Compatibilism: What's that About?

[DBT]

It's not physically possible to order the salad and not order the salad in the same instance in time. It's a contradiction.

In your usage in hard determinist lala-land, though you are saying "unless a different thing actually DID happen" which is fucking stupid.

That's not what I'm saying. It's quite simple JC, there are no alternate actions, nothing different can happen, therefore nothing is freely chosen or freely willed.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said that I am referring to the very same definition of determinism that compatibilists give. including you.

Nor are you someone who should be hurling insults like a petulant child, someone who is on a par with JC, et, al, with your 'computers and other machinery can become conscious" - claiming that machines have consciousness is utterly delusional.

Wake up to yourself. Stop acting like a Prat.

Of course they can have happened if the universe had been different than it was, because that's the only way anything ever "can" even such that "it shall not"

The point, JC, is the world cannot be different. No deviation. That is entailed in the given definition.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The point, JC, is the world cannot be different. No deviation. That is entailed in the given definition.

And yet with the new Supreme Court the world became very different overnight. Roe v. Wade was overturned and abortion became unavailable in many states. The EPA was stripped of its authority to address global warming. The ability of New York to control the number of guns carried on the street was abolished. And the football coach gets to hold public prayer meetings during high school football games.

Obviously, the world can, in fact, be different. It was different just a few weeks ago. Events can deviate from what they were. The laws of our society can change.

And our individual choices, like Putin's choice to invade Ukraine, or Trump's choice to attempt to stay in office, do make a profound difference in people's lives.

Apparently, change is inevitable. Changes will occur, without deviation.

 

[DBT]

"I would inevitably order the salad" was true.
"I could have ordered the steak, but I didn't" is also true.
Your conclusion that "both can't be true", is false.

They are clearly not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually complimentary.

It's not physically possible to order the salad and not order the salad in the same instance in time. It's a contradiction.

And it is never the case that we must both order the salad and not order the salad in the same instance in time in order for both ordering and not ordering to be real possibilities for that instance in time.

It is never the case that we must both order and not order, it cannot be possible. Your own definition does not allow it. Keep in mind the stipulation of no deviation. If it was possible perform an alternate action , it could happen, and if it did happen, there would be a deviation, which would contradict your definition.

That is the point.

A possibility exists solely within the imagination. We cannot walk across the possibility of a bridge. We can only walk across an actual bridge. But we cannot build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge and how we could possibly build such a bridge.

Imagination is not reality. I have lucid dreams where I fly through the air, something that cannot happen outside of dreams and imaginings.

It is never required that we must actually build that bridge in order for us to consider the possibility of building the bridge to be real.

Again, if what is imagined is to be put into action, it must conform to the rules and principles of the physical world. And what is imagined is determined by countless factors, information input, processing, rearranging, etc. Nothing is exempt.

What you say implies that imagination has special status within a deterministic system. A back door for free will.

Our imagination - being a physical activity of a brain - is not exempt from causal determinism. Brain activity, thoughts, feeling, imaginations, are fixed, as by definition all events within the system must be.

100% Correct.

Sure, including all the implications this has for the notion of free will.

We imagine and we do whatever is entailed by the system as it evolves from prior to current and future states - as defined - without deviation.

Also correct. But do keep in mind that the system we are talking about here is our own the central nervous system, operating deterministically, as it considers our possibilities, estimates the likely outcomes of our choices, and fixes the final inevitable choice to order the salad rather than the steak for dinner.

We as conscious entities have no access to or regulative control of what is happening withing 'our' central nervous system.

The central nervous system is generating us by means of information acquisition, memory function, processing and subjective representation.

This has nothing to do with free will. Biology is doing it.

''The compatibilist might say because those are influences that are “outside” of the person, but this misses the entire point brought up by the free will skeptic, which is that ALL environmental conditions that help lead to a person’s brain state at any given moment are “outside of the person”, and the genes a person has was provided rather than decided.''

Imagination is not a loophole for free will.

Operational free will requires no "loopholes". It is 100% compatible with a perfectly deterministic world. That is the point.

The point is incorrect.

Abstract
If one’s solution to the free will problem is in terms of real causal powers of agents then one ought to be an incompatibilist.

1. If causal determinism is true, all events are necessitated
2. If all events are necessitated, then there are no powers
3. Free will consists in the exercise of an agent’s powers

Therefore, if causal determinism is true, there is no free will; which is to say that free will is incompatible with determinism, so compatibilism is false.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's not what I'm saying.

nothing different can happen, therefore nothing is freely chosen or freely willed.

What you are saying is exactly that the only definition you believe exists for choice is that something different does happen, both A and !A, a true and overlapping contradiction or fold in causality and that to choose we would have to look at each and select one, and even then you would say "no choice only one really did happen".

So yes, in your usage in hard determinist lala-land, though you are saying "unless a different thing actually DID happen" which is fucking stupid.

Again, I have lost ALL faith that there is any hope to teach you the forms of abstract thought necessary to fully contextualize "can". You will first need to be able to fully deconstruct what is actually said when a compatibilist says "he could have done it five minutes ago but he cannot now."

Marvin has made a few really good attempts, but you can't bleed a turnip...

 

[Marvin Edwards]

"I would inevitably order the salad" was true.
"I could have ordered the steak, but I didn't" is also true.
Your conclusion that "both can't be true", is false.

They are clearly not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually complimentary.

If it was possible perform an alternate action , it could happen, and if it did happen, ...

No. It definitely did not happen. And it would never happen under the same circumstances. Got it?

And that is exactly what saying that something "could have happened" ALWAYS implies! (A) It did not happen! and (B) It would only have happened under different circumstances!

This is what we mean whenever we say that we "could have done otherwise". It simply identifies something else that we could have done instead. For example, even though I actually ordered the Chef Salad, I could have ordered the Steak Dinner, or the Lobster, or any other item on the menu. All of those were real possibilities. All of those were choices I could have made. But NONE of those were things that I DID order and I only would have ordered any of them UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

These meanings of the term "could have" are all carried implicitly within the phrase itself.

there would be a deviation, which would contradict your definition. That is the point.

Something that "could have happened" is never a deviation from what actually happens, because it never actually happens. The fact that it did not happen is implicit in the term "could have".

A possibility exists solely within the imagination. We cannot walk across the possibility of a bridge. We can only walk across an actual bridge. But we cannot build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge and how we could possibly build such a bridge.

Imagination is not reality. I have lucid dreams where I fly through the air, something that cannot happen outside of dreams and imaginings.

On the other hand, you can also imagine something that you can do, like buying an airline ticket and flying through the air to your destination. And, you can imagine a trip to Alaska and a trip to Hawaii. Both trips are things that you actually can do. But which trip will you take?

You may decide that you WILL go to Alaska, even though you COULD HAVE gone to Hawaii.
OR
You may decide that you WILL go to Hawaii, even though you COULD HAVE gone to Alaska.

The language is as it is. It means what it means. There is no contradiction here between actualities and possibilities, because their meanings are quite distinct, and commonly understood. Well, at least understood by anyone but the hard determinist.

Again, if what is imagined is to be put into action, it must conform to the rules and principles of the physical world. And what is imagined is determined by countless factors, information input, processing, rearranging, etc. Nothing is exempt.

100% CORRECT!

What you say implies that imagination has special status within a deterministic system.

100% FALSE! Every thought is reliably caused by prior thoughts and experiences. Imagination is a deterministic operation.

Sure, including all the implications this has for the notion of free will.

There are NO implications for the notion of free will. As you may recall, operational free will is simply a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and undue influence.

Reliable causation itself is not coercive and certainly not undue. But a specific cause, such as a man pointing a gun at our head and telling us what to do, removes our free will. And a specific cause, such as our being free of coercion and making the choice for ourselves, is free will.

The fact that all events are reliably caused does not eliminate free will, or any other event that ever happens. In fact, determinism never changes anything thing. Everything is exactly as it is.

We as conscious entities have no access to or regulative control of what is happening within 'our' central nervous system.

Conscious awareness is a function of our central nervous system (CNS). It is not sitting outside our CNS trying to regulate it. Consciousness is a function of the brain that works cooperatively with other brain functions to enable us to do things, things like deciding for ourselves whether to order the salad or the steak for dinner.

''The compatibilist might say because those are influences that are “outside” of the person, but this misses the entire point brought up by the free will skeptic, which is that ALL environmental conditions that help lead to a person’s brain state at any given moment are “outside of the person”, and the genes a person has was provided rather than decided.''

Ah, so now the person is "outside" the person! DBT, you really shouldn't be quoting Trick Slattery here. If Trick wants to enter the discussion, he is free to join in.

Abstract
If one’s solution to the free will problem is in terms of real causal powers of agents then one ought to be an incompatibilist.

1. If causal determinism is true, all events are necessitated
2. If all events are necessitated, then there are no powers
3. Free will consists in the exercise of an agent’s powers

Therefore, if causal determinism is true, there is no free will; which is to say that free will is incompatible with determinism, so compatibilism is false.

Item 2, "If all events are necessitated, then there are no powers", is paradoxical (self-contradicting). If there are no powers, then nothing can be necessitated. Necessitating things requires the power to do so. For example, physical necessitation is based upon the four physical forces. Gravity necessitates certain behaviors of physical objects by the power of attraction between the masses of two or more physical bodies (planets, stars, Newton's apple, etc.). If there is no power, then there is no necessity. Therefore, item 2 is a bit of silly nonsense. Mumford and Anjun (the authors) should be embarrassed.

 

[DBT]

That's not what I'm saying.

nothing different can happen, therefore nothing is freely chosen or freely willed.

What you are saying is exactly that the only definition you believe exists for choice is that something different does happen, both A and !A, a true and overlapping contradiction or fold in causality and that to choose we would have to look at each and select one, and even then you would say "no choice only one really did happen".

There you go, yet again demonstrating that you don't understand incompatibilism or the implications of determinism, as it has been defined.

I could try to explain again, but it would be futile.

So yes, in your usage in hard determinist lala-land, though you are saying "unless a different thing actually DID happen" which is fucking stupid.

Yet again, the definition given by you and Marvin sets the terms and conditions. 'All events fixed by antecedents' does not equate to free will.

Nothing is freely willed. All events are entailed by the prior state of the system, which are not chosen or freely willed.

Free will is being asserted, not demonstrated or proven.

Again, I have lost ALL faith that there is any hope to teach you the forms of abstract thought necessary to fully contextualize "can". You will first need to be able to fully deconstruct what is actually said when a compatibilist says "he could have done it five minutes ago but he cannot now."

Marvin has made a few really good attempts, but you can't bleed a turnip...

Maybe your argument is the Turnip. Has that thought crossed your mind? What do you think, JC?

All events fixed by antecedents, therefore free will, is absurd.

 

[DBT]

"I would inevitably order the salad" was true.
"I could have ordered the steak, but I didn't" is also true.
Your conclusion that "both can't be true", is false.

They are clearly not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually complimentary.

It's not a matter of 'didn't order steak.' It's a matter of entailment- 'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

That is a consequence of no deviation, all events must proceed as determined, not chosen; the 'no choice principle' of determinism.

If it was possible perform an alternate action , it could happen, and if it did happen, ...

No. It definitely did not happen. And it would never happen under the same circumstances. Got it?

Sure, I got it long before this show got on the road. Given determinism, it's always the same circumstances. As the system evolves, every event in every instance in time is in the state it must be in.

And that is exactly what saying that something "could have happened" ALWAYS implies! (A) It did not happen! and (B) It would only have happened under different circumstances!

This is what we mean whenever we say that we "could have done otherwise". It simply identifies something else that we could have done instead. For example, even though I actually ordered the Chef Salad, I could have ordered the Steak Dinner, or the Lobster, or any other item on the menu. All of those were real possibilities. All of those were choices I could have made. But NONE of those were things that I DID order and I only would have ordered any of them UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

These meanings of the term "could have" are all carried implicitly within the phrase itself.

There are no different circumstances. Different circumstances - by definition - cannot exist within a deterministic system.

''Could have, if only things had been different'' is an expression of human imagination, powerless hindsight, a form of lament, an impossible 'if only....''.

there would be a deviation, which would contradict your definition. That is the point.

Something that "could have happened" is never a deviation from what actually happens, because it never actually happens. The fact that it did not happen is implicit in the term "could have".

'Could have' is incorrect. It's an expression based on the assumption, 'I could have, if only things had gone differently.'

As defined, nothing can go differently.

Imagination is not reality. I have lucid dreams where I fly through the air, something that cannot happen outside of dreams and imaginings.

On the other hand, you can also imagine something that you can do, like buying an airline ticket and flying through the air to your destination. And, you can imagine a trip to Alaska and a trip to Hawaii. Both trips are things that you actually can do. But which trip will you take?

Given the terms, which entail no alternate actions or deviation, whatever trip is determined as the system evolves. Not only what is done, but what is thought, felt and imagined.

Abstract
If one’s solution to the free will problem is in terms of real causal powers of agents then one ought to be an incompatibilist.

1. If causal determinism is true, all events are necessitated
2. If all events are necessitated, then there are no powers
3. Free will consists in the exercise of an agent’s powers

Therefore, if causal determinism is true, there is no free will; which is to say that free will is incompatible with determinism, so compatibilism is false.

Item 2, "If all events are necessitated, then there are no powers", is paradoxical (self-contradicting).

Not really, it just means that we have no ability to do otherwise. That Determinism makes it impossible for us to “cause and control our actions in the right kind of way'' to qualify as free will.

If there are no powers, then nothing can be necessitated. Necessitating things requires the power to do so. For example, physical necessitation is based upon the four physical forces. Gravity necessitates certain behaviors of physical objects by the power of attraction between the masses of two or more physical bodies (planets, stars, Newton's apple, etc.). If there is no power, then there is no necessity. Therefore, item 2 is a bit of silly nonsense. Mumford and Anjun (the authors) should be embarrassed.

'Powers' in this context is not related to the system, but to us as agents within the system, that it's us who lack the power to regulate events according to our will. That the evolving state of the system shapes and forms us, our thoughts, imaginings, plans, hopes dreams and actions...''there are no powers'' refers to the nature and status of our will.

That, given determinism, the notion of free will is incompatible with determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

This is demonstrably false.

I can even say "you know what, bring me the steak, too. In fact, bring me the lot, and a bucket."

In the restaurant, ordering one thing does not even create a mutual exclusivity of option.

Again, it will continue to be the case that IF an electric field happens in the presence of something that has strong spin alignment of it's electrons across a single axis, that thing will undergo force which reorients (which CAN reorient) the object with the organized spin axis to the direction of the magnetic field.

Thus objects with spin alignments can have their orientation changed by being placed in a magnetic field.

Not only that, but many objects DO.

But, in some cases, the orientation of the object does not happen, because it is held in place by some phenomena.

When this happens, we can say the object is not free to turn. This "freedom" is determined by whether the thing could or could not turn towards the field.

What is apparent is that you do not understand "can" and I doubt you ever could.

May you one day get beyond your religion of goddidit.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

It's a matter of entailment- 'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

While that may "sound" right to you, due to figurative thinking, it is still logically false.

The fact is that it was always "possible" to order the steak instead of the salad. At no point in time was it ever "impossible" to order the steak instead of the salad.

The fact that you "would not" order the steak instead of the salad never implies that you "could not" have ordered the steak instead of the salad.

This is a consequence of the distinction between the meaning of "can" and "will", the distinction between "possibility" and "actuality", the distinction between events that "can happen" and events that "must happen".

That is a consequence of no deviation,

There are no meaningful consequences of "no deviation". Events happen exactly as they always did, without deviation. Did choosing just happen? Then it happened precisely as it did happen, without deviation. Were multiple possibilities considered? Then they were each considered exactly as they were considered, without deviation. Did we have thoughts about eating a balanced diet? Then those thoughts happened exactly as they happened, without deviation. Did we conclude that it would be better to have the salad for dinner instead of the steak? Then that also happened without deviation. Was it always true that we could have ordered the steak instead of the salad? Then that was always true without deviation.

the 'no choice principle' of determinism.

Obviously determinism does include choosing events, without deviation, so the "no choice principle" is objectively false.

Given determinism, it's always the same circumstances. As the system evolves, every event in every instance in time is in the state it must be in.

Correct. And our only problem is that we often do not have full knowledge of what those exact circumstances are. And we have no clue as to what will inevitably happen. To cope with this uncertainty, we have evolved a language and a logic based on the notion of multiple "possible" futures, things that "can" happen, events which may, or may not, ever actually happen.

Choosing always begins with our uncertainty as to which option we will choose. We may know for certain that we will only choose one option, but we do not know whether it will be option A or option B. We cannot say "I will choose A" and we cannot say "I will choose B", because we simply do not know yet which one we will choose. So we switch to the context of possibilities. Now we can say "I can choose A" and begin considering the likely outcomes of that choice. And we can also say "I can choose B" and consider its likely outcome. And later, after we've made our choice, one of them will be the thing that we "will" do and the other will be the thing that we "could" have done instead.

There are no different circumstances. Different circumstances - by definition - cannot exist within a deterministic system.

Almost correct. But when we do not know what the circumstances are, we must imagine what those circumstances could be. When we do not know what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare for what does happen. And as soon as we see the word "can" or "possibility" or any of the other words evolved to deal with our uncertainty, then we know we are in the context of things that "can" happen and not in the context of things that necessarily "will" happen.

For an ironic example, consider the "can" in the phrase "cannot exist within a deterministic system". By the correct definition of "can", different circumstances "can" exist within a deterministic system, even though they never "will".

I know. It's difficult to break a bad habit. But this is the correct way to use "can" and "will". And in most cases we use them correctly, and only screw them up when thinking figuratively instead of literally.

''Could have, if only things had been different'' is an expression of human imagination, powerless hindsight, a form of lament, an impossible 'if only....''.

Wow. A rant denigrating "could have". Didn't it occur to you that hindsight can be powerful, a way to acquire new options for the future? What we could have done in the past is also something that we can do in the future. And what is this crap about "lament"? Or "an impossible 'if only'..."? If we are disappointed by what we did, then we learn from our mistakes and do better in the future. There is no need to waste time and energy on self-pity.

'Could have' is incorrect. It's an expression based on the assumption, 'I could have, if only things had gone differently.'

Then 'could have' is correct, not incorrect.

As defined, nothing can go differently.

Nope. As defined, nothing "will" go differently. But things always "can" go differently.

We cannot eliminate a whole field of logic and language that evolved to give our species a survival advantage! That's suicide.

'Powers' in this context is not related to the system, but to us as agents within the system, that it's us who lack the power to regulate events according to our will. That the evolving state of the system shapes and forms us, our thoughts, imaginings, plans, hopes dreams and actions...''there are no powers'' refers to the nature and status of our will.

And, there we go again back to the view of the system itself as a causal agent, an entity with a mind of its own, directing the behavior and actions of its parts for its own goals and purposes. It remains superstitious nonsense, a little imaginary monster with god-like powers and a will of its own that overrides our actual wills.

That's not what determinism is about. Determinism simply points out that all events are reliably caused by prior events. And what is actually causing these events? The natural interactions of the objects within the universe. We happen to be such objects. We go about in the world causing events to happen, and doing so to accomplish our own goals and for our own reasons, because we have a keen interest in the consequences that affect us. This is really what determinism implies, simply that all events are reliably caused. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[DBT]

'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

Jarhyn - A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.

 

[DBT]

It's a matter of entailment- 'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

While that may "sound" right to you, due to figurative thinking, it is still logically false.

It has nothing to do with me. It is entailed in the given definition, your own definition. Which I accept and work with.

The fact is that it was always "possible" to order the steak instead of the salad. At no point in time was it ever "impossible" to order the steak instead of the salad.

Referring to the given definition of determinism, it was made impossible at time t - the big bang - and how things go ever after;

''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.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Fixed means precisely that Fixed, unchangeable, no alternatives, no steak if salad is determined.

The fact that you "would not" order the steak instead of the salad never implies that you "could not" have ordered the steak instead of the salad.

That is precisely what is entailed in the stipulation, no deviation' - alternate actions literally cannot happen. What happens must necessarily happen.

This is a consequence of the distinction between the meaning of "can" and "will", the distinction between "possibility" and "actuality", the distinction between events that "can happen" and events that "must happen".

In a system that permits no realizable alternatives, determinism, possible alternate actions are an illusion formed by not having sufficient information about the system as it evolves from prior to current and future states without deviation.

There are no meaningful consequences of "no deviation".

The consequences of no deviation are that that your actions are not freely chosen, you cannot choose or do otherwise.

Events happen exactly as they always did, without deviation. Did choosing just happen?

The system evolves from prior to current and future states, past states of the system shape current and future states, the system does not 'choose.'

Choice implies the ability to select from a range of realizable options. Determinism has no range of realizable options, everything must proceed as determined; conditions at time t and how things go ever after.

Then it happened precisely as it did happen, without deviation. Were multiple possibilities considered? Then they were each considered exactly as they were considered, without deviation.

The very act of consideration is fixed precisely from the start to the finish when the inevitable action is performed .

That's determinism.

Did we have thoughts about eating a balanced diet?

Of course, unavoidably.

Then those thoughts happened exactly as they happened, without deviation.

As they must.

Did we conclude that it would be better to have the salad for dinner instead of the steak? Then that also happened without deviation. Was it always true that we could have ordered the steak instead of the salad? Then that was always true without deviation.

For the reasons outlined above, it was never true that we could have ordered steak instead of salad.

 

[Jarhyn]

'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

Jarhyn - A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.

No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Again and again you swap out a definition of choice and so argue a straw-man.

It will always be true that "IF I had decided". I didn't decide such but it will still always be true that, "IF I decided", because "IF I decided" does not rely on something different happening in the past. It relies on a whole concept of an entirely different universe being a sensible thing to think of.

As such it allows us to plan plans on the basis of contingency and unknowns through the assumption of them as knowns in the context of the plan, and on the assumption that most of the assumed unknowns are configurations that only assume differences within a single brain.

As such "can" is always in relation to an imaginary universe.

The issue here I think is that I order for a human to grok this, said human needs to be capable of some minimum number of levels of abstract thought, and I'm not sure if you have that power within you to get over the hump.

 

[pood]

The stamina of everyone here is impressive, but basically at this point everyone, especially DBT, is saying the same thing over and over.

I don’t think you’re going to make any inroads with someone who can’t understand the difference between “will” and “must” and basically came out and admitted that he thinks the big bang shot JFK — the mother of all JFK conspiracy theories!

 

[Jarhyn]

The stamina of everyone here is impressive, but basically at this point everyone, especially DBT, is saying the same thing over and over.

I don’t think you’re going to make any inroads with someone who can’t understand the difference between “will” and “must” and basically came out and admitted that he thinks the big bang shot JFK — the mother of all JFK conspiracy theories!

IOW, GODBB-DID-IT!

The most trivial of all deconversions.

 

[rousseau]

The stamina of everyone here is impressive, but basically at this point everyone, especially DBT, is saying the same thing over and over.

I don’t think you’re going to make any inroads with someone who can’t understand the difference between “will” and “must” and basically came out and admitted that he thinks the big bang shot JFK — the mother of all JFK conspiracy theories!

Agreed. IMHO, I've injected a few interesting posts in this thread here and there, but they seem to get passed over by everyone other than fromderinside.

At this point I'm still trying to figure out who's a chatbot, and who isn't.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

It's a matter of entailment- 'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

The possibility of ordering the steak was causally necessary from any prior point in time, just like ordering the salad was causally necessary from any prior point in time.

Determinism entails that it always would be true that we could have ordered steak instead of the salad at that time and place, and that we would order the salad instead of the steak at that time and place.

It happened. Therefore, given determinism, it must have happened, just so and in no other way, without deviation.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

At this point I'm still trying to figure out who's a chatbot, and who isn't.

Hmm. Sounds like just the kind of thing a chatbot would say...

 

[Jarhyn]

The stamina of everyone here is impressive, but basically at this point everyone, especially DBT, is saying the same thing over and over.

I don’t think you’re going to make any inroads with someone who can’t understand the difference between “will” and “must” and basically came out and admitted that he thinks the big bang shot JFK — the mother of all JFK conspiracy theories!

Agreed. IMHO, I've injected a few interesting posts in this thread here and there, but they seem to get passed over by everyone other than fromderinside.

At this point I'm still trying to figure out who's a chatbot, and who isn't.

To your point...

.

You seem to be speaking against the same dualistic nonsense that DBT is: I don't give a shit about nonsensical libertarian free will. I'm a compatibilist.

The sad part is that you have not understood a word I said. Nothing I have said supports dualism. Just the opposite.

Of course you don’t support dualism. But here is what you wrote in the other thread:

BS. I am supporting the proposition that it is the state of the brain, neural architecture, state and condition, that determines behaviour, not free will.

Of course, if you are not a dualist, then you realize that I AM my brain. And that means that I AM my neural architecture, state and condition.


And, since you are not a dualist, but given your own words quoted above, we can recast those words to the simpler formulation, viz.

I am supporting the proposition that I determine my behavior, not free will.

And, with your own words, your have supplied a reductio of your hard determinism! If “I” determine my behavior, that just IS (compatibilist) free will! So your quote logically reduces to:

I am supporting the proposition that I determine my behavior.

Welcome to compatibilism, DBT!

Talk about creative interpretation!

Then again, creative interpretation and careful wording is the very essence of compatibilism.

The brain is the agency of response, therefore free will, is a far cry from proving free will. Careful wording and creative interpretation doesn't prove the proposition.

That takes neuroscience: how the brain works, how decisions are made and actions taken.

And I keep explaining to you that neuroscience is not what gets you there, either. You need: a few entry level SW courses, an assembly language course, a machine architecture course, a course on basic ML and a course on HTMs.

You need to understand a neuron well enough to create an artificial one, and then to understand the behavior of neurons in concert well enough to understand how they give rise to the expression of algorithms based on the field of their connection biases.

Then you might understand how a choice function can be implemented in neural media.

But none of that is necessary to show real examples of active choice functions in machines.

To me it looks like the arguments you and fromderinside are making are compatible with each other.

At a fundamental level, FDI is arguing that there is no centralized mover in the system, just a system that moves. If I'm understanding you correctly, you basically agree with this but choose to call it free will, while fromderinside doesn't.

fromderinside uses the lack of a centralized mover to conclude that will doesn't exist - which is true according to his definition of will. While you define the system as one that operates, making your definition of will true as well

I agree with the congruence of these two thoughts. We are a system that operates which will always land on one outcome. We can choose otherwise but what makes that so isn't that the next choice wasn't inevitable, but that the human body operates in an environment where it's free to act out a range of activity. We can choose otherwise because there are minimal constraints on our behavior - experientially we experience a feeling of freedom to choose. And in a way we are choosing, the brain activity happening is us.

The brain chooses - the choice it ended up making was inevitable - both of these things can be true.

No? There are, in any given event, "central movers".

To understand this one needs to understand just a single neuron, in relation to many other neurons:

This neuron has a bias value. In meat neurons it's a bit more messy on the activation curve and result, but essentially this bias value determines how many of the "many other neurons" it takes to "activate" the neuron, to make it output a "1".

If enough of the neurons "above" that one have activated, the input will exceed the bias, and it will fire.

The most simple "central mover" here is the bias.

There are other parts to the geometry of the neuron: it's connection weights, Its refractory period, it's refractory radius, it's refractory weight.

Some nifty switching can happen in the domain of local refractory behaviors, too, but it takes about a week to align myself on that math and I have no cause to right now.

But moreover, it ends up coming together in process that something IN that process does to itself modifies the process itself. At some level there is an executive loop, but fuck if I know where it is or how it's shaped, and fuck if I would tell anyone if I did. Pointing out the location and nature of the soul is dangerous.

What you're describing sounds like 'no centralized mover' to me - complicated electrochemical impulses. Unless you want to call the entire nervous system our 'centralized mover'.

And that's partly what I'm getting at - you both agree that the brain is material, but are defining it differently, and perceiving it differently. You can't really resolve that debate.

Well, no single central mover. There is always a straw that breaks the camel's back, a signal that says "yes, this, now".

If someone asked me objectively "why did this fault happen on this system" I would be able to say "this number was too low". That is a central mover to the event.

The conflict comes insofar as DBT abandons the reality that the process alters itself, that we do decide upon what we will want to some extent, and that the thing implements evaluable choice functions.

The problem I have is the use of "determinism" to attain "absolution".

FWIW, I basically agree with the gist of your argument.

I read some Anthony Giddens (sociology of all things) recently that I believe speaks to this discussion from a high level. His theory is that an agent and it's environment represent a duality - neither has primacy over the other. The agent is both constrained and enabled by the environment, but the agent is also able to act out creatively and change his environment (which applies to your argument).

It's a kind of fallacy to look at living things as entirely passive, at the whims of culture and time. They are also internally creative and act on the world. To reduce the free will argument to humans being nothing but a conglomeration of atoms ignores any of our properties as a living animal. That doesn't necessarily make the basic free will argument wrong, just not really that interesting, and a little reductive.

To your point, while I personally do reduce humans to a conglomeration of atoms in some respects, I also recognize that conglomerations of atoms can together think, act, and have behaviors emergent of such conglomerations.

Awareness, consciousness, thought, the ability to both be aware of self and express that self, all of this is quite amazing and frankly beautiful.

Being able to put the description of it in a whole sentence to the point where it can be built into semantic completeness unto reproduction requires a lot of reduction of the elements.

Of course, I would much rather just be able to call it "free will" rather than "a will freely held, in which the will to select wills for oneself is not superceded by an inaccessible and uninterruptible impetus to act in some way vital to one's immediate survival"

I don't like having to reduce it and put together all those tiny fucking parts so painstakingly every time I want to discuss it. I don't want to have to prove the small pieces exist first, or the interactions I'm going to enforce upon those small pieces.

Its just that I can't, without reaching true semantic completeness and thus purely reduce it to switching accomplished by conglomerations of atoms, argue that these things really exist to the point where I have proven it mathematically, and can say beyond any shadow of a doubt that free will may exist within deterministic systems.

 

[ramoss]

'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

Jarhyn - A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.

No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Again and again you swap out a definition of choice and so argue a straw-man.

It will always be true that "IF I had decided". I didn't decide such but it will still always be true that, "IF I decided", because "IF I decided" does not rely on something different happening in the past. It relies on a whole concept of an entirely different universe being a sensible thing to think of.

As such it allows us to plan plans on the basis of contingency and unknowns through the assumption of them as knowns in the context of the plan, and on the assumption that most of the assumed unknowns are configurations that only assume differences within a single brain.

As such "can" is always in relation to an imaginary universe.

The issue here I think is that I order for a human to grok this, said human needs to be capable of some minimum number of levels of abstract thought, and I'm not sure if you have that power within you to get over the hump.

The statement that 'a deterministic system is not a system with no choice' directly contradicts the definition of a deterministic system.

From https://www.techopedia.com/definition/602/deterministic-system

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.

Techopedia Explains Deterministic System​

In a non-deterministic system, by contrast, there is some randomness or choice involved in the model. One of the best ways to explain this is to contrast the deterministic system with a probabilistic system. Probabilistic computing involves taking inputs and subjecting them to probabilistic models in order to guess results.

Now, when it comes to the universe, is the universe deterministic or probabilistic? Does QM have hidden variables, or is it probabilistic.


My feeling it is probabilistic, but I have no way to show that is true (or false) . Since it is currently impossible to show deterministic or probabilistic, or if alleged choices are predetermined or not, the concept of free will , or not free will is nothing but word salad, no matter which position you take. It's a word game, nothing more.

 

[Jarhyn]

'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

Jarhyn - A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.

No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Again and again you swap out a definition of choice and so argue a straw-man.

It will always be true that "IF I had decided". I didn't decide such but it will still always be true that, "IF I decided", because "IF I decided" does not rely on something different happening in the past. It relies on a whole concept of an entirely different universe being a sensible thing to think of.

As such it allows us to plan plans on the basis of contingency and unknowns through the assumption of them as knowns in the context of the plan, and on the assumption that most of the assumed unknowns are configurations that only assume differences within a single brain.

As such "can" is always in relation to an imaginary universe.

The issue here I think is that I order for a human to grok this, said human needs to be capable of some minimum number of levels of abstract thought, and I'm not sure if you have that power within you to get over the hump.

The statement that 'a deterministic system is not a system with no choice' directly contradicts the definition of a deterministic system.

From https://www.techopedia.com/definition/602/deterministic-system

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.

Techopedia Explains Deterministic System​

In a non-deterministic system, by contrast, there is some randomness or choice involved in the model. One of the best ways to explain this is to contrast the deterministic system with a probabilistic system. Probabilistic computing involves taking inputs and subjecting them to probabilistic models in order to guess results.

Now, when it comes to the universe, is the universe deterministic or probabilistic? Does QM have hidden variables, or is it probabilistic.


My feeling it is probabilistic, but I have no way to show that is true (or false) . Since it is currently impossible to show deterministic or probabilistic, or if alleged choices are predetermined or not, the concept of free will , or not free will is nothing but word salad, no matter which position you take. It's a word game, nothing more.

It's a misunderstanding of choice, then.

Again I will invite you to look at the choice function of ListA. It is a deterministic choice function: of the buffer, it will always return the top element. There is no randomness, but it is nonetheless a choice function.

Math cannot accomplish a "truly random" choice. Nor can physics.

Choice is then always going to be deterministic, if accomplished by a system that can be described by math.

So in your quote, "choice" is misused.

This is in fact why I get so "reductive" and "granular" with the language.

The choice function can be a choice accomplished of alternatives of the mode of "can" as in "can, assuming that the shape of the universe is such that this would be selected".

And this extension of the system, this parallel imaginary universe or set of imaginary universes, if it contains what is, actually, the universe, we get a true/false to semantic completion: the will (properly one of a set of wills) is free.

From there all the rest may be constructed.

Choice functions, deterministic as they are, operate upon this set. One of the set is returned.

Sometimes certain inputs are categorized differently upstream and sent to a system with higher priority within our own minds, assuming we haven't attained mastery over those parts yet.

When the thing that brings us to act comes from there, "our" will is not free. None of the things we suggest to the rest of our meat may happen.

We open our "mouth" to the rest of our mind and the rest of our mind says "no".

Instead of ordering the salad, Marvin orders the steak, because lizard brain is in charge.

The wills we have, the set of imaginary universes which we gin up, does not contain in any abstract manner what is going to happen.

This is an observable event in the dynamics of the system.

It's fully deterministic.

And it clearly, observably MAY happen in our universe because as dumb and small and meaningless as they are, my stupid little dwarves do exactly that, in a proven way, in a way that may be expressed by an equation.

And for that matter we do that, too. We just don't know quite all of the equation.