Compatibilism: What's that About?

[DBT]

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.

Again: If something has not been determined to happen at a specific time and place, it cannot happen in that specific time and place regardless of such an event happening at a different time and place.

That's the point.

That's how determinism is defined. No alternatives in any given instance in time regardless of "what 'can' happen."

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.

Britannica is correct in what it says about determinism, just as you yourself define it.


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

''Fixed as a matter of natural law'' and ''without deviation'' is equivalent to - ''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.''

There is no way around this. 'Fixed' and 'without deviation' negates choice....and we have the no choice principle of determinism.

This principle, as you can see, is entailed in your definition of determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

DBT, as long as you insist on playing the same foolish game as Kylie, unable to separate systemic structure from immediate context, you will continue to fail to understand what possibility is.

You are pretending that there is no logical or mathematical operating of U() on a value other than U(immediate) -- that U() is only compatible with the immediate observed progression... Never mind that in temporally disparate regions of the universe (that do not, cannot, and have not ever interacted with anything here) have still nonetheless presented entirely different immediates to the process.

To make this statement, DBT, you would have to disprove Last Thursdayism: you would have to prove that the system of physics we experience can only be experienced one way, in one place, all at once.

But as I keep pointing out Last Thursdayism is non-disprovable.

Clearly, only one thing happened when I mind controlled the dwarf, too, and when I mind controlled myself. Yet I still did both, and clearly "the regulatory control" is not only possible but actually there. I can generate artifacts of the process, in fact and do it, of a decision, entirely on paper.

You can't just treat the universe as a monolith, because to do so is abjectly dishonest. It is a state+function, not just a state. This means that the function is capable of processing "can" not just "will".

 

[Marvin Edwards]

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.

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

''Fixed as a matter of natural law'' and ''without deviation'' is equivalent to - ''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.''

They are not equivalent. The proper context of determinism is matters of "actuality" and things that certainly "will" happen. That is what determinism is about. As soon as determinism wanders into matters of "possibility" and things that "can" happen, it has left its solid footing and sinks into paradox. For example:

Why do I open the menu in the restaurant? To know what it is possible to order for dinner. I know that I will order just one of those dinners. But I don't know yet which dinner it will be.

The only way to get from the point of not knowing what I will order, to the point of giving the waiter my order, is by considering my options and choosing a dinner.

There is no way around this.

'Fixed' and 'without deviation' negates choice ...

Determinism cannot negate choice without negating itself. The choosing is causally necessary in order to get from not knowing what I will order to telling the waiter what I will order. If choosing does not happen, then the dinner will not happen.

If determinism negates choice, then it negates causal necessity, and the natural unfolding of events.

....and we have the no choice principle of determinism.

Determinism cannot contain a "no choice" principle without negating its primary assertion that "all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable". Right there, in the definition, are "human decisions", which are our own choices. Being causally inevitable, they are in your terms "fixed" and must necessarily happen, without deviation.

This principle, as you can see, is entailed in your definition of determinism.

The "no choice principle", as you can see, cannot be entailed in the definition of determinism without creating a paradox. Therefore, it is not entailed.

 

[Jarhyn]

The only way to get from the point of not knowing what I will order, to the point of giving the waiter my order, is by considering my options and choosing a dinner.

There is no way around this

Not even for a god, in fact.

 

[DBT]

DBT, as long as you insist on playing the same foolish game as Kylie, unable to separate systemic structure from immediate context, you will continue to fail to understand what possibility is.

We are not the problem.

The problem is that you have given a definition of determinism that do not appear to understand. You are yet to grasp the significance and implications of your own definition in relation to brain architecture, function, thought and action.

Practically everything you have said to date contradicts the terms of your definition.

Your errors have been described numerous times to no avail.

Basically:

Jarhyn - ''A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.''

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,'' there can be no alternative actions within the system as it develops or evolves based on prior states of the system, and given that brains are an inherent part of the system, in no way separate as the system evolves or develops from prior to current and future states without deviation (randomness), each and every action the brain performs in terms of thought and action must be entailed by the development of the system, and not a matter of 'free will' or ability to choose over and above how the system develops or evolves.

Namely:

If something is not determined to happen at a specific time and place, it cannot happen at that specific time and place regardless of such an event happening at a different time and place, ie, that there are no alternatives in any given instance in time regardless of "what 'can' happen" at some other time or place if determined.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

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]

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.

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

''As if fixed?'' Is 'fixed' an illusion? Can something else happen? Given the definition 'fixed as a matter of natural law,' it's not a matter of 'as if fixed,' it is fixed.

The description Britannica gives is correct.

''Fixed as a matter of natural law'' and ''without deviation'' is equivalent to - ''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.''

They are not equivalent. The proper context of determinism is matters of "actuality" and things that certainly "will" happen. That is what determinism is about. As soon as determinism wanders into matters of "possibility" and things that "can" happen, it has left its solid footing and sinks into paradox. For example:

Why do I open the menu in the restaurant? To know what it is possible to order for dinner. I know that I will order just one of those dinners. But I don't know yet which dinner it will be.

Nothing happens in isolation. A series of events brings you to that restaurant placing that order as determined....we are talking determinism.

What you know or do not know beforehand has no bearing on what is done because that is how events must necessarily go.

'Fixed' and 'without deviation' negates choice ...

Determinism cannot negate choice without negating itself. The choosing is causally necessary in order to get from not knowing what I will order to telling the waiter what I will order. If choosing does not happen, then the dinner will not happen.

If determinism negates choice, then it negates causal necessity, and the natural unfolding of events.

Causal necessity is basically the driver of a system where there is no deviation, where events proceed as they must, not what they will, hope, desire or want.

....and we have the no choice principle of determinism.

Determinism cannot contain a "no choice" principle without negating its primary assertion that "all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable". Right there, in the definition, are "human decisions", which are our own choices. Being causally inevitable, they are in your terms "fixed" and must necessarily happen, without deviation.

That doesn't make sense. Actions are not decided as if an alternative was possible. Events simply evolve or develop without alternatives. It's not a matter of maybe this, maybe that, perhaps I'll do this instead. Every event unfolds as it must.

''Must'' negates freedom of choice, 'No alternatives' negates choice.

This principle, as you can see, is entailed in your definition of determinism.

The "no choice principle", as you can see, cannot be entailed in the definition of determinism without creating a paradox. Therefore, it is not entailed.

No alternatives/no choice: this/that/the next....

''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 Edward.

The discrepency in your description being ''including my choices'' - a discrepency because what you think and do, you do through necessity, not choice.

 

[Jarhyn]

''As if fixed?''

Yes, as if fixed. There is nothing in natural law that forbids mathematical laws from being applied to the concept of universal processes.

The state does not alone fix what happens next. Nor does the process definition.

You only get what happens next when you put it all together, and the non-disprovability of Last Thursdayism means that you cannot logically, reasonably, rationally say without contradiction that things cannot be different, because we CAN clearly separate the operational behavior of the physics from it's state, mathematically.

Because your statements are attempting to leverage mathematical law "is deterministic therefore", you have to accept all leverage mathematical law has against you, and all the operations of math.

Of the operations of math, these include the contingent, the variable, and solution of function against variance, and that part of the process which determines the future determines it through predictive modeling and choice upon model predictions using exactly the math that has been described.

We even said "let's design an idea of "if" and see if we can make an object behave strictly as an "if" as an object relative to a force potential."

We ended up with the "transistor": object allows current flow through "here" from somewhere, to there IF here is +.

If we hadn't, computers wouldn't be a thing. Or, the thing we call computers, for the pedant.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

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.

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

''As if fixed?'' Is 'fixed' an illusion?

The whole phrase is metaphorical. The notion of "natural law" is itself a metaphor, comparing the reliability of the behavior of natural objects to the requirements that we must follow under the laws we create, such as stopping at a red traffic light. But, of course, the Sun and the Earth do not consult a law library to figure out their orbital paths. They just do what they naturally do, due to their mass, trajectory, and the force of gravity between them. The "law of gravity" is a formula that astronomers and physicists use to calculate where celestial objects will be during the year, and to make sure that a rocket, and the Moon, show up at the same place at the same time for a landing.

But the Earth and the Moon do not use those formulas. The behavior of the Moon as it orbits the Earth is governed by the force of gravity between them, not by the calculation. The calculation was derived from the observation of the behavior, not the other way around.

The notion of "fixed" suggests the illusion that some entity deliberately planned things to be a certain way, and that now we are obligated to follow that plan, whether we like it or not. This is echoed in the notion of "events unfolding", as if the plan itself were detailed on paper that is now being unfolded.

But there is no such plan laid out in advance. Events simply cause other events.

Dropping the cup causes it to shatter on the floor, which causes us to get the broom and dustpan to sweep it up, etc. This event was not planned in advance. It happened by accident. But, because the accident was reliably caused, by one thing reliably causing the next, we call it "deterministic". Deterministic means that it happened AS IF it was determined to happen long ago.

"Deterministic" is the scientists' metaphor for reliable cause and effect. It is more accurately described as "causal necessity", in which dropping the cup made it necessary that the cup would shatter, and the cup shattering made it necessary that we would clean it up.

I say "more accurately" because examining the actual causes gives us the details as to how each event came about through specific causes and their specific effects.

The specific causes are important to us, because knowing the causes gives us some control of the events. How did we come to drop the cup in the first place? Is there something we can do that would avoid or reduce the frequency of such accidents in the future? Are there perhaps plastic cups we could use to avoid shattering when they fall?

Knowing that all events are causally necessary from the Big Bang does NOT help us with our problem.

But knowing the specific causes of specific effects gives us useful information. And imagining what we might do differently to make things better is how we find real solutions to our problem. Often there will be several different solutions that we will consider. Some of these possibilities will be better than others. And we will choose to do one rather than the other.

If the chosen solution does not work as expected, we will "go back to the drawing board" and consider what we could have done differently.

Can something else happen?

Of course something else can happen. If we buy some plastic cups, then, even if the cup is dropped, it will not shatter. We may still need a mop for the spilt liquid, but not a broom and dustpan for the broken cup.

There is nothing we can do about the past, of course. It was causally necessary from any prior point in time that the accident WOULD happen. But, IF we had been using plastic cups, we COULD have avoided the shattering and the sweeping.

It is by examining what actually did happen, and then by imagining how things COULD have happened differently, if we changed a few things, that we solve our problems.

Our ability to solve our problems relies upon the notion of multiple things that CAN happen and that we CAN choose to do.

The notion that only one thing CAN ever happen destroys the ability to solve real life problems.

The notion that only one thing WILL ever happen does not affect our ability to solve problems, unless we stupidly confuse what CAN happen with what WILL happen.

For example, why do I open the menu in the restaurant? To know what is possible to order for dinner! The fact that I actually WILL order only one of those dinners does not contradict the fact that I actually CAN order anything on the menu.

I can have full knowledge of causal necessity and the inevitability that I WILL order just one dinner from the menu, and I can also know with certainty that I CAN order any item on the menu. There is no contradiction between those two facts.

What you know or do not know beforehand has no bearing on what is done because that is how events must necessarily go.

The way events must necessarily go is that I will not know what I WILL order until after I consider what I CAN order.

Determinism cannot negate choice without negating itself. The choosing is causally necessary in order to get from not knowing what I will order to telling the waiter what I will order. If choosing does not happen, then the dinner will not happen.

If determinism negates choice, then it negates causal necessity, and the natural unfolding of events.

Causal necessity is basically the driver of a system where there is no deviation, where events proceed as they must, not what they will, hope, desire or want.

What you continue to overlook is that those hopes, desires, wants, and the will to pursue them, are all part of the causal mechanism that will necessitate the next event. You cannot continue to claim that they are not really there or that they do not really matter.

Causal necessity is not a separate entity that "drives" anything. Causal necessity IS those actual hopes, desires, wants, and intentions causing their inevitable effects.

Actions are not decided as if an alternative was possible.

Sorry, but in the real world actions are decided by considering alternate possibilities and choosing from among them.

Determinism asserts that events will proceed reliably from causes to effects, one thing leading to the next, without deviation.

Decision making is an event that happens deterministically within a deterministic system.

''Must'' negates freedom of choice,

"Must" guarantees that choosing will happen. Unless we choose something from the menu, we will have no dinner.

As to the "freedom" of that choosing, the only thing it must be free of is coercion and undue influence. It does not require freedom from causal necessity.

'No alternatives' negates choice.

Except when we have no alternative but to make a choice. And that is the case in the restaurant. No choice, no dinner. So, we have no alternative but to make a decision between the alternatives listed on the menu.

''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 discrepancy in your description being ''including my choices'' - a discrepancy because what you think and do, you do through necessity, not choice.

If it happens that I make a choice in the restaurant, then it was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity that I would be doing exactly that, and nothing else. Choosing inevitably happens by the same causal necessity that makes determinism what determinism is.

 

[DBT]

''As if fixed?''

Yes, as if fixed. There is nothing in natural law that forbids mathematical laws from being applied to the concept of universal processes.

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation.

Jarhyn - A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

You do know that ''no randomness'' as the system develops into future states means that there can be no ''maybe I'll do this, or maybe I'll do that,'' as if both 'this' and 'that' are real possibilities?"

Based on your own definition, multiple options in any given moment are not a property of a deterministic system

 

[DBT]

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.

Being ''causally inevitable'' is equivalent to ''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.''

That is what inevitable means
Inevitable
''something that is certain to happen and cannot be prevented:''

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

''As if fixed?'' Is 'fixed' an illusion?

The whole phrase is metaphorical. The notion of "natural law" is itself a metaphor, comparing the reliability of the behavior of natural objects to the requirements that we must follow under the laws we create, such as stopping at a red traffic light. But, of course, the Sun and the Earth do not consult a law library to figure out their orbital paths. They just do what they naturally do, due to their mass, trajectory, and the force of gravity between them. The "law of gravity" is a formula that astronomers and physicists use to calculate where celestial objects will be during the year, and to make sure that a rocket, and the Moon, show up at the same place at the same time for a landing.

If determinism is true, the state of objects and events in any given instance is not metaphorical, it is the physical state of the system, everything proceeding as it must, based not on choice or possible alternatives, just the prior state of the system.

But the Earth and the Moon do not use those formulas. The behavior of the Moon as it orbits the Earth is governed by the force of gravity between them, not by the calculation. The calculation was derived from the observation of the behavior, not the other way around.

The brain, if deterministic, functions according to its own physical makeup. What it can or can't do is determined by its neural architecture and acquired information: experience, learning, education, training, etc. Someone not trained in math's is unable to do the work of a mathematician.....

On the neurology of morals
Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.

If it happens that I make a choice in the restaurant, then it was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity that I would be doing exactly that, and nothing else. Choosing inevitably happens by the same causal necessity that makes determinism what determinism is.

Given determinism, what you select in a restaurant is an inevitable action. There is never the possibility of doing otherwise.

An inevitable action is neither freely chosen or willed.

''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. '

 

[Jarhyn]

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

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.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

That is what inevitable means
Inevitable ''something that is certain to happen and cannot be prevented:''

So then, in our restaurant, what exactly was inevitable, certain to happen and could not be prevented? The answer is obvious, people would come into the restaurant, sit at a table, pick up a menu, consider their options, decide what they would order, and give their order to the waiter.

That is what was inevitable, certain to happen, and could not be prevented.

Each customer's mental experience was also inevitable, certain to happen, and could not be prevented. Each customer would inevitably view the menu as a list of items that they COULD actually order for dinner. Each customer would inevitably assess, each in their own way, according to their own goals and reasons, their own thoughts and feelings, the dinners that they COULD order, and from that assessment decide exactly what they WOULD order.

That is what was inevitable, certain to happen, and could not be prevented.

Being ''causally inevitable'' is equivalent to ''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.''

That's still logically incorrect. It was causally necessary that each customer WOULD choose the SINGLE dinner that they chose. However, it was logically necessary that each customer COULD choose ANY item on the menu.

Keeping this straight is why we need to avoid confusing what CAN happen with what WILL happen.

This is easily done with a simple correction: "in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is inevitable that he or she would not have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people would have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did."

If determinism is true, the state of objects and events in any given instance is not metaphorical, it is the physical state of the system, everything proceeding as it must, based not on choice or possible alternatives, just the prior state of the system.

If determinism is true, then events caused by choosing cannot validly be excluded from the overall causal framework. Choosing is a real event with real consequences in the real world.

 

[DBT]

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

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.

I don't have the time or patience to address each and every fallacy in your ramble.

Just take this, for instance.

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

Do you not realize that whatever you think, do, consider, stop or start your activity, 'think quickly' or make a decision that every step of every thought and action is being generated by unconscious information processing in response to inputs? That whatever you think or do is fixed milliseconds before it's brought to consciousness?

Think about that in terms of the given definition of determinism.

''The brain is a causal machine. Or, perhaps more accurately, given everything that is so far known in neuroscience, it is very probable that the brain is a causal machine. By calling it a causal machine, I mean that it goes from state to state as a function of antecedent conditions. If the antecedent conditions had been different, the result would have been different; if the antecedent conditions remained the same, the same result would obtain. Choices and evaluation of options are processes that occur in the physical brain, and they result in behavioral decisions.

These processes, just like other processes in the brain, are very probably the causal result of a large array of antecedent conditions. Some of the antecedent conditions result from the effects of external stimuli; others arise from internally generated changes, such as changes in hormone levels, glucose levels, body temperature, and so forth.

Available evidence indicates that the brain is the thing that thinks, feels, chooses, remembers, and plans. That is, at this stage of science, it is exceedingly improbable that there exists a nonphysical soul or mind that does the thinking, feeling, and perceiving, and that in some utterly occult manner connects with the physical brain.

Broadly speaking, the evidence from evolutionary biology, molecular biology, physics, chemistry, and the various neurosciences strongly implies that there is only the physical brain and its body; there is no non-physical soul, spooky stuff, or ectoplasmic mind-whiffle. For example, there is no reason to believe that the law of conservation of mass/energy is violated in nervous systems, which it would have to be if the non-physical soul could make changes in the physical brain. The most plausible hypothesis on the table is that the brain, and the brain alone, makes choices and decides upon actions.

Moreover, it is most likely that these events are the outcome of complex—extremely complex— causal processes (P.S. Churchland 2002).''

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't have the time or patience to address each and every fallacy in your ramble.

So in other words you can't actually do it.

"The time or patience" is simply reading a single post, hitting reply and then highlighting a portion and coloring it red

Whatever you claim, this is less work than copy-pasting yet another Gish Gallop. Instead, you posted a gish gallop rather than responding to anything I posted

Take your gish gallop of red herrings and shove them. We aren't talking about your complete and utter failure of neurology.

I return to the point:

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

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]

That is what inevitable means
Inevitable ''something that is certain to happen and cannot be prevented:''

So then, in our restaurant, what exactly was inevitable, certain to happen and could not be prevented? The answer is obvious, people would come into the restaurant, sit at a table, pick up a menu, consider their options, decide what they would order, and give their order to the waiter.

Given determinism, anything that must necessarily happen cannot be prevented from happening. That's how it is defined.

If something that is determined to happen can be prevented from happening, it's not determinism.

A lot of things can be 'prevented' from happening because all the actions leading up to the event bring about the determined outcome, the event does not happen.

We may say that 'we prevented it from happening, but given determinism, everything went as determined and nothing could have been different.

That's determinism. No alternate actions. If something is 'prevented' it was necessarily prevented....ie, it could never have happened.

That is what was inevitable, certain to happen, and could not be prevented.

Each customer's mental experience was also inevitable, certain to happen, and could not be prevented. Each customer would inevitably view the menu as a list of items that they COULD actually order for dinner. Each customer would inevitably assess, each in their own way, according to their own goals and reasons, their own thoughts and feelings, the dinners that they COULD order, and from that assessment decide exactly what they WOULD order.

That is what was inevitable, certain to happen, and could not be prevented.

Everything proceeds as it must. Every step of every customer's mental process of deliberation (the brain processing information) leads to the determined order being placed, with no alternate actions possible. Unless randomness enters the system, but that doesn't help save the notion of free will.

Being ''causally inevitable'' is equivalent to ''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.''

That's still logically incorrect. It was causally necessary that each customer WOULD choose the SINGLE dinner that they chose. However, it was logically necessary that each customer COULD choose ANY item on the menu.

No alternate actions within a deterministic system negates 'could have done otherwise.' There can be no 'could have' unless the state of the system was different, but that's not how determinism works.

Keeping this straight is why we need to avoid confusing what CAN happen with what WILL happen.

This is easily done with a simple correction: "in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is inevitable that he or she would not have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people would have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did."

Meaningless word play, empty rhetoric, semantics.

If determinism is true, the state of objects and events in any given instance is not metaphorical, it is the physical state of the system, everything proceeding as it must, based not on choice or possible alternatives, just the prior state of the system.

If determinism is true, then events caused by choosing cannot validly be excluded from the overall causal framework. Choosing is a real event with real consequences in the real world.

There are no alternatives within a deterministic system to choose from. Each and every action, no exceptions, is entailed by the prior state of the system, which includes brain activity.

 

[DBT]

I don't have the time or patience to address each and every fallacy in your ramble.

So in other words you can't actually do it.

It's been done countless times.

Your own definition of determinism falsifies your claims. You have yet to grasp the terms and conditions and implications of your own definition.....which you contradict practically every time you post.

And I described your basic errors in my last post, to no avail. It's like a blind spot.

 

[Jarhyn]

There can be no 'could have' unless the state of the system was different, but that's not how determinism works.

Except clearly, we can change substrates of the system in the present, before the future gets here. Instead of the whole system being different, it functions perfectly well working on a mathematically representative proxy for the system that can be changed without changing the whole thing: a model.

Thus as per my other exercise, the idea that there has to be any deviation in the system-at-large is itself the illusion, not the choice.

I return to asking you to point out where, this "deviation" is supposed to have happened.

I don't have the time or patience to address each and every fallacy in your ramble.

So in other words you can't actually do it.

It's been done countless times.

Your own definition of determinism falsifies your claims. You have yet to grasp the terms and conditions and implications of your own definition.....which you contradict practically every time you post.

And I described your basic errors in my last post, to no avail. It's like a blind spot.

No, you provided a gish gallop.

All I'm asking, and you can't even seem to do that one thing, is hilight where either randomness or deviation actually happens there.

We can address the rest of your gish galloping later, but one thing at a time:

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

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.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Given determinism, anything that must necessarily happen cannot be prevented from happening. That's how it is defined.

Not quite. Given determinism, anything that must necessarily happen will not be prevented from happening.

If something that is determined to happen can be prevented from happening, it's not determinism.

Determinism is satisfied as long as "what is determined to happen" will not be prevented from happening.

If determinism attempts to jump from "will not" to "cannot" it will find itself jumping into a paradox. You see, the causal mechanism that determines our choices (which determines our actions which determines what happens next) employs the notion of possibility in its operation. If determinism attempts to assert that only one possibility exists, that only one thing CAN happen, then it destroys a necessary causal mechanism. And determinism cannot destroy any causal mechanism without destroying itself.

We may say that 'we prevented it from happening, but given determinism, everything went as determined and nothing could have been different.

To put it more simply, if it were determined that we would prevent it, then it would be us that prevented it. And everything went as determined and nothing would have been different.

... If something is 'prevented' it was necessarily prevented....ie, it could never have happened.

If something is 'prevented' it was necessarily prevented....ie, it would never have happened.

In the restaurant, each customer's mental experience was also inevitable, certain to happen, and would not be prevented. Each customer would inevitably view the menu as a list of items that they COULD actually order for dinner. Each customer would inevitably assess, each in their own way, according to their own goals and reasons, their own thoughts and feelings, the dinners that they COULD order, and from that assessment decide exactly what they WOULD order.

That is what was inevitable, certain to happen, and would not be prevented.

Everything proceeds as it must. Every step of every customer's mental process of deliberation (the brain processing information) leads to the determined order being placed...

Correct.

, with no alternate actions possible.

Every alternative is a possibility. Possibilities are not excluded by determinism, because they play an active role in the rational causal mechanism. Using the terms "alterative" or "possibility" immediately exits the context of actuality and enters the context of possibilities. Within the context of possibilities we get multiple options, multiple things that can happen, multiple things that we can choose to do.

Unless randomness enters the system, but that doesn't help save the notion of free will.

It is sweet of you to offer, but I have no need for randomness in my determinism in order to retain the notion of free will. Free will is a deterministic event in which we deterministically choose for ourselves what we will do while free of coercion and undue influence. There is no need to "save" free will from determinism, because determinism poses no threat to the real free will.

There are no alternatives within a deterministic system to choose from.

It's a new restaurant, one you've never been to before. There's the menu, but just continue to pretend it is not there. Try to place an order without considering any alternatives.

Each and every action, no exceptions, is entailed by the prior state of the system, which includes brain activity.

And guess what we find within that brain activity: The notion of possibilities: things that we can do, even if we decide not to do them.

 

[fromderinside]

If salad is determined

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

I agree. Evaluation is a mind (self) based thing. It is in the mind of the one determined that one can choose even though what happens is already known (determined).

We are in two different worlds. It is not really possible to reconcile the world in which we beings sense based on our evolutionary capacities with how the material world is determined. You choose to have your mind intervene in every act you sense possibly. Good for you. You don't understand the material world in which you exist primarily because you insist on intervening from your perspective.

Philosophy cannot be an inside job. There is something to the God's eye view - I'd substitute impartial observer - that takes us beyond subjective. I take that to mean that mental gymnastics (models) are not viable. Consider their source.