Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Jarhyn]

If it is impossible that he or she would, then he or she could not do it. That's what impossible means.

Nope. What we CAN do constrains what we WILL do, because if we cannot do it, then we will not do it.
But what we WILL do never constrains what we CAN do, because there must be multiple CAN's to get to the single WILL.

If it's impossible, it cannot happen.

Correct. And if it cannot happen, then it will not happen. CAN constrains WILL.

But the reverse is not true, because what WILL happen never constrains what CAN happen. No matter how strongly your intuition pulls you in that direction, it is a logical fallacy that leads to illogical results.

For example:
Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because the universe is deterministic, there is only one possibility, only one dinner you can order."
Diner: "Oh. Okay then, what is the one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I'll be happy to tell you that, but only after you've made your choice."

Fixed means that nothing else can happen.

Nope. Fixed means that nothing else WILL happen. The fact that something will not happen does not logically imply that it cannot happen.

If nothing else can happen because the course of events is fixed, by definition, nothing else can happen.

Sorry, but we cannot keep substituting CAN for WILL. The correct statement is this: "If nothing else WILL happen because the course of events is fixed, by definition, nothing else WILL happen".

But Marvin, if DBT must parse things like that then how will they ever liberate themselves or whoever of whatever responsibility that DBT must poof out of existence in a puff of logic?

 

[fromderinside]

I, on the other hand, simply ran into Spinoza at an early age, and figured out that determinism doesn't actually change anything. Determinism is not a causal agent. It has no interest in any outcomes. It has "no skin in the game". But we are causal agents. We go about in the world causing things to happen. And we do so for our own goals and reasons.

Sorry you hit that skidmark. Spinosa is a person who is both wrong on determinism even though he agrees we are determined and wrong on reality to which man not tuned.

He goes through an nonexistent God to get to determinism and he clearly errors on evolution justifying reality in man since all evolution does is select for surviving not tuning to reality.

Your restaurant stuff is clearly mind dependent and self serving Pablum having nothing at all to do with whether one has options.

 

[Jarhyn]

all evolution does is select for surviving not tuning to reality.

For some, this is clearly the case. For others, not so much. Evolution takes different formats you know.

If one does not have the options of the menu and process of them thus to produce a single one of them, one will not get food in the restaurant.

If you wish to reject language and bury yourself in your "cave", be my guest. The meals there are free, and there's only one thing on the menu: It's the same meal you ate yesterday.

 

[DBT]

If it is impossible that he or she would, then he or she could not do it

Again, no, you are committing the modal fallacy, and ignoring WHY it was impossible that they would: because they could and they chose not to, and that choice created mutual exclusivity against choosing both. Because it's impossible to go back and change the past, it is in fact impossible that they ever would. Even though, as a mathematical feature of that moment in relation to a hypothetical "virtual" universe where they do, they do not.

They don't choose. Given your definition of determinism, here are no alternatives to choose from.

What is done must necessarily be done.

When an act must necessarily be done, with no alternatives, the act is not selected from a set of options, therefore not chosen.

Not only not freely chosen, but simply not chosen.

To claim choice where choice does not exist is the model fallacy. Based on the given premises, your own premises, an undeniable fallacy.


No alternatives/what must be done is done equals no choice.

a system that permits no alternatives

See the case statement outlined in the other thread. "Not an alternative" would be akin to no assembly code being generated "for case 2", no available call to do2(). But it IS there and we call it's presence as an operation around which flow can bypass, an "alternative". It is not about what it is used for, it is about what it is.

Much like I suppose if you never needed to use brakes on a car, say because traffic I your town is slow and you happen to live and park and work on the same long street with no intersections, and get along fine for now without engine brakes... I'm sure you would still want them there. You know, just in case. As an alternative to rear-ending someone.

If you never use brakes in a car, do you need them?

(The answer is yes, even if you somehow never use the brakes in your car you still need them there as an alternative to being otherwise unable to stop).

Oh, boy, you clearly don't understand the issue. Barely, if at all.

 

[DBT]

If it is impossible that he or she would, then he or she could not do it. That's what impossible means.

Nope. What we CAN do constrains what we WILL do, because if we cannot do it, then we will not do it.
But what we WILL do never constrains what we CAN do, because there must be multiple CAN's to get to the single WILL.

Within a deterministic system, we do what we must do. We are not even aware of the elements that act upon us, forming our thoughts, feelings and prompt/will to act.

Nothing else is possible, if turning left at the next intersection is determined, turning right cannot happen. It is impossible to turn right if turning left is determined.

And we are talking determinism, not probability, Libertarian free will or freely taking any option.

If it's impossible, it cannot happen.

Correct. And if it cannot happen, then it will not happen. CAN constrains WILL.

But the reverse is not true, because what WILL happen never constrains what CAN happen. No matter how strongly your intuition pulls you in that direction, it is a logical fallacy that leads to illogical results.

For example:
Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because the universe is deterministic, there is only one possibility, only one dinner you can order."
Diner: "Oh. Okay then, what is the one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I'll be happy to tell you that, but only after you've made your choice."

If ordering steak at 8:03pm is determined, nothing else can happen. Steak must be ordered at 8:03pm, no alternatives possible.

What is impossible, as defined, cannot happen

Fixed means that nothing else can happen.

Nope. Fixed means that nothing else WILL happen. The fact that something will not happen does not logically imply that it cannot happen.

Alternate actions won't happen because they cannot happen. That is determinism. A lot of things can happen, but if it does happen, it happens because it is determined that it happens at precisely the time it must happen. And in that moment, nothing else can happen

If nothing else can happen because the course of events is fixed, by definition, nothing else can happen.

Sorry, but we cannot keep substituting CAN for WILL. The correct statement is this: "If nothing else WILL happen because the course of events is fixed, by definition, nothing else WILL happen".

Nothing else will happen because it cannot happen in any other way. If we are talking about determinism, it's a pointless distinction. Everything that happens must happen as determined.

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.''

 

[Jarhyn]

They don't choose. Given your definition of determinism, here are no alternatives to choose from

And again, you are wrong. My definition of determinism absolutely allows alternatives, because I'm not treating the universe as a monolith. Rather, I am treating it as a function upon a state variable.

The alternatives are projected virtually, as the result of variances on state. This is known in math as an "extension" of the system, and there are infinite extensions, infinite variances of state that still, nonetheless, would operate as a universe.

It's a lot easier to think about when you've actually done this before, with a whole (small) universe. It's why I keep explaining to you that you really need to pick up that game so you can do the experiment and prove all this out to yourself.

This is a very important thing to understand because considering "could" is doing a thought experiment.

The goal of the thought experiment is to get as close to the following actual experiment as possible:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

The fact that it was ME putting that variable there into MY OWN head is, exactly, the proof of free will.

That we can only ever approximate perfection here does not invalidate it, it just means sometimes we're going to be wrong.

When we are wrong, we don't say "we lacked free will", as we still decided for ourselves (that will was free!), But rather "our will to do X was not free".

Note, this does not in any point discuss randomness.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

What we CAN do constrains what we WILL do, because if we cannot do it, then we will not do it.
But what we WILL do never constrains what we CAN do, because the mind logically requires multiple CAN's to get to the single WILL.

Within a deterministic system, we do what we must do.

And one of the things we must do is make decisions when presented with multiple options. For example, when sitting in the restaurant we are presented with a menu of alternate possibilities to choose from, and thus we must decide what we will order for dinner.

We are not even aware of the elements that act upon us, forming our thoughts, feelings and prompt/will to act.

To suggest that there are "elements that act upon us" is superstitious nonsense. Our brain forms our thoughts, makes decisions, and communicates to us and the outside world what we are doing and why. We tell the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please", and when our friends ask us why we didn't have the juicy steak like they did, we tell them "I thought about the steak, but I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. So I decided it would be best to have a salad for dinner."

This is all very simple and straightforward.

Nothing else is possible, if turning left at the next intersection is determined, turning right cannot happen. It is impossible to turn right if turning left is determined.

The notion of possibility evolved in the human brain to deal with the practical problem of uncertainty. We have a logical causal mechanism to resolve this uncertainty.

In the restaurant, we begin with uncertainty about what we "will" order for dinner. To solve this problem, we shift our attention from the immediate reality to a safe sandbox of imagination in which we entertain multiple possibilities. Here, in the sandbox, we can imagine the juicy steak for dinner. Then we can recall what we had for breakfast and lunch. Then we can consider the salad, and discover that it would be the most satisfying choice. And now we know, with certainty, what we will do.

That is how it works.

The irrational claim of hard determinism, that there is only a single possibility and only a single thing that we can choose, builds a wall around the sandbox, preventing us from entering the context of multiple possibilities. And that does not work. How badly it does not work is demonstrated by the example:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because the universe is deterministic, there is only one possibility, only one dinner you can order."
Diner: "Oh. Okay then, what is the one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I'll be happy to tell you that, but only after you've made your choice."

Insisting upon a single possibility, a single thing that can happen, creates a paradox, and therefore must be rejected.

Alternate actions won't happen because they cannot happen.

That sounds good, but it is inaccurate. Some things will not happen because they cannot happen. Other things will not happen because they simply will not happen, even though they can.

Leaping over the Empire State building will not happen because it cannot happen.
But taking an elevator to the top of the Empire State building can happen, even if we never choose to do so. Thus, despite the fact that it can happen, it won't happen.

That is determinism. A lot of things can happen, but if it does happen, it happens because it is determined that it happens at precisely the time it must happen. And in that moment, nothing else can happen

Any number of things can happen in that moment. But nothing else will happen. For example, we chose to order the salad, even though we could have chosen the steak. While it was never the case that we would have ordered the steak, it was never impossible for us to order it. Our ability to choose something is not affected by what we actually choose to do.

 

[The AntiChris]

We are not even aware of the elements that act upon us, forming our thoughts, feelings and prompt/will to act.

To suggest that there are "elements that act upon us" is superstitious nonsense.

Hear! Hear!

 

[DBT]

They don't choose. Given your definition of determinism, here are no alternatives to choose from

And again, you are wrong. My definition of determinism absolutely allows alternatives, because I'm not treating the universe as a monolith. Rather, I am treating it as a function upon a state variable.

The alternatives are projected virtually, as the result of variances on state. This is known in math as an "extension" of the system, and there are infinite extensions, infinite variances of state that still, nonetheless, would operate as a universe.

It's a lot easier to think about when you've actually done this before, with a whole (small) universe. It's why I keep explaining to you that you really need to pick up that game so you can do the experiment and prove all this out to yourself.

This is a very important thing to understand because considering "could" is doing a thought experiment.

The goal of the thought experiment is to get as close to the following actual experiment as possible:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

The fact that it was ME putting that variable there into MY OWN head is, exactly, the proof of free will.

That we can only ever approximate perfection here does not invalidate it, it just means sometimes we're going to be wrong.

When we are wrong, we don't say "we lacked free will", as we still decided for ourselves (that will was free!), But rather "our will to do X was not free".

Note, this does not in any point discuss randomness.

Think about determinism as it is defined, as you yourself define it, and realize that you will not do otherwise because, under the given terms and principles of determinism, there can be no do otherwise, what you think, feel and do is inevitable, fixed, set, making will not equivalent to cannot.

Your thoughts, feelings and actions are inevitable, therefore not freely chosen or willed. Free will, alternatives and choice (having two or more realizable options) is not compatible with determinism.

 

[DBT]

We are not even aware of the elements that act upon us, forming our thoughts, feelings and prompt/will to act.

To suggest that there are "elements that act upon us" is superstitious nonsense.

Hear! Hear!

Nah, that's silly, we live on a planet, our senses acquire and process information, our brain forms a representation of self and the world, everything we thinks and do is related to our environment, family, friends, work, hobbies, interests, aversions, etc, etc....we respond to the information we (the brain) acquire. It is that information that determines how we respond.

 

[DBT]

That is determinism. A lot of things can happen, but if it does happen, it happens because it is determined that it happens at precisely the time it must happen. And in that moment, nothing else can happen

Any number of things can happen in that moment. But nothing else will happen. For example, we chose to order the salad, even though we could have chosen the steak. While it was never the case that we would have ordered the steak, it was never impossible for us to order it. Our ability to choose something is not affected by what we actually choose to do.

What happens must happen, if salad must be ordered (determinism), steak is not a possibility. Steak or anything other than salad not being a possible selection, thus impossible, there are no alternatives in that moment in time, salad it must be.

Because it must be salad and there are no alternatives in that instance in time and place (the given conditions of determinism), salad is entailed, not chosen. That which is inevitable is not a choice.

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.''

 

[Jarhyn]

if salad must be ordered (determinism), steak is not a possibility

So the brain does not evaluate "salad?"

If the brain evaluates "Salad" it means the brain considered salad.

If the brain considered salad, that means that the brain chose for or against it.

Steak is a "possibility" specifically because the only thing preventing the brain from choosing steak is itself.

Free will is about what does the prevention, and what does the processing.

I discussed this here, but you seem unable to read or address it.

They don't choose. Given your definition of determinism, here are no alternatives to choose from

And again, you are wrong. My definition of determinism absolutely allows alternatives, because I'm not treating the universe as a monolith. Rather, I am treating it as a function upon a state variable.

The alternatives are projected virtually, as the result of variances on state. This is known in math as an "extension" of the system, and there are infinite extensions, infinite variances of state that still, nonetheless, would operate as a universe.

It's a lot easier to think about when you've actually done this before, with a whole (small) universe. It's why I keep explaining to you that you really need to pick up that game so you can do the experiment and prove all this out to yourself.

This is a very important thing to understand because considering "could" is doing a thought experiment.

The goal of the thought experiment is to get as close to the following actual experiment as possible:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

The fact that it was ME putting that variable there into MY OWN head is, exactly, the proof of free will.

That we can only ever approximate perfection here does not invalidate it, it just means sometimes we're going to be wrong.

When we are wrong, we don't say "we lacked free will", as we still decided for ourselves (that will was free!), But rather "our will to do X was not free".

Note, this does not in any point discuss randomness.

Think about determinism as it is defined, as you yourself define it, and realize that you will not do otherwise because, under the given terms and principles of determinism, there can be no do otherwise, what you think, feel and do is inevitable, fixed, set, making will not equivalent to cannot.

Your thoughts, feelings and actions are inevitable, therefore not freely chosen or willed. Free will, alternatives and choice (having two or more realizable options) is not compatible with determinism.

"There can be no do otherwise".

Tell me, then, whether you think that Last Thursdayism is a disprovable hypothesis and why.

Because the whole point here is discussing whether the rules of the universe are  general or specific.

I categorically reject your assumption that the universe is an inseperable monolith because I have directly observed the power to separate a system from it's state mathematically, and even present some level of systemic hierarchy a state that was generated elsewhere, not correlated to that system's definition but still compatible with it!

Think about the post you clearly didn't read.

Can you highlight even a single operation I describe that you do not think is happening?

 

[The AntiChris]

We are not even aware of the elements that act upon us, forming our thoughts, feelings and prompt/will to act.

To suggest that there are "elements that act upon us" is superstitious nonsense.

Hear! Hear!

Nah, that's silly, we live on a planet, our senses acquire and process information, our brain forms a representation of self and the world, everything we thinks and do is related to our environment, family, friends, work, hobbies, interests, aversions, etc, etc....we respond to the information we (the brain) acquire. It is that information that determines how we respond.

What's really silly is to believe that any of those things you mention are "elements that act upon us" which contrive to prevent us from choosing.

 

[DBT]

if salad must be ordered (determinism), steak is not a possibility

So the brain does not evaluate "salad?"

If the brain evaluates "Salad" it means the brain considered salad.

If salad is determined, 'evaluation' of information inevitably leads to salad being ordered. As there is never the possibility of steak, fish, soup or anything else happing in that time and place, just salad, nothing else, it was never a choice, there was never an alternative.....every incremental step of the information processing activity led inevitably to salad and only salad being ordered in that instance.

Which is how determinism works in each and every instance in time as the system evolves from prior to current and future state, be it brains, or rivers, rain or snow, orbiting planets, collisions, etc, etc.

Every event unfolds as it must, not selected from a set of alternatives, not regulated, oh, maybe this maybe that, not willed to happen, not will or won't, but entailed, fixed, unchangeable.

That is determinism as you define it....yet you try to change the rules, thereby contradicting yourself at every turn.

 

[DBT]

We are not even aware of the elements that act upon us, forming our thoughts, feelings and prompt/will to act.

To suggest that there are "elements that act upon us" is superstitious nonsense.

Hear! Hear!

Nah, that's silly, we live on a planet, our senses acquire and process information, our brain forms a representation of self and the world, everything we thinks and do is related to our environment, family, friends, work, hobbies, interests, aversions, etc, etc....we respond to the information we (the brain) acquire. It is that information that determines how we respond.

What's really silly is to believe that any of those things you mention are "elements that act upon us" which contrive to prevent us from choosing.

Information alters the brain. The content of the information that a brain acquires changes the brain in specific ways that determine the nature of the response.

You are driving, you have a green light, someone on the side road runs the red light, you slam on the brakes. Information not only effects information processing, it initiates action. Information processing is a form of action that determines output, thought, feeling, response (not necessarily in that order.)

If you understood what choosing means - freely selecting from a set of realizable options - and applied that to how determinism is defined - basically fixed outcome/output - you'd understand that there are no sets of possible options to choose from, that only what must happen, that only what is determined, not chosen, can happen.

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

If salad is determined

The sales gets determined. By the evaluation. No evaluation? No salad.

Bilby brought this up: If the main battle tank is on the menu, there will be no main battle tank for you.

It is determined by course. Part of the course is choice.

So long as the actual event, matter, and material of the thing preventing you from doing otherwise is your own choice, there is free will. As the only thing preventing me from ordering steak in the moment I told me "no" as pertains the steak, it is my free will upon which the decision it was made.

Inevitability has no leverage, as Pood keeps pointing out. It is not an entity. It is not a god changing things in each moment to enforce some certain future. It has zero power. The choice supplies the truth basis.

 

[Jarhyn]

The content of the information that a brain acquires changes the brain in specific ways that determine the nature of the response

And some of us here are wise enough to recognize that the brain is doing the acquiring, having changes imparted on it, and thus it is the brain, and no other things in that moment, actually determining the nature of the response.

The nature of the response is accomplished by the brain doing this thing we call "choosing".

We figured this out some time ago to the extent that we figured out how to make systems that are not brains do parts of this operation and indeed in my stupid little game, the whole damn thing albeit in very simplified ways with a simplified environment.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

What happens must happen, if salad must be ordered (determinism), steak is not a possibility. Steak or anything other than salad not being a possible selection, thus impossible, there are no alternatives in that moment in time, salad it must be.

And salad it WILL be. However, the steak is still a possibility that I seriously considered. In order to be seriously considered, it must be a real possibility. The steak was never impossible. It was a realizable alternative, just like every other item on the restaurant menu.

The steak met every requirement of a real possibility as defined in the OED (highlights mine):
possibility, n.
1. a. The fact of something (expressed or implied) being possible to one, whether through circumstance or power; capacity, capability, power, ability; (also) pecuniary ability, means. Occasionally in plural. Obsolete (in later use merged in sense 2a).
2. a. The condition or quality of being possible; capability of existing, happening, or being done (in general, or under particular conditions). Also: contingency, likelihood, chance.

Ordering the steak was a real possibility. It never became an actuality, but it could have been realized under different circumstances. The steak was never an impossibility.

Because it must be salad and there are no alternatives in that instance in time and place (the given conditions of determinism)...

There was a literal menu of alternatives. Any item on the menu "could" be chosen, even though only one of them "would" be chosen. That is what those words actually mean. And they must mean what they do mean in order for us to make logical sense of the real world.

... salad is entailed, not chosen. That which is inevitable is not a choice.

Choosing was deterministically entailed. There was no other way for events to unfold. An inevitable choice is still a choice, and it is still the result of an inevitable choosing.

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.''

Britannica is only correct in the first sentence. Determinism in philosophy and science, is the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. This is a supportable thesis.

The notions that determinism can eliminate the notions of possibilities and things that "can" happen, even if they do not happen, creates a paradox that falsifies the claims in the second and third sentences. I've demonstrated this repeatedly. But, what the heck, one more time:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because the universe is deterministic, there is only one possibility, only one thing that you can order".
Diner: "Oh! Then what is that one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I can't tell you until after you've made your choice."

A paradox is created by insisting upon only one possibility. There must be at least two real possibilities before choosing can begin. And, if it will be deterministically inevitable that choosing will happen, then it will also be deterministically inevitable that there will be at least two real possibilities at its beginning.

If you wish to solve the paradox or prove it does not exist, then please proceed.

 

[Jarhyn]

entailed, fixed, unchangeable

So it won't, which doesn't mean it can't re:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

Nowhere is there randomness. There is only linear deterministic calculation happening here.

As you can see, it's not illusory, it's just approximal.

It's necessary approximal nature due to Incompleteness does not in fact change that it is the same fundamental operation being done, merely with approximal data.

 

[DBT]

If salad is determined

The sales gets determined. By the evaluation. No evaluation? No salad.

Bilby brought this up: If the main battle tank is on the menu, there will be no main battle tank for you.

It is determined by course. Part of the course is choice.

So long as the actual event, matter, and material of the thing preventing you from doing otherwise is your own choice, there is free will. As the only thing preventing me from ordering steak in the moment I told me "no" as pertains the steak, it is my free will upon which the decision it was made.

Inevitability has no leverage, as Pood keeps pointing out. It is not an entity. It is not a god changing things in each moment to enforce some certain future. It has zero power. The choice supplies the truth basis.

You blindly leap in at a point which you think suits the needs of your argument (it doesn't), while ignoring all that brings a person to the point of evaluation and its inevitable conclusion, every incremental step of the process determining the result, no deviation, no alternatives, whatever happens at every incremental step of the process must happen as determined.

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.''

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

Determinism; all events proceed without deviation (no alternate actions), which does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.