are free to order the salad. If you want to have the steak rather than the salad, you are free to order the steak.

Determinism fixes want you want to do before you even feel the desire.

That's necessitation, not freedom.

We don't choose what we want, what we want is determined by our makeup (not chosen) and history, also not chosen.

Which essentially means, you guessed it, prior states of the system evolve into current and future states of the system, and there is no freedom to do otherwise.

''Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.'' - Schopenhauer

To add to Schopenhauer: man can not only do what he will, but if determined, must necessarily do what he wills.

Both freedoms exist simultaneously. Nothing prevents you from ordering the salad. Nothing except than your own personal dietary goals (the bacon and eggs for breakfast and the double cheeseburger for lunch) prevents you from ordering the steak for dinner.

The choice is ultimately up to you. The universe has no interest either way. Determinism has no interest in your choice. Causation has no interest in your choice. Only you have an interest in the outcome of your choosing.

Ability is not free will. Ability is enabled by the mechanisms and means of action.

Ability, therefore free will is a flawed claim. Ability is neither chosen or willed.

Freedom to do otherwise doesn't disappear, it just cannot exist within a determined system.

I disagree. The freedom to do otherwise is indelibly written into every choosing operation. There must, by logical necessity, be at least two real possibilities to choose from, and it must, by logical necessity, be possible to choose either one.

There is no choosing. There are no possible alternatives within a determined system.

It's entailed in your own definition.

Events proceeding without deviation from the big bang to the present moment and beyond doesn't allow alternate actions or choosing.

There is no choosing, everything must proceed as determined.

Within a determined system, only one of these possibilities will be chosen at that point in time. And that single inevitable choice will have always have been inevitable, by causal necessity, from any prior point in time.

There are no alternate possibilities within a determined system. They don't exist.

What you mean is the illusion of possibilities determined by our limited knowledge of the state of the system in any given instance.

Presented with several options, we feel that we have a real choice between them, and select one.

Given that that very action was inevitable before you born - no deviation from the big bang and ever after - there never was the possibility of an alternate choice or action. Hence never an actual choice. 'Actual' meaning that no other action was possible.

''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 can be no ''could have done otherwise'' in determinism because all events must necessarily proceed without deviation.

Not only can there be a "could have done otherwise" in determinism but there absolutely will be a "could have done otherwise" in every choosing operation within a fully deterministic system.

You are contradicting the terms of your own definition of determinism, where there is no 'could have done otherwise' to be found:

''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.

''No deviation'' eliminates all possibility of alternate actions.

''Could have done otherwise'' is a deviation that cannot happen.

There is no deviation. Whenever there is a choosing operation there will always be the single thing that we will do and at least one other thing that we could have done but did not do.

''Could have done'' is eliminated by the stipulation of ''all proceed without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.''

There is no 'could have done' in determinism.

Compatibilists tend to skirt around around the no choice principle.

I'm not "skirting around" anything. I'm telling you to your face that any assertion that there is no choosing happening in the real world is blatantly false. And if you disagree, I can take you to any restaurant where we can both watch the people browsing the menu and placing their orders.

Choosing implies the possibility of taking another option. There are no ''other options'' within a determined system where the prior state of the system morphs into current and future states of the system, with no deviation.

''No possible deviation'' excludes 'choosing.'

Quote;
''determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

So, as you can probably guess from my comments above, the implication that determinism means that "it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did" is false! However, the corrected statement, "it is never true that people would have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did", is true!

It makes no difference.

There are no alternate actions, therefore no decisions (deciding implies the possibility of taking another option.)

Actions are carried out as determined, fixed by prior states of the system.

The conflation of what "can" happen with what "will" happen is a logical fallacy. The notions of "can" and "will" are quite distinct. For example, many things can happen, but only one thing will happen.

Something that can happen is known as a "possibility". Something that will happen is known as an "actuality". A possibility exists solely within the imagination. We cannot drive a car across the possibility of a bridge. We can only drive across an actual bridge. However it is impossible to build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge. So, possibilities serve a real function in that they enable us to imagine many different bridge designs that we can build before we choose the single bridge that we will build.

Can and will? Determinism entails what must necessarily happen.

What can happen constrains what will happen, because if it cannot happen then it will not happen.
But what will happen never constrains what can happen. What we can do is only limited by our imagination and our ability to carry out the plan that we choose.

What happens must necessarily happen without deviation.

The misstatement that determinism means we "could not have done otherwise", when what is actually meant is that we "would not have done otherwise" is a pretty widespread error. So, don't take it personally. The error has probably been around longer than either of us. But it is an error. And it has injected its own confusion into the discussion of these issues.

Modifying the wording doesn't alter the terms of the given definition of determinism.

Saying ''would not'' doesn't alter anything, it doesn't permit alternate actions or choosing between options as if there is a possibility of doing otherwise.

'Could not have done otherwise' is correct. 'Would not have done otherwise' is meaningless in the face of no deviation or alternate action.

Saying 'would not' appears to be an attempt to soften determinism.

 

[The AntiChris]

Of course human beings make choices.

There is no choosing. There are no possible alternatives within a determined system.

The reason it's so difficult to make sense of your argumentation is because you're thoroughly confused.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Freedom is the ability to do something that you want to do. If you want to have the salad rather than the steak, you are free to order the salad. If you want to have the steak rather than the salad, you are free to order the steak.

Determinism fixes want you want to do before you even feel the desire.

Thus, I am still free to do what I want to do! Causal necessity is neither a meaningful nor a relevant constraint. What I will inevitably do is exactly identical to me just being me, choosing to do whatever I choose to do.

Causal necessity is never experienced as a constraint upon our freedom to do what we want. But a guy with a gun telling us what to do is experienced as a constraint upon our freedom to do what we want.

Causal necessity is what we would have done anyway. It is not in any fashion a meaningful constraint upon our ability to do what we want or to choose what we choose. It's just us, being us, doing what we do.

The notion that causal necessity is making us do something we don't want to do is a delusion.

That's necessitation, not freedom.

It appears to be both. When I am free from coercion and undue influence it will be causally necessary. When a guy with a gun constrains my freedom, that too will be causally necessary. Causal necessity doesn't actually change anything.

We don't choose what we want, what we want is determined by our makeup (not chosen) and history, also not chosen.

We have many wants, and we must choose between these wants the single thing that we will do. I want the juicy steak for dinner. But I also want to eat sensibly, and I already had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. So, I decide that I will order the Chef Salad instead of the steak.

''Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.'' - Schopenhauer

A person does not choose their wants and needs, but they do choose what they will do about them.

To add to Schopenhauer: man can not only do what he will, but if determined, must necessarily do what he wills.

In other words, I must necessarily do what I have already chosen to do. And, why should that bother me?

Determinism does not change anything. Everything remains exactly as it always was. Still waiting for that light bulb to come on.

Ability is not free will.

Free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The ability to make decisions for ourselves comes with the evolved brain of an intelligent species. Or so the neuroscientists tell us.

Ability is enabled by the mechanisms and means of action.

Absolutely. Every ability that we have, to do anything at all, requires reliable causal mechanisms, whether physical, biological, or rational. Choosing what we will do is performed by the brain's rational causal mechanism, which imagines, reasons, evaluates, and chooses.

Ability is neither chosen or willed.

We do not choose our innate abilities, but we can choose to improve our abilities through training and practice. Thus, we have pianists, golfers, and the Boston Celtics (been a long time since Bill Russel, Larry Bird, and John Havlicek ruled the NBA). So, choosing to acquire any skill is a conscious intent.

The freedom to do otherwise is indelibly written into every choosing operation. There must, by logical necessity, be at least two real possibilities to choose from, and it must, by logical necessity, be possible to choose either one.

There is no choosing. There are no possible alternatives within a determined system. It's entailed in your own definition.
Events proceeding without deviation from the big bang to the present moment and beyond doesn't allow alternate actions or choosing. There is no choosing, everything must proceed as determined.

Determinism necessitates choosing. Choosing is an inevitable human event. Humans have always encountered problems and issues that required them to make choices.

To claim that determinism means there is no choosing is delusional.

What you mean is the illusion of possibilities determined by our limited knowledge of the state of the system in any given instance.

The restaurant menu is right there in front of you. It is clearly not an "illusion". Try it out. Order something from the menu. The waiter brings you your order and the bill. Order something else. The waiter brings you that meal and another bill. Obviously, each of these items is really possible for you to choose and actually possible to realize.

Your conclusion that any of this is illusory is clearly false. The reason you call it an "illusion" is that you feel that if everything was inevitable, then it was AS IF choosing didn't happen and AS IF other items on the menu were not real possibilities. But if you take that figurative statement literally, you end up with a delusional view of what is actually happening.

Given that that very action was inevitable before you born - no deviation from the big bang and ever after - there never was the possibility of an alternate choice or action.

The premise simply does not support that conclusion. Given that every action was inevitable, with no deviation, from any prior point in time, it was causally necessary that there would be the possibility of alternate choices and actions. The restaurant menu was inevitable. Customers having to choose what to order from that menu was inevitable.

My consideration of ordering the steak was inevitable. My thoughts of what I had for breakfast and lunch was inevitable. My choosing the salad, for my own reasons, was inevitable.

Hence never an actual choice. 'Actual' meaning that no other action was possible.

It was inevitable that there would be actual choosing from a list of realizable possibilities. Everything that actually happened actually happened.

Choosing is an actual operation that inputs multiple options (the menu), applies some criteria of comparative evaluation (my dietary goals and the likely result of having the steak on top of the cheeseburger on top of the bacon and eggs), and outputs a single inevitable "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

This is all happening in actual reality. To claim it is not happening would be delusional.

''Could have done otherwise'' is a deviation that cannot happen.

There is no deviation. Whenever there is a choosing operation there will always be the single thing that we will do and at least one other thing that we could have done but did not do.

The conflation of what "can" happen with what "will" happen is a logical fallacy. The notions of "can" and "will" are quite distinct. For example, many things can happen, but only one thing will happen.

Something that can happen is known as a "possibility". Something that will happen is known as an "actuality". A possibility exists solely within the imagination. We cannot drive a car across the possibility of a bridge. We can only drive across an actual bridge. However it is impossible to build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge. So, possibilities serve a real function in that they enable us to imagine many different bridge designs that we can build before we choose the single bridge that we will build.

Can and will? Determinism entails what must necessarily happen.

Yes. Both the can's and the will's are causally necessary from any prior point in time. Determinism does not alter this in any way.

What can happen constrains what will happen, because if it cannot happen then it will not happen.
But what will happen never constrains what can happen. What we can do is only limited by our imagination and our ability to carry out that option if we choose to do so.

The misstatement that determinism means we "could not have done otherwise", when what is actually meant is that we "would not have done otherwise" is a pretty widespread error. So, don't take it personally. The error has probably been around longer than either of us. But it is an error. And it has injected its own confusion into the discussion of these issues.

Modifying the wording doesn't alter the terms of the given definition of determinism.

The definition of determinism does not entail that "I could have done otherwise" is false. The definition of determinism only entails that "I would have done otherwise" is false.

Determinism is the reasonable belief that every event is reliably caused by prior events. What will happen is constrained by what has happened. That's what determinism is about.

'Could not have done otherwise' is correct.

No. What "can" happen is different from what "will" happen. Determinism places no limit upon what "can" happen, because what "will" happen never constrains what "can" happen. On the other hand, what "can" happen definitely constrains what "will" happen, because if it cannot happen then it will not happen.

But what "can" happen is only limited by our imagination and our ability to make it happen if we choose to do so. We use the notion of possibility constructively to create plans for action. It is effectively the source of what we will actually do.

'Would not have done otherwise' is meaningless in the face of no deviation or alternate action.

If cause and effect are reliable, then all events will happen in exactly one way. Things will not be otherwise.

One of the things that will not be otherwise, is the human process of imagining possibilities, the many things we can do, on our way to deciding what we will actually do.

Within the domain of human influence, the single inevitable future will be chosen by us from the many possible futures that we will imagine.

Saying 'would not' appears to be an attempt to soften determinism.

There is no need to soften determinism. All that is required is to eliminate the delusions that some people have about it.

 

[DBT]

Freedom is the ability to do something that you want to do. If you want to have the salad rather than the steak, you are free to order the salad. If you want to have the steak rather than the salad, you are free to order the steak.

Nope, we don't choose the process that determines what we want to do. The evolving state of the system determines our needs, wants and actions. There is no 'rather than' within the system. Events progress as determined without deviation.

That is the 'no choice' principle of determinism.

Determinism fixes want you want to do before you even feel the desire.

Thus, I am still free to do what I want to do! Causal necessity is neither a meaningful nor a relevant constraint. What I will inevitably do is exactly identical to me just being me, choosing to do whatever I choose to do.

No, you must want and do as determined, which is not subject to will, wish or regulation. Regulation implies choice, which is the ability to do otherwise. Determinism denies the ability to do otherwise, therefore no choice.

''The No Choice Principle implies that I cannot have a choice about anything that is an unavoidable consequence of something I have no control of.''

Causal necessity is never experienced as a constraint upon our freedom to do what we want. But a guy with a gun telling us what to do is experienced as a constraint upon our freedom to do what we want.

Causal necessity fixes all actions within the system, no deviations. Not being able to do otherwise is the 'constraint'

Acting out necessitated actions is not a constraint you feel.

You think and act and feel as determined. Everything within the system proceeds freely, unrestricted, unimpeded, precisely as determined, no deviations.

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

Causal necessity is what we would have done anyway. It is not in any fashion a meaningful constraint upon our ability to do what we want or to choose what we choose. It's just us, being us, doing what we do.

The notion that causal necessity is making us do something we don't want to do is a delusion.

If all the events of the system from time t and ever after are fixed, no deviation, nobody freely chooses anything.

It plays out like a movie, rewind, replay, it always goes the same, each actor plays their role, the outcome never varies.

That is determinism. All actions are fixed, immutable, set in the initial moment and the way things go ever after.

Nothing is freely willed. Everything proceeds without deviation.

''Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity'' - Einstein.

That's necessitation, not freedom.

It appears to be both. When I am free from coercion and undue influence it will be causally necessary. When a guy with a gun constrains my freedom, that too will be causally necessary. Causal necessity doesn't actually change anything.

Determined events must necessarily proceed as determined without restriction. It's the 'as determined' that is the 'compulsion' that eliminates freedom of will within a determined system.

The evolving state of the system 'compels' all things to proceed as determined.

No choice principle: You cannot have a choice about anything that is an unavoidable consequence of something you have no control of.''

We don't choose what we want, what we want is determined by our makeup (not chosen) and history, also not chosen.

We have many wants, and we must choose between these wants the single thing that we will do. I want the juicy steak for dinner. But I also want to eat sensibly, and I already had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. So, I decide that I will order the Chef Salad instead of the steak.

We cannot choose between wants.

If a real choice was possible, alternate actions would be possible, and being possible, they would happen.

Yet there are no alternate actions within a determined system, therefore no choice is possible.

This is entailed in your own definition.

Saying 'would not' appears to be an attempt to soften determinism.

There is no need to soften determinism. All that is required is to eliminate the delusions that some people have about it.

Compatibilists tend to carefully mold their own definition of determinism in order support an argument for compatibility.

It doesn't work.

We cannot 'choose between our wants' when all events must proceed- according to the given definition - without deviation.

If we could have chosen to want chicken and gone with that option when the system determined that you want fish and order fish, that is a deviation. Being a deviation, you don't have determinism, you have Libertarian free will within a chaotic world.

We can't ''choose between our wants,'' with the possibility of taking any one of them, yet have a system that allows no deviation, therefore no alternate options.

You can't have it both ways.

''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.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nope, we don't choose the process that determines what we want to do

We don't choose some of them and we do choose others of them.

I sat down for some time and decided not over the course of seconds or minutes but over the course of YEARS what choices I would make in certain situations, to the point I could show the logical work all the way down to core principles at least at the time I did it.

One of those things was sitting down and making the choice to be more extroverted.

I saw a friend achieve this transition, they described what they had been doing. I didn't like not knowing how it felt, but it was very much a decision to change.

It took a lot of parties, and bars, and throwing myself into social situations.

I'm still not great at it but the deliverable was there.

I did a bunch of stuff not because I wanted to, but because I wanted to want to, and so made myself do it anyway as a result of what is commonly known as a "white-knuckle decision".

And nowadays, at least 2-3 times a month, I find myself actually wanting to.

Some things we can't decide to want... Or to not want. And that's OK as long as nobody gets killed or raped or maimed or made destitute. When it is, there's another kind of white-knuckle decision that can be made to end the wanting of such things, and should be.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Nope, we don't choose the process that determines what we want to do.

There is no need to choose the process. We already are the process that is choosing whether to have the steak or the salad for dinner.

The list of things that we do not choose, however long, does not eliminate a single thing from the list of things that we do choose.

There is no other meaningful explanation for how the order for the salad was causally necessitated without us. To delete any cause from the chain is to invalidate determinism.

... ''The No Choice Principle implies that I cannot have a choice about anything that is an unavoidable consequence of something I have no control of.''

And yet I have a choice between the salad and the steak. And it turns out that my having that choice, between the salad and the steak, was an unavoidable consequence of many things that I have no control of.

The list of things I do not control, however lengthy, does not eliminate a single item from the list of things that I do control.

Oh, and the "No Choice Principle" is false, of course, as I've just demonstrated.

Causal necessity fixes all actions within the system, no deviations.

Apparently causal necessity has fixed events such that I would enter the restaurant, consider the alternate possibilities on the menu, and choose for myself to have the Chef Salad for dinner.

Oh, and causal necessity has fixed events such that I would not be coerced or unduly influenced while making this choice, so that I would be free to make this choice for myself, you know, "of my own free will".

Not being able to do otherwise is the 'constraint'

Not really. You see, the specific thing that I was not able to do otherwise, was to choose for myself what I would have for dinner. So, there was no meaningful or relevant constraint.

I'm still waiting for that light bulb over your head to shine.

Acting out necessitated actions is not a constraint you feel.

Exactly. So, in what way is behaving deterministically is meaningful or relevant constraint? It is exactly identical to me just being me, choosing to do what I choose to do.

The supposed "constraint" of causal necessity is clearly an illusion.

You think and act and feel as determined. ...

As determined by who? There is no puppet-master pulling my strings. It turns out that all of the significant strings are located within myself, in my genetic dispositions and prior life experiences, in my beliefs and values, in my own thoughts and feelings.

The fact that all of these parts of me have prior causes does not change the fact that they are all parts of me. And it is my own brain that is making my own choices. Just as we always thought was the case.

Everything within the system proceeds freely, unrestricted, unimpeded, precisely as determined, no deviations.

That's right. And the most meaningful and relevant determinant of my deliberate actions is my own deliberations, for example about whether I should order the steak or the salad.

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

Precisely. I was always free to do what I wanted. See it yet?

If all the events of the system from time t and ever after are fixed, no deviation, nobody freely chooses anything.

While it is true that I am never free of reliable cause and effect (not that anyone wants or needs to be free of that anyway), I am still free of coercion and undue influence (the very thing that we all wish to be free of when making a choice).

It plays out like a movie, rewind, replay, it always goes the same, each actor plays their role, the outcome never varies.

Ah. A metaphor. Figurative thinking. Every figurative statement is literally false. For example, I have no script to memorize and follow. I have to improvise for myself all of the most important decisions in my life.

That is determinism.

No, that's actually a movie. Determinism is not a movie with a script that is already written. The words and actions are improvised on a daily basis by our own choices. We are writing that script, in the here and now.

Determinism simply means that each word and action will be reliably caused by prior events, such as our prior choices.

Determinism is not a script writer. Determinism merely asserts that each thing that happens now will be reliably caused by what happened a moment ago.

All actions are fixed, immutable, set in the initial moment and the way things go ever after.

And that too is all metaphor. An event may be known in advance (prediction), but no event may be caused in advance. No event will ever happen until its final prior causes have played themselves out.

''Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity'' - Einstein.

Oh, Hi Albert. Meet my inner necessity. It is called "Marvin".

We cannot choose between wants.

I wanted the steak, but I also wanted to eat a healthy dinner considering what I had for breakfast and lunch. So, I chose to order the salad.

I did choose between wants. Therefore it must follow that "we cannot choose between wants" is false.

Compatibilists tend to carefully mold their own definition of determinism in order support an argument for compatibility.
It doesn't work.

Compatibilism is the only thing that actually does work.