Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Jarhyn]

I stick to the given terms and conditions of determinism.

No, you stick to YOUR given terms and conditions which you NONSENSICALLY declare that the mathematical extensions that we discuss on a state is problematic. You can't even stick to the definition of "can" and "must".

Crock, I have quoted the definitions that were given by you and Marvin. They are your terms and definitions.

Terms and definitions that you gave, but fail to understand. That's the sad part.

Not understanding the terms, references and implications of your own definition of determinism, you have no hope of understanding the idea of free will in relation to your own definition.

Based on this inability to grasp the implications of determinism, as you yourself define it, you have no hope of understanding incompatibilism. Which is worse than sad.

You wish to state that won't implies can't. This is a statement that is equivalent to "extensions of deterministic mathematical systems are not sensible".

We have identified this bit of nonsense repeatedly. It is clearly nonsense because we can demonstrate such extensions on systems satisfying your definition of determinism.

 

[DBT]

I stick to the given terms and conditions of determinism.

And so do I. Determinism asserts that every event will be reliably caused by prior events, such that each event must necessarily happen exactly as it does happen, without deviation, as if it were fixed from any prior point in time.

Exactly. No deviation. No alternate choice.... not just 'as if fixed,' but absolutely fixed by the prior state of the system

Whoa! You just stepped outside of the definition by claiming "no alternate choice". The restaurant example occurs in a perfectly deterministic universe, where every event is reliably caused and inevitably must happen, just so, without deviation. And there is the restaurant menu, filled with alternate choices. Determinism says that we will inevitably choose a specific alternative, but it does not say that alternate choices will not be staring us in the face from the menu. In fact, determinism says that the menu full of alternate choices was inevitable from any prior point in time, and it must be there, without deviation. And we would also inevitably be there, reading the menu.

Not only will the menu inevitably be there, but we will inevitably consider more than one of those many options. The mental events of our comparing these options to our dietary goals and taste preferences will inevitably happen in physical reality, as inevitable neurological processes within our brain. And the deterministic logic performed by our brain will produce a single inevitable choice, that we communicate to the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

All of these events are equally deterministic, causally necessary, and inevitably will happen.

As you can see, alternate choices and us choosing between them, are inevitable within a perfectly deterministic system.

A person doesn't choose. The system entails all actions.

The deterministic system entails that the person will inevitably make choices. So "A person doesn't choose" is inconsistent with determinism. Determinism guarantees that every event that happens is causally necessary and inevitably must happen, without deviation, and a person making choices is a real event that actually happens in physical reality.

The claim that "a person doesn't choose" in a deterministic system is demonstrably false. And it has been demonstrated repeatedly for you.

The notion that "a person doesn't choose" is an illusion created by figurative thinking.

Freedom from coercion is not freedom from necessitation.

CORRECT! There is no such thing as "freedom from causal necessity", because that would require being free from reliable cause and effect, and there is no freedom to do anything that does not require us to reliably cause some effect.

Fortunately, causal necessity is never experienced as a constraint, because what we will inevitably do is exactly identical to us just being us, choosing to do what we choose to do. And that is not a meaningful constraint.

So, when we go about defining "free will", we do not require "freedom from causal necessity", but simply freedom from coercion and undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

”If the neurobiology level is causally sufficient to determine your behavior, then the fact that you had the experience of freedom at the higher level is really irrelevant.” - John Searle.

I'm really tired of this constant but false suggestion that freedom and free will are matters of a person's subjective feelings. Go to any window in your home.

If you are tired of it, you can stop at any time...right? Perhaps it has to get to a critical point, as determined, before that happens.

Free will is an illusion because whatever is willed is fixed by unconscious processes prior to experiencing will, thought or action.

If undue influence or coercion negates free will, unconscious necessitation is a far greater restriction....yet it is ignored or dismissed.

What you feel is not the agency that generates your feelings.

Determinism makes it impossible for us to “cause and control our actions in the right kind of way.''

”If the neurobiology level is causally sufficient to determine your behavior, then the fact that you had the experience of freedom at the higher level is really irrelevant.” - John Searle.

Try to open it. If the window moves freely then you are free to open it. If the window has become stuck, then you are not free to open it. This is not a matter of your feelings, but a simple empirical observation of your ability to do what you want, and your freedom to do what you want.

That's not a good analogy. Determined actions must necessarily precede without restriction, every incremental step as determined.

Free will is not a feeling. It is an empirical observation. Did you choose to give some money to the begging man or did the man stick a gun in your ribs and demand that you hand over your wallet? One is free will. The other is coercion. And your feelings have nothing at all to do with it.

Whatever you choose to do, it is a necessary choice, which means a choice without a possible alternative.

Choice requires possible alternatives

Determinism, as defined, is a system without a possible alternative, therefore it was no choice at all. It is the illusion of choice,

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

That's obviously false. There is a distinction between the event where it was inevitable that I would voluntarily give a dollar to the beggar and the event where a mugger points a gun at me and demands my wallet. The loss of this distinction, by whoever made that stupid comment, is a significant loss of information that is meaningful to everyone.

It can't be false. It is entailed by the conditions; ''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.

Necessitation is more restrictive on choice than anything that other people can apply. Necessitation, another word for determinism, fixes all outcomes, eliminating freedom of will.

If it is necessary that I do exactly what I have voluntarily chosen to do, then no meaningful restriction exists. The restriction is an illusion created by bad philosophy.

Voluntarily chosen? When there is no alternative and your action was determined to happen before it even came to mind?

Obviously not.

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

Obviously, the "no choice principle" is yet another delusional notion.

Nope, it's entailed in your given definition: fixed, no deviation, everything must proceed as determined.

It incorrectly assumes that an event that has prior causes cannot itself be the cause of subsequent events, because those prior causes must be the true causes. The problem with this illogical notion is that no prior cause can pass this test, because every prior cause also has its own prior causes. Thus, no "true" causes would exist, and determinism evaporates into thin air.

Events in the prior state of the system set the events in the current state of the system, the events in the current state of the system set the future state of the system.

The list of things we do not control, however long, does not eliminate a single item from the list of things that we do control. Which simply means that I get to choose what I will have for breakfast, and my prior causes do not.

The system is the ultimate controller. If there is a single item that is not set by the prior state of the system, it's not determinism.

Determinism means no deviation, no doing otherwise, not 'could have,' 'might have' or 'if things had been different.'

By definition, nothing can be different.

''Understanding that free will is an illusion means recognizing that people behave in the only way they know how. As such, it is important to realize that, when people act in harmful ways, it is because they are ignorant of the forces that actually shape their thoughts and behaviors.''

Unfortunately it does not work like that. If free will is an illusion then there is no hope that the criminal offender can be rehabilitated. If we tell the offender that, due to determinism, he had no control over his past behavior, then we must also tell him that, due to determinism, he will have no control over his future behavior. Such a notion would make rehabilitation impossible. Rehabilitation requires that the offender understands that he has within himself the ability to change, to take control of his life, and to live as a better person.

We are subject to change in every moment of our lives, we can't help but change. Every bit of information acquired by our brain changes the brain's state, which necessarily changes us. Everything that happens to you changes you, everything that anyone says to you alters you, if only in a minuscule way.

The brain and behaviour;

'' Human behavior is affected both by genetic inheritance and by experience. The ways in which people develop are shaped by social experience and circumstances within the context of their inherited genetic potential. The scientific question is just how experience and hereditary potential interact in producing human behavior.

Each person is born into a social and cultural setting—family, community, social class, language, religion—and eventually develops many social connections. The characteristics of a child's social setting affect how he or she learns to think and behave, by means of instruction, rewards and punishment, and example. This setting includes home, school, neighborhood, and also, perhaps, local religious and law enforcement agencies. Then there are also the child's mostly informal interactions with friends, other peers, relatives, and the entertainment and news media. How individuals will respond to all these influences, or even which influence will be the most potent, tends not to be predictable. There is, however, some substantial similarity in how individuals respond to the same pattern of influences—that is, to being raised in the same culture. Furthermore, culturally induced behavior patterns, such as speech patterns, body language, and forms of humor, become so deeply embedded in the human mind that they often operate without the individuals themselves being fully aware of them.''

''Information received from the external world is absolutely essential for brain development. And that any form of sensory deprevation has very serious consequences for the normal development of the brain.

''Babies' brains grow and develop as they interact with their environment and learn how to function within that environment. When babies' cries bring food or comfort, they are strengthening the neuronal pathways that help them learn how to get their needs met, both physically and emotionally. But babies who do not get responses to their cries, and babies whose cries are met with abuse, learn different lessons.''

''These capacities may not fully develop because the required neuronal pathways were not activated enough to form the "memories" needed for future learning (Greenough, Black & Wallace, 1987).''

 

[Jarhyn]

Determinism means no deviation, no doing otherwise, not 'could have,' 'might have' or 'if things had been different.'

Determinism does not imply zero extensions on the core structure.

If there are such sensible ideas as "different initial conditions", which is proven by the non-falsifiability of LTism, then this statement of yours MUST BE false as a result.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Free will is an illusion because whatever is willed is fixed by unconscious processes prior to experiencing will, thought or action.

It doesn't matter that unconscious processes drive conscious awareness. The brain provides conscious awareness as needed, whenever it is required for us to successfully function. We are not unconscious as we walk into the restaurant, find a table, sit down, and read the menu. We are fully aware of why we are there and what we are doing. We know that we must choose what we will order from the menu. And we know the reasoning behind our choice. All of this information reaches conscious awareness. Anything that fails to reach awareness will be unavailable to us when explaining why we made the choice we did. Anything that involves conscious aware will be available for us to recall later.

So, we know for a fact that we considered the steak, that we recalled what we had for breakfast and lunch, that we decided the steak would be a bad choice on top of the bacon and eggs for breakfast and the double cheeseburger for lunch, and that it would be better to order the salad instead. So, we told the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please."

If undue influence or coercion negates free will, unconscious necessitation is a far greater restriction....yet it is ignored or dismissed.

As you can see, we are not ignoring or dismissing unconscious processes. Our brain simply lacks the ability to speak of anything that has not involved conscious awareness. But everything that reaches conscious awareness is available to Gazzaniga's "narrator" function. So, anything about our choosing process that appears in our explanation did reach conscious awareness and can be recalled.

Unconscious necessitation is not a restriction. It is part of the rational causal mechanism by which we decide to order the salad instead of the steak. Please remember that we need to make a choice if we wish to have dinner tonight. And the ability to make that choice does not restrict us, but rather enables us to do what we want to do.

What you feel is not the agency that generates your feelings.

Correct. And what we see is not the agency that generates sight. And what we hear is not the agency that generates sound. Etc.

The brain functions by multiple layers of processing that deliver meaningful sounds, sights, feelings, and other experiences to conscious awareness. The brain organizes sensory input into a symbolic model of reality, and uses the model to imagine possibilities, make predictions, make choices, and all the other functions that we observe ourselves deliberately doing.

Determinism makes it impossible for us to “cause and control our actions in the right kind of way.''

The "right way" is that we get to choose what we will order for dinner, according to our own goals and reasons, and that this choice controls what will happen next: the waiter brings us the Chef Salad and the bill for our dinner. Is there some other way? No.

”If the neurobiology level is causally sufficient to determine your behavior, then the fact that you had the experience of freedom at the higher level is really irrelevant.” - John Searle.

The freedom was not a subjective experience. We observed ourselves choosing the salad rather than the steak. We observed ourselves telling the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please". We observed that we did this without any meaningful restriction, therefore we concluded that we were free to do this, simply because we did it.

Determined actions must necessarily precede without restriction, every incremental step as determined.

And they did. It was determined that I would have to choose between the steak and the salad. It was determined that I would recall what I had for breakfast and lunch. It was determined that I would recall my desire to eat more vegetables. It was determined that I would decide to order the salad, even though I could have ordered the steak.

Have I mentioned that determinism doesn't actually change anything?

Whatever you choose to do, it is a necessary choice, which means a choice without a possible alternative. Choice requires possible alternatives.

We cannot ignore or dismiss the menu of alternate possibilities, from which it was determined that we would make our choice.

The conclusion that determinism eliminates possible alternatives is not supported by the evidence. In fact it is strongly contradicted by the evidence, because determinism guarantees that these alternatives will appear to us exactly when and where they appear. In the restaurant example, they appear in the physical menu from which we must choose what to order.

Determinism, as defined, is a system without a possible alternative, therefore it was no choice at all. It is the illusion of choice,

Sorry, but that is simply not a claim that can be supported.

It can't be false. It is entailed by the conditions; ''All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' Marvin Edwards.

The alternate possibilities were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And their involvement in tonight's decision proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.

Events in the prior state of the system set the events in the current state of the system, the events in the current state of the system set the future state of the system.

Yes. For example, the prior state of the system was that it was time for dinner, this resulted in the state of choosing what to do for dinner, this resulted in the state of choosing to eat out, this resulted in the state of choosing to eat at Ruby Tuesdays, this resulted in the state of driving to the restaurant, walking in the door, sitting at the table, browsing the menu, considering the steak, rejecting the steak due to the bacon and eggs and the double cheeseburger, choosing the salad, ordering the salad, the salad being prepared, the salad and the bill being set upon the table in front of me.

All of those states proceeded from event to event with each event being reliably caused by prior events. Everything that happened in the restaurant, including my choosing the salad rather than the steak, were causally necessary from any prior point in time.

The system is the ultimate controller. If there is a single item that is not set by the prior state of the system, it's not determinism.

The overall system of causation consists of many subsystems. There are purely physical causal mechanisms by which the behavior of inanimate objects can be described. There are biological causal mechanisms by which the behavior of living organisms can be described. There are rational causal mechanisms by which the behavior of intelligent species can be described.

One of these mechanisms of causation is the human brain. The human brain also has multiple subsystems, hundreds of specific functions operating at different levels. Conscious awareness is just one of these functions.

The human brain performs many logical operations, such as arithmetic and choosing. These operations have requirements that must be met in order to perform their function. For example, the operation of addition requires two "quantities" from which to produce a sum. And the operation of choosing requires two "possibilities", from which to produce a choice.

While choosing must produce only a single thing that we will do, it must begin with at least two things that we can choose to do. Given A and B, it must be the case that "we can choose A" is true and that "we can choose B" is also true. At the end of the choosing operation, if we choose A, then A will be the thing that we "will" do, and B will be the thing that we "could have" done.

This is true by logical necessity, because it is required to be so in order for the operation to proceed.

Determinism means no deviation, no doing otherwise, not 'could have,' 'might have' or 'if things had been different.'

Choosing events will inevitably happen within the overall scheme of causation. When they happen, there will inevitably be a single "will do" and at least one "could have" done. Therefore the claim that determinism eliminates the "ability to do otherwise", "could have", "might have", or any "possibilities" is clearly false.

By definition, nothing can be different.

Apparently that is incorrect. Determinism can only honestly assert that nothing "will" be different. And one of the things that will not be different is that the human mind, by the logic of its operations, will deal with multiple possibilities. Determinism guarantees that these possibilities will be part of the mental events by which the brain performs its decision making function.

We are subject to change in every moment of our lives, we can't help but change. Every bit of information acquired by our brain changes the brain's state, which necessarily changes us. Everything that happens to you changes you, everything that anyone says to you alters you, if only in a minuscule way.

Of course. But keep in mind that it is our own reaction to new thoughts and ideas that performs a "gate-keeper" function, which controls which influences have any effect and the degree of that effect. If that were not the case then you would be in total agreement with me, or I with you, at this point.

 

[DBT]

Determinism means no deviation, no doing otherwise, not 'could have,' 'might have' or 'if things had been different.'

Determinism does not imply zero extensions on the core structure.

If there are such sensible ideas as "different initial conditions", which is proven by the non-falsifiability of LTism, then this statement of yours MUST BE false as a result.

How adorable.

 

[DBT]

Free will is an illusion because whatever is willed is fixed by unconscious processes prior to experiencing will, thought or action.

It doesn't matter that unconscious processes drive conscious awareness. The brain provides conscious awareness as needed, whenever it is required for us to successfully function. We are not unconscious as we walk into the restaurant, find a table, sit down, and read the menu. We are fully aware of why we are there and what we are doing. We know that we must choose what we will order from the menu. And we know the reasoning behind our choice. All of this information reaches conscious awareness. Anything that fails to reach awareness will be unavailable to us when explaining why we made the choice we did. Anything that involves conscious aware will be available for us to recall later.

The point is, that what the brain is and what it does, it is and it does necessarily. There is no choice. Nothing is freely willed or regulated in the sense that whatever the state or whatever is done could have been different.

Determinism as a system is based on entailment, not choice, not free will, not 'could have' 'might have' or 'if things had been different.'

Things are, and evolve as they must.

That is not free will. The human brain as a complex structure doesn't give it a privileged position, a system endowed with 'free will,' it's all a matter of evolved form and function within the system.

So, we know for a fact that we considered the steak, that we recalled what we had for breakfast and lunch, that we decided the steak would be a bad choice on top of the bacon and eggs for breakfast and the double cheeseburger for lunch, and that it would be better to order the salad instead. So, we told the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please."

As the system evolves from prior to current state, every action at every incremental moment in time is fixed by prior states of the system.

That includes each and every signal and pulse between cells as information is processed and brought to consciousness.

The process is subject to regulation by free will.

Free will plays no part in a determinist system

Free will cannot exist within a deterministic system because all events proceed according to initial conditions - time t - without deviation

If undue influence or coercion negates free will, unconscious necessitation is a far greater restriction....yet it is ignored or dismissed.

As you can see, we are not ignoring or dismissing unconscious processes. Our brain simply lacks the ability to speak of anything that has not involved conscious awareness. But everything that reaches conscious awareness is available to Gazzaniga's "narrator" function. So, anything about our choosing process that appears in our explanation did reach conscious awareness and can be recalled.

You are implying that agency - it's us doing it - somehow endows the brain with 'free will.'

It doesn't work. The brain functions according to its neural architecture.

The brain of a rodent produces rodent thoughts and rodent behaviour. The brain of a Horse produces Horse thoughts and Horse behaviours.

The greater complexity and processing power, higher reasoning, of the human brain is enabled by it neural architecture, not free will.

''Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes. Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X. At this point, we should ascribe free will to all animals capable of experiencing desires (e.g., to eat, sleep, or mate). Yet, we don’t; and we tend not to judge non-human animals in moral terms.'' - Cold Comfort in Compatibilism.

Unconscious necessitation is not a restriction. It is part of the rational causal mechanism by which we decide to order the salad instead of the steak. Please remember that we need to make a choice if we wish to have dinner tonight. And the ability to make that choice does not restrict us, but rather enables us to do what we want to do.

Unconscious necessitation negates alternate possibilities, freedom of choice and freedom of will.

Given necessitation, be it conscious or unconscious, nothing can be freely willed. Everything is causally necessary based on prior states of the system.

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

 

[Jarhyn]

Determinism means no deviation, no doing otherwise, not 'could have,' 'might have' or 'if things had been different.'

Determinism does not imply zero extensions on the core structure.

If there are such sensible ideas as "different initial conditions", which is proven by the non-falsifiability of LTism, then this statement of yours MUST BE false as a result.

How adorable.

What's "adorable" is the fact that you can't understand the implications of a group extension, and that "can" is the discussion of such systemic extensions.

If you dislike the math of group extensions on momentary condition as initial condition, well, deal with it.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The point is, that what the brain is and what it does, it is and it does necessarily.

Correct.

There is no choice.

Sorry, but we cannot get the conclusion that "there is no choice" from the premise that "what the brain is and what it does, it is and it does necessarily". One of the things that the brain necessarily does is choosing! Ironically, choosing happens to be one of those things that we have no choice about.

Here's the restaurant menu staring us in the face. Either (a) we make a choice or (b) we go without dinner. Which will it be? We must decide that now, or the waiter will ask us to leave and will give our table to someone else. There is no choice but to choose.

It was causally necessary from any prior point in time that we, ourselves, would be choosing for ourselves, what we will have for dinner, at this time and in this place. That is what determinism requires.

Decision making is a function that the brain performs whenever necessary. To say that "there is no choice" in a deterministic universe is objectively false. The statement is the product of figurative thinking and it does not provide a truthful description of what is really happening.

Nothing is freely willed or regulated in the sense that whatever the state or whatever is done could have been different.

Determinism can logically assert that there will be a single actual course of events. But determinism cannot logically assert that there will be a single possible course of events. The actual course of events will happen. But a possible course of events may happen or it may never happen.

The restaurant menu is a list of things that we can order. The fact that we can order something does not imply that we will order it. If that were the case then we would always order everything on the menu. So, that is not the case.

If there is something that right now I can do, then later it will also be something that I could have done. That is the inescapable logic of verb tenses. When speaking of determinism, we cannot violate the logic built into the language without ending up with nonsensical statements.

Therefore, determinism cannot logically assert that there was only one thing that I could have chosen from the menu. Determinism can only assert that there was only one thing that I would have chosen at that time and place.

Thus, anyone, be they philosopher or scientist, or just you and I, who says that determinism eliminates any possibilities, or any things that we could have done, is incorrect.

Free will plays no part in a determinist system

As it turns out, choosing plays a significant role in our deterministic system. When I choose the Chef Salad from the menu, and convey my choice to the waiter, it causally determines that the waiter will convey my order to the chef, that the chef will then prepare my salad, that the waiter will return the salad to me along with a bill for my dinner, and that I will eat the salad and pay the cashier on the way out.

All of those events were causally determined by my choosing to order the salad. And, since free will is when we choose for ourselves what we will order for dinner while free of coercion and undue influence, and that is how my choosing actually happened, we must conclude that the statement "Free will plays no part in a deterministic system" is clearly false.

Free will cannot exist within a deterministic system because all events proceed according to initial conditions - time t - without deviation

And yet, there is free will right in front of us, within a deterministic system, where all events proceeded from any prior time t, without deviation.

So, the claim that free will cannot exist within a deterministic system is clearly false.

You are implying that agency - it's us doing it - somehow endows the brain with 'free will.'

Evolution has endowed the brain with the decision making function, enabling the brain to decide, from among the many possibilities available on the restaurant menu, what we will actually order for dinner. Free will is a separate notion, that may or may not apply, depending upon the circumstances. If someone or something else is choosing for us what we will have for dinner, then we are not free to make that choice for ourselves. But if we are making that choice ourselves, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence, then that is exactly what "free will" means.

''Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes."

Which logically implies that determinism can never make us do anything that we do not already want to do. Thus, causal necessity is not a meaningful constraint. It is basically "what we would have done anyway".

Unconscious necessitation negates alternate possibilities, freedom of choice and freedom of will.

Apparently not. The unconscious processing is just another part of the decision making architecture that ultimately considers the menu of our options, weighs the options in terms of our tastes and dietary goals, and chooses to order the salad tonight, even though we could have ordered the steak instead.

Given necessitation, be it conscious or unconscious, nothing can be freely willed. Everything is causally necessary based on prior states of the system.

Given that free will only implies freedom from coercion and undue influence, and never implies freedom from causal necessity or freedom from prior states, there is nothing that prevents free will within a perfectly deterministic universe.

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

Neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga has a slightly different take on that:

"Are we just a fancier and more ingenious animal snorting around for our dinner? Sure, we are vastly more complicated than a bee. Although we both have automatic responses, we humans have cognition and beliefs of all kinds, and the possession of a belief trumps all the automatic biological process and hardware, honed by evolution, that got us to this place. Possession of a belief, though a false one, drove Othello to kill his beloved wife, and Sidney Carton to declare, as he voluntarily took his friend’s place at the guillotine, that it was a far, far better thing he did than he had ever done."

Gazzaniga, Michael S.. Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain (pp. 2-3). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

 

[DBT]

Determinism means no deviation, no doing otherwise, not 'could have,' 'might have' or 'if things had been different.'

Determinism does not imply zero extensions on the core structure.

If there are such sensible ideas as "different initial conditions", which is proven by the non-falsifiability of LTism, then this statement of yours MUST BE false as a result.

How adorable.

What's "adorable" is the fact that you can't understand the implications of a group extension, and that "can" is the discussion of such systemic extensions.

If you dislike the math of group extensions on momentary condition as initial condition, well, deal with it.

What's adorable is that you don't understand that nothing you have said so far has any bearing on the given terms and definitions of determinism: your own terms and definitions.

Which just reinforces what I am pointing out, that you have yet to grasp the nature of determinism - your own definition - and its implications.

 

[Jarhyn]

Determinism means no deviation, no doing otherwise, not 'could have,' 'might have' or 'if things had been different.'

Determinism does not imply zero extensions on the core structure.

If there are such sensible ideas as "different initial conditions", which is proven by the non-falsifiability of LTism, then this statement of yours MUST BE false as a result.

How adorable.

What's "adorable" is the fact that you can't understand the implications of a group extension, and that "can" is the discussion of such systemic extensions.

If you dislike the math of group extensions on momentary condition as initial condition, well, deal with it.

What's adorable is that you don't understand that nothing you have said so far has any bearing on the given terms and definitions of determinism: your own terms and definitions.

Which just reinforces what I am pointing out, that you have yet to grasp the nature of determinism - your own definition - and its implications.

DBT, I still have yet to see you so much as admit you understand why that quote you kept on about Plantinga "nailing" was fallacious.

It's almost as if you don't seem to know what fallacies are and why they are such "junky" logic.

The fact that you can miss a fallacy so glaring and even still lift it up after it's been pointed out suggests that you might need to look first in the mirror.

 

[DBT]

The point is, that what the brain is and what it does, it is and it does necessarily.

Correct.

Of course, including the implications for free will, as described. In a nutshell: nothing that happens within a deterministic system is freely willed, hence free will cannot exist within a deterministic system.

There is no choice.

Sorry, but we cannot get the conclusion that "there is no choice" from the premise that "what the brain is and what it does, it is and it does necessarily". One of the things that the brain necessarily does is choosing! Ironically, choosing happens to be one of those things that we have no choice about.

The no choice principle comes from the condition of no possible alternative actions.

Choice requires at least two possible options. Determinism has no possible alternate actions, therefore no choosing or doing something different.

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

Here's the restaurant menu staring us in the face. Either (a) we make a choice or (b) we go without dinner. Which will it be? We must decide that now, or the waiter will ask us to leave and will give our table to someone else. There is no choice but to choose.

What you have was decided before you are aware of making the decision.

Everything in the Universe has attributes, features and properties and acts according to its nature and makeup in relation to all the elements that act upon it.

A brain processes information unconsciously, according to its properties, nature and makeup prior to conscious representation of that information.

It was causally necessary from any prior point in time that we, ourselves, would be choosing for ourselves, what we will have for dinner, at this time and in this place. That is what determinism requires.

Again - everything in the Universe has attributes, features and properties and acts according to its nature and makeup in relation to the elements that act upon it.

A brain processes information unconsciously, according to its properties, nature and makeup prior to conscious representation of that information.

Decision making is a function that the brain performs whenever necessary. To say that "there is no choice" in a deterministic universe is objectively false. The statement is the product of figurative thinking and it does not provide a truthful description of what is really happening.

It's a matter of information exchange and processing, the action inevitably follows. Determinism doesn't allow freedom of will.

Nothing is freely willed or regulated in the sense that whatever the state or whatever is done could have been different.

Determinism can logically assert that there will be a single actual course of events. But determinism cannot logically assert that there will be a single possible course of events. The actual course of events will happen. But a possible course of events may happen or it may never happen.

It's not asserted. It's how determinism is defined. An alternate course of events - by definition - cannot happen. Not if we are talking about 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.''

Neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga has a slightly different take on that:

"Are we just a fancier and more ingenious animal snorting around for our dinner? Sure, we are vastly more complicated than a bee. Although we both have automatic responses, we humans have cognition and beliefs of all kinds, and the possession of a belief trumps all the automatic biological process and hardware, honed by evolution, that got us to this place. Possession of a belief, though a false one, drove Othello to kill his beloved wife, and Sidney Carton to declare, as he voluntarily took his friend’s place at the guillotine, that it was a far, far better thing he did than he had ever done."

Gazzaniga, Michael S.. Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain (pp. 2-3). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Gazzaniga has been kind of fuzzy on the notion of free will.

Beliefs and whatever proclivities we may have are formed through our experience of the world.....and cognition as a process is not freely willed. It's not willed at all. Neural architecture determines all cognitive abilities, including higher reasoning. Damage the system physically and it falls apart, alter the process through drugs, it falls apart, memory function failure, it falls apart.

Gazzaniga's research falsifies the notion of free will with the 'narrator function' - a narrative after the event that is often wrong.

Michael Gazzaniga
Our brain is not a unified structure; instead it is composed of several modules that work out their computations separately, in what are called neural networks. These networks can carry out activities largely on their own. The visual network, for example, responds to visual stimulation and is also active during visualimagery—that is, seeing something with your mind’s eye; the motor network can produce movement and is active during imagined movements. Yet even though our brain carries out all these functions in a modular system, we do not feel like a million little robots carrying out their disjointed activities. We feel like one, coherent self with intentions and reasons for what we feel are our unified actions. How can this be?

Experiments on split-brain patients reveal how readily the left brain interpreter can make up stories and beliefs. In one experiment, for example, when the word walk was presented only to the right side of a patient’s brain, he got up and started walking. When he was asked why he did this, the left brain (where language is stored and where the word walk was not presented) quickly created a reason for the action: “I wanted to go get a Coke.”

Even more fantastic examples of the left hemisphere at work come from the study of neurological disorders. In a complication of stroke called anosognosia with hemiplegia, patients cannot recognize that their left arm is theirs because the stroke damaged the right parietal cortex, which manages our body’s integrity, position, and movement. The left-hemisphere interpreter has to reconcile the information it receives from the visual cortex—that the limb is attached to its body but is not moving—with the fact that it is not receiving any input about the damage to that limb.

The left-hemisphere interpreter would recognize that damage to nerves of the limb meant trouble for the brain and that the limb was paralyzed; however, in this case the damage occurred directly to the brain area responsible for signaling a problem in the perception of the limb, and it cannot send any information to the left-hemisphere interpreter. The interpreter must, then, create a belief to mediate the two known facts “I can see the limb isn’t moving” and “I can’t tell that it is damaged.” When patients with this disorder are asked about their arm and why they can’t move it, they will say “It’s not mine” or “I just don’t feel like moving it”—reasonable conclusions, given the input that the left-hemisphere interpreter is receiving.

The left-hemisphere interpreter is not only a master of belief creation, but it will stick to its belief system no matter what. Patients with “reduplicative paramnesia,” because of damage to the brain, believe that there are copies of people or places. In short, they will remember another time and mix it with the present. As a result, they will create seemingly ridiculous, but masterful, stories to uphold what they know to be true due to the erroneous messages their damaged brain is sending their intact interpreter.

One such patient believed the New York hospital where she was being treated was actually her home in Maine. When her doctor asked how this could be her home if there were elevators in the hallway, she said, “Doctor, do you know how much it cost me to have those put in?” The interpreter will go to great lengths to make sure the inputs it receives are woven together to make sense—even when it must make great leaps to do so. Of course, these do not appear as“great leaps” to the patient, but rather as clear evidence from the world around him or her.

 

[Jarhyn]

An alternate course of events - by definition - cannot happen. Not if we are talking about determinism

No, "cannot" in this statement is figurative.

It is "as if it cannot happen".

DBT, do you agree with the statement "if the universe had different contents, different things would be happening"?

That's what "can" references, and specifically which things would be happening as a function of which assumed states.

The universe doesn't need an alternate outcome to talk about outcomes in different universes, or to ask whether all the universes in this set actually different universes.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

In a nutshell: nothing that happens within a deterministic system is freely willed,

Certainly not freely willed as in "freedom from causation", but freely willed as in "freedom from coercion and undue influence".

As you may recall, free will is not free of causation, because nothing ever is. So, "freedom from causal necessity" cannot be used as the definition of free will. And, because "freedom from causation" is a paradoxical self-contradiction (every freedom we have requires the ability to cause some effect), it cannot validly be used as the definition of anything else either. It's just a bit of silly nonsense created by figurative thinking.

Free will is safely and accurately defined as a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence (such as a significant mental illness, or hypnosis, or authoritative command, or manipulation, or anything else that can reasonably be said to prevent us from making a rational choice).

So, we have a perfectly good definition of free will that everyone understands and correctly uses when assessing a person's responsibility for their actions. And it is perfectly compatible with a world of reliable causation.

hence free will cannot exist within a deterministic system.

Hence free will actually does exist within a deterministic system.

The no choice principle comes from the condition of no possible alternative actions.

Which begins with the false premise that determinism implies "no possible alternative actions". Determinism actually implies that the possibility to order the steak, and the possibility to order the salad, will both inevitably occur to us. They are 'fixed' events that will happen without any 'deviation'. What is not possible, given determinism, is that these possibilities would not show up exactly where and when they did.

Choice requires at least two possible options.

Yes. Two possible options. For example, the steak and the salad. Both were possible. We could order either one, and whichever one we ordered would actually be prepared and set on our table. Neither was impossible within a deterministic system. Determinism only tells us that one of these possibilities will be actualized and the other will remain a possibility that was not chosen.

Determinism has no possible alternate actions,

Determinism never makes any possibility "impossible". It can only insure that a given possibility will not happen. But it never makes something that "can" happen into something that "cannot" happen. It only makes it something that "will not" happen.

therefore no choosing or doing something different.

Sometimes we should stop trying to "do the math in our heads", especially when we're thinking figuratively, and instead take a clear look at what is actually happening in the real world.

There are the people in the restaurant, reading a literal menu of alternate possibilities, and deterministically choosing what they will order for dinner.

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

How can "no choice" be called a "principle" when it is derived from a figure of speech, and not from any observation of objective reality?

Determinism may suggest to us that "It is AS IF choosing wasn't happening", but simple observation in the restaurant confirms that choosing is actually happening in physical reality. And that cannot be denied.

What you have was decided before you are aware of making the decision.

Well, that's a lot closer than suggesting that the Big Bang is choosing what I will order for dinner. But my unconscious neural activity happens to be my own brain making the same decision that is being passed into my conscious awareness. It must be passed into consciousness so that I can tell the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please". That's all me, the unconscious as well as the conscious processing. Just ask the waiter who brought me the bill.

Everything in the Universe has attributes, features and properties and acts according to its nature and makeup in relation to all the elements that act upon it.

Sure.

A brain processes information unconsciously, according to its properties, nature and makeup prior to conscious representation of that information.

That's still an exaggeration. You're basing this upon the most elementary choices used in neuroscience experiments. But conscious awareness was invoked multiple times during the decision making. I had good feelings about the steak. I recalled my breakfast of bacon and eggs. I recalled my double cheeseburger for lunch. I recalled my desire to follow the doctor's orders and eat more fruits and vegetables. Then, and only then, was the Chef Salad chosen. Each of those recollections and feelings rose from unconscious processing into awareness as separate mental events during the decision making. That is the more accurate description of events.

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.''

Yep. That's determinism. Given the same problem with the same conditions, the same reasoning will always produce the same results.

Given different conditions, for example if I had a cantaloupe for breakfast and a salad for lunch, a different choice would be made, and I would be enjoying steak now.

"Are we just a fancier and more ingenious animal snorting around for our dinner? Sure, we are vastly more complicated than a bee. Although we both have automatic responses, we humans have cognition and beliefs of all kinds, and the possession of a belief trumps all the automatic biological process and hardware, honed by evolution, that got us to this place. Possession of a belief, though a false one, drove Othello to kill his beloved wife, and Sidney Carton to declare, as he voluntarily took his friend’s place at the guillotine, that it was a far, far better thing he did than he had ever done."

Gazzaniga, Michael S.. Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain (pp. 2-3). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Gazzaniga has been kind of fuzzy on the notion of free will.

Don't worry, he soundly rejects free will as a non-material soul acting from outside the brain. I use that specific quote because it gives examples of the rational causal mechanism and its deterministic effects. People making choices, based upon their own beliefs and values, is one of the mechanisms by which events are causally determined.

Beliefs and whatever proclivities we may have are formed through our experience of the world.....and cognition as a process is not freely willed. It's not willed at all.

That's another exaggeration. Consider your cognition of Gazzaniga's thoughts on the matter. It began with the deliberately chosen will to open his book, and a deliberate intention to learn what he has to say. And, since no one forced you to do this against your will, you were free to choose this intention for yourself. Thus, a freely chosen "I will".

Neural architecture determines all cognitive abilities, including higher reasoning. Damage the system physically and it falls apart, alter the process through drugs, it falls apart, memory function failure, it falls apart.

Yep. If you break the machine, it ceases to perform reliably.

Gazzaniga's research falsifies the notion of free will with the 'narrator function' - a narrative after the event that is often wrong.

Indeed. But please note that he is giving us examples where the narrator, due to damage in other brain areas, is missing information or given inaccurate information. In these cases the narrator attempts to make sense of things as best it can. But when operating normally in a normal brain, it provides a more realistic description of what is happening. (Oh, and thanks for the link to the book. I just now added it to my kindle library and hope to get to it soon).

Michael Gazzaniga
Our brain is not a unified structure; instead it is composed of several modules that work out their computations separately, in what are called neural networks. These networks can carry out activities largely on their own. The visual network, for example, responds to visual stimulation and is also active during visual imagery—that is, seeing something with your mind’s eye; the motor network can produce movement and is active during imagined movements. Yet even though our brain carries out all these functions in a modular system, we do not feel like a million little robots carrying out their disjointed activities. We feel like one, coherent self with intentions and reasons for what we feel are our unified actions. How can this be?

Experiments on split-brain patients reveal how readily the left brain interpreter can make up stories and beliefs. In one experiment, for example, when the word walk was presented only to the right side of a patient’s brain, he got up and started walking. When he was asked why he did this, the left brain (where language is stored and where the word walk was not presented) quickly created a reason for the action: “I wanted to go get a Coke.”

Even more fantastic examples of the left hemisphere at work come from the study of neurological disorders. In a complication of stroke called anosognosia with hemiplegia, patients cannot recognize that their left arm is theirs because the stroke damaged the right parietal cortex, which manages our body’s integrity, position, and movement. The left-hemisphere interpreter has to reconcile the information it receives from the visual cortex—that the limb is attached to its body but is not moving—with the fact that it is not receiving any input about the damage to that limb.

The left-hemisphere interpreter would recognize that damage to nerves of the limb meant trouble for the brain and that the limb was paralyzed; however, in this case the damage occurred directly to the brain area responsible for signaling a problem in the perception of the limb, and it cannot send any information to the left-hemisphere interpreter. The interpreter must, then, create a belief to mediate the two known facts “I can see the limb isn’t moving” and “I can’t tell that it is damaged.” When patients with this disorder are asked about their arm and why they can’t move it, they will say “It’s not mine” or “I just don’t feel like moving it”—reasonable conclusions, given the input that the left-hemisphere interpreter is receiving.

The left-hemisphere interpreter is not only a master of belief creation, but it will stick to its belief system no matter what. Patients with “reduplicative paramnesia,” because of damage to the brain, believe that there are copies of people or places. In short, they will remember another time and mix it with the present. As a result, they will create seemingly ridiculous, but masterful, stories to uphold what they know to be true due to the erroneous messages their damaged brain is sending their intact interpreter.

One such patient believed the New York hospital where she was being treated was actually her home in Maine. When her doctor asked how this could be her home if there were elevators in the hallway, she said, “Doctor, do you know how much it cost me to have those put in?” The interpreter will go to great lengths to make sure the inputs it receives are woven together to make sense—even when it must make great leaps to do so. Of course, these do not appear as “great leaps” to the patient, but rather as clear evidence from the world around him or her.

So, we can agree that the narrator will confabulate when it is given bad information or when it is missing essential data. But when my narrator tells me why I chose the salad instead of the steak, it knows, and tells, the truth of the matter.

 

[bilby]

If you order the salad, and the waiter makes a mistake and brings you the steak instead, you would not be particularly surprised (albeit you might be rather annoyed), because mistakes happen, and the steak was one of the options.

If you order the salad, and the waiter brings you an M1A1 Main Battle Tank by mistake, you would be very surprised, because the Abrams Tank wasn’t one of the options.

Clearly, then, there are options. Despite the assumption that the universe is deterministic, and therefore the option that is ultimately realised is the only option that could have been realised, it nevertheless makes sense to categorise some outcomes as “possible”, even though they won’t happen.

You could have ordered steak; You couldn’t have ordered an armoured combat vehicle. You actually ordered salad; But that was your choice to make - steak or salad. To suggest that you had no freedom of choice is to suggest that you were just as likely to order steak as you were to order military hardware. Which is absurd.

 

[DBT]

If something cannot happen, it is not possible for it to happen.

Given our limited perspective, and knowing that similar events happen regularly, we consider that an event was possible.....yet, if not determined to happen in that moment in time and place, it was never a possibility that it would happen. It may happen later, but that's not the point....which is, that all events in each and every moment in time are fixed by antecedents.

That the world may not be fully deterministic has no bearing on the question of compatibilism, which is free will in relation to determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

And yet again DBT fails to get "could" and "would" straight.

He starts out strong from the gate with recognizing that "couldn't" of some contextual set's degrees of freedom DOES mean "it is not possible", also understood better and more completely in expanded form as "it could not from any starting point within some given set of starting points, progress to any systemic quality satisfying the shape of the requirement", but then promptly steps in it yet again mixing language in a studding display of invalidity.

note here in the slow-motion replay:

a possibility that it would happen

As we've come to see, it's a rookie move, but DBT isn't one to shy away from making rookie mistakes it seems!

Overall, F+.

DBT: possibilities are not a function of would. They are a function of "could, given some starting point".

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If something cannot happen, it is not possible for it to happen.

That is correct. What is incorrect is the assumption that if something "will not" happen that it "could not" have happened. The notion of "can" is basically the same as notion of "possibility". To say it cannot happen means that it is impossible. To say that it can happen means it is a real possibility, even if it never happens.

What "can" happen constrains what "will" happen, because if it cannot happen then it will not happen. But what "will" happen never constrains what "can" happen. That would break the notion of possibility, and we really need the notion of possibility if we are going to deal effectively with matters of uncertainty. When we don't know what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare for what does happen. When we do not know what we will choose, we consider what we can choose, in order to decide what we will do.

Given our limited perspective, and knowing that similar events happen regularly, we consider that an event was possible.....yet, if not determined to happen in that moment in time and place, it was never a possibility that it would happen. It may happen later, but that's not the point....which is, that all events in each and every moment in time are fixed by antecedents.

Sorry, but that is still confusing the notion of possibility with the notion of actuality. If something is possible, then it never needs to be actualized in order to be a real possibility. A real possibility is something that can happen under certain conditions, for example, if we choose to actualize or realize that possibility then we are physically able to carry out that intent. If we are not able to carry out the intent, even if we choose to do so, then it is an impossibility. But it is never necessary to actualize or realize that possibility in order for it to be a real and true possibility.

All that is required is that the possibility be actualizable and realizable. The "-able" at the end of these two words reads as "possible to be actualized" and "possible to be realized". And that converts the notion from an "actuality" or a "reality" into a an actual or real "possibility".

So, it is incorrect to say, "if not determined to happen in that moment in time and place, it was never a possibility that it would happen". That would destroy the notion of possibility, and destroy the logical tool we use to deal with uncertainty.

It would be similar to trying to perform addition using a single number. Two numbers are required for addition. Two possibilities are required for choosing. Other logical operations will have similar requirements that must be met, by logical necessity, or the operation simply cannot proceed.

So, no. Determinism may not tie us to a single possible future, even though it definitely does tie us to a single actual future. That's just the way things must work.

The fact that events are fixed by antecedents ties us to a single actual future, but it does not limit the number of possible futures that we "can" choose to realize or actualize. It only limits us to one actual future that we "will" choose to realize.

Within the domain of human influence (stuff we can make happen if we choose to do so), the single inevitable future will be chosen by us from among the many possible futures that we will imagine.

That the world may not be fully deterministic has no bearing on the question of compatibilism, which is free will in relation to determinism.

Yes. That is correct. But compatibilists like me begin with the assumption of a fully deterministic universe. It just makes everything much simpler, and easier to describe, if we eliminate indeterminism from consideration.

 

[DBT]

And yet again DBT fails to get "could" and "would" straight.

He starts out strong from the gate with recognizing that "couldn't" of some contextual set's degrees of freedom DOES mean "it is not possible", also understood better and more completely in expanded form as "it could not from any starting point within some given set of starting points, progress to any systemic quality satisfying the shape of the requirement", but then promptly steps in it yet again mixing language in a studding display of invalidity.

note here in the slow-motion replay:

a possibility that it would happen

As we've come to see, it's a rookie move, but DBT isn't one to shy away from making rookie mistakes it seems!

Overall, F+.

DBT: possibilities are not a function of would. They are a function of "could, given some starting point".

You still fail to understand the conditions and implications of your own definition: no randomness, no alternate actions. Which means that regardless of what can happen in the world - some order steak, others order salad or ice cream, that what is done at any given instance in time must be done precisely as determined, not freely chosen, but as stipulated;nothing random, no alternate actions.

In other words anything and everything that can happen in the world must necessarily happen at precisely the determined time and place, and in that moment in time there are no alternate possibilities. In that precise moment in time nothing else can happen,.

That hold true for every moment in time as the system evolves from initial conditions/time t.

 

[DBT]

If something cannot happen, it is not possible for it to happen.

That is correct. What is incorrect is the assumption that if something "will not" happen that it "could not" have happened. The notion of "can" is basically the same as notion of "possibility". To say it cannot happen means that it is impossible. To say that it can happen means it is a real possibility, even if it never happens.

What "can" happen constrains what "will" happen, because if it cannot happen then it will not happen. But what "will" happen never constrains what "can" happen. That would break the notion of possibility, and we really need the notion of possibility if we are going to deal effectively with matters of uncertainty. When we don't know what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare for what does happen. When we do not know what we will choose, we consider what we can choose, in order to decide what we will do.

Given our limited perspective, and knowing that similar events happen regularly, we consider that an event was possible.....yet, if not determined to happen in that moment in time and place, it was never a possibility that it would happen. It may happen later, but that's not the point....which is, that all events in each and every moment in time are fixed by antecedents.

Sorry, but that is still confusing the notion of possibility with the notion of actuality. If something is possible, then it never needs to be actualized in order to be a real possibility. A real possibility is something that can happen under certain conditions, for example, if we choose to actualize or realize that possibility then we are physically able to carry out that intent. If we are not able to carry out the intent, even if we choose to do so, then it is an impossibility. But it is never necessary to actualize or realize that possibility in order for it to be a real and true possibility.

All that is required is that the possibility be actualizable and realizable. The "-able" at the end of these two words reads as "possible to be actualized" and "possible to be realized". And that converts the notion from an "actuality" or a "reality" into a an actual or real "possibility".

So, it is incorrect to say, "if not determined to happen in that moment in time and place, it was never a possibility that it would happen". That would destroy the notion of possibility, and destroy the logical tool we use to deal with uncertainty.

It would be similar to trying to perform addition using a single number. Two numbers are required for addition. Two possibilities are required for choosing. Other logical operations will have similar requirements that must be met, by logical necessity, or the operation simply cannot proceed.

So, no. Determinism may not tie us to a single possible future, even though it definitely does tie us to a single actual future. That's just the way things must work.

The fact that events are fixed by antecedents ties us to a single actual future, but it does not limit the number of possible futures that we "can" choose to realize or actualize. It only limits us to one actual future that we "will" choose to realize.

Within the domain of human influence (stuff we can make happen if we choose to do so), the single inevitable future will be chosen by us from among the many possible futures that we will imagine.

That the world may not be fully deterministic has no bearing on the question of compatibilism, which is free will in relation to determinism.

Yes. That is correct. But compatibilists like me begin with the assumption of a fully deterministic universe. It just makes everything much simpler, and easier to describe, if we eliminate indeterminism from consideration.

As pointed out to Jarhyn;

Regardless of what can happen in the world - some order steak, others order salad or ice cream, what is done at any given instance in time must be done precisely as determined, not freely chosen, but as stipulated;nothing random, no alternate actions.

In other words anything and everything that can happen in the world must necessarily happen at precisely the determined time and place, and in that moment in time there are no alternate possibilities. In that precise moment in time nothing else can happen,.

According to the given terms, this hold true for every moment in time as the system evolves from initial conditions/time t.

 

[The AntiChris]

Regardless of what can happen in the world - some order steak, others order salad or ice cream, what is done at any given instance in time must be done precisely as determined, not freely chosen,

The sense of 'freely' as it is used here is preposterous. As Marvin pointed out:

So, "freedom from causal necessity" cannot be used as the definition of free will. And, because "freedom from causation" is a paradoxical self-contradiction (every freedom we have requires the ability to cause some effect), it cannot validly be used as the definition of anything else either. It's just a bit of silly nonsense created by figurative thinking.

In my view Marvin is being remarkably charitable when he describes freedom from causal necessity as "silly nonsense".

As I've been asking DBT over many years, if freedom is not possible in our deterministic universe then where on earth did DBT derive his notion of what freedom actually means? It's clearly not what most people mean by the word, so how does DBT justify his insistence that his (paradoxical/nonsensical) version must be the stipulated version that we all use?