Compatibilism: What's that About?

[DBT]

Why "remarkably ignorant of neuroscience"? Is that kind of language really necessary?

Well it really was a truly remarkable claim coming from someone who incessantly employs 'neuroscience' (inappropriately) as justification for his views and who regularly accuses his interlocutors of failing to understand determinism.

Whilst possibly not the most diplomatic response, I can understand Jarhyn's frustration.

BS. I have supported everything that I have said with studies, quotes, links and references to neuroscience. All to no avail. It is ignored.

 

[DBT]

We usually eat at 7pm, but there was a special show on TV at that time that we all wanted to watch. So, we found ourselves faced with a problem that required us to make a choice.

There are no alternatives in determinism. Consequently, no choice.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that an alternative outcome is possible.

Well, so far, we've only encountered a problem without a solution. This motivates us to brainstorm to come up with at least one solution to our problem. And, being creative, we come up with four alternate possibilities:

The brainstorming goes precisely as it must, first this then that, the outcome determined before the process of brainstorming even began.

No deviation, no alternatives, no thinking or doing otherwise as the system evolves from prior to present and future states.

That is determinism.

We can have dinner at 6:30 and watch the TV show at 7pm.
We can watch the TV show at 7pm and then have dinner at 7:30.
We can take our trays into the TV room and have dinner while watching the show at 7pm.
We can record the TV show, have dinner at 7pm, and watch the recording later.

As defined, we can do none of these things, if it has not been determined:

''Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without 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.

You do precisely what must happen.

And that is exactly what we did. We came up with four ways to solve our problem. Given determinism, it was causally necessary from any prior point in time that we would come up with precisely those four possibilities.

There never was four ways it could have gone. It goes precisely as it must from the beginning of the sequence of events till the end. All the thinking, brainstorming, deliberating taking us to the inevitable outcome.

''Determinism; there is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

Everything that happens must happen as determined, not chosen, there are no alternatives, no other possibilities. Everything is fixed by initial conditions and antecedents, thoughts, desires, actions, fixed by prior states of the system.

And again, given determinism, it was causally necessary from any prior point in time that we would now have to choose between those four alternate possibilities. After all, since that is what happened, we must assume that it was, as you said, "fixed by initial conditions and antecedents, thoughts, desires, actions, fixed by prior states of the system", to happen in exactly that way, without deviation.

The process of 'choosing' is the process of the system as it evolves from initial condition to outcome without deviation.

There never was a chance of other options being taken, hence it never involved freedom of will.

This, then that, no deviation.

''Determinism; there is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

The alternate possibilities were there by causal necessity. And it would be causally necessary that the choosing would actually happen. And it would be causally necessary that it would be us, actually doing the choosing.

The process of thought and deliberation must happen. Yet the outcome is fixed before thought and deliberation even begins;

''Determinism; there is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

The brain has its inputs, information processing, thoughts and deliberations, which are delivered as output; how we respond.

Everything happened just so. And the fact that it would be us, and no other object in the physical universe, that would be doing the choosing, was deterministically inevitable from any prior point in eternity.

The whole system, everything that happens, external, internal, does the 'choosing.'

We are aspects of the system. Everything in the Universe has features and properties, 'acting' according to its nature and makeup and 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.

There is no actual 'choosing,' that is negated by ''deterministically inevitable from any prior point in eternity.''

There can be no possibilities in a fixed order of events.

And yet there they were, all four possibilities, within a fixed order of events.

None were possible. What happens must necessarily happen. Realizable alternatives do not exist within a deterministic system, ie, in your own words, everything is ''deterministically inevitable from any prior point in eternity.''

 

[Jarhyn]

There are no alternatives in determinism

And yet again you fail to understand what an "alternative" is.

That's one of the reasons I brought up that "future sight" determinism.

No randomness or variation does not imply no process by which many become constrained to one, which is then tested and determined to be equal, or not, to the system.

The whole point is that what is in our heads as a will and it's ostensible outcome does not have to match any kind of reality at all.

When it does not, we call that "constrained". When it does, we call that free.

There is no randomness there, yet there is still "freedom" and "constraint". Freedom and constraint don't deal with randomness in the first place, they deal with the sanity of the mental model and it's output. Choice does not deal with randomness either: It deals with ignorance of the future.

If someone does not know, of five things, what they will do, and one of those five things SHALL happen, and there is no randomness in the evolution of the system...

It is still being decided by a process, one thing will always happen, and that decision is still a choice upon the alternatives, even if one of the alternatives is always picked and the others are not.

Let's look at a fixed choice function that takes in five things and chooses a number:

F(a,b,c,d,e) returns ceil(a,ceil(b,ceil(c,ceil(d,e)))).

This number that it returns will always be the highest. There is no uncertainty over how the system will evolve. It is a deterministic calculation.

Yet the choice cannot be made without actually presenting it the numbers.

Each of these numbers must be considered as an "alternative", a "possibility" for the result to happen at all. One MUST say of these numbers at the beginning of the process "which is the highest? I do not know."

So choice is clearly compatible with deterministic systems as well, where any kind of informational partitions exist

 

[The AntiChris]

If someone does not know, of five things, what they will do, and one of those five things SHALL happen, and there is no randomness in the evolution of the system...

It is still being decided by a process, one thing will always happen, and that decision is still a choice upon the alternatives, even if one of the alternatives is always picked and the others are not.

I may be mistaken but I suspect that DBT would agree with everything you describe here except for your use of the word "choice".

DBT simply refuses to accept that the word "choice" can be used to describe a deterministic process.

It's a semantic dispute. DBT doesn't seem to realise that definitions only describe, not prescribe usage and his definition is contrary to common usage.

 

[Jarhyn]

If someone does not know, of five things, what they will do, and one of those five things SHALL happen, and there is no randomness in the evolution of the system...

It is still being decided by a process, one thing will always happen, and that decision is still a choice upon the alternatives, even if one of the alternatives is always picked and the others are not.

I may be mistaken but I suspect that DBT would agree with everything you describe here except for your use of the word "choice".

DBT simply refuses to accept that the word "choice" can be used to describe a deterministic process.

It's a semantic dispute. DBT doesn't seem to realise that definitions only describe, not prescribe usage and his definition is contrary to common usage.

But my point is that all freedom and constraint require are for that process, whatever you call it, to render "the bucket" into a singleton.

It doesn't require the thing DBT calls a choice, it requires exactly and only the thing I described which I call a choice. It does not require me to call it a choice for it to work, either.

A rose by any other name still smells as sweetly.

 

[The AntiChris]

It does not require me to call it a choice for it to work, either.

I'm not convinced DBT will find this persuasive.

 

[Jarhyn]

It does not require me to call it a choice for it to work, either.

I'm not convinced DBT will find this persuasive.

I'm not convinced DBT will ever find any thing persuasive.

Are we really at the point here where I'm pointing out a situation where some process must happen upon the set, without the set there isn't the same result, and where a single image in that tumbles out and is then operated on as an object rather than an image.

That's what is happening and no matter what you call that deterministic dance it's a fact that the process must happen for the result to be rendered, and it isn't determined until the determinism determines. It is not  pre determined, because calculation is required.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

There are no alternatives in determinism. Consequently, no choice.

Well, we've covered this in some detail. We've demonstrated that choosing from a list of alternate possibilities is something that actually happens in physical reality, even in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. Claims against these empirical facts are demonstrably false (as has often been demonstrated here).

 

[DBT]

There are no alternatives in determinism

And yet again you fail to understand what an "alternative" is.

I know precisely what it means. An alternative means having two or more realizable options, ie, that choosing a different option is possible. That you can in fact take this option over that option.

But as you should understand by now, determinism doesn't permit alternative actions.
Not having an alternative action at any given moment in time, there are no alternatives at any given moment in time.

That everything proceeds without deviation, fixed, set, immutable, therefore the absence of realizable alternatives at given time in the evolution of the system.

That is what you fail to grasp.

Determinism, a system ''where there is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

 

[DBT]

There are no alternatives in determinism. Consequently, no choice.

Well, we've covered this in some detail. We've demonstrated that choosing from a list of alternate possibilities is something that actually happens in physical reality, even in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. Claims against these empirical facts are demonstrably false (as has often been demonstrated here).

It hasn't been demonstrated to be true because choosing cannot happen. If choosing is the ability to freely select an option from a set of alternatives, as they are presented to us, any one of a set being possible, that it is possible to select either option A or option B (or more), this is not determinism. It is not how determinism is defined. It is not how it works.

The reasons why have been explained in some detail.

To reiterate:
Choice; 1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

Determinism; ''a system where there is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

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


A determined action is clearly not a choice. No event is an isolated action open to modification, there is no independent agency, everything that happens is an interaction between many events. Every cause an effect and every effect a cause. Nothing is freely chosen. Everything is entailed by prior states of the system. A web of causality that does not permit freedom of will.

Choice; an act of choosing between two or more possibilities:
1) Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternative actions or choosing between two or more possibilities (which, by definition, cannot exist).
2) No possible alternative action or choice negates freedom of choice.

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

4) Will does not, and cannot, make a difference to what are determined outcomes.

5) Free will is incompatible with determinism.

Determinism; ''a system where there is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

 

[Jarhyn]

But as you should understand by now, determinism doesn't permit alternative actions.

options

actions

Again, conflating actions and options, can and will.

You did a bait discussions options, and then a switch to actions.

Choice is about options NOT actions.

Taking for a moment a second to recognize that nothing of DETERMINISM actually forbids alternate actions either (our universe does not feature them at its highest levels or so we assume), but it's not determinism that forbids it it just happens not to be a feature of our physics.

See the "future sight" post in "demystifying determinism".

Clearly a Deterministic system MAY allow alternate actions, this one just doesn't seem to.

Alternate actions being disallowed by our specific universe (nothing to do with determinism) does not change in any way, however, the reality of the alternate OPTIONS, which determinism also allows and which this universe clearly features.

 

[DBT]

It does not require me to call it a choice for it to work, either.

I'm not convinced DBT will find this persuasive.

Call it whatever floats your boat (as you must). Without the possibility of doing otherwise, no realizable alternatives, all events proceeding as they must rather than how they are chosen (no alternatives), the notion of free will is incompatible with determinism.

''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. '' - Oxford university press scholarship.

In other words, Compatibilism - as defined - fails to make a case.

 

[Jarhyn]

It does not require me to call it a choice for it to work, either.

I'm not convinced DBT will find this persuasive.

Call it whatever floats your boat (as you must). Without the possibility of doing otherwise, no realizable alternatives, all events proceeding as they must rather than how they are chosen (no alternatives), the notion of free will is incompatible with determinism.

''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. '' - Oxford university press scholarship.

In other words, Compatibilism - as defined - fails to make a case.

The alternatives were and always will have been realizable in the context. There is only one which will be realized.

As to desert-responsibility, that's a whole different can of worms.

Again you descend to fatalism in the bolded portion. It is not predetermined but determined by course. There are still then responsible agents for decisions.

Perhaps we may look at a different situation, which requires less work getting to "last Thursday".

Let's imagine a fortress wherein there is a dwarf walking down the hall. This dwarf wishes to FIGHT and is walking down the long drawbridge to the dining hall to do that. With an axe. Oh, it's Urist again...

Now let me ask, DBT, if a gremlin pulls a lever and drops Urist into a pit of magma, how many dwarves will die?

If no gremlins pull the lever, how many dwarves will die?

Multiple choice even: your options are -1, 0, 1, and 5.


Let's look at Urist leaving the dining hall.

Something happened in there and Urist is COVERED with blood. So is the dining hall.

Clearly if Urist had not been in the equation, no other dwarf would have chosen in that moment to paint the dining hall red.

Moreover, we can ask the question "will he do this every time he fights?"

I can then hack "fight" back in and even observe the system to flag me and have me come take a look the next time it is back on it's own as a function of the dwarf's free will.

And there the chowhall gets painted red again.

So, it seems that desert-responsibility doesn't really see any challenges on account of the fact that the elements of the system that were problems, being removed for being problems, result.

It seems that desert responsibility is more about terminating behavioral waves moving through the deterministic space, and so desert responsibility, at least with the utilitarian focus of preventing outcomes which constrain our freedoms and our wills in such permanent ways.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Well, we've covered this in some detail. We've demonstrated that choosing from a list of alternate possibilities is something that actually happens in physical reality, even in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. Claims against these empirical facts are demonstrably false (as has often been demonstrated here).

It hasn't been demonstrated to be true because choosing cannot happen.

For an actual demonstration of choosing happening, let's walk into this restaurant and observe. We see people coming in. They sit at a table. They pick up the menu and begin looking over the many possibilities listed there. They call the waiter over. Then they say, "I will have X, please", where X is what they have chosen for dinner.

This is called "choosing" and it is a normal human function performed every day by nearly everyone. Choosing is a logical operation that inputs multiple options (the menu of items that we can choose), applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice, in this case a dinner order. It is all happening right there in front of us, except for the mental activity. And if we want to know the reasoning behind the choice, we simply ask the customer. "Excuse me. We're conducting a survey. Can you tell us the reasons why you chose the Chef Salad today?".

The process by which we get from "a list of things that we can choose" to the "single thing that we will choose", is called "choosing". And we saw it actually happening, in physical reality, right there in the restaurant.

There has been no empirical evidence offered that would convince us that this is all an illusion.

If choosing is the ability to freely select an option from a set of alternatives, as they are presented to us, any one of a set being possible, that it is possible to select either option A or option B (or more), this is not determinism."

Okay, so now you want a demonstration that this is in fact determinism. Determinism asserts that every event is reliably caused by prior events, such that each event is causally necessary from any prior point in time and inevitably must happen.

Let's start with what we actually saw. The restaurant has menus and expects customers to choose their dinner from this menu. This prior state of things caused us to sit at the table and pick up the menu. It caused us to then consider the many things that we could order. At the end of these considerations, one thing seemed best to us. So, we called the waiter over and told him, "I will have the Chef Salad, please."

In this small snippet of events, we note that each event followed a regular order, one thing necessarily leading to the next, and finishing with us giving the waiter our order. From the start to the finish, each event was reliably caused by prior events, demonstrating that determinism's assertion was correct, at least in this limited set of events.

We can extend this snippet into the past. We can recall the sequence of events in which we decided to have dinner at a restaurant, how we chose this restaurant, how we travelled here, walked in, and sat at the table. Still a deterministic series of events.

We can extend this snippet into the future. We can note that the waiter takes our order to the kitchen, where the staff prepares our salad, and the waiter returns to our table with the salad and the bill.

We have observed and noted the reliable unfolding of events, one event leading to the next, many times, in everything we think and do.

So, we have the reasonable presumption that this will always be the case. That deterministic causal necessity will always apply to any series of events.

This is how determinism is defined and it is how determinism works. People will in fact be making choices in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect.

 

[DBT]

It does not require me to call it a choice for it to work, either.

I'm not convinced DBT will find this persuasive.

Call it whatever floats your boat (as you must). Without the possibility of doing otherwise, no realizable alternatives, all events proceeding as they must rather than how they are chosen (no alternatives), the notion of free will is incompatible with determinism.

''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. '' - Oxford university press scholarship.

In other words, Compatibilism - as defined - fails to make a case.

The alternatives were and always will have been realizable in the context. There is only one which will be realized.

As to desert-responsibility, that's a whole different can of worms.

Again you descend to fatalism in the bolded portion. It is not predetermined but determined by course. There are still then responsible agents for decisions.

Perhaps we may look at a different situation, which requires less work getting to "last Thursday".

Let's imagine a fortress wherein there is a dwarf walking down the hall. This dwarf wishes to FIGHT and is walking down the long drawbridge to the dining hall to do that. With an axe. Oh, it's Urist again...

Now let me ask, DBT, if a gremlin pulls a lever and drops Urist into a pit of magma, how many dwarves will die?

If no gremlins pull the lever, how many dwarves will die?

Multiple choice even: your options are -1, 0, 1, and 5.


Let's look at Urist leaving the dining hall.

Something happened in there and Urist is COVERED with blood. So is the dining hall.

Clearly if Urist had not been in the equation, no other dwarf would have chosen in that moment to paint the dining hall red.

Moreover, we can ask the question "will he do this every time he fights?"

I can then hack "fight" back in and even observe the system to flag me and have me come take a look the next time it is back on it's own as a function of the dwarf's free will.

And there the chowhall gets painted red again.

So, it seems that desert-responsibility doesn't really see any challenges on account of the fact that the elements of the system that were problems, being removed for being problems, result.

It seems that desert responsibility is more about terminating behavioral waves moving through the deterministic space, and so desert responsibility, at least with the utilitarian focus of preventing outcomes which constrain our freedoms and our wills in such permanent ways.

It means precisely what it says: ''an action’s production by a deterministic process' is not a matter of choice. Whatever happens must happen as determined.

'Determined' has no alternatives, inputs are delivered as outputs. Actions, if determined, do proceed without restriction, are performed freely in that nothing impedes the action, but it must proceed as determined.

The given definition of compatibilism is 'to act without coercion, force or undue influence'.....yet 'an action’s production by a deterministic process' is not freely chosen, It is not chosen at all, it is determined, fixed, set, no deviation....which makes 'an action’s production by a deterministic process' no less of a problem for compatibilists' than force, coercion or undue influence.

Sorry, determinism has no place for freedom of will. The two are incompatible.

 

[DBT]

Well, we've covered this in some detail. We've demonstrated that choosing from a list of alternate possibilities is something that actually happens in physical reality, even in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. Claims against these empirical facts are demonstrably false (as has often been demonstrated here).

There are no alternate possibilities in determinism. Whatever happens, must happen as determined, not chosen.

Determinism is more 'reliable causation' as if events can be bent reliably to our will.

Our will is fixed by the evolution of the system. Our thoughts, feelings and actions are fixed by the evolution of the system as it transitions from prior to current and future states of the system

We are aspects of the system. We think, feel and act according to the state of the system.

Which makes 'an action’s production by a deterministic process' no less of a problem for compatibilists' than force, coercion or undue influence.

It hasn't been demonstrated to be true because choosing cannot happen.

For an actual demonstration of choosing happening, let's walk into this restaurant and observe. We see people coming in. They sit at a table. They pick up the menu and begin looking over the many possibilities listed there. They call the waiter over. Then they say, "I will have X, please", where X is what they have chosen for dinner.

We see people acting. We have virtually no access to the information that determines what they think or do. Human behaviour can be predicted to an extent, and using fMRI, 'decisions'- the action taken - have been predicted before the subject is aware of their choice.

This is called "choosing" and it is a normal human function performed every day by nearly everyone. Choosing is a logical operation that inputs multiple options (the menu of items that we can choose), applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice, in this case a dinner order. It is all happening right there in front of us, except for the mental activity. And if we want to know the reasoning behind the choice, we simply ask the customer. "Excuse me. We're conducting a survey. Can you tell us the reasons why you chose the Chef Salad today?".\

Choosing requires two or more realizable options at any given moment in time. Determinism doesn't allow alternate actions, hence there is only one possible course of action in any given moment in time: the determined action.

The process by which we get from "a list of things that we can choose" to the "single thing that we will choose", is called "choosing". And we saw it actually happening, in physical reality, right there in the restaurant.

That is what it's called. However, we are dealing with determinism and its consequences for decision making, where alternative are not possible at any point in time.

Which makes the 'single thing that we will choose' determined, not chosen, a necessity, not a free choice.

There has been no empirical evidence offered that would convince us that this is all an illusion.

If choosing is the ability to freely select an option from a set of alternatives, as they are presented to us, any one of a set being possible, that it is possible to select either option A or option B (or more), this is not determinism."

Okay, so now you want a demonstration that this is in fact determinism. Determinism asserts that every event is reliably caused by prior events, such that each event is causally necessary from any prior point in time and inevitably must happen.

What you say negates freedom of choice.

Let's start with what we actually saw. The restaurant has menus and expects customers to choose their dinner from this menu. This prior state of things caused us to sit at the table and pick up the menu. It caused us to then consider the many things that we could order. At the end of these considerations, one thing seemed best to us. So, we called the waiter over and told him, "I will have the Chef Salad, please."

Yes, no alternatives, no freely chosen options or actions. Everything evolves as it must; ''no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

In this small snippet of events, we note that each event followed a regular order, one thing necessarily leading to the next, and finishing with us giving the waiter our order. From the start to the finish, each event was reliably caused by prior events, demonstrating that determinism's assertion was correct, at least in this limited set of events.

We can extend this snippet into the past. We can recall the sequence of events in which we decided to have dinner at a restaurant, how we chose this restaurant, how we travelled here, walked in, and sat at the table. Still a deterministic series of events. We can extend this snippet into the future. We can note that the waiter takes our order to the kitchen, where the staff prepares our salad, and the waiter returns to our table with the salad and the bill.

We have observed and noted the reliable unfolding of events, one event leading to the next, many times, in everything we think and do.

So, we have the reasonable presumption that this will always be the case. That deterministic causal necessity will always apply to any series of events.

This is how determinism is defined and it is how determinism works. People will in fact be making choices in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect.

Determinism means that the present and future are as fixed as the past. We can no more modify or change the present than we can the past. Given determinism, we have no more agency in relation to the present than we have in relation to the past.

 

[Jarhyn]

is not a matter of choice

It is absolutely a matter of "choice" wherein several alternatives go in. We can determine that it is the CHOICE upon the REALIZABLE ALTERNATIVES that was the deciding factor in account that if you supply any different alternatives or even the same alternatives in different ways or orders, different things happen within the deterministic system.

so the choice is quite pivotal and a piece of the behavioral waves moving through space and time.

Again, all you have to stand on is your No-True-ScotsmanChoice.

Ill further hazard that nobody ever intends on changing the future, or only fools do, because nobody knows the future in the first place.

All they want to do is contribute that which they may to the only future they have, to BUILD it, not CHANGE it.

Choice isn't about changing the future, it's about determining it, once, in the only way it may be determined: as a matter of course.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Well, we've covered this in some detail. We've demonstrated that choosing from a list of alternate possibilities is something that actually happens in physical reality, even in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. Claims against these empirical facts are demonstrably false (as has often been demonstrated here).

There are no alternate possibilities in determinism. Whatever happens, must happen as determined, not chosen.

Determinism is more 'reliable causation' as if events can be bent reliably to our will.

Our will is fixed by the evolution of the system. Our thoughts, feelings and actions are fixed by the evolution of the system as it transitions from prior to current and future states of the system

We are aspects of the system. We think, feel and act according to the state of the system.

Which makes 'an action’s production by a deterministic process' no less of a problem for compatibilists' than force, coercion or undue influence.

It hasn't been demonstrated to be true because choosing cannot happen.

For an actual demonstration of choosing happening, let's walk into this restaurant and observe. We see people coming in. They sit at a table. They pick up the menu and begin looking over the many possibilities listed there. They call the waiter over. Then they say, "I will have X, please", where X is what they have chosen for dinner.

We see people acting. We have virtually no access to the information that determines what they think or do. Human behaviour can be predicted to an extent, and using fMRI, 'decisions'- the action taken - have been predicted before the subject is aware of their choice.

This is called "choosing" and it is a normal human function performed every day by nearly everyone. Choosing is a logical operation that inputs multiple options (the menu of items that we can choose), applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice, in this case a dinner order. It is all happening right there in front of us, except for the mental activity. And if we want to know the reasoning behind the choice, we simply ask the customer. "Excuse me. We're conducting a survey. Can you tell us the reasons why you chose the Chef Salad today?".\

Choosing requires two or more realizable options at any given moment in time. Determinism doesn't allow alternate actions, hence there is only one possible course of action in any given moment in time: the determined action.

The process by which we get from "a list of things that we can choose" to the "single thing that we will choose", is called "choosing". And we saw it actually happening, in physical reality, right there in the restaurant.

That is what it's called. However, we are dealing with determinism and its consequences for decision making, where alternative are not possible at any point in time.

Which makes the 'single thing that we will choose' determined, not chosen, a necessity, not a free choice.

There has been no empirical evidence offered that would convince us that this is all an illusion.

If choosing is the ability to freely select an option from a set of alternatives, as they are presented to us, any one of a set being possible, that it is possible to select either option A or option B (or more), this is not determinism."

Okay, so now you want a demonstration that this is in fact determinism. Determinism asserts that every event is reliably caused by prior events, such that each event is causally necessary from any prior point in time and inevitably must happen.

What you say negates freedom of choice.

Let's start with what we actually saw. The restaurant has menus and expects customers to choose their dinner from this menu. This prior state of things caused us to sit at the table and pick up the menu. It caused us to then consider the many things that we could order. At the end of these considerations, one thing seemed best to us. So, we called the waiter over and told him, "I will have the Chef Salad, please."

Yes, no alternatives, no freely chosen options or actions. Everything evolves as it must; ''no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

In this small snippet of events, we note that each event followed a regular order, one thing necessarily leading to the next, and finishing with us giving the waiter our order. From the start to the finish, each event was reliably caused by prior events, demonstrating that determinism's assertion was correct, at least in this limited set of events.

We can extend this snippet into the past. We can recall the sequence of events in which we decided to have dinner at a restaurant, how we chose this restaurant, how we travelled here, walked in, and sat at the table. Still a deterministic series of events. We can extend this snippet into the future. We can note that the waiter takes our order to the kitchen, where the staff prepares our salad, and the waiter returns to our table with the salad and the bill.

We have observed and noted the reliable unfolding of events, one event leading to the next, many times, in everything we think and do.

So, we have the reasonable presumption that this will always be the case. That deterministic causal necessity will always apply to any series of events.

This is how determinism is defined and it is how determinism works. People will in fact be making choices in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect.

Determinism means that the present and future are as fixed as the past. We can no more modify or change the present than we can the past. Given determinism, we have no more agency in relation to the present than we have in relation to the past.

I'm sorry, but the basis of determinism (universal causal necessity/inevitability) simply does not justify your conclusions. Choosing is determined to happen, so there is no point trying to claim that it isn't really happening.

 

[fromderinside]

is not a matter of choice

Choice isn't about changing the future, it's about determining it, once, in the only way it may be determined: as a matter of course.

Determinism is. The future is. Choice is whatever. Whatever isn't part of determinism of the future.

 

[DBT]

is not a matter of choice

It is absolutely a matter of "choice" wherein several alternatives go in. We can determine that it is the CHOICE upon the REALIZABLE ALTERNATIVES that was the deciding factor in account that if you supply any different alternatives or even the same alternatives in different ways or orders, different things happen within the deterministic system.

so the choice is quite pivotal and a piece of the behavioral waves moving through space and time.

Again, all you have to stand on is your No-True-ScotsmanChoice.

Ill further hazard that nobody ever intends on changing the future, or only fools do, because nobody knows the future in the first place.

All they want to do is contribute that which they may to the only future they have, to BUILD it, not CHANGE it.

Choice isn't about changing the future, it's about determining it, once, in the only way it may be determined: as a matter of course.

For heavens sake!

''Nobody ever intends on changing the future'' ''because nobody knows the future in the first place'' is totally irrelevant.

What you have shown is that you don't understand determinism.

What you do or do not intend is determined. That nobody knows the future doesn't alter how events proceed into the future, regardless of what you do or don't know.