Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Jarhyn]

Inevitable actions eliminate all possible alternatives.

No, they don't. they always were alternatives while they were alternatives, in that time prior to the resolution of the choice.

From there all the rest of your nonsense falls apart.

Too silly to deal with.

Why?

Because you don't understand the very definition of determinism that you yourself gave.

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


You must know that 'no randomness is involved in the development in the system' entails no variations? Yet apparently you don't.

You must know that ''no randomness'' means that nothing that has not been determined to happen precisely when it must happen, can happen? Yet apparently you don't.

You should know that no randomness/no variations, means that there are no alternatives within the system as it develops? Yet apparently you don't.

Why are you unable to grasp the basics of your own definition and its implications? That is the question that you should be asking yourself.

Apparently you still have not mastered what is meant by "can".

That a system has no randomness does not imply no variations.

Y=x^2 is deterministic. It is deterministically the shape of a parabola.

I can, however, still discuss Y=X^2+1.

The fact that y=x^2 does not have variations from the parabolic curve does not mean that there are not variations of the function available for discussion.

 Can is the discussion of a variation not WITHIN the system, but of the system itself.

Since the system can emulate any other systems, and can emulate approximations of itself faster than it can progress to the moment so emulated, it can access information about those logically implied variations not within but OF the system without needing to actually "vary".

By simulating the variation, a system may access data about a variant without actually varying. This is enough to produce a number of artifacts (such as items on a menu or piles of food at Bucca's), and their existence as reified objects presented to an operation of a fixed choice function is sufficient for calling them "alternatives" of the choice function, and the fact that the configuration of the chooser drives the choice is sufficient to hold that configuration "responsible" for the result.

I understand this all because I literally spend my days discussing how to design the process by which a computer makes choices, and then reifying that.

even if I was created as I am an instant ago to make the decisions I make, even if the "real" big bang was 1 Planck second ago and I was assembled with care just so, the person who makes the decisions I make in this plank second is still me, and mitigation of those decision making processes will, MUST target me, not the inaccessible god who created me as I was 1 Planck second prior.

 

[pood]

All actions are inevitable long before they come to the point of being realized.

Let’s examine all the ways DBT goes wrong.

You'd be better off looking at all the ways that you go wrong with your attempts at defending compatibilism.

First, it simply isn’t true that “all actions are inevitable long before they come to the point of being realized.”

It is precisely how determinism works and how it is defined.

Think about it.

Once again:
''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

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

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.''

No randomness or variation in output is the inevitability of output, ie, everything that happens within the system and its development over time.

Your objections are not only wrong, they are badly wrong.

Typically, you don’t address the rest of my post. But then you always avoid posts you can’t answer and revert to your one-track responses that have been rebutted repeatedly.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I was halfway through with in my reply, but an inadvertent mouse click somehow deleted the page. I don't have time to start again.

Yep, been there, done that. They do have an undo command available if you right click in the comment. But it gets trickier if you accidentally move to another page. Then you have to find your way back to the original place. They do save a copy of your work, but I'm not sure myself how to get it back.

 

[DBT]

All actions are inevitable long before they come to the point of being realized.

Let’s examine all the ways DBT goes wrong.

You'd be better off looking at all the ways that you go wrong with your attempts at defending compatibilism.

First, it simply isn’t true that “all actions are inevitable long before they come to the point of being realized.”

It is precisely how determinism works and how it is defined.

Think about it.

Once again:
''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

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

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.''

No randomness or variation in output is the inevitability of output, ie, everything that happens within the system and its development over time.

Your objections are not only wrong, they are badly wrong.

Typically, you don’t address the rest of my post. But then you always avoid posts you can’t answer and revert to your one-track responses that have been rebutted repeatedly.

I don't have time to deal with each and every point on each and every occasion I reply.....with multiple posts, sometimes three or four posters.

I think you'll find - if you care to look - that pretty much everything has been addressed over the course of the year or so that this little dispute over free will has gone on.

It's been in repeat mode for a good part of a year.

Everything has been addressed at one time or another, over and over and over.

So, what exactly is it you think that I have not addressed?

 

[DBT]

I was halfway through with in my reply, but an inadvertent mouse click somehow deleted the page. I don't have time to start again.

Yep, been there, done that. They do have an undo command available if you right click in the comment. But it gets trickier if you accidentally move to another page. Then you have to find your way back to the original place. They do save a copy of your work, but I'm not sure myself how to get it back.

It went to another page, clicked forward and it's gone. Couldn't see a save option. I still prefer the old format.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, what exactly is it you think that I have not addressed?

Anything and everything in every post for a year.

Your entire participation here is unargued assertions, cherry picks, and straw men entirely presented by other people.

Your posts addressed none of it. They didn't even dive deeply into your own material. Pood did that, and discovered several unfortunate nuggets.

When offered the opportunity to even apply one of your ideas on your own in paraphrase, you failed.

When offered to find the Randomness or Deviation you said we relied on you failed.

When we attempt to have conversations about responsibilities and how that ties in, again you attempt to change the subject.

It all amounts to "if I have to choose one thing, and be satisfied with it, I didn't make a choice because I get no take-backsies" and "how can a machine that didn't build itself be said to have built anything it built?"

Both are stunningly stupid, and I hold out exactly zero hope for you in figuring out why.

 

[DBT]

So, what exactly is it you think that I have not addressed?

Anything and everything in every post for a year.

You haven't understood a word of it. Not what I have said, not what I have quoted and cited. Nothing, Zilch, Zip, Nada.

Even leaving what I have said out of it, the quotes and articles I have sourced say describe why the notion of free will is incompaible with determinism clearly enough to be understood by a child.....

Your entire participation here is unargued assertions, cherry picks, and straw men entirely presented by other people.

BS.

Your posts addressed none of it. They didn't even dive deeply into your own material. Pood did that, and discovered several unfortunate nuggets.

BS.

When offered the opportunity to even apply one of your ideas on your own in paraphrase, you failed.

BS.

When offered to find the Randomness or Deviation you said we relied on you failed.

Misrepresentation. I did not say you relied on randomness.

When we attempt to have conversations about responsibilities and how that ties in, again you attempt to change the subject.

It all amounts to "if I have to choose one thing, and be satisfied with it, I didn't make a choice because I get no take-backsies" and "how can a machine that didn't build itself be said to have built anything it built?"

Both are stunningly stupid, and I hold out exactly zero hope for you in figuring out why.

Hilarious.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, what exactly is it you think that I have not addressed?

Anything and everything in every post for a year.

You haven't understood a word of it. Not what I have said, not what I have quoted and cited. Nothing, Zilch, Zip, Nada.

Even leaving what I have said out of it, the quotes and articles I have sourced say describe why the notion of free will is incompaible with determinism clearly enough to be understood by a child.....

Your entire participation here is unargued assertions, cherry picks, and straw men entirely presented by other people.

BS.

Your posts addressed none of it. They didn't even dive deeply into your own material. Pood did that, and discovered several unfortunate nuggets.

BS.

When offered the opportunity to even apply one of your ideas on your own in paraphrase, you failed.

BS.

When offered to find the Randomness or Deviation you said we relied on you failed.

Misrepresentation. I did not say you relied on randomness.

note the "or", and also recall that you do you frequently bring up randomness so either you are being dishonest by bringing up an irrelevance or being dishonest about you saying we rely on it

So, just saying "BS" does not actually establish anything other than that you can make unargued assertions, but we already knew that from this litany of unargued assertions hence.

what exactly is it you think that I have not addressed?

When we attempt to have conversations about responsibilities and how that ties in, again you attempt to change the subject.

It all amounts to "if I have to choose one thing, and be satisfied with it, I didn't make a choice because I get no take-backsies" and "how can a machine that didn't build itself be said to have built anything it built?"

Both are stunningly stupid, and I hold out exactly zero hope for you in figuring out why.

Hilarious.

But even if I was created as I am an instant ago to make the decisions I make, even if the "real" big bang was 1 Planck second ago and I was assembled with care just so, the person who makes the decisions I make in this plank second is still me, and mitigation of those decision making processes will, MUST target me, not the inaccessible god who created me as I was 1 Planck second prior.

IOW, "how does a machine that didn't build itself build machines?"

"How does a person who didn't choose themselves to be as they are choose something else to happen?"

They're the same structure, but one reveals just how stupid the other really is.

Please, do address this.

 

[DBT]

But even if I was created as I am an instant ago to make the decisions I make, even if the "real" big bang was 1 Planck second ago and I was assembled with care just so, the person who makes the decisions I make in this plank second is still me, and mitigation of those decision making processes will, MUST target me, not the inaccessible god who created me as I was 1 Planck second prior.

For heavens sake, how many times has it been explained that - given the nature of determinism as it has been defined by you and others - nothing within the system act in isolation or contrary to how the system develops or evolves?

That each and every action is entailed by the prior state of the system, which entails all actions now, which in turn entails all future states of the system.

You don't operate outside of what is a web of causality that develops without randomness or deviation.

You are embedded within its web.

Everything that you think and do is related to and entailed external and internal conditions that were set in motion - according to your own definition - before you were born.


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

IOW, "how does a machine that didn't build itself build machines?" "How does a person who didn't choose themselves to be as they are choose something else to happen?"

Lordy, lordy...that does it. You really do not comprehend what is being said.

They're the same structure, but one reveals just how stupid the other really is.

Please, do address this.

Did life choose to emerge or evolve? Did animals choose to be as they are, or did they evolve in relation to an environmental niche? Did we choose the way the human brain evolved, its neural architecture and abilities? Did you choose to be human? Did you choose your parents, your location, society, culture, language, socioeconomic circumstances, etc, etc?

Well, it's a safe bet to say that you did none of those things.

Proclivities:

''It is unimportant whether one's resolutions and preferences occur because an ''ingenious physiologist' has tampered with one's brain, whether they result from narcotics addiction, from 'hereditary factor, or indeed from nothing at all.' Ultimately the agent has no control over his cognitive states.

So even if the agent has strength, skill, endurance, opportunity, implements, and knowledge enough to engage in a variety of enterprises, still he lacks mastery over his basic attitudes and the decisions they produce. After all, we do not have occasion to choose our dominant proclivities.' - Prof. Richard Taylor -Metaphysics.

 

[Jarhyn]

That each and every action is entailed by the prior state of the system

Read the scenario again. Throw away your idiotic attachment to the prior state because it is unimportant to the exercise.

Again "how can a machine that didn't build itself build another machine?"

It's not that difficult of a question to answer and when you get to the far side of it maybe you will see the issue with your objections.

Your discussion of not being able to decide your proclivities DOES NOT MATTER! They are still your proclivities, and when you operate on them, as you inevitably must, it is those proclivities that bear responsibility for the operation.

There's just no way around that: The inevitability that you would do it only leads to the inevitability of your own responsibility, not an escape from it.

 

[DBT]

That each and every action is entailed by the prior state of the system

Read the scenario again. Throw away your idiotic attachment to the prior state because it is unimportant to the exercise.

The scenario is ridiculous because it doesn't take the given definition of determinism into account, including your own....which you gave, yet apparently never understood. You probably looked it up.

And again, as all events within the system are fixed by the prior state of the system, and that this is the very essence of determinism, to say 'it is unimportant to the exercise' shows a disregard to how determinism works.

Again "how can a machine that didn't build itself build another machine?"

You haven't explained how that is relevant to the issue of free will. I see no relevance in your question no matter how I look at it.

It's not that difficult of a question to answer and when you get to the far side of it maybe you will see the issue with your objections.

Your discussion of not being able to decide your proclivities DOES NOT MATTER! They are still your proclivities, and when you operate on them, as you inevitably must, it is those proclivities that bear responsibility for the operation.

It makes no difference that they are your own proclivities. You have no say on who or what you are, birth, circumstances, location, culture, etc, etc, and you have no say on how your proclivities develop, life experiences, genetics, etc, etc, which hs nothing to do with free will, yet you slap the label on regardless.

Sets of proclivities do not have free will. It's a body of information that drives behaviour, neither willed into existence or chosen.

You simply declare 'your proclivities, therefore free will,' as if that settles the matter.

Making a declaration, which is not an argument, while ignoring the problem that inner necessity poses for the notion of free will.

There's just no way around that: The inevitability that you would do it only leads to the inevitability of your own responsibility, not an escape from it.

Oh, boy....you do know that in a way you are practically undermining your own argument? You realize that inevitability is not a matter of freedom?

Inevitable​

: incapable of being avoided or evaded

 

[Jarhyn]

it doesn't take the given definition of determinism into account

How? You can't even point to a point of failure. You never have. I don't think you understand that pointing to an actual point of failure is required for an honest claim of failure.

Inevitability says nothing about responsibility.

The fact is that something can still be YOUR choice even if you chose nothing about you, the same way that something can be your child even if you are not your own child, the same way you can build something even if something else built you.

The fact that I've posted this a few times now and how you still can't contemplate "how can X Y something else if X didn't Y itself" is kind of hilarious you still haven't figured it out

 

[DBT]

it doesn't take the given definition of determinism into account

How? You can't even point to a point of failure. You never have. I don't think you understand that pointing to an actual point of failure is required for an honest claim of failure.

You have several points of failure, which have been explained. One key point of failure is the persistent invocation; 'it's me doing it, therefore free will.''


That it is 'you doing it' is irrelevant. Everything that is a part of the system is 'doing it' according to its own makeup and state....a state and makeup that is determined by antecedents, not free will.

Of which, yet again, you had no say, genetics, family, cultural and social circumstances, etc, etc.....all explained ad nauseum, yet diregarded and the same questions asked.

Your error lies in slapping on labels where they don't apply: false labelling,

Inevitability says nothing about responsibility.

Responsibility is inevitable within a deterministic system

The fact is that something can still be YOUR choice even if you chose nothing about you, the same way that something can be your child even if you are not your own child, the same way you can build something even if something else built you.

For heaven's sake, nobody exists or acts in isolation within a deterministic system, where everything you feel, think and do is fixed by the system as it evolves from prior to present and future states without deviation or the possibility of doing otherwise.

There's another failure in your position.

The fact that I've posted this a few times now and how you still can't contemplate "how can X Y something else if X didn't Y itself" is kind of hilarious you still haven't figured it out

It's hilarious that you have yet to grasp how silly and senseless that really is.

Why? Well, several clues are given above, not to mention numerous other posts. Are you able to work it out? Perhaps if someone held your hand?

A hint....nothing exists or acts in isolation within a deterministic system.

Now apply that to your "how can X Y something else if X didn't Y itself" and see what you get.

 

[Jarhyn]

a state and makeup that is determined by antecedents, not free will

False Dichotomy.

That it is 'you doing it' is irrelevant

No, the fact that it's you doing it means that it's you we have to stop if we want you to stop doing it. This is what it means that you are responsible: it is exactly you that we must respond to.

Of which, yet again, you had no say, genetics, family, cultural and social circumstances, etc, etc.....

Because it does not matter. You are still responsible for your choices:

But even if I was created as I am an instant ago to make the decisions I make, even if the "real" big bang was 1 Planck second ago and I was assembled with care just so, the person who makes the decisions I make in this plank second is still me, and mitigation of those decision making processes will, MUST target me, not the inaccessible god who created me as I was 1 Planck second prior.

the system as it evolves from prior to present and future states

Does not say anything about what happens in LOGICALLY valid but not-real universes.

That's where you keep falling down. Reality only constraints possibility through the general function of reality: something can be true to the axioms of math while only being accessible through emulation, and all systems meeting certain requirements can emulate other systems.

So... Our universe can emulate and temporarily or in simulation test and describe logically valid but not-immediately-real universes.

The kicker here is the emulated universe can actually also be descriptive of the real universe, however this cannot resolve one way or the other until this universe permanently reifies (or invalidates) that prediction by traveling there one second per second.

Tracking which emulations are accurate and which are not is important to having more accurate emulations.

 

[DBT]

a state and makeup that is determined by antecedents, not free will

False Dichotomy.

Nope. The State and makeup of the system is indeed determined by antecedents.

That's the very definition of determinism.

Your own definition entails it.

That it is 'you doing it' is irrelevant

No, the fact that it's you doing it means that it's you we have to stop if we want you to stop doing it. This is what it means that you are responsible: it is exactly you that we must respond to.

Oh, come on. Everybody and everything acts or moves, or lies dormant, according to their or its nature and makeup. All animals, plants, the motion of all physical systems, cosmology, physics, etcetera, are subject to non-chosen nature and makeup.

Of which, yet again, you had no say, genetics, family, cultural and social circumstances, etc, etc.....

Because it does not matter. You are still responsible for your choices:

You are held responsible for your behaviour on the assumption that your brain is able to compute the consequences of your actions.

But that, as pointed out, is not a matter of free will.

Again:

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


''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. '


Free Will as a Matter of Law
''This chapter confronts the issue of free will in neurolaw, rejecting one of the leading views of the relationship between free will and legal responsibility on the ground that the current system of legal responsibility likely emerged from outdated views about the mind, mental states, and free will. It challenges the compatibilist approach to law (in which free will and causal determinism can coexist). The chapter argues that those who initially developed the criminal law endorsed or presupposed views about mind and free will that modern neuroscience will aid in revealing as false. It then argues for the relevance of false presuppositions embedded in the original development of the criminal law in judging whether to revise or maintain the current system. In doing so, the chapter shares the view that neuroscientific developments will change the way we think about criminal responsibility.''

But even if I was created as I am an instant ago to make the decisions I make, even if the "real" big bang was 1 Planck second ago and I was assembled with care just so, the person who makes the decisions I make in this plank second is still me, and mitigation of those decision making processes will, MUST target me, not the inaccessible god who created me as I was 1 Planck second prior.

That misses the point. See above.

the system as it evolves from prior to present and future states

Does not say anything about what happens in LOGICALLY valid but not-real universes.

Pfffft, irrelevant.

That's where you keep falling down. Reality only constraints possibility through the general function of reality: something can be true to the axioms of math while only being accessible through emulation, and all systems meeting certain requirements can emulate other systems.

It's not me falling down. It's you who needs to grasp the basics of determinism and its implications.

Is that possible?

''At this point certain questions need to be asked: Why does the coercion of a person by another, or the conditions of a brain microchip, or the conditions of a tumor, – nullify the “free will” ability? What part of the “ability” is being obstructed? This almost always comes down to a certain point of “control” that is being minimized, and where that minimized control is coming from (the arbitrary part).

The compatibilist might say because those are influences that are “outside” of the person, but this misses the entire point brought up by the free will skeptic, which is that ALL environmental conditions that help lead to a person’s brain state at any given moment are “outside of the person”, and the genes a person has was provided rather than decided.''

So... Our universe can emulate and temporarily or in simulation test and describe logically valid but not-immediately-real universes.

Totally irrelevant.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

a state and makeup that is determined by antecedents, not free will

False Dichotomy.

Nope. The State and makeup of the system is indeed determined by antecedents.

Nope. It is a False Dichotomy, just like Jaryn said. There is nothing that prevents a person from being determined by antecedents and at the same time being free from the coercion and undue influence.

That it is 'you doing it' is irrelevant

No, the fact that it's you doing it means that it's you we have to stop if we want you to stop doing it. This is what it means that you are responsible: it is exactly you that we must respond to.

Oh, come on. Everybody and everything acts or moves, or lies dormant, according to their or its nature and makeup. All animals, plants, the motion of all physical systems, cosmology, physics, etcetera, are subject to non-chosen nature and makeup.

You've ignored Jaryn's point, that in order to correct your behavior we need to correct you, and not your antecedents.

Of which, yet again, you had no say, genetics, family, cultural and social circumstances, etc, etc.....

Because it does not matter. You are still responsible for your choices:

You are held responsible for your behaviour on the assumption that your brain is able to compute the consequences of your actions.

Non-responsive. Jaryn has made the point that you are held responsible for your choices because it is only by correcting how you make your choices that your behavior can be changed.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nope. The State and makeup of the system is indeed determined by antecedents.

Your mistake is in assuming that something determined by antecedents to have proclivities does not have a will. "Determined by antecedents to have proclivities" is most of what something needs to have a will. The only thing missing from a fully established artifact satisfying will is to apply those proclivities to generate a plan of action.

As such, continuing into "no will" from "has proclivities" is just silliness.

The whole issue the compatibilist recognizes in your behavior is those proclivities, and while you didn't choose them originally, they continued as they are without self-modification.

You are in fact responsible for the presence or absence of proclivities because people in general DO have power to adjust these, for themselves and for others: it's just a matter of doing what it takes to adjust the charges and connections in a neural network.

Neural networks do that to themselves all the time.

 

[DBT]

a state and makeup that is determined by antecedents, not free will

False Dichotomy.

Nope. The State and makeup of the system is indeed determined by antecedents.

Nope. It is a False Dichotomy, just like Jaryn said. There is nothing that prevents a person from being determined by antecedents and at the same time being free from the coercion and undue influence.

Not really. Why? Because nobody can be free from inner necessity, which is just as much a problem for free will as coercion or undue influence.

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

Oh, come on. Everybody and everything acts or moves, or lies dormant, according to their or its nature and makeup. All animals, plants, the motion of all physical systems, cosmology, physics, etcetera, are subject to non-chosen nature and makeup.

You've ignored Jaryn's point, that in order to correct your behavior we need to correct you, and not your antecedents.

I haven't ignored a thing. This has all been addressed.


What you both ignore is that the present state and behaviour of a person, or for that matter, anything within the system is the result of antecedents. Antecedents being all the elements and events that bring a person to this point in time, including their thoughts and actions.

''Over the past few decades, gathering evidence from both psychology and the neurosciences has provided convincing support for the idea that free will is an illusion. (Read this and this, but for a contrarian view, also read this.) Of course, most people can’t relate to the idea that free will is an illusion, and there’s a good reason why. It feels as if we exercise free will all the time. For instance, it seems that you are exercising free will in choosing to read this article. Similarly, it seems that you exercise free will when you deny yourself the pleasure of eating tasty-but-unhealthy food, or when you overcome laziness to work out at the gym.

But these choices do not necessarily reflect free will. To understand why, consider why you sometimes deny yourself an unhealthy-but-tasty snack. It’s because you were, at some point in your life, made to recognize the long-term negative effects of eating such food. Perhaps you noticed that consuming unhealthy food makes you feel heavy, or that regularly consuming such food makes your blood pressure shoot up. Or perhaps your doctor told you that you need to stop eating unhealthy food; or maybe you read about the negative effects of consuming unhealthy food in a magazine. In other words, you deny yourself the pleasure of consuming unhealthy food because of exposure to external inputs—feedback from your body or from others—over which you had no control. Had you been exposed to a different set of inputs—e.g., despite consuming unhealthy food, your health did not suffer, or your doctor never dissuaded you from eating unhealthy food—you wouldn’t deny yourself the pleasure of eating tasty-but-unhealthy food.

If you think carefully about any decision you have made in the past, you will recognize that all of them were ultimately based on similar—genetic or social—inputs to which you had been exposed. And you will also discover that you had no control over these inputs, which means that you had no free will in taking the decisions you did. For instance, you had no choice in where, to whom, and in what period of time, you were born. You also had no choice in the kind of neighbors and friends to whom you were exposed during early childhood. You therefore had no choice in how you made your decisions during that time.''

That is the point.

 

[DBT]

Nope. The State and makeup of the system is indeed determined by antecedents.

Your mistake is in assuming that something determined by antecedents to have proclivities does not have a will.

For Heavens sake, do you realize how silly that rationale is? Obviously not.

Nobody, least of all, me has said, claimed, or even suggested that we don't have will.

Once again; the issue is the status and role of will. This does not translate as 'we don't have will.''

Get your basics in order.

Think about the nature of determinism and its implications in relation to the nature, role and status of will in relation to determinism as it is defined, and try again.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not really. Why? Because nobody can be free from inner necessity,

Nobody, but you, is asking to be free of "inner necessity".

DBT, if there is some element of your psyche that strongly controls you and prevents you from changing yourself in any way, this is NOT normal, and you should seek help.

"Inner Necessity" is the thing you are responsible for, the thing we respond to, the core of the response in responsibility

Nobody, least of all, me has said, claimed, or even suggested that we don't have will.

So, use your logic then: do some wills see fulfillment and some wills not, with respect to their requirements?

Because if they do, we have both "will" and "freedom value" with respect to the will...

Then all you have to do is look at the fact that there is a will, that is free or not-free, in a moment in time to "make decisions on the basis of their own inner necessitation rather than some other source of necessitation".

And there is Marvin's free will and the fountain of responsibility because, when your inner necessitation leads to fucked up shit, that is the thing that stands to see response and modifications.

Because where something came from does not render it immune to modifications and transforms by the environment.

The robot that follows the line because a programmer built and programmed it vs the robot that popped into existence as a Boltzmann's brain follow the line in the same fundamental way for the same fundamental reasons. That has nothing to do with how they got there and everything to do with what they are.