Compatibilism: What's that About?

[fromderinside]

It cannot be known what is the future until the future becomes past

More, it CAN be ascertained what the future will be on the basis of decisions that have already passed. Certainty isn't possible, but it doesn't need to be. It's exactly the uncertainty that yeilds constraint and thus the reality of both "freedom" and thus "the failure of freedom" which is "unfreeness".

Additionally finding microstate from future macrostate is, uh, finding catfish after they are caught

0/10 points.

It is finding a provisional (read "pretend") future macrostate on the basis of the current macrostate, such that that the provisional macrostate contains the real microstate.

The point is, we can't predict exact microstates and we don't need to, we just need to select a macrostate which at least captures the real microstate somewhere inside, and that one of the causal agents is in fact that the individual successfully parsed the logical sensibility of the "alternative", and chose it as an artifact from among a set because of the results implied of the outcome.

It's more like saying what kind of fish will be caught, and coming up right every time because you are the one who selected the bait.

Like I said when I chose the bait, "You' can't win."

I think I "won" insofar as you are finally acknowledging here not just if you can choose, but that there are times you do.

Very weak thought. I used chose as bait. Snagged ya.

 

[Jarhyn]

It cannot be known what is the future until the future becomes past

More, it CAN be ascertained what the future will be on the basis of decisions that have already passed. Certainty isn't possible, but it doesn't need to be. It's exactly the uncertainty that yeilds constraint and thus the reality of both "freedom" and thus "the failure of freedom" which is "unfreeness".

Additionally finding microstate from future macrostate is, uh, finding catfish after they are caught

0/10 points.

It is finding a provisional (read "pretend") future macrostate on the basis of the current macrostate, such that that the provisional macrostate contains the real microstate.

The point is, we can't predict exact microstates and we don't need to, we just need to select a macrostate which at least captures the real microstate somewhere inside, and that one of the causal agents is in fact that the individual successfully parsed the logical sensibility of the "alternative", and chose it as an artifact from among a set because of the results implied of the outcome.

It's more like saying what kind of fish will be caught, and coming up right every time because you are the one who selected the bait.

Like I said when I chose the bait, "You' can't win."

I think I "won" insofar as you are finally acknowledging here not just if you can choose, but that there are times you do.

Very weak thought. I used chose as bait. Snagged ya.

Except that you used it.

No doubt about it.

We all knew you could.

As you say, can't change the past.

 

[DBT]

Coercion can be a literal “gun to the head”, or any other threat of harm sufficient to compel one person to subordinate their will to the will of another.

Sure, there is a distinction to be made between external force, coercion, undue influence, brain washing, etc....but none of this negates the inner necessity of brain state and condition, which is no more a matter of free will agency than the former.

Narrator function;
''For example, in one study, researchers recorded the brain activity of participants when they raised their arm intentionally, when it was lifted by a pulley, and when it moved in response to a hypnotic suggestion that it was being lifted by a pulley.

Similar areas of the brain were active during the involuntary and the suggested “alien” movement, while brain activity for the intentional action was different. So, hypnotic suggestion can be seen as a means of communicating an idea or belief that, when accepted, has the power to alter a person’s perceptions or behaviour.''

''All this may leave one wondering where our thoughts, emotions and perceptions actually come from. We argue that the contents of consciousness are a subset of the experiences, emotions, thoughts and beliefs that are generated by non-conscious processes within our brains.''

 

[Jarhyn]

.but none of this negates the inner necessity of brain state and condition, which is no more a matter of free will agency than the former

This is false and trivially so

The agency of a free will (my own, a part of inner necessity") clearly applies moment against itself: I had not hit the tree with the sword, I chose to hit the tree with the sword, now the state of my inner necessity is different and if someone tries to hit me with a sword, I will more probably block them and riposte.

The fact that you continually avoid talking about all the control we DO have over inner necessity -- the fact that you can point to someone modifying the objects of "inner necessity" of another being externally hints at the ability of a being to modify itself in such a way -- is an admission that you are wrong, such regulatory controls exist, and you provided an example of one: sticking electrodes in your brain.

Thankfully, the brain has these tiny little electrodes in it already called neurons, and those are hooked up to other neurons which can allow them to be fired the same way as the ones in the monkey, and as much allow them to be reconfigured thus.

Hence, not only does it have the regulatory control to modify what it was born with, it was born with the adaptations evolved to do exactly that.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Narrator function;
''For example, in one study, researchers recorded the brain activity of participants when they raised their arm intentionally, when it was lifted by a pulley, and when it moved in response to a hypnotic suggestion that it was being lifted by a pulley.

Similar areas of the brain were active during the involuntary and the suggested “alien” movement, while brain activity for the intentional action was different. So, hypnotic suggestion can be seen as a means of communicating an idea or belief that, when accepted, has the power to alter a person’s perceptions or behaviour.''

''All this may leave one wondering where our thoughts, emotions and perceptions actually come from. We argue that the contents of consciousness are a subset of the experiences, emotions, thoughts and beliefs that are generated by non-conscious processes within our brains.''

From that same article: (with my highlights)

"In response to this, we argue that free will and personal responsibility are notions that have been constructed by society. As such, they are built into the way we see and understand ourselves as individuals, and as a species. Because of this, they are represented within the non-conscious processes that create our personal narratives, and in the way we communicate those narratives to others."

"Just because consciousness has been placed in the passenger seat, does not mean we need to dispense with important everyday notions such as free will and personal responsibility. In fact, they are embedded in the workings of our non-conscious brain systems. They have a powerful purpose in society and have a deep impact on the way we understand ourselves."

So, there we have it. Neuroscience confirming that responsibility and free will are part of the unconscious processing that results in our conscious narration of events. They are meaningful concepts even below conscious awareness.

 

[fromderinside]

It cannot be known what is the future until the future becomes past

More, it CAN be ascertained what the future will be on the basis of decisions that have already passed. Certainty isn't possible, but it doesn't need to be. It's exactly the uncertainty that yeilds constraint and thus the reality of both "freedom" and thus "the failure of freedom" which is "unfreeness".

Additionally finding microstate from future macrostate is, uh, finding catfish after they are caught

0/10 points.

It is finding a provisional (read "pretend") future macrostate on the basis of the current macrostate, such that that the provisional macrostate contains the real microstate.

The point is, we can't predict exact microstates and we don't need to, we just need to select a macrostate which at least captures the real microstate somewhere inside, and that one of the causal agents is in fact that the individual successfully parsed the logical sensibility of the "alternative", and chose it as an artifact from among a set because of the results implied of the outcome.

It's more like saying what kind of fish will be caught, and coming up right every time because you are the one who selected the bait.

Like I said when I chose the bait, "You' can't win."

I think I "won" insofar as you are finally acknowledging here not just if you can choose, but that there are times you do.

Very weak thought. I used chose as bait. Snagged ya.

Except that you used it.

No doubt about it.

We all knew you could.

As you say, can't change the past.

No denying determinism.

 

[DBT]

Narrator function;
''For example, in one study, researchers recorded the brain activity of participants when they raised their arm intentionally, when it was lifted by a pulley, and when it moved in response to a hypnotic suggestion that it was being lifted by a pulley.

Similar areas of the brain were active during the involuntary and the suggested “alien” movement, while brain activity for the intentional action was different. So, hypnotic suggestion can be seen as a means of communicating an idea or belief that, when accepted, has the power to alter a person’s perceptions or behaviour.''

''All this may leave one wondering where our thoughts, emotions and perceptions actually come from. We argue that the contents of consciousness are a subset of the experiences, emotions, thoughts and beliefs that are generated by non-conscious processes within our brains.''

From that same article: (with my highlights)

"In response to this, we argue that free will and personal responsibility are notions that have been constructed by society. As such, they are built into the way we see and understand ourselves as individuals, and as a species. Because of this, they are represented within the non-conscious processes that create our personal narratives, and in the way we communicate those narratives to others."

Yes, as a perception or impression formed through limited information. Consciousness as an activity of the brain does not have access to its own means of production.

In other words, we as conscious beings have no access to the unconscious activity that generates our experience of self and agency.

We may feel that we could freely choose any one of a set of options that we see before us, but of course, given determinism, that is an illusion. The illusion of conscious will or free will.

"Just because consciousness has been placed in the passenger seat, does not mean we need to dispense with important everyday notions such as free will and personal responsibility. In fact, they are embedded in the workings of our non-conscious brain systems. They have a powerful purpose in society and have a deep impact on the way we understand ourselves."

So, there we have it. Neuroscience confirming that responsibility and free will are part of the unconscious processing that results in our conscious narration of events. They are meaningful concepts even below conscious awareness.

Yes, we as human beings operate on the illusion of the notion of free will, but of course the reality, as described, is somewhat different.

The illusion of conscious will;
''Common sense tells us that free will exists. Could anyone possibly deny something so obvious?

Yes. And many have.

We nevertheless feel that we understand consciousness at an intuitive level. This intuition arises in part from the correspondence between thought and action: the thought that we will soon act does regularly precede the act itself. And yet it is important to remember that correlation does not imply causality; just because X regularly precedes Y, even if X always precedes Y, that does not necessarily prove that a causal relation exists between the two.

The inner workings of consciousness are as inaccessible to nervous systems (our material selves, minus the “agency”) as they are to the investigations of “agents.” And yet, natural selection and the swiftly complexifying world of social interaction demand that nervous systems find ways to make sense of sensory stimuli so as to better navigate and interact with the world. Nervous systems gain an enormous practical advantage by assuming the simplest possible explanation.''

 

[Jarhyn]

It cannot be known what is the future until the future becomes past

More, it CAN be ascertained what the future will be on the basis of decisions that have already passed. Certainty isn't possible, but it doesn't need to be. It's exactly the uncertainty that yeilds constraint and thus the reality of both "freedom" and thus "the failure of freedom" which is "unfreeness".

Additionally finding microstate from future macrostate is, uh, finding catfish after they are caught

0/10 points.

It is finding a provisional (read "pretend") future macrostate on the basis of the current macrostate, such that that the provisional macrostate contains the real microstate.

The point is, we can't predict exact microstates and we don't need to, we just need to select a macrostate which at least captures the real microstate somewhere inside, and that one of the causal agents is in fact that the individual successfully parsed the logical sensibility of the "alternative", and chose it as an artifact from among a set because of the results implied of the outcome.

It's more like saying what kind of fish will be caught, and coming up right every time because you are the one who selected the bait.

Like I said when I chose the bait, "You' can't win."

I think I "won" insofar as you are finally acknowledging here not just if you can choose, but that there are times you do.

Very weak thought. I used chose as bait. Snagged ya.

Except that you used it.

No doubt about it.

We all knew you could.

As you say, can't change the past.

No denying determinism.

I didn't deny determinism. Though DBT and yourself make unfounded assumptions on its basis, by ignoring the process of attempted reification of wills.

The whole discussion revolves around the fact that while the predictions are images which are the product of the imagination (an object process, but one that necessarily contains error), the artifacts containing these predictions are not.

Then, from this recognition of artifacts containing or referencing approximal predictions, one is selected, and either it has so much error that the goal fails at reification and validation of fulfillment... Or the goal succeeds.

This creates a real binary qualitative state as pertains to the will: it is either FREE, or it is NOT, all depending on whether the image is reified or not.

Thats the thing about the "will", "program", template", "task schedule", "script", buffered recipe", "internal necessitation", or whatever other term you or DBT tries to replace it with thinking that you can pretend it doesn't exist: between "machine instructions", and "the machine" the machine will act and reify on the basis of those instructions, which themselves are representational of a complex behavior, and which allow the math of that behavior to be investigated absent the actual behavior, logically rather than in immediate material.

Since logical explorations and validations are accurate and effective and much faster than the physical activity they are being used to represent but which have the same fundamental mechanics (at least on the macrophysics level), this is a perfectly valid way of "getting out ahead of the system" in that time between when you know what you want, and when you will have had to act to get it.

Edit: ...Or, perfectly enough. It just has to be better than random chance really

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Yes, as a perception or impression formed through limited information. Consciousness as an activity of the brain does not have access to its own means of production.

I know you think that actually means something, but it doesn't. If you ordered the Chef Salad then you will be expected to pay for it before you leave the restaurant. Whether your "I will have the Chef Salad, please" was produced entirely beneath your conscious awareness or not, it was you, the person, that placed the order, and you, the person, that is responsible for the bill.

If someone held a gun to your head and said, "You will order the Steak dinner or I will blow your brains out", then they, and not you, should pay for the Steak dinner (though the waiter may be a bit shy to present the gunman with the bill, and hopefully he called 911 before returning).

So, either you were free to make the choice for yourself (free will), or, you were forced to make a different choice against your will (coercion).

If you would prefer a less violent scenario, consider the mother and son at another table in the restaurant. He wants a banana split for dinner. But his mother orders a nutritious meal for him instead. Because she has authority over his choices, he often is required to do her will instead of his own (authoritative command). When he is an adult, he will be free to choose for himself what he will have for dinner (free will).

Free will does not require freedom from ones own brain, nor does it require freedom from causal necessity. It is nothing more than the freedom to choose for yourself what you will do, without coercion or other forms of undue influence.

The true illusion on the table, is the illusion that causal necessity is something that we need to be free of in order to be "truly" free. It is an absolutist's requirement that can never be met. It is a totally illogical requirement, because every freedom we have, to do anything at all, requires reliable cause and effect. Thus, the notion creates a paradox. And to embrace that notion is to trap oneself in a self-induced hoax.

 

[fromderinside]

I ordered the chef salad because I 'believed' I was hungry. I believed I was hungry because certain 'feelings' arose within me based on squirts of specific sorts I had 'learned' indicated, like a growling or active stomach, I was in need of energy input. No gun to head just 'intuitions' based on previous experience lead to 'urges' for one to consume food.

Where 'free will' exists from that is in the brain which is driven which is a contradiction of what would be will free and from what lead to the making of a response. So one invents 'belief', 'feelings', and 'learned' so one can justify as 'urges' and 'intuitions' to oneself for making a response justifying what one is doing as something called 'choice'.

No paradox, Not free, not choice. A lot like a rat 'learning' to spin before pushing or gnawing a manipulandum that produces reinforcement. Behaviorism 101.

 

[DBT]

Yes, as a perception or impression formed through limited information. Consciousness as an activity of the brain does not have access to its own means of production.

I know you think that actually means something, but it doesn't. If you ordered the Chef Salad then you will be expected to pay for it before you leave the restaurant. Whether your "I will have the Chef Salad, please" was produced entirely beneath your conscious awareness or not, it was you, the person, that placed the order, and you, the person, that is responsible for the bill.

Of course it means something.

Not having access to the means of production that form and govern your own conscious existence, creates the impression of free will and conscious agency.

An illusion that is exposed when something goes wrong with the mechanism and that sense of agency and control disintegrates.

It doesn't matter that it's defined as 'you' because as a mechanism that is not subject to control or regulation through will or wish, it is a mechanism where free will plays no part in the running of the show.

You don't choose brain condition, function, nor control its information processing activity regardless of it being 'you.'

To insist that this is free will is wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

An illusion that is exposed when something goes wrong with the mechanism and that sense of agency and control disintegrates

So you claim that the "exposure" of the "illusion" is a real event that happens when something goes wrong, ostensibly also a real event, in which the "sense" of agency and control "disintegrates".

This is in fact the closest you have ever gotten to being right.

You seem to accept the reality that sometimes this "goes wrong" and sometimes it doesn't.

You are looking at the freedom of the will, and this is a tacit admission that the will is either FREE or not.

Whether or not this freedom is illusory, as evidenced by the fact that the will does not conform to logical consistency, because "something goes 'wrong'", because something was wrong with the math, to make it so.

You have recognized the real existence of events of constraint vs freeness in this recognition that something may go "wrong" or "right".

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I ordered the chef salad because I 'believed' I was hungry. I believed I was hungry because certain 'feelings' arose within me based on squirts of specific sorts I had 'learned' indicated, like a growling or active stomach, I was in need of energy input. No gun to head just 'intuitions' based on previous experience lead to 'urges' for one to consume food.

Where 'free will' exists from that is in the brain which is driven which is a contradiction of what would be will free and from what lead to the making of a response. So one invents 'belief', 'feelings', and 'learned' so one can justify as 'urges' and 'intuitions' to oneself for making a response justifying what one is doing as something called 'choice'.

No paradox, Not free, not choice. A lot like a rat 'learning' to spin before pushing or gnawing a manipulandum that produces reinforcement. Behaviorism 101.

So, for you, "free will" means freedom from ones own brain. Since that is impossible, it cannot be the definition of free will. All of that stuff you just described, the hunger, the "squirts of specific sorts", the growling or active stomach, the need for energy input, happen to be us. There is no such thing as freedom from oneself.

Free will is a choice we make for ourselves that is free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. It does not require freedom from oneself.

 

[Jarhyn]

I ordered the chef salad because I 'believed' I was hungry. I believed I was hungry because certain 'feelings' arose within me based on squirts of specific sorts I had 'learned' indicated, like a growling or active stomach, I was in need of energy input. No gun to head just 'intuitions' based on previous experience lead to 'urges' for one to consume food.

Where 'free will' exists from that is in the brain which is driven which is a contradiction of what would be will free and from what lead to the making of a response. So one invents 'belief', 'feelings', and 'learned' so one can justify as 'urges' and 'intuitions' to oneself for making a response justifying what one is doing as something called 'choice'.

No paradox, Not free, not choice. A lot like a rat 'learning' to spin before pushing or gnawing a manipulandum that produces reinforcement. Behaviorism 101.

So, for you, "free will" means freedom from ones own brain. Since that is impossible, it cannot be the definition of free will. All of that stuff you just described, the hunger, the "squirts of specific sorts", the growling or active stomach, the need for energy input, happen to be us. There is no such thing as freedom from oneself.

Free will is a choice we make for ourselves that is free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. It does not require freedom from oneself.

That's the thing. In some ways there is freedom from oneself specifically when one stops doing their job and dissipates themselves.

Its a nasty business that leads to the sort of outcomes that you describe of those who don't practice any kind of self-review, at least when you point it at yourself.

Dissipation is the careful act of figuring out how to avoid activating a neural region until the activities which trained it into a structure and behavior are negated and the node is bypassed or de-formatted.

It's the equivalent of taking an ANN and changing the connections of the group to a 1:1 in/out to essentially convert an active node into a "mere jumper".

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Yes, as a perception or impression formed through limited information. Consciousness as an activity of the brain does not have access to its own means of production.

I know you think that actually means something, but it doesn't. If you ordered the Chef Salad then you will be expected to pay for it before you leave the restaurant. Whether your "I will have the Chef Salad, please" was produced entirely beneath your conscious awareness or not, it was you, the person, that placed the order, and you, the person, that is responsible for the bill.

Of course it means something.

Not having access to the means of production that form and govern your own conscious existence, creates the impression of free will and conscious agency.

An illusion that is exposed when something goes wrong with the mechanism and that sense of agency and control disintegrates.

It doesn't matter that it's defined as 'you' because as a mechanism that is not subject to control or regulation through will or wish, it is a mechanism where free will plays no part in the running of the show.

You don't choose brain condition, function, nor control its information processing activity regardless of it being 'you.'

To insist that this is free will is wrong.

What you fail to realize is that the unconscious "means of production" is still ME. We know it is still me because the dinner order, "I will have the Chef Salad, please", came out of my own mouth. So, regardless how it was produced within my brain, it was still my own brain that selected the Salad and rejected the Steak.

Now, you will also need to recognize that if a guy with a gun told me to "Order the Steak or I'll blow your brains out", then that consideration would somehow need to get back down to my unconscious "means of production", so that I could order the Steak instead of the Salad to avoid getting my brains blown out.

Free will makes the distinction between those two scenarios. In the first case, I am free to choose for myself what I will order. In the second case, I am forced to submit my will to the will of the guy with a gun, and I'm not free to make that choice for myself.

You are destroying the distinction between those two scenarios. So, knock it off.

 

[Jarhyn]

that consideration would somehow need to get back down to my unconscious "means of production",

Again if we're being really specific and pedantic about it, it's not going to your unconscious means of production in general. I would think it's more likely going to your postconscious means of production.

Imagine you have a mailbox shared with a neighbor. You discuss things and your neighbor sometimes reads your letters and says "don't send that man, it's a bad idea".

Together this feedback system of one thing talking about the other is "you", and the "unconscious" part is whichever one that happens to be being "talked about".

With that in mind, there are other "technically unconscious" processes: There's the mail carrier. There are other boxes and such down the road where you and your neighbor are too broken and old and frail to ever walk to.

The thing is, when the mail carrier reaches the last house on the block, the house that belongs to "lizard brain McGee" and only "lizard brain McGee" the mail carrier opens that letter and if that letter says "there's a gun, burn the mail with the votes and select steak", then it doesn't mean one little shit what you decided.

Your letter would have been read if not for the authority the mail carrier invests in Lizard Brain, and salad would have been ordered. Your will was not free. It was constrained by that damn Lizard brain asshole.

And in another thread I would discuss about how magic is often inviting other folks to the discussion with your neighbor, or sometimes bribing the mailman to just burn Lizard Brain's mail. Sometimes it's tying up your neighbor in the basement (at least until he says the safe word) and other times it's driving the obnoxious fucks off the block.

 

[fromderinside]

Let me drop this little turd from summarizations of the work of expert scientists on above speculations by other than expert scientists on the matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Where you will find this bottom line in the topic overview:

Researcher Itzhak Fried says that available studies do at least suggest that consciousness comes in a later stage of decision making than previously expected – challenging any versions of "free will" where intention occurs at the beginning of the human decision process.[13]

Let the handwaving begin.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Let me drop this little turd from summarizations of the work of expert scientists on above speculations by other than expert scientists on the matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Where you will find this bottom line in the topic overview:

Researcher Itzhak Fried says that available studies do at least suggest that consciousness comes in a later stage of decision making than previously expected – challenging any versions of "free will" where intention occurs at the beginning of the human decision process.[13]

Let the handwaving begin.

Free will is when a person decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and undue influence. Neuroscience confirms that people's brains make decisions. How the brain accomplishes this has been studied experimentally, leading to some surprises as to the role of conscious awareness versus unconscious processes. But the bottom line is that it is still our own brains doing this.

Thus, in the restaurant, when you order something from the menu, the waiter will bring you the dinner and the bill. When a neuroscientist presents an argument that you do not deserve to be billed for your dinner, then they will be discussing free will. But we've yet to see any neuroscientist make such a claim.

Nor do we see anyone here making such a claim. Free will is the empirical distinction between an unforced choice, that we voluntarily make for ourselves, versus a choice imposed upon us against our will, by someone or something else.

The only claim we see being disputed, is the claim that free will is some other thing, either freedom from causation, or freedom from our own brain. Once otherwise intelligent people stop making such stupid claims, and settle upon the common sense understanding of what free will is actually about, the debate ends.

 

[DBT]

Yes, as a perception or impression formed through limited information. Consciousness as an activity of the brain does not have access to its own means of production.

I know you think that actually means something, but it doesn't. If you ordered the Chef Salad then you will be expected to pay for it before you leave the restaurant. Whether your "I will have the Chef Salad, please" was produced entirely beneath your conscious awareness or not, it was you, the person, that placed the order, and you, the person, that is responsible for the bill.

Of course it means something.

Not having access to the means of production that form and govern your own conscious existence, creates the impression of free will and conscious agency.

An illusion that is exposed when something goes wrong with the mechanism and that sense of agency and control disintegrates.

It doesn't matter that it's defined as 'you' because as a mechanism that is not subject to control or regulation through will or wish, it is a mechanism where free will plays no part in the running of the show.

You don't choose brain condition, function, nor control its information processing activity regardless of it being 'you.'

To insist that this is free will is wrong.

What you fail to realize is that the unconscious "means of production" is still ME. We know it is still me because the dinner order, "I will have the Chef Salad, please", came out of my own mouth. So, regardless how it was produced within my brain, it was still my own brain that selected the Salad and rejected the Steak.

I don't dispute that our body and mind is what defines us, what we are, who we are, how we think, what we do.

That we are our bodies and minds, our thoughts and feelings.....nevertheless, the point is that this is not enough to qualify as free will, or establish the reality of something we may call free will.

The mind/brain/body does not operate on the principle of something that we could call free will.

It is a biological process that shapes and forms our existence, our physical and mental being, our mind, thoughts and actions.

Compatibilists merely label the mechanisms and processes of our existence as being 'free will' because it is 'us.'

''Us'' is not enough.

Now, you will also need to recognize that if a guy with a gun told me to "Order the Steak or I'll blow your brains out", then that consideration would somehow need to get back down to my unconscious "means of production", so that I could order the Steak instead of the Salad to avoid getting my brains blown out.

If the world is deterministic, we have external and internal necessity. The absence of external force, coercion or undue influence does not negate internal or external necessity in the form of a determined progression of events.

Where what you think and do, you necessarily do regardless of whether or not you are being forced, coerced or unduly influenced.

Which is not to say that there is no distinction to be made between being forced or acting according to our will.

We have will, but will itself is necessitated, not free. We are able to act according to our will, which being determined, we cannot do otherwise: we must act according to our will, which is fixed by antecedents.

Not free will, but inner necessity at work.

Free will makes the distinction between those two scenarios. In the first case, I am free to choose for myself what I will order. In the second case, I am forced to submit my will to the will of the guy with a gun, and I'm not free to make that choice for myself.

You are destroying the distinction between those two scenarios. So, knock it off.

The distinction lies between acting according to our will - which for the reasons outlined above, is not free - and being forced against our will.

The distinction is there, but neither qualifies for the title of 'free will' for the given reasons.

 

[Jarhyn]

Let me drop this little turd from summarizations of the work of expert scientists on above speculations by other than expert scientists on the matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Where you will find this bottom line in the topic overview:

Researcher Itzhak Fried says that available studies do at least suggest that consciousness comes in a later stage of decision making than previously expected – challenging any versions of "free will" where intention occurs at the beginning of the human decision process.[13]

<An accusation in the mirror.>

Nice hand-wave.

Again you are trying to draw the conversation away with a red herring that many neuroscientists seem hung up on, and no wonder. They are neuroscientists trying to reverse engineer something that is, in all honesty, too complicated to reverse engineer that way, directly, and won't be reverse engineered by someone who doesn't actually apply and leverage the structure of the neuron in the course of their work.

Of course a neuroscientist can't figure out what it would take a lifelong information scientist and mathematician to figure out.

You aren't even aligned on solving the problem of bioinformatics in neural systems, you are aligned at mapping large scale gross functional operations.

Intention does not have to be conscious to be yours. It does not even have to be conscious initially for it to be revealed later in the process and reviewed.

I've seen plenty of people flirt without knowing they had the intention to flirt, but eventually they, as a person, came to be more aware of their behavior and intentions, and stop flirting, for example.

But even if there were no feedback and we were merely choosing, blind to our own choices, they would still be choices, taking in multiple objects and rendering a result. That we DO get feedback, and often before the result is rendered such that we can abort our present course of actions in favor of a different choice, is merely icing on the cake of free will.

There are clearly actions we can take with others (see: behavior modification, another discipline not exactly synonymous with "neuroscience"). These actions will change the nature of choices they make. We can foist them on others but we can also foist them on ourselves, so clearly the role and location of consciousness, wherever it is, is enough to support free will.

Again, look to the exercise of imagining houses on the lane. Imagine for a moment that you are entirely invisible to yourself, that you lack eyes that can see the color of your body, and you lack ears that can hear the pitch of your voice, and that all your actions are instead reported by your neighbor, and your neighbor's actions are likewise. Furthermore you cannot actually remember anything you did. Only your neighbor remembers it. Likewise for your neighbor.

Your neighbor is then responsible for letting you know if you did it right, if the letter in the mail.

This doesn't mean you cannot send letters, or that the letters you send are not your own. It just means you need your neighbor's feedback and help doing it, and remembering that it was done.

Of course this arrangement would open up your neighbor to being able to lie to you and manipulate you, which is kind of the point: certain biological drives are set up to resist modification or interference despite being baked into relatively intelligent things.

Even so, you choose to act blindly, and take the feedback of your narrator function, and have the power such that if the narrator function leads you astray, the narrator function can be figured out so that it can ot fool us even if it wishes to, because we know it's predelictions, even if it didn't tell them to us.

Of course to me it's it unlike some Christian reading a little bit about binary and then coming here and saying that there's a god and they are the god, because they know binary exists.

Of course some Christian neuroscientist is going to roll up into this bitch and claim they are well situated, despite never actually manually constructing a neural machine to a purpose, to "know" something about the machines, such that they can or cannot be constructed thus.

Leave it to some Christian neuroscientist to roll up and take a look at neurons and decide that they somehow CAN'T be a living application of representation theory being used to solve identical problems in disparate media with the same mathematical shape as more "large scale" problems, and then operating the large scale the way the small scale seemed to work, so as to make the result on the large scale (hopefully) mirror the large scale.

Then, few mathematicians, neuroscientists, information scientists, or otherwise are aligned to see in the above the basic theory of thaumaturgy in action.