Compatibilism: What's that About?

[fromderinside]

Objectivity then always has error.

It is not about "removing self" as if that was ever an important or sane thing to do as much as it is removing ambiguity because human biology is sloppy and imprecise without augmentation.


What is ironic is that a computer offers simultaneous parallel observation points which all validate it's observable qualities in various ways, and it is exactly the computer with it's multiply validated observable qualities, including as ironic as it may seem the "locked door" and the dwarf whose will, lacking freedom, is to "open" that "locked door", that FDI wishes desperately weren't an object for some reason.

First off one developing an experiment that uses a device to measure something is not one recording something. The individual setting approved protocols and assigning devices in an experiment is employing method that removes the individual from being part of the experiment.

I fully appreciate the value of computers as devices useful to experimentation. However it is humans who program computers, who design program languages, who make errors that require others to continuously investigate and correct such problems. Placebos they are not.

I trust more the review and critique process of scientific endeavor over the profit motive of those who have the next great idea.

You are again falling into the genetic fallacy. It does not matter where an object came from.

Or rather, what grounds do you have for saying that something that was manufactured objectively tested, assembled, objectively tested, turned on, objectively tested, laid down with a program, objectively tested, turned off, objectively tested, taken apart, objectively inspected, put together again, objectively inspected...

I know more about the microstate of that computer than you know about the inside of a human brain, to the point where I can, because all of it is so well known and objectively described (in fact it is objectively described down to the location of numbers of molecules, give or take, in places), make inferences about the state of electron shells of some of it's atoms by looking at other atoms somewhere else, that are in fact reporting on the state of those electron shells.

The fact is, though, observation does not determine that it is an object, the fact that it is there, made of material, is what makes it thus. How the observations are taken nor recorded are not germaine either. What is germaine is that someone using the same technique gets the same answer.

[removed]

What needs be done is The scientific method. The Scientific Method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries). It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the material scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.

I focus on quantitative empirical research since it is the only form of research necessary to explore material evidence. Social sciences must await the time that they can be reduced materiality without referring to one or within one.

My deviations from general texts is because I disagree that social science can fall within the limitations of the product of material scientific research.

IMHO no competent material scientist should let qualitative data become fodder in otherwise robust scientific investigation. To date no competent subjective qualitative scientific theory has been formed.

 

[fromderinside]

'Could not have gone another way' is the essence of determinism.

First you tell them that they can choose the vanilla, then you tell them that they could not have chosen the vanilla. Because "could have" is simply the past tense of "can", those two statements are direct contradictions. One of them must be a lie.

That is why determinism cannot truly mean "could not have done otherwise". The assertion makes determinism a lie.

The cognitive dissonance creates an unnecessary and interminable dispute. Fix the language, and the problem disappears.

For example, suppose we ask them, "Why did you choose the chocolate?", and they answer "I like chocolate best", and we say, "So, you would have always chosen the chocolate today?". They will say "Yes. I would have." No cognitive dissonance, because there is no lying.

You criticize determinism by inventing a dimension of could and should because you insist qualitative subjective context should be explained by what DBT clearly says it does not. That qualitative subjective world is of human creation alone. The human, no living thing, has direct access to reality. What is sensed and processed demands other approaches for understanding. Build a bridge from reality to sense and you may get there but you don't even try. find the distinction between sense and reality then find that distinction in the being. You just wave hands and say well sense comes from reality as if that made it reality. It doesn't.

 

[Jarhyn]

Causes.

Effects.

Wills.

Freeness.

Possibilities.

Choices.

Responses.

Consequences.

These are all pieces in the systemic truths of our world which bring forth responsibility.

None of them are atomic against each other. Each may be examined in part free from the others, and have been in the thread.

It is silly to argue with people who do not believe they exist, who do not see the simple contradictions in their language, who claim computers are not objects.

I have laid out the argument that various observable states exist even in pure deterministic math that are in fact "series of instructions unto a requirement".

I have laid out the argument that it is logically true that this requirement either shall or shall not be satisfied.

I have laid out the argument that it is logically sensible to extend the math of a Deterministic System by making a change and using the modified system as an initial condition -- to imagine a different universe that works by the same rules of process upon different initial conditions. In fact I did it by copying a whole deterministic function of math, wrote a value to a field and boom, the system processes that state just fine.

I have laid out a presentation of various observable states that exist in pure deterministic math that are in fact "choice functions" of the form described here. So clearly choice and determinism are not at odds...

This brings us to the point of responsibility.

When someone makes a choice that reifies certain possibilities that should damn well have been understood and avoided, we recognize that we need to cause some effects upon their wills such that certain wills are not so often again free possibilities, most beneficially by the choices made by party responsible for creating prior consequences.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You criticize determinism by inventing a dimension of could and should ...

It's not my invention. Human language has evolved over millions of years. Language is a tool for thinking and communicating. Despite the fact that there are multiple languages and geographical and cultural differences in many of the concepts we use, there are some concepts that appear universal. I presume that the notion of "addition" is universal. Even before language, people were probably adding things to a pile of things, and measuring the piles in some fashion.

I suspect that the notion of choosing is just as old and universal as the notion of adding. With choosing we developed the notion of multiple things that we "can" do, and the notion of choosing from them the single thing that we "will" do. The words "can" and "will" probably vary, and there may even be cultural differences in how choosing operates.

But there is an operational distinction between the set of multiple options (things that we "can" choose to do) versus the single choice (the thing that we "will" do). Just like there is a distinction between the set of numbers being added together and the sum of those numbers.

If today I can truthfully say, "I can juggle right now", then tomorrow I can truthfully say "I could have juggled yesterday". And this has nothing to do with whether I actually "did" juggle or not. "I can juggle" does not imply that "I will juggle". And the fact that "I will not juggle" does not imply that "I cannot juggle". And the fact that "I would not juggle" does not imply that "I could not juggle".

Now, the hard determinist's claim that "I could not have done otherwise" must be true, because "I would not have done otherwise", is confusing the meaning of "could" with "would" ("can" and "will"). To say that "I could not juggle" must be false because "I would not juggle" is not a truthful conclusion.

We have evolved the notion of "possibility" to rationally cope with our uncertainty as to what inevitably will happen.

That qualitative subjective world is of human creation alone. The human, no living thing, has direct access to reality.

And yet we are forced to act like we do have direct access to reality. Otherwise, given your premise, we would not act at all. Because, like you say, we have no direct access to reality. Yet, here reality is, and if we are to survive, we must deal with as best we can, even with our limited knowledge.

 

[fromderinside]

Causes.

Effects.

Wills.

Freeness.

Possibilities.

Choices.

Responses.

Consequences.

This brings us to the point of responsibility.

When someone makes a choice that reifies certain possibilities that should damn well have been understood and avoided, we recognize that we need to cause some effects upon their wills such that certain wills are not so often again free possibilities, most beneficially by the choices made by party responsible for creating prior consequences.

I laid out your construction to the dustbin for being a tired delaration of "I". You have patched together some sort of 'justification' for using determinism as a whipping boy for your grievances against the primacy of cause and effect rationales for the existence of man and universe which justifies something like a God (mind) at the wheel.

Your mishmash of undefined unsupported terms cannot stand unless you include the human mind at the center of it. Well the human mind kay be at the center of your belief system but it is not even included as part of the laws of nature. You can't even pull it together in a criticism of determinism.

As for responsibility please explain it's mechanics or how it ties in with evolution, much less with the laws of nature, as driver of coherent civilization.

Nations crumble when responsibility is whittled to the few, the many, the average, the masses, the elites. Explain how that works. Then maybe we'll begin to have a discussion.

Responsibility certainly has little to do with atomic structure and function.

 

[fromderinside]

You criticize determinism by inventing a dimension of could and should ...

It's not my invention. Human language has evolved over millions of years. Language is a tool for thinking and communicating. Despite the fact that there are multiple languages and geographical and cultural differences in many of the concepts we use, there are some concepts that appear universal. I presume that the notion of "addition" is universal. Even before language, people were probably adding things to a pile of things, and measuring the piles in some fashion.

I suspect that the notion of choosing is just as old and universal as the notion of adding. With choosing we developed the notion of multiple things that we "can" do, and the notion of choosing from them the single thing that we "will" do. The words "can" and "will" probably vary, and there may even be cultural differences in how choosing operates.

But there is an operational distinction between the set of multiple options (things that we "can" choose to do) versus the single choice (the thing that we "will" do). Just like there is a distinction between the set of numbers being added together and the sum of those numbers.

If today I can truthfully say, "I can juggle right now", then tomorrow I can truthfully say "I could have juggled yesterday". And this has nothing to do with whether I actually "did" juggle or not. "I can juggle" does not imply that "I will juggle". And the fact that "I will not juggle" does not imply that "I cannot juggle". And the fact that "I would not juggle" does not imply that "I could not juggle".

Now, the hard determinist's claim that "I could not have done otherwise" must be true, because "I would not have done otherwise", is confusing the meaning of "could" with "would" ("can" and "will"). To say that "I could not juggle" must be false because "I would not juggle" is not a truthful conclusion.

We have evolved the notion of "possibility" to rationally cope with our uncertainty as to what inevitably will happen.

That qualitative subjective world is of human creation alone. The human, no living thing, has direct access to reality.

And yet we are forced to act like we do have direct access to reality. Otherwise, given your premise, we would not act at all. Because, like you say, we have no direct access to reality. Yet, here reality is, and if we are to survive, we must deal with as best we can, even with our limited knowledge.

Let's start with "Human language has evolved over millions of years." as justification for anything. So has taste, fear, hatred, tool making, etc. Human language, IMHO, is convenient derivative to tool making permitting one to work and instruct at the same time.

It's functional that way. It's acquired fortuitously just like a rat continuing to bar press is fortuitous demonstration of the fundamental nature of learning. The ability to articulate additivity is derivative to existing behavior, not causative of the process of counting or conducting mathematical operations. You have a convenient way of positioning carts and horses to suit your biases.

Doing so doesn't lend support to whatever thesis you are trying to support though. Anybody can take a set of words and arrange them to meet many explanative opportunities. That doesn't make them causative.

Focus. Demonstrate lawfulness, utility, meaning. You may have noted I referenced my argument to evolutionary theory then attempted to demonstrate how that is so. You tried that to but you justified your argument as some sort of logical consequence. You didn't demonstrate it.

Finally we are not forced to act as if it were reality. It is reality in which we are reacting with equipment not really suited for communicating what is reality. Currently we do well enough and we have a mechanism of inheritance which makes it likely we will do better in the future if everything runs smoothly else we will be put to the dust bin of failed species. Coin flips. Top dog today dead dog tomorrow.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Let's start with "Human language has evolved over millions of years." as justification for anything. So has taste, fear, hatred, tool making, etc. Human language, IMHO, is convenient derivative to tool making permitting one to work and instruct at the same time.

It's functional that way. It's acquired fortuitously just like a rat continuing to bar press is fortuitous demonstration of the fundamental nature of learning. The ability to articulate additivity is derivative to existing behavior, not causative of the process of counting or conducting mathematical operations. You have a convenient way of positioning carts and horses to suit your biases.

Doing so doesn't lend support to whatever thesis you are trying to support though. Anybody can take a set of words and arrange them to meet many explanative opportunities. That doesn't make them causative.

Focus. Demonstrate lawfulness, utility, meaning. You may have noted I referenced my argument to evolutionary theory then attempted to demonstrate how that is so. You tried that to but you justified your argument as some sort of logical consequence. You didn't demonstrate it.

Finally we are not forced to act as if it were reality. It is reality in which we are reacting with equipment not really suited for communicating what is reality. Currently we do well enough and we have a mechanism of inheritance which makes it likely we will do better in the future if everything runs smoothly else we will be put to the dust bin of failed species. Coin flips. Top dog today dead dog tomorrow.

Uh...no. I'm not going to attempt to deal with this cynicism this morning.

 

[DBT]

First, as has been explained, the brain is not a parallel processing computer. Second, you answer misses the point, as usual. Navigate the environment? According to you, the big bang navigates it for them! No brain is needed, just a big explosion some 13 billion years ago! So, no, you haven’t answered the question; in fact you contradict yourself.

Explained? It appears that you have no understood what I have said.

I made no mention of ''computer'' - I said ''information processor.''

The brain is an information processor, acquiring information via the senses, integrating with memory, etc.

That evolved function of a brain is to acquire and process information and respond according to experience, which is the function of memory.


How the Brain Processes Information to Make Decisions:

The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: a reflective system and a reactive (or reflexive) system.

''In a computer, information is entered by means of input devices like a keyboard or scanner. In the human mind, the input device is called the Sensory Register, composed of sensory organs like the eyes and the ears through which we receive information about our surroundings. As information is received by a computer, it is processed in the Central Processing Unit, which is equivalent to the Working Memory or Short-Term Memory. In the human mind, this is where information is temporarily held so that it may be used, discarded, or transferred into Long-Term Memory. In a computer, information is stored in a hard disk, which is equivalent to Long-Term Memory. This is where we keep information that is not currently being used. Information stored in the Long-Term Memory may be kept for an indefinite period of time.''

Well, no, I did not ask you how you think the brain works. I asked you an entirely different question and once again you ignored that question.

The question of freedom and the nature of will is answered in terms of how the brain evolved, it's role, how it functions and generates actions.

That you appear to be unable or unwilling to understand this is your problem.

You also ignored this:

And then again you just blithely go off and repeat yourself:

1) Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternative action or choice.

2) No alternative action or choice negates freedom of choice.

3) Absence of choice (no possible alternate actions) negates freedom of will

4) Will cannot make a difference to determined outcomes.

5) Free will is incompatible with determinism.

But I explicitly CHALLENGED this a few posts up, showing why P1 fails. Are you unable or unwilling to deal with that challenge?

P1 doesn't fail. Your rationalization failed.

P1 is entailed in the given definition of determinism, ie, actions proceed as determined, fixed, no deviation.

That you are unable or unwilling to grasp the meaning and implications of determinism, fixed actions, fixed outcomes, is your problem.

This has been thoroughly explained, that you are unable or unwilling to accept it, repeating your objections regardless, is your problem.

You ignore my point that determinism DESCRIBES but does not PRESCRIBE what happens in the world, and my point, repeatedly made, that “natural” law also DESCRIBES but does not PRESCRIBE what happens in the world. You ignore all this and just go on repeating yourself. At this point I have to conclude you are unable to deal with these points and so you just ignore them.

No big surprise, you’ve been ignoring this stuff from the start.

It is specified that all events are fixed by antecedents, 'natural law' - which means the physical principles of causal determinism, no deviation, no alternate actions, no alternate choice, no freedom of will..


Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

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.'

That you are unable or unwilling to grasp ''initial state or condition will always produce the same results'' and the implications this has for freedom of will is your problem.

 

[Jarhyn]

I laid out your construction to the dustbin for being a tired delaration of "I".

What such delicious nonsense.

Again you deny "I" exist in the same sentence while invoking the concept.

It's called solipsism, and it's not a good look.

 

[DBT]

'Could not have gone another way' is the essence of determinism.

The essence of determinism is "would not have gone another way" and "would not have done otherwise". That is sufficient for determinism. And it is the only coherent assertion that a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect can logically imply.

Semantics. If saying 'would not have done otherwise' seeks to imply freedom or the possibility of doing otherwise, it does not relate to determinism.

If it's just said because, well, it's ''sufficient to say,'' it doesn't alter anything, events proceed as determined. Will, what you 'choose to do,' is determined, and events proceed without deviation, as determined....and 'would not have done otherwise' is precisely the same as 'could not have done otherwise.

To say to someone, "I have two ice cream cones. One is chocolate. The other is vanilla. You can choose either one, and I will have the other." And then, when they choose the chocolate, tell them "You could not have chosen the vanilla", creates a cognitive dissonance.

This contradicts the terms of your definition. You want it both ways, events fixed by antecedents and events not fixed by antecedents.

When presented with options within a deterministic system, it is the state of the system as it evolves from prior to current and future states that determines all actions, no exceptions.

When you present someone with two ice cream cones, itself a determined action, it cannot be a matter of probability chance or you are 'free to take either one in any instance in time,' it has to be the determined action. If chocolate is chosen, chocolate is necessarily chosen.

The whole performance goes as it must, thinking of presenting a test, formulating the terms and carrying it out, no deviation.

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

First you tell them that they can choose the vanilla, then you tell them that they could not have chosen the vanilla. Because "could have" is simply the past tense of "can", those two statements are direct contradictions. One of them must be a lie.

They choose precisely what they must choose. Any and every instance is determined by the prior state of the system. If chocolate is determined at precisely the time it is presented, chocolate it must be, even the play out of uncertainty, ''uhm, well, vanilla is nice, maybe....but no, I'll take chocolate thanks.''

That is determinism.

That is why determinism cannot truly mean "could not have done otherwise". The assertion makes determinism a lie.

In which case it is not 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.''

The cognitive dissonance creates an unnecessary and interminable dispute. Fix the language, and the problem disappears.

If a definition of determinism is given, the terms and conditions of that definition must be adhered to, not broken. Could have done otherwise contradicts the given definition of determinism.

For example, suppose we ask them, "Why did you choose the chocolate?", and they answer "I like chocolate best", and we say, "So, you would have always chosen the chocolate today?". They will say "Yes. I would have." No cognitive dissonance, because there is no lying.

Of course they would have. There was no alternative.

 

[Jarhyn]

The question of freedom and the nature of will is answered in terms of how the brain evolved, it's role, how it functions and generates actions.

That is literally a non-answer and screams GENETIC FALLACY.

While evolution tells you about how something got to be what it is, it is also descriptive, not prescriptive.

The brain generates actions, but it doesn't just generate "action", it generates whole recipes for action, some of which it executed and some of which it does not.

When it does not, the language that describes this is "he chose not to", because many of them are mutually exclusive in execution.

When one thing happens of many this means necessarily, that a choice function executed.

I'm sorry this is such a hard concept for you.

That is what choice is. It is not that someone WILL... But that someone CAN, in the context of an imaginary universe.

Even so, the imaginations of it are, within the context of their structure in spacetime that they are imprinted upon, still absolutely real and these imprints will have a selection made of them.

Many go in...

One comes out...

Therefore choice.

And of course when one of those imagined (sets of) universes contain our universe, we call that course, that will, "free".

 

[pood]

First, as has been explained, the brain is not a parallel processing computer. Second, you answer misses the point, as usual. Navigate the environment? According to you, the big bang navigates it for them! No brain is needed, just a big explosion some 13 billion years ago! So, no, you haven’t answered the question; in fact you contradict yourself.

Explained? It appears that you have no understood what I have said.

I made no mention of ''computer'' - I said ''information processor.''

The brain is an information processor, acquiring information via the senses, integrating with memory, etc.

That evolved function of a brain is to acquire and process information and respond according to experience, which is the function of memory.


How the Brain Processes Information to Make Decisions:

The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: a reflective system and a reactive (or reflexive) system.

''In a computer, information is entered by means of input devices like a keyboard or scanner. In the human mind, the input device is called the Sensory Register, composed of sensory organs like the eyes and the ears through which we receive information about our surroundings. As information is received by a computer, it is processed in the Central Processing Unit, which is equivalent to the Working Memory or Short-Term Memory. In the human mind, this is where information is temporarily held so that it may be used, discarded, or transferred into Long-Term Memory. In a computer, information is stored in a hard disk, which is equivalent to Long-Term Memory. This is where we keep information that is not currently being used. Information stored in the Long-Term Memory may be kept for an indefinite period of time.''

Well, no, I did not ask you how you think the brain works. I asked you an entirely different question and once again you ignored that question.

The question of freedom and the nature of will is answered in terms of how the brain evolved, it's role, how it functions and generates actions.

That you appear to be unable or unwilling to understand this is your problem.

You also ignored this:

And then again you just blithely go off and repeat yourself:

1) Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternative action or choice.

2) No alternative action or choice negates freedom of choice.

3) Absence of choice (no possible alternate actions) negates freedom of will

4) Will cannot make a difference to determined outcomes.

5) Free will is incompatible with determinism.

But I explicitly CHALLENGED this a few posts up, showing why P1 fails. Are you unable or unwilling to deal with that challenge?

P1 doesn't fail. Your rationalization failed.

P1 is entailed in the given definition of determinism, ie, actions proceed as determined, fixed, no deviation.

That you are unable or unwilling to grasp the meaning and implications of determinism, fixed actions, fixed outcomes, is your problem.

This has been thoroughly explained, that you are unable or unwilling to accept it, repeating your objections regardless, is your problem.

You ignore my point that determinism DESCRIBES but does not PRESCRIBE what happens in the world, and my point, repeatedly made, that “natural” law also DESCRIBES but does not PRESCRIBE what happens in the world. You ignore all this and just go on repeating yourself. At this point I have to conclude you are unable to deal with these points and so you just ignore them.

No big surprise, you’ve been ignoring this stuff from the start.

It is specified that all events are fixed by antecedents, 'natural law' - which means the physical principles of causal determinism, no deviation, no alternate actions, no alternate choice, no freedom of will..


Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

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.'

That you are unable or unwilling to grasp ''initial state or condition will always produce the same results'' and the implications this has for freedom of will is your problem.

 

[pood]

First, as has been explained, the brain is not a parallel processing computer. Second, you answer misses the point, as usual. Navigate the environment? According to you, the big bang navigates it for them! No brain is needed, just a big explosion some 13 billion years ago! So, no, you haven’t answered the question; in fact you contradict yourself.

Explained? It appears that you have no understood what I have said.

I made no mention of ''computer'' - I said ''information processor.''

The brain is an information processor, acquiring information via the senses, integrating with memory, etc.

That evolved function of a brain is to acquire and process information and respond according to experience, which is the function of memory.


How the Brain Processes Information to Make Decisions:

The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: a reflective system and a reactive (or reflexive) system.

''In a computer, information is entered by means of input devices like a keyboard or scanner. In the human mind, the input device is called the Sensory Register, composed of sensory organs like the eyes and the ears through which we receive information about our surroundings. As information is received by a computer, it is processed in the Central Processing Unit, which is equivalent to the Working Memory or Short-Term Memory. In the human mind, this is where information is temporarily held so that it may be used, discarded, or transferred into Long-Term Memory. In a computer, information is stored in a hard disk, which is equivalent to Long-Term Memory. This is where we keep information that is not currently being used. Information stored in the Long-Term Memory may be kept for an indefinite period of time.''

Well, no, I did not ask you how you think the brain works. I asked you an entirely different question and once again you ignored that question.

The question of freedom and the nature of will is answered in terms of how the brain evolved, it's role, how it functions and generates actions.

This, yet again, is explicitly a non-answer to what I actually asked. It means nothing. Empty verbiage.

That you appear to be unable or unwilling to understand this is your problem.

Your constant condescension does not speak well of you or your argument. The fact that someone does not agree with you, does not mean he fails to understand your argument. It may mean your argument is wrong. Perhaps you should consider this.

P1 doesn't fail. Your rationalization failed.

P1 is entailed in the given definition of determinism, ie, actions proceed as determined, fixed, no deviation.

You have not addressed the reason I gave for why you P1 fails. Once again, you fail to answer the question put to you.

That you are unable or unwilling to grasp the meaning and implications of determinism, fixed actions, fixed outcomes, is your problem.

This has been thoroughly explained, that you are unable or unwilling to accept it, repeating your objections regardless, is your problem.

Your constant condescension does not speak well of you or your argument. The fact that someone does not agree with you, does not mean he fails to understand your argument. It may mean your argument is wrong. Perhaps you should consider this.

It is specified that all events are fixed by antecedents, 'natural law' - which means the physical principles of causal determinism, no deviation, no alternate actions, no alternate choice, no freedom of will.

Incredible. Once again you fail to address the explicit point I put to you. I conclude you are not capable of holding this conversation.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The essence of determinism is "would" not have done otherwise. That is sufficient for determinism. Determinism cannot rationally assert "could" not have done otherwise. That would be a fallacy.

Semantics.

Yes. And thanks for noticing.

Semantics is about the meaning of the words we use. And I've been explaining the distinction between saying that "we would not have done otherwise" versus "we could not have done otherwise". We might think that the distinction between "would" and "could" is rather obvious. But the discussion of determinism, long ago, made the figurative leap that effectively conflated the two terms, by falsely suggesting that if something "will not" happen then it is AS IF it "cannot" happen (or, if something "would not" happen then it is AS IF it "could not" happen).

What can I say, other than that philosophy screwed things up, and created a paradox (a self-induced hoax, created by one or more false, but believable, suggestions).

If saying 'would not have done otherwise' seeks to imply freedom or the possibility of doing otherwise, it does not relate to determinism.

The fact is that there is always the possibility of doing otherwise, even if the otherwise is simply between doing something or not doing it. But, of course, there is no possibility of both doing it AND not doing it. Such would be physically and logically impossible. But whether I decide to do it, or to not do it, one will be the thing I did, and the other will be the thing I "could have" done instead.

When deciding between the salad and the steak, each is a real, true, and actual possibility. Both are actually things that I actually "can" choose to order, even though I inevitably "will" only choose one. And the one that I do not choose will inevitably become the thing that I "could have" chosen instead.

As to freedom, there is no "freedom from causal necessity", of course. But there is a freedom to choose for myself whether to have the steak or the salad, where the "freedom" refers implicitly to freedom from coercion and undue influence. This is the freedom which is referenced by the "free" in operational "free will".

We've discussed the two distinctly different definitions of free will. And, yes, the distinction between the two is also a matter of semantics. And we can certainly discuss both definitions again if you like. But operational free will has no problem with determinism.

If it's just said because, well, it's ''sufficient to say,'' it doesn't alter anything, events proceed as determined. Will, what you 'choose to do,' is determined, and events proceed without deviation, as determined....

Of course.

... and 'would not have done otherwise' is precisely the same as 'could not have done otherwise.

If they were precisely the same then there would be no need for two distinct words. But they are not the same at all. For example, I "could" have ordered anything on the menu, but, given my goals and reasons, I "would" only order the salad that night.

To say to someone, "I have two ice cream cones. One is chocolate. The other is vanilla. You can choose either one, and I will have the other." And then, when they choose the chocolate, tell them "You could not have chosen the vanilla", creates a cognitive dissonance. Because the statement "You can choose the vanilla" directly contradicts "You could not have chosen the vanilla". One of those two statements must be a lie.

This contradicts the terms of your definition.

No. It doesn't. After all, the distinction between "could" and "would" was causally inevitable from any prior point in time. And so was the philosopher's error to conflate them, leading to your confusion.

You want it both ways, events fixed by antecedents and events not fixed by antecedents.

No! All events are fixed by antecedent events. For example, the meaningful antecedent events, of my choosing the salad rather than the steak, included my recalling that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch versus my chosen goal of eating more fruits and vegetables daily. Those were the immediate prior causes that fixed my choice.

Those prior causes had their own prior causes, of course, such as my genetic enjoyment of high protein and high fat meals, and my education over the years that more fruits and vegetables would lead to better health. And those prior causes had their own prior causes, etc. etc. etc., all the way back to the Big Bang. But only the more recent causes are meaningful causes, things that we might do something about to change my dietary choices. Viewing the Big Bang as a "meaningful" cause would be silly nonsense.

When presented with options within a deterministic system, it is the state of the system as it evolves from prior to current and future states that determines all actions, no exceptions.

Yep. Just like I have repeatedly described. But I am providing meaningful information about the prior states that caused me to choose the salad. You seem eager to sweep meaningful information under the rug of a broad, abstract generality.

When you present someone with two ice cream cones, itself a determined action, it cannot be a matter of probability chance or you are 'free to take either one in any instance in time,' it has to be the determined action. If chocolate is chosen, chocolate is necessarily chosen.

Correct. The choice of chocolate was causally necessary. And the phenomenon of the person choosing the chocolate instead of the vanilla was also causally necessary. And the logical fact that the person "could have" chosen the vanilla was also causally necessary.

The whole performance goes as it must, thinking of presenting a test, formulating the terms and carrying it out, no deviation.

All of these events, including the choices and the people making them, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.

But back to the ice cream example:

If you tell a person that they can choose the vanilla, then you tell them that they could not have chosen the vanilla, they will object. Those two statements are direct contradictions. So, one of them must be false. If you have a "can" now, then you will also have a "could have" tomorrow. It's the same fact expressed with the present tense and then with the past tense.

They choose precisely what they must choose.

Every time.

Any and every instance is determined by the prior state of the system.

Sure 'nuff. In the ice cream example, the prior state of the system was the person's genetic preference for chocolate over vanilla. So, although they "could" have chosen vanilla, they "would" choose the chocolate instead.

How do we know that they "could" have chosen vanilla? Well, we can easily test for this ability. Offer them the choice between a vanilla ice cream cone or a bowl of spinach. Did they choose the vanilla ice cream? Yes? Then obviously they had the ability to choose vanilla. And they had that same ability when offered the chocolate, they simply chose not to exercise their ability to choose the vanilla.

The fact that they "would" not choose the vanilla under one set of circumstances does not mean that they "could" not choose vanilla under different circumstances. The term "could have happened" always logically implies that (1) it "did not" happen and (2) that it only "would" have happened under "different circumstances".

Determinism cannot honestly assert "could not have done otherwise". It can only honestly assert "would not have done otherwise".

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.''

That remains correct. Determinism will always produce the same results, without randomness or variation. Given a choice between a vanilla ice cream cone versus a chocolate ice cream cone, one of these options will always be the single inevitable "I will" and the other will always be the single inevitable "I could have". Thus, determinism, without randomness or variation.

 

[fromderinside]

The essence of determinism is "would" not have done otherwise. That is sufficient for determinism. Determinism cannot rationally assert "could" not have done otherwise. That would be a fallacy.

Semantics.

Yes. And thanks for noticing.

Semantics is about the meaning of the words we use. And I've been explaining the distinction between saying that "we would not have done otherwise" versus "we could not have done otherwise". We might think that the distinction between "would" and "could" is rather obvious. But the discussion of determinism, long ago, made the figurative leap that effectively conflated the two terms, by falsely suggesting that if something "will not" happen then it is AS IF it "cannot" happen (or, if something "would not" happen then it is AS IF it "could not" happen).

What can I say, other than that philosophy screwed things up, and created a paradox (a self-induced hoax, created by one or more false, but believable, suggestions).

OK. So taking into account quantum mechanical views Hawking believes it is rubbed out by the averaging tendencies of quantum activity.

 Adequate determinism​

Adequate determinism is the idea, because of quantum decoherence, that quantum indeterminacy can be ignored for most macroscopic events. Random quantum events "average out" in the limit of large numbers of particles (where the laws of quantum mechanics asymptotically approach the laws of classical mechanics).[25] Stephen Hawking explains a similar idea: he says that the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is one of determined probabilities. That is, quantum effects rarely alter the predictions of classical mechanics, which are quite accurate (albeit still not perfectly certain) at larger scales.[26] Something as large as an animal cell, then, would be "adequately determined" (even in light of quantum indeterminacy).

and

The existence and proof of

 Gödel's incompleteness theorems​

First Incompleteness Theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F." (Raatikainen 2015)

Second Incompleteness Theorem: "Assume F is a consistent formalized system which contains elementary arithmetic. Then {\displaystyle F\not \vdash {\text{Cons}}(F)}

." (Raatikainen 2015)


There is no evidence humans were developed from complete knowledge of reality. So the constructive limitations of sensory design due to the notion that the brain has inadequate representation of reality resulting from the fact that sense depends on violation of the incompleteness theorem. Imperfect mechanisms to actually reflect reality result from the senses not knowing the source of what is sensed thereby limit their effective or complete design.

Puts your position to flight.

 

[DBT]

The question of freedom and the nature of will is answered in terms of how the brain evolved, it's role, how it functions and generates actions.

That is literally a non-answer and screams GENETIC FALLACY.

While evolution tells you about how something got to be what it is, it is also descriptive, not prescriptive.

The brain generates actions, but it doesn't just generate "action", it generates whole recipes for action, some of which it executed and some of which it does not.

When it does not, the language that describes this is "he chose not to", because many of them are mutually exclusive in execution.

When one thing happens of many this means necessarily, that a choice function executed.

I'm sorry this is such a hard concept for you.

That is what choice is. It is not that someone WILL... But that someone CAN, in the context of an imaginary universe.

Even so, the imaginations of it are, within the context of their structure in spacetime that they are imprinted upon, still absolutely real and these imprints will have a selection made of them.

Many go in...

One comes out...

Therefore choice.

And of course when one of those imagined (sets of) universes contain our universe, we call that course, that will, "free".

You have yet to grasp the implications of your own definition of determinism. Try again when you have done that. Which looks like never.

 

[Jarhyn]

You have yet to grasp the implications of your own definition of determinism. Try again when you have done that. Which looks like never.

Shiny mirror on the wall...

As has been pointed out, as has Marvin, I "fail" to make the same leap from assuming a literally false figurative statement is prescriptive to the language.

 

[DBT]

First, as has been explained, the brain is not a parallel processing computer. Second, you answer misses the point, as usual. Navigate the environment? According to you, the big bang navigates it for them! No brain is needed, just a big explosion some 13 billion years ago! So, no, you haven’t answered the question; in fact you contradict yourself.

Explained? It appears that you have no understood what I have said.

I made no mention of ''computer'' - I said ''information processor.''

The brain is an information processor, acquiring information via the senses, integrating with memory, etc.

That evolved function of a brain is to acquire and process information and respond according to experience, which is the function of memory.


How the Brain Processes Information to Make Decisions:

The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: a reflective system and a reactive (or reflexive) system.

''In a computer, information is entered by means of input devices like a keyboard or scanner. In the human mind, the input device is called the Sensory Register, composed of sensory organs like the eyes and the ears through which we receive information about our surroundings. As information is received by a computer, it is processed in the Central Processing Unit, which is equivalent to the Working Memory or Short-Term Memory. In the human mind, this is where information is temporarily held so that it may be used, discarded, or transferred into Long-Term Memory. In a computer, information is stored in a hard disk, which is equivalent to Long-Term Memory. This is where we keep information that is not currently being used. Information stored in the Long-Term Memory may be kept for an indefinite period of time.''

Well, no, I did not ask you how you think the brain works. I asked you an entirely different question and once again you ignored that question.

The question of freedom and the nature of will is answered in terms of how the brain evolved, it's role, how it functions and generates actions.

This, yet again, is explicitly a non-answer to what I actually asked. It means nothing. Empty verbiage.

That you appear to be unable or unwilling to understand this is your problem.

Your constant condescension does not speak well of you or your argument. The fact that someone does not agree with you, does not mean he fails to understand your argument. It may mean your argument is wrong. Perhaps you should consider this.

P1 doesn't fail. Your rationalization failed.

P1 is entailed in the given definition of determinism, ie, actions proceed as determined, fixed, no deviation.

You have not addressed the reason I gave for why you P1 fails. Once again, you fail to answer the question put to you.

That you are unable or unwilling to grasp the meaning and implications of determinism, fixed actions, fixed outcomes, is your problem.

This has been thoroughly explained, that you are unable or unwilling to accept it, repeating your objections regardless, is your problem.

Your constant condescension does not speak well of you or your argument. The fact that someone does not agree with you, does not mean he fails to understand your argument. It may mean your argument is wrong. Perhaps you should consider this.

It is specified that all events are fixed by antecedents, 'natural law' - which means the physical principles of causal determinism, no deviation, no alternate actions, no alternate choice, no freedom of will.

Incredible. Once again you fail to address the explicit point I put to you. I conclude you are not capable of holding this conversation.

I'm not even sure what you said. I have limited time and three posters to deal with. I don't have time to read everything that's posted or respond to all the points. I only intended to deal with Marvin.

But, post your case against P1 again and I'll deal with it.

 

[DBT]

You have yet to grasp the implications of your own definition of determinism. Try again when you have done that. Which looks like never.

Shiny mirror on the wall...

As has been pointed out, as has Marvin, I "fail" to make the same leap from assuming a literally false figurative statement is prescriptive to the language.

So says the embodiment of JC....get your own little mirror, Sunshine. Or have a chat with your conscious computers about determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is an interesting mistake to think that Incompleteness prevents the idea of simulation of universe from making sense.

For instance, the Incompleteness Theorem states that it is impossible for a dwarf to completely model its own future as a dwarf, because that would mean the system would have to contain the system itself.

While it clearly makes sense to completely simulate a universe to understand "what would happen if different initial conditions?" Including the initial conditions of the form proposed in Last Thursdayism, we all recognize that simplification of the microstate needs to happen to accomplish it within the universe and that this necessarily MUST yield imperfect answers.

So moan all he wants FDI has the impossible burden of proving a disproven hypothesis: they have to prove that determinism prevents simplification to qualitative observations.

But... Determinism does not prevent simplification to useful qualitative observations.

In fact, determinism allows ignoring almost all terms in the universe for coming to such answers. Instead of running the whole universe forward, for instance, or even looking at the bits, I can ascertain that he carries an axe and the will to fight in a populated area and that the quality of dwarves dying is highly probable from the present knowledge.

In short you don't need to be evolved to completeness to calculate out a set of wills.

The only questions that really stand to be asked about such are "is the actual universe represented within this collection of universes?"

If it is, the will is free.

If it is not, the will is constrained by the variance of it's general set of universes from the actual universe.

But moreover this happens BECAUSE we are "incomplete".

If we had complete knowledge of the system including it's initial condition not only would we violate Incompleteness, but we would also be incapable of unfreeness. Because unfreeness only happens when we are wrong about what the system shall do from some given condition:

Urist's will is precisely capable of being unfree because while he has put together a will to fight, it's requirement shall not be met. Were he "complete" he would know the door was locked, and never would have tried it.

So far from Incompleteness invalidating the concept of free will, rather it makes it quite a reality. Free will implies Incompleteness.