Compatibilism: What's that About?

[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.

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.

What I say is based on the given definition of determinism.

It's entailed in your own definition.

You call determined actions 'choosing' even though there are no alternatives
.
Determinism doesn't involve multiple realizable options, just one course of action; this then that.

What we think and feel and what we do is fixed by an interaction of information before our thoughts and deliberations are brought to consciousness in order to bring about the inevitable action as determined.

That is not a choice.

We don't choose to forget someone's name one moment only to choose to recall it a moment later. Each moment is precisely how it must be, first this, then that, cannot recall a name now, then comes the recollection of the name.

That's just how it works.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You call determined actions 'choosing' even though there are no alternatives.

I call choosing 'choosing'. The fact that the choice is inevitable does not contradict the fact that a choice is actually being made in physical reality. I also call totaling a column of numbers 'adding'. I also call walking to the kitchen 'walking'. All of these are deterministic events that actually take place in physical reality.

Determinism doesn't involve multiple realizable options, just one course of action; this then that.

Determinism involves ALL events, including choosing, adding, and walking. Choosing involves multiple realizable options from which we select one. Adding involves multiple numbers which we add together to produce a sum. Walking involves coordinating balance and moving our legs to propel ourselves forward. The nature of these events is unchanged by the fact that they are all deterministic and will inevitably happen EXACTLY AS THEY DO HAPPEN.

What we think and feel and what we do is fixed by an interaction of information before our thoughts and deliberations are brought to consciousness in order to bring about the inevitable action as determined.

Odd, but that doesn't really change anything. We have the restaurant customer reading the menu, considering his options, and placing a single dinner order. Choosing just happened.

How the brain accomplished this operation, whether conscious or unconscious, makes no difference at all. Multiple realizable options were input. The brain did something called 'choosing'. And a single dinner order was output. Choosing really did happen.

That is not a choice.

Sorry, but that claim is unsupported by the facts. Choosing happened. A choice was made. Not only that, but it was causally necessary, from any prior point in time, that it would happen, exactly like that.

We don't choose to forget someone's name one moment only to choose to recall it a moment later. Each moment is precisely how it must be, first this, then that, cannot recall a name now, then comes the recollection of the name.

Are you suggesting that, because we don't choose to forget someone's name, that we don't choose from the restaurant menu what we will order for dinner? I don't think that makes your case. A list of things that we do not choose does not remove anything from the list of things that we actually do choose.

That's just how it works.

Apparently not.

 

[DBT]

You call determined actions 'choosing' even though there are no alternatives.

I call choosing 'choosing'. The fact that the choice is inevitable does not contradict the fact that a choice is actually being made in physical reality. I also call totaling a column of numbers 'adding'. I also call walking to the kitchen 'walking'. All of these are deterministic events that actually take place in physical reality.

It's the system that could be said to 'choose,' except that there are no alternatives to choose from. Everything that happens must happen precisely as determined; inputs get delivered as outputs, first this, then that.

A clock tells the time. It is the clock that measures the hours, minutes and seconds that are put on display.... does it have a choice? Does the clock choose from a set of options? Obviously not. Yet that is how determinism works in principle, architecture. structure, makeup determines the role and function of an object within the system: the no choice principle.

That includes us.

Determinism doesn't involve multiple realizable options, just one course of action; this then that.

Determinism involves ALL events, including choosing, adding, and walking. Choosing involves multiple realizable options from which we select one. Adding involves multiple numbers which we add together to produce a sum. Walking involves coordinating balance and moving our legs to propel ourselves forward. The nature of these events is unchanged by the fact that they are all deterministic and will inevitably happen EXACTLY AS THEY DO HAPPEN.

Events evolve deterministically, they play out as determined, they are not chosen. Where no alternatives exist, no choice exists.

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

What we think and feel and what we do is fixed by an interaction of information before our thoughts and deliberations are brought to consciousness in order to bring about the inevitable action as determined.

Odd, but that doesn't really change anything. We have the restaurant customer reading the menu, considering his options, and placing a single dinner order. Choosing just happened.

It means that the only possible sequence of events played out as they must. At no point can the customer do differently, which means the alternative options are not realizable for the customer.

If it was determined that the customer enter the restaurant at 7:23pm, ponder on what to order for twenty minutes, scratch his arse and fidget until the urge to order Mackerel and salad......the customer enters the restaurant at precisely 7:23pm, ponders on what to order for twenty minutes, scratches his arse and fidgets until the urge to order Mackerel and salad, and places his order, as determined long before he left home, before he was born.

That's choosing? Nah, that's entailment. Events are entailed, not chosen.

How the brain accomplished this operation, whether conscious or unconscious, makes no difference at all. Multiple realizable options were input. The brain did something called 'choosing'. And a single dinner order was output. Choosing really did happen.

None of the multiple options are realizable. There is only one possible action at any given instance in time: the determined one.

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

That is not a choice.

Sorry, but that claim is unsupported by the facts. Choosing happened. A choice was made. Not only that, but it was causally necessary, from any prior point in time, that it would happen, exactly like that.

The fact are that a choice, by definition, means having two or more possible alternatives to choose from, any of which can be selected

Something that determinism does not permit.

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

We don't choose to forget someone's name one moment only to choose to recall it a moment later. Each moment is precisely how it must be, first this, then that, cannot recall a name now, then comes the recollection of the name.

Are you suggesting that, because we don't choose to forget someone's name, that we don't choose from the restaurant menu what we will order for dinner? I don't think that makes your case. A list of things that we do not choose does not remove anything from the list of things that we actually do choose.

I'm saying that we don't choose our state and condition, yet our unchosen state and condition determines how we think, what we think and do.

Again;
1. No one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature.
2. No one has power over the fact that the facts of the past and the laws of nature entail every fact of the future (i.e., determinism is true).
3. Therefore, no one has power over the facts of the future.

That's just how it works.

Apparently not.

Saying that contradicts your own definition of determinism.

''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 consequence argument;

(1) The existence of alternative possibilities (or the agent's power to do otherwise) is a necessary condition for acting freely.

(2) Determinism is not compatible with alternative possibilities (it precludes the power to do otherwise).

(3) Therefore, determinism is not compatible with acting freely.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's the system that could be said to 'choose,' except that there are no alternatives to choose from

Whole systems do not choose. They are chosen from by subsets of the system.

Rather, they "operate".

Objects within the system make choices of other objects within the system, and choices happen as a function of operation, but the choices are nonetheless not made by "the system" the choices are made by identifiable subsets, partitions of the system.

A system makes no choices as a function assigns no variables to itself, it is merely a static and whole object.

Maybe this is what confuses hard determinists so badly, how something cannot itself "choose" but still within it contain the operation of choices being made.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

It's the system that could be said to 'choose,' except that there are no alternatives to choose from.

There is only one system that chooses, the central nervous system. Choosing is a local operation that is only performed by intelligent living organisms. No other natural objects in the physical universe perform this function. We have invented computing machines that help us process data and make choices, but they are an extension of our selves, just like telescopes and microscopes are extensions of our sight.

And every choosing operation always includes two or more alternatives to choose from.

Everything that happens must happen precisely as determined; inputs get delivered as outputs, first this, then that.

And that is exactly how we find choosing happening, one thought or feeling followed by the next.

A clock tells the time. It is the clock that measures the hours, minutes and seconds that are put on display.... does it have a choice?

Yep. Different mechanisms behave differently. That's why we cook breakfast in the microwave oven and drive our cars to work, rather than the other way around. The primary function of the brain is to make choices.

Yet that is how determinism works in principle, architecture. structure, makeup determines the role and function of an object within the system: the no choice principle.

The central nervous system makes choices. There can be no "no choice principle" that applies to a mechanism with the natural ability to make choices. So, there is no valid "no choice principle". Whoever came up with that obviously made an error.

Events evolve deterministically, they play out as determined, they are not chosen. Where no alternatives exist, no choice exists.

We've been through all that before. Choosing is an event that happens in physical reality. And we may assume that it deterministically happens, just like every other event.

 

[DBT]

It's the system that could be said to 'choose,' except that there are no alternatives to choose from

Whole systems do not choose. They are chosen from by subsets of the system.

I put 'choose' in commers for a reason. I pointed out that there is no choice. Read the sentence again.

Rather, they "operate".

Objects within the system make choices of other objects within the system, and choices happen as a function of operation, but the choices are nonetheless not made by "the system" the choices are made by identifiable subsets, partitions of the system.

A system makes no choices as a function assigns no variables to itself, it is merely a static and whole object.

Maybe this is what confuses hard determinists so badly, how something cannot itself "choose" but still within it contain the operation of choices being made.

There is no choice. The system doesn't contemplate options, well, maybe this, maybe that.

There are no options, what happens must happen. first this, then that, no deviation, no options, no alternatives, no, well, uh, maybe this, maybe that.

All actions are fixed by the state of the system. which includes, brains, thoughts, feelings, contemplations, ruminations, etc, proceeding as they must, no deviation, no choice, where there is ''no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

 

[DBT]

It's the system that could be said to 'choose,' except that there are no alternatives to choose from.

There is only one system that chooses, the central nervous system. Choosing is a local operation that is only performed by intelligent living organisms. No other natural objects in the physical universe perform this function. We have invented computing machines that help us process data and make choices, but they are an extension of our selves, just like telescopes and microscopes are extensions of our sight.

And every choosing operation always includes two or more alternatives to choose from.

Chooses? The central nervous system doesn't choose its own makeup, architecture, state and condition, role or function. It doesn't choose its environment, inputs, how information is processed or how it affects response.

How information affects the system determines response. Change the chemistry or the structure of the CNS and you get a different person, different thoughts, different outlook and behaviour.

Everything that happens must happen precisely as determined; inputs get delivered as outputs, first this, then that.

And that is exactly how we find choosing happening, one thought or feeling followed by the next.

The illusion of choosing. There was never an alternative.

A clock tells the time. It is the clock that measures the hours, minutes and seconds that are put on display.... does it have a choice?

Yep. Different mechanisms behave differently. That's why we cook breakfast in the microwave oven and drive our cars to work, rather than the other way around. The primary function of the brain is to make choices.

Given determinism, the brain being an aspect of the system, has - in principle - no more freedom of choice than a clock or a computer, only that the complexity of information processing of a brain allows complex actions.

A computer's response being far greater than a clock and brain's ability to respond being far greater than a computer, yet no deviation, no maybe this could have happened, maybe that.... everything that happens must happen, no deviation, no doing otherwise, no choice.

Determinism doesn't permit choosing.

Yet that is how determinism works in principle, architecture. structure, makeup determines the role and function of an object within the system: the no choice principle.

The central nervous system makes choices. There can be no "no choice principle" that applies to a mechanism with the natural ability to make choices. So, there is no valid "no choice principle". Whoever came up with that obviously made an error.

The CNS has no more ability to do otherwise than anything else that exists and operates within a deterministic system. State and condition determines function and response.

Each moment, this state then that state. This happens, then that response. No alternative, no choice. I could have done otherwise if things had been different is a lament for the impossible. Things could not have been different. Things are always precisely as they must be.

Events evolve deterministically, they play out as determined, they are not chosen. Where no alternatives exist, no choice exists.

We've been through all that before. Choosing is an event that happens in physical reality. And we may assume that it deterministically happens, just like every other event.

There are no options to choose from. Change is a physical reality. The evolution of change that is entailed by prior states of the system is not an act of choosing. Entailment doesn't mean sifting through options.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Chooses? The central nervous system doesn't choose its own makeup, architecture, state and condition, role or function. It doesn't choose its environment, inputs, how information is processed or how it affects response.

And yet there it is in the restaurant choosing what it will order for dinner. It is illogical to provide a list of the things that our CNS does not choose and think that will eliminate any of the rather obvious things that it does choose.

The fact is that choosing actually does happen and our central nervous system does it. Decision making is one of the primary functions performed by the brain. Ask any neuroscientist.

The illusion of choosing.

The notion that "choosing is an illusion" is clearly a delusion.

It is one of those false implications that the hard determinist attempts to attach to deterministic causal necessity.

 

[fromderinside]

No. Implications derive from context and argument. There is no context, nor argument, for 'choosing' embedded in determinism. That is a bell -whistle- attached by treating determinism as something other than determined.

When BS is couched in flowing text some would presume something is there when it's not there or anywhere.

 

[Kylie]

In a deterministic universe, the outcome is inevitable.

If it is inevitable, there is zero chance it could be any different.

If there is zero chance it could be any different, I am not making a free choice. I limited to exactly one thing - whatever the inevitable outcome is. I can not be making a free choice if there is only one outcome.

 

[Jarhyn]

In a deterministic universe, the outcome is inevitable.

If it is inevitable, there is zero chance it could be any different.

If there is zero chance it could be any different, I am not making a free choice. I limited to exactly one thing - whatever the inevitable outcome is. I can not be making a free choice if there is only one outcome.

This is yet again people confusing "wanting things to be different" and "wanting to things to become some specific thing".

Your inability to understand how and why you participate in the development of what will be singular future and why that still matters is a "you" problem.

Why do you want the future to be different? You don't even know what it is, and have plenty of decisions as to what it will be.

"Changing the future" "making an impact", "making a difference" is all figurative language.

Really, it is discussing making decisions in the future that are different from the ones you made in the past. This is not changing or actually making the future any different. It is the process by which YOU change in one moment to the next into who you will be. It means being different in the future than you are now, and impressing people with the extent of that difference, not of some exact time from itself in that same exact time, but of the kind of changes we all accept and recognize happen as a product of cause and effect.

As such, it isn't about choosing a different future, but about the processes which calculate, imperfectly, "could", until it is calculated on well enough to determine which, of "could", "shall". This isn't changing the future, this is just the process on which it singularly becomes itself.

 

[DBT]

Chooses? The central nervous system doesn't choose its own makeup, architecture, state and condition, role or function. It doesn't choose its environment, inputs, how information is processed or how it affects response.

And yet there it is in the restaurant choosing what it will order for dinner. It is illogical to provide a list of the things that our CNS does not choose and think that will eliminate any of the rather obvious things that it does choose.

Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen. Determined actions are performed freely, without restriction neither forced or chosen, but precisely as determined. Our CNS no more chooses from a set of options than a clock chooses what to display on its dial. The CNS acquires and processes information, which determines the response, a rational system, not a free will generator.

The fact is that choosing actually does happen and our central nervous system does it. Decision making is one of the primary functions performed by the brain. Ask any neuroscientist.

As choosing requires two or more realizable options and determinism -by definition - has no alternate options, the central nervous system clearly has no options to choose from.

Whatever it does, it does necessarily. Information acting upon neural architecture equates to output in thought and action.

This is entailed in your own definition, which you are trying to circumvent with careful wording.

The illusion of choosing.

The notion that "choosing is an illusion" is clearly a delusion.

Nope, it's just how determinism works. No deviation. No alternate actions, events proceeding without deviation beginning with initial conditions, equates to the no alternative options to choose from, and all actions are entailed, not chosen.

Entailment is not a matter of choice. The actions of our future are as fixed as the actions of our past.

It is one of those false implications that the hard determinist attempts to attach to deterministic causal necessity.

This is not 'hard determinism' - it is determinism precisely as it is defined, precisely as you define it to be.

''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.

Sorry, there is no case to be made for compatibilism.

The notion of free will is incompatible with determinism, a system where all events are entailed by initial conditions, which determines how the system evolves to its conclusion, just as you said.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

In a deterministic universe, the outcome is inevitable.

If it is inevitable, there is zero chance it could be any different.

If there is zero chance it could be any different, I am not making a free choice. I limited to exactly one thing - whatever the inevitable outcome is. I can not be making a free choice if there is only one outcome.

Well, there is zero chance that you will have any dinner tonight if you fail to make a choice from the restaurant menu. Therefore, it is inevitable that you will make a choice.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.

 

[Jarhyn]

Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

Bald assertion...

Actions are not determined until they have been determined. They are determined, generally, in a process that involves choice from a series of calculated alternatives. Through calculation, through deliberative choice, actions are determined.

 

[fromderinside]

Keep smiling Kylie.

 

[Kylie]

In a deterministic universe, the outcome is inevitable.

If it is inevitable, there is zero chance it could be any different.

If there is zero chance it could be any different, I am not making a free choice. I limited to exactly one thing - whatever the inevitable outcome is. I can not be making a free choice if there is only one outcome.

This is yet again people confusing "wanting things to be different" and "wanting to things to become some specific thing".

Your inability to understand how and why you participate in the development of what will be singular future and why that still matters is a "you" problem.

Why do you want the future to be different? You don't even know what it is, and have plenty of decisions as to what it will be.

"Changing the future" "making an impact", "making a difference" is all figurative language.

Really, it is discussing making decisions in the future that are different from the ones you made in the past. This is not changing or actually making the future any different. It is the process by which YOU change in one moment to the next into who you will be. It means being different in the future than you are now, and impressing people with the extent of that difference, not of some exact time from itself in that same exact time, but of the kind of changes we all accept and recognize happen as a product of cause and effect.

As such, it isn't about choosing a different future, but about the processes which calculate, imperfectly, "could", until it is calculated on well enough to determine which, of "could", "shall". This isn't changing the future, this is just the process on which it singularly becomes itself.

You have dramatically misunderstood my position.

All I am saying is that if future events are set in stone, then we can have no free choice.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

No. Implications derive from context and argument. There is no context, nor argument, for 'choosing' embedded in determinism. That is a bell -whistle- attached by treating determinism as something other than determined.

When BS is couched in flowing text some would presume something is there when it's not there or anywhere.

The context for choosing embedded in determinism is called "reality". See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders. That is called "choosing". Ask them why they ordered what they did, and they will explain the reasons that caused their choice. That is called "determinism".

When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "free will".
When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "determinism".

When the exact same event has the characteristics required for both free will and determinism, we call that compatibility.

 

[Kylie]

Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.

No it hasn't been demonstrated. It's been stated. Big difference.

And even your attempt to prove it again does nothing more than assert that the restaurant customers are choosing without actually demonstrating that they are choosing.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.

No it hasn't been demonstrated. It's been stated. Big difference.

And even your attempt to prove it again does nothing more than assert that the restaurant customers are choosing without actually demonstrating that they are choosing.

What do you call the operation that inputs multiple options, estimates the likely outcome of choosing each, and then selects the one that seems best? Most people call that "choosing".

You claim it is not "really" choosing because it was inevitable. Why can't it be inevitable that they would really be choosing?