Compatibilism: What's that About?

[fromderinside]

What you think the brain does would have ended man's survival as soon as humans began to think.

The body is going to do what the body does whether one thinks about it or not

maybe humans weren't the first things in this world thinking, planning, and having wills.

Wait. I believe I've talked enough about the work of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

whee. If anything 'can' compute it is, by definition, a computer. Simplifies everything. Just have to find those damn traitorous non-computers and the world will be pristine.

???

Have you entirely lost the plot at this point?

You are the one who admitted the brain computes.

No. I responded to your claim that the brain is a computer by noting brains compute but they are actually complex biological neural and glandular systems where computing is only a fairly minor aspect of their behavior.

Everybody deceiving themselves is not proof they aren't.

How does Marvin's self-deception lead to the waiter's identical self-deception? Telepathy?

Uh, maybe their only connection re the deceit event is the behavior of each other leading to similar reasons for the self-deceit behaviors? Pointing at a causal relationship? Not a problem from my viewpoint.

I see self-deception happening here, but not by Marvin or the waiter...

In your world what is the operational meaning of order? Is it material in the context of what you or the waiter does? Or is it just a figure of speech about what could be just a verbal exchange? Is order necessary to receive or is presence enough? Is even presence necessary?

Then the waiter would further unpack object properties to discover a command for salad. They computed the results of obeying this command vs not, and they decided they wanted to keep their job so they fulfilled the command, and brought a salad. Then, they brought the bill to the thing whose thoughts and computations resulted in a command to bring it salad.

Looks very much like logic within the context of a language system to me. You don't make the material connections necessary for demonstrating causality. Speech is within the human capacity which has been studied for generations. It is produced via man made rules about its structure and content without being anchored to any established material reality.

Logic and language are built up from scratch which needs to be validated materially. This should be be done by scientists using their material based techniques with groups of humans who use speech. elements of speech need be connected in each instance to the material basis for utterances. Yes attempts have been made, but if Chomsky is an example we need a lot of help.

 

[Jarhyn]

Looks very much like logic to me since you don't make the material connections necessary for demonstrating causality

And the FDI was back to asking "were you there?"

You are like a creationist demanding to see every last missing piece of the puzzle before you will accept that the puzzle contains a picture of a dog or whatever.

We can use perfectly valid, sound logic to isolate the fact that even though we have not seen every last linkage and transform accomplished by the brain to extract how the command is being identified, that the command is causal to the outcome, and is, in fact, being identified as such by the waiter.

 

[fromderinside]

Looks very much like logic to me since you don't make the material connections necessary for demonstrating causality

And the FDI was back to asking "were you there?"

You are like a creationist demanding to see every last missing piece of the puzzle before you will accept that the puzzle contains a picture of a dog or whatever.

We can use perfectly valid, sound logic to isolate the fact that even though we have not seen every last linkage and transform accomplished by the brain to extract how the command is being identified, that the command is causal to the outcome, and is, in fact, being identified as such by the waiter.

Your problem is you stay at the level of logic versus material evidence when we are discussing whither determinism. Doesn't work. Causality is a material issue in determinism not a logical one.

 

[DBT]

Without realizable options, there can be no choosing. It is the possibility of taking different realizable options that enables choosing.

A realizable option is a real possibility.

Not in the instance of fulfilling a determined action. Options are for other people, other events and other times.

Determinism only permits one outcome. A thousand options, only one possible outcome

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

It is something we can make happen if we choose to do so.

Something makes you make something happen. At no point are there alternative choices or actions.

Thus, every item on the restaurant menu is a realizable option. We can choose any one of them by simply telling the waiter "I will have this, please" or "I will have that please" and he will actually bring it to us and set it on the table in front of us in physical reality. Thus, every item on the menu is a realizable option.

The options on the menu are all realizable. Thus, it is up to us to choose from them what we will have for dinner.

All options are realizable by different people and different times, each according to the state of person fulfilling the determined selection.

Fixed outcomes don't help establish freedom of choice or freedom of will.

Determinism doesn't enable choosing because all present and future actions are fixed by the prior states of the system, consequently permits no alternatives to choose from.

And yet there is the menu of realizable options, causally determined to be in our hands, and causally necessitating that we choose what we will have for dinner.

Inevitable actions are not a choice. Nothing else can happen.

All of the events were always causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they are determined to be just so. This includes the menu. This includes the choosing. This includes us doing the choosing.

Determinism is a process of entailment, not choice.

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.''

 

[Jarhyn]

Your problem is you stay at the level of logic versus material evidence when we are discussing whither determinism. Doesn't work. Causality is a material issue in determinism not a logical one.

No, your argument is that deterministic systems cannot have events or objects conform to the compatibilist definitions of freedom, will, and choice, option, and possibility.

This is a logical argument about deterministic systems.

Now, the funniest part is that I do, in fact, produce numerous pieces of material evidence owing to the fact that not only do I show these things happening in a deterministic system, that Deterministic system is nested, meaning it is happening both in the simulation's dererministic system AND the outer Deterministic system, because it can't be happening in a contained subset if it cannot happen in the container at all.

It's happening in the contained subset to semantic completion (all the way down to the set theory of it, even).

Every part about that deterministic system I point to is understood, from it's fundamental field properties to the truth tables and "logic" of how wills are selected in the first place, as an intersection of predilections and chaos.

It is in fact a mathematical proof that Deterministic systems are capable of it, and because it is observed as occurring within our universe (the computer is within the universe), it is also proof that it can happen in our universe.

At that point your argument is weakened to "it can but it doesn't, merely by just-so accident."

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Determinism only permits one outcome.

Correct.

A thousand options, only one possible outcome

A thousand options is a thousand possible outcomes! An option is a possible choice.

Determinism is a limit upon actualities. Determinism is not a limit upon possibilities.

Conflating possibilities with actualities is a logical error.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

Unfortunately, it is a very common logical error within the discussion of determinism. For example, what you should have said was:

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it will be at the next moment.

A possibility is not an actuality.

A possibility is something we can make happen if we choose to do so.

Something makes you make something happen. ...

I know Halloween is just around the corner, but, if we thought something else was making us make things happen, we would be delusional, and need psychiatric treatment.

Determinism is not something else, it is also us. The laws of nature are not something else, they are also us. Our past experience is not something else, it is most clearly and obviously us as we are now.

What we will inevitably do by causal necessity is exactly identical to us just being us, doing what we choose to do (assuming we are free from coercion and undue influence). What we do by deterministic causal necessity is "what we would have done anyway".

Deterministic causal necessity is not something that anyone needs to be "free of". It is neither a meaningful nor a relevant constraint.

Every item on the restaurant menu is a realizable option. We can choose any one of them by simply telling the waiter "I will have this, please" or "I will have that, please" and he will actually bring it to us and set it on the table in front of us in physical reality. Thus, every item on the menu is a realizable option.

All options are realizable by different people and different times, each according to the state of person fulfilling the determined selection.

All of the options on the menu are realizable by every customer. That's the point of the menu, to provide each customer with a list of the many things that they actually can order, and allow them to choose for themselves the single thing that they will order.

Fixed outcomes don't help establish freedom of choice or freedom of will.

Fixed outcomes (using your metaphor) neither establish, nor prevent, the freedom to choose for ourselves what we will do. You see, events can be "fixed" such that we are free to choose for ourselves, or, they can be "fixed" such that a choice is imposed upon us by coercion or undue influence.

The notion that all events are fixed by deterministic causal necessity doesn't actually change anything.

Inevitable actions are not a choice.

Except when it is inevitable that we will be making a choice!

Nothing else can happen.

Conflating what "can" happen with what "will" happen is a logical error. It creates the paradox of having to "choose between a single possibility". The correct statement is this: Nothing else will happen.

Determinism is a process of entailment, not choice.

Except, of course, when it is deterministically entailed that we will actually be making a choice. Entailment does not eliminate choosing. Quite the opposite, entailment necessitates choosing along with every other operation and event.

For example, when we see all of the diners in the restaurant browsing the menu and placing their orders, we may assume that it was causally necessary, from any prior point in eternity, that they would be doing precisely that, at precisely that time, and in precisely that place.

Deterministic entailment does not actually change anything.

 

[fromderinside]

Your problem is you stay at the level of logic versus material evidence when we are discussing whither determinism. Doesn't work. Causality is a material issue in determinism not a logical one.

No, your argument is that deterministic systems cannot have events or objects conform to the compatibilist definitions of freedom, will, and choice, option, and possibility.

This is a logical argument about deterministic systems.

Now, the funniest part is that I do, in fact, produce numerous pieces of material evidence owing to the fact that not only do I show these things happening in a deterministic system, that Deterministic system is nested, meaning it is happening both in the simulation's dererministic system AND the outer Deterministic system, because it can't be happening in a contained subset if it cannot happen in the container at all.

It's happening in the contained subset to semantic completion (all the way down to the set theory of it, even).

Every part about that deterministic system I point to is understood, from it's fundamental field properties to the truth tables and "logic" of how wills are selected in the first place, as an intersection of predilections and chaos.

It is in fact a mathematical proof that Deterministic systems are capable of it, and because it is observed as occurring within our universe (the computer is within the universe), it is also proof that it can happen in our universe.

At that point your argument is weakened to "it can but it doesn't, merely by just-so accident."

You repeat your logic argument.

You fail to meet the 'causality' requires a this-then-that answer which can only be shown by demonstrating 'cause' which requires material reality.

As far as I tell whole compatibility position is created just to support a Choice argument. Clearly compatibility with what arises within the being is not an option except perhaps in the mind of the being who is busy trying to justify itself from it's distorted view of the world.

Determinism does not depend on from within determinism takes on such as self. Not relevant.

 

[Jarhyn]

You repeat your logic argument.

In response to a logical argument that you just seem incapable of recognizing as a logical one.

Beyond the logical argument you ares stuck at "it can but it doesn't, merely by just-so accident."

if you do not realize how weak that position is, you are lost.

You fail to meet the 'causality' requires a this-then-that.

You fail to meet the requirement of basic parsability... Perhaps try again.

Causality does not "require a this then that". A "this-then-that" is a "just-so-story".

What causality requires is a consistent process that connects "this" to "that": every time there is "this" it becomes "that" for every "this" and every "that"  except the initial condition, which is not explained nor even explainable from within the system.

This creates a set of algebras that describes the model as to how it determines, from this, that.

It is clear that this can be taken in very large scales towards a simplified model in which we can ascertain which "that" "this" will roughly turn into MUCH later than a single Planck second without needing to calculate the intervening Planck seconds.

As far as I tell whole compatibility position is created just to support a Choice argument

Well, it's created to discuss various events which seem rather significant to how and why our thought processes yield the ability to succeed in accomplishing goals.

Humans make names for generalized phenomena. One phenomena is taking a subset from a set, and leaving the remainder. We call that process "choice".

Clearly various instances of behavior conform to that semantic structure. Picking up a rock among many rocks: choosing a rock to pick up. Picking an orange among many oranges: choosing an orange.

It's rather silly to pretend it doesn't happen because it's just a renamed object from math and logic.

It's as if you want to pretend that because we are really "selecting activation of a surface through contribution of a joined secondary potential", running on artifacts (objects which can generally only be shaped as they are as a result of some other object having some known form to it's geometry at some other point in spacetime), we are not making decisions, or that these decisions are not somehow processes of real objects directed at other real objects.

Of course we are composed of real objects some of which happen to be configured to accomplish selection of "a subset" from a "set".

Clearly compatibility with what arises within the being is not an option except perhaps in the mind of the being who is busy trying to justify itself from it's distorted view of the world.

No, I ordered the steak, not the salad. The salad is for that Marvin gentleman.

Determinism does not depend on from within determinism takes on such as self. Not relevant.

No, not salad, steak.

On second thought, I'd like to speak to your manager please.

 

[DBT]

A thousand options, only one possible outcome

A thousand options is a thousand possible outcomes! An option is a possible choice.

No, it's not a thousand possible outcomes Saying that there are a thousand possible outcomes contradicts your own definition of determinism.

''All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

Determinism is a limit upon actualities. Determinism is not a limit upon possibilities.

Conflating possibilities with actualities is a logical error.

I'm not the one conflating possibilities with actualities. Just look at what I said above.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

Unfortunately, it is a very common logical error within the discussion of determinism. For example, what you should have said was:

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it will be at the next moment.

Word play makes no difference to the issue of entailment. Determinism means the system can only be in a state that is fixed by prior states of the system.

It 'will' be in that state because it must be in that state. Because it must be in that state, it will be in that state.

Nothing else can happen.

Conflating what "can" happen with what "will" happen is a logical error. It creates the paradox of having to "choose between a single possibility". The correct statement is this: Nothing else will happen.

The point I'm trying to get across here is that if an event is determined, what happens must happen. If it must happen, nothing else can happen in its place.

''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.

Determinism is a process of entailment, not choice.

Except, of course, when it is deterministically entailed that we will actually be making a choice. Entailment does not eliminate choosing. Quite the opposite, entailment necessitates choosing along with every other operation and event.

There is no choice because what you think and do is inevitable as events progress from prior to present and future states without deviation.

For example, when we see all of the diners in the restaurant browsing the menu and placing their orders, we may assume that it was causally necessary, from any prior point in eternity, that they would be doing precisely that, at precisely that time, and in precisely that place.

Deterministic entailment does not actually change anything.

''Deterministic entailment'' is just a basic description of the system. How it works and the implications this has for choice and freedom of will is the issue, no alternatives, a fixed outcome in each and every moment of action, etc.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, it's not a thousand possible outcomes Saying that there are a thousand possible outcomes contradicts your own definition of determinism.

No it does not. It merely contradicts YOUR broken definition of "possibility", because you show a chronic and repeated inability to process the fact that something can be a member of a logical set, and so can then be selected as a subset.

You seem to be under the laughably nonsensical assumption that something cannot exist as a subset of a set, and that we shouldn't call the selection operation of a subset from a set a "choice".

Of course if we didn't, my job would get VERY hard since the assembly of even a single logic gate in the presence of an energy differential results in operation of choice, and in fact assembling such choices is "hardware and software design"

See: if 1 and 0, choose 1; if 0 and 1 choose 1; if 0 and 0 choose 0; if 1 and 1 choose 0.

A B X
0 0 0
1 0 1
0 1 1
1 1 0

I think @Marvin Edwards is probably even qualified to tell us what kind of choice that things which reflect this sort of state transition structure make...

I bet Marvin could even tell me what kinds of choices are required in the background to make this choice work, and could probably provide a few instances of electrical structures which manage to conform to it

All a truth table is, is a complete description of a choice structure.

 

[fromderinside]

I know you people make logical argument.

That's the problem.

Determinism is the spine of science. That's where we start, not as mimics of a seventeenth century religious nut. Causality is the crux of determinism and science. so we start with:

As we saw above, for determinism to be true there have to be some laws of nature. Most philosophers and scientists since the 17th century have indeed thought that there are.

upon which the scientific method is based.

Then we get bogged down in the logic of skepticism primarily because humans are the ones who believe they are crucial to the discussion. This is where and why I introduce the notion of 'self' as a subcategory of the determinism discussion.

But in the face of more recent skepticism, how can it be proven that there are? And if this hurdle can be overcome, don't we have to know, with certainty, precisely what the laws of our world are, in order to tackle the question of determinism's truth or falsity?

The idea that simple skepticism about reality resolves the 'problem to being human in a materially determined world is wrong. That presumption questions reality not the problem of resolving being evolved in a determined world.

Furthermore none of the things we question like mind, will, choice have been defined operationally with respect to physical reality.

Beyond the failures above human minds are not well informed about the state of the world nor of time t. Nor do their minds exist informed by causality nor physical reality. A separate analysis is required to conform the human mind with the state of the world.

This transformation is required because humans and all living things of which we are aware exist derived from fitness not causality. The mind exists geared to what's best for me from the local environment to which I have access through mechanisms tuned to what evolution has left us dependent.

Sensation is not determined by reference to reality, rather sensation is tuned to conditions that let us reproduce successfully at a particular time and place under chance.

We haven't reconciled that conundrum so to apply causality to what we think is a fools errand.

To do that we need find a way to resolve mind with material reality.

 

[Jarhyn]

[N]one of the things we question like mind, will, choice have been defined operationally with respect to physical reality.

They are general structures which many things in reality conform to. Your inability to recognize abstractions and generalizations which hold within the system is , I suspect, the exact reason you and DBT and other hard determinists have such a hard time with it.

Many things can conform to the definition of a choice. I laid this out as I would to a 9 year old:

If 0 and 0 choose 0
If 1 and 0 choose 1
If 0 and 1 choose 1
If 1 and 1 choose 1

This structure is a fully defined choice process for a system of binary states, with two dependent inputs and one dependent output. It MAY be constructed of many things, and may even be constructed of neurons.

It is defined in terms of it's deterministic structure, and what choice that structure determines will be made at the output: "high" or "low".

I could supply various images in various deterministic models which all describe reality conforming to this structure of choice process.

It even has a special name...

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Determinism asserts that all 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.

Therefore, it was causally necessary, from any prior point in time, that we would be here, in the restaurant, facing a literal menu of possibilities to choose from. And, it was causally necessary, from any prior point in time, that I would consider the juicy Steak, recall that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, and decide to order the Salad instead.

A thousand options, only one possible outcome

A thousand options is a thousand possible outcomes! An option is a possible choice.

No, it's not a thousand possible outcomes Saying that there are a thousand possible outcomes contradicts your own definition of determinism.

''All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

And where in that definition did you find any restriction on the number of possibilities, or even any restriction upon the number of items found on a restaurant menu?

Determinism is a limit upon actualities. Determinism is not a limit upon possibilities.

Conflating possibilities with actualities is a logical error.

I'm not the one conflating possibilities with actualities. Just look at what I said above.

I looked. And what I saw was you conflating the single "actual" outcome with the multiple "possible" outcomes. Don't you see it?

If you say that there is only one possible outcome, instead of saying that there is only one actual outcome, you've conflated the multiple possible outcomes with the single actual outcome.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

Unfortunately, it is a very common logical error within the discussion of determinism. For example, what you should have said was:

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it will be at the next moment.

Word play makes no difference to the issue of entailment.

But apparently it has. Using your entailment, the fact of multiple possibilities on the restaurant menu is wiped away. Using the logically correct entailment, it is entailed that we will have multiple possibilities on the restaurant menu from which the single actuality is chosen. Which of these two descriptions is empirically accurate, the restaurant without a menu or the restaurant with a menu?

Determinism means the system can only be in a state that is fixed by prior states of the system.

Determinism means the system will only be in a state that is fixed by prior states of the system.

It 'will' be in that state because it must be in that state. Because it must be in that state, it will be in that state.

There, that wasn't so hard now, was it? Each event causally necessitates subsequent events. For example, opening the menu necessitates choosing, choosing necessitates considering the Steak, but deciding upon the Salad instead. The choice necessitates our telling the waiter, "I will have the Salad, please". The order necessitates the waiter writing it down and carrying it to the chef, where it necessitates the chef preparing the Salad and ringing for the waiter, which necessitates the waiter picking up the salad and bringing it back to our table, along with the bill for our dinner.

Each step is a change in the system, reliably caused by prior events. And it looks pretty much the same as it did before we inserted causal necessity into the description. Which means that it will look the same, and be described the same, after we remove the redundant mentions of causal necessity.

Deterministic causal necessity doesn't actually change anything.

The point I'm trying to get across here is that if an event is determined, what happens must happen. If it must happen, nothing else can happen in its place.

But your point is being undermined by the logical error of conflating what "can" happen with what "will" happen. Certain logical operations involve the notion of possibilities, things that "can" happen but which never "will" happen. Planning a vacation involves imagining different locations, like Alaska and Hawaii, which require packing different clothes. Evaluating whether to bring an umbrella involves imagining it raining or not raining. Choosing what to order for dinner involves imagining the juicy Steak, recalling the breakfast and lunch, and deciding upon the Salad instead.

All of these logical operations require the notion of multiple possibilities and a single actuality. The destruction of multiple possibilities destroys these logical operations. So, let's not do that.

Determinism, which includes our inner experiences, our thoughts and feelings, inevitably results in these logical operations in which we find ourselves dealing with multiple possibilities, such as those on the restaurant menu, and logically resolving them into a single inevitable actuality, such as the dinner order.

The possibilities are real events in our brains. The dinner is a real event on the table before us.

Both notions, the multiple possibilities and the single inevitable actuality, are essential to our successful operation in the real world.

 

[fromderinside]

[N]one of the things we question like mind, will, choice have been defined operationally with respect to physical reality.

They are general structures which many things in reality conform to. Your inability to recognize abstractions and generalizations which hold within the system is , I suspect, the exact reason you and DBT and other hard determinists have such a hard time with it.

Many things can conform to the definition of a choice. I laid this out as I would to a 9 year old:

If 0 and 0 choose 0
If 1 and 0 choose 1
If 0 and 1 choose 1
If 1 and 1 choose 1

This structure is a fully defined choice process for a system of binary states, with two dependent inputs and one dependent output. It MAY be constructed of many things, and may even be constructed of neurons.

It is defined in terms of it's deterministic structure, and what choice that structure determines will be made at the output: "high" or "low".

I could supply various images in various deterministic models which all describe reality conforming to this structure of choice process.

It even has a special name...

Ah, they are abstractions. Now all you have to do is operationalize them relative to which they abstract/generalize. You know, write an equation and specify your terms materially for each instance.

 

[fromderinside]

Determinism asserts that all 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.

Therefore, it was causally necessary, from any prior point in time, that we would be here, in the restaurant, facing a literal menu of possibilities to choose from. And, it was causally necessary, from any prior point in time, that I would consider the juicy Steak, recall that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, and decide to order the Salad instead.

A thousand options, only one possible outcome

A thousand options is a thousand possible outcomes! An option is a possible choice.

No, it's not a thousand possible outcomes Saying that there are a thousand possible outcomes contradicts your own definition of determinism.

''All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

And where in that definition did you find any restriction on the number of possibilities, or even any restriction upon the number of items found on a restaurant menu?

Determinism is a limit upon actualities. Determinism is not a limit upon possibilities.

Conflating possibilities with actualities is a logical error.

I'm not the one conflating possibilities with actualities. Just look at what I said above.

I looked. And what I saw was you conflating the single "actual" outcome with the multiple "possible" outcomes. Don't you see it?

If you say that there is only one possible outcome, instead of saying that there is only one actual outcome, you've conflated the multiple possible outcomes with the single actual outcome.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

Unfortunately, it is a very common logical error within the discussion of determinism. For example, what you should have said was:

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it will be at the next moment.

Word play makes no difference to the issue of entailment.

But apparently it has. Using your entailment, the fact of multiple possibilities on the restaurant menu is wiped away. Using the logically correct entailment, it is entailed that we will have multiple possibilities on the restaurant menu from which the single actuality is chosen. Which of these two descriptions is empirically accurate, the restaurant without a menu or the restaurant with a menu?

Determinism means the system can only be in a state that is fixed by prior states of the system.

Determinism means the system will only be in a state that is fixed by prior states of the system.

It 'will' be in that state because it must be in that state. Because it must be in that state, it will be in that state.

There, that wasn't so hard now, was it? Each event causally necessitates subsequent events. For example, opening the menu necessitates choosing, choosing necessitates considering the Steak, but deciding upon the Salad instead. The choice necessitates our telling the waiter, "I will have the Salad, please". The order necessitates the waiter writing it down and carrying it to the chef, where it necessitates the chef preparing the Salad and ringing for the waiter, which necessitates the waiter picking up the salad and bringing it back to our table, along with the bill for our dinner.

Each step is a change in the system, reliably caused by prior events. And it looks pretty much the same as it did before we inserted causal necessity into the description. Which means that it will look the same, and be described the same, after we remove the redundant mentions of causal necessity.

Deterministic causal necessity doesn't actually change anything.

The point I'm trying to get across here is that if an event is determined, what happens must happen. If it must happen, nothing else can happen in its place.

But your point is being undermined by the logical error of conflating what "can" happen with what "will" happen. Certain logical operations involve the notion of possibilities, things that "can" happen but which never "will" happen. Planning a vacation involves imagining different locations, like Alaska and Hawaii, which require packing different clothes. Evaluating whether to bring an umbrella involves imagining it raining or not raining. Choosing what to order for dinner involves imagining the juicy Steak, recalling the breakfast and lunch, and deciding upon the Salad instead.

All of these logical operations require the notion of multiple possibilities and a single actuality. The destruction of multiple possibilities destroys these logical operations. So, let's not do that.

Determinism, which includes our inner experiences, our thoughts and feelings, inevitably results in these logical operations in which we find ourselves dealing with multiple possibilities, such as those on the restaurant menu, and logically resolving them into a single inevitable actuality, such as the dinner order.

The possibilities are real events in our brains. The dinner is a real event on the table before us.

Both notions, the multiple possibilities and the single inevitable actuality, are essential to our successful operation in the real world.

Whoosh. Takes my breath away. The way you wave in all your assertions without ever defining what they are, how and why they are essential or become choice rather than next event.

 

[DBT]

The point I'm trying to get across here is that if an event is determined, what happens must happen. If it must happen, nothing else can happen in its place.

But your point is being undermined by the logical error of conflating what "can" happen with what "will" happen. Certain logical operations involve the notion of possibilities, things that "can" happen but which never "will" happen. Planning a vacation involves imagining different locations, like Alaska and Hawaii, which require packing different clothes. Evaluating whether to bring an umbrella involves imagining it raining or not raining. Choosing what to order for dinner involves imagining the juicy Steak, recalling the breakfast and lunch, and deciding upon the Salad instead.

No, I'm just pointing out that saying 'can' and 'will' means nothing in the face of 'must.'

That what happens must happen. That a determined/entailed event not only can and will happen. but must happen as determined,

All of these logical operations require the notion of multiple possibilities and a single actuality. The destruction of multiple possibilities destroys these logical operations. So, let's not do that.

The single actuality is the only reality. 'No deviation' is equivalent to 'single actuality.'

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

Any and every moment in time entails 'the only way the world can be.'

Determinism, which includes our inner experiences, our thoughts and feelings, inevitably results in these logical operations in which we find ourselves dealing with multiple possibilities, such as those on the restaurant menu, and logically resolving them into a single inevitable actuality, such as the dinner order.

Dealing with information is not the function of will or consciousness. The brain as an information processor is the agency of response.

And as the world is always in the only state it can be in, the brain as an aspect of the world/the deterministic system, the brain is always in the only state it can be in.


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.''

The possibilities are real events in our brains. The dinner is a real event on the table before us.

The possibility of alternatives is not determinism. The dinner on the table is precisely as it must be.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

Both notions, the multiple possibilities and the single inevitable actuality, are essential to our successful operation in the real world.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

The state of the world at any moment in time is the only way it can be.

Multiple possibilities, as determined, are an illusion of the mind.

 

[Jarhyn]

You know, write an equation and specify your terms materially for each instance

If you didn't notice, that discussion has happened many times.

As has been presented choice has been defined ad nauseam: any process by which a subset is selected from a set.

You can in fact play the game and learn for yourself why that little truth table represents a fully fleshed out choice process in the binary domain. Of course this more is a discussion of abstract algebra at this point, insofar as the mechanisms present in a system define which "traditional binary operators" apply in the logic of the system.

If you would like, you can even Google basic logic gates (such as NOT).

I could, say, build a structure that represents "choose the option represented by !A", and the structure, if created across an electromagnetic potential would most likely involve two resistors, a transistor, a power source, and a ground, creating at a certain point a "low" voltage when a "high" voltage is applied to the base of a transistor.

I can then put these together more readily: "choose, of high/low (see the activation energies of the source and the transistors), that which represents A and !B" for some other A and B.

I can in fact develop a structure from such simple choices that defines "add A and B to X and Y"
If 0 and 0 choose 0 and 0
If 0 and 1 choose 0 and 1
If 1 and 0 choose 0 and 1
If 1 and 1 choose 1 and 0

This reveals the choice of single bit addition with single but carry to just be two different choices happening at the same time, each themselves composed of smaller sets of choices within the system.

Indeed, we come to understand this way that more complicated choices are just assemblies of simpler forms of choice.

Then we can combine systems which reify those choice processes such that we have a C, a previous-adder-carry:

If 0 and 0 and 0 choose 0 and 0
If 0 and 0 and 1 choose 0 and 1
If 0 and 1 and 0 choose 0 and 1
If 0 and 1 and 1 choose 1 and 0
If 1 and 0 and 0 choose 0 and 1
If 1 and 0 and 1 choose 1 and 0
If 1 and 1 and 0 choose 1 and 0
If 1 and 1 and 1 choose 1 and 1

Of course, you might TRY to ask "BuT WhErE DoEs ThE DeFiNiTiOn of AdD CoMe FrOm"?

As it stands, we can just name every type of choice:
"Choice of X as identity of A"
0 0
1 1

"Choice of X as
inverse of A"
1 0
0 1

"Choice of X as A AND B"
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 0 0
1 1 1

"Choice of X as A AND !B"
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
... And so on.

There are in fact an infinite number of choices that are represented in the boolean space.

Then it's just a matter of having a system which chooses choice models to apply in a context, "choose the choice model which successfully solves for the contextualized system", and "choose a whole bunch of things which together shall form a set of instructions to a machine".

Anyone who has EVER designed the truth table for a processor knows how this goes: eventually you end up with a choice engine capable of executing "wills", things which roughly conform to the requirements of a Turing machine even if they are not strictly speaking just Turing machines.

Is it capable of choosing for itself what it will do? It takes a bit of work to get such systems that far, but yes, they may. It just takes having those manners of choices being represented in the logic of the system.

In biological systems, that logic is less binary and more analog, but it's still the same fundamental principle, again applied to analog switching systems with properties capable of reflecting inversion and stateliness with shortcuts not available to binary systems built only of transistors.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

...I'm just pointing out that saying 'can' and 'will' means nothing in the face of 'must.' That what happens must happen.

Anything that 'must' happen 'will' happen by causal necessity. Causal necessity is simply another term for 'must'. And we've been talking about what 'must' happen throughout these discussions, every time that we use "necessity" or "necessarily".

That a determined/entailed event not only can and will happen. but must happen as determined,

Of course. But only a few of the things that "can" happen "must" happen. Most of the things that "can" happen "must not" happen and thus they "will not" happen. For example, we "can" order every item on the menu, but we "must not" do that, because we'd never eat that much in one sitting.

No one ever thinks that "can" implies "must". And no one should ever think that "can" implies "will". We simply do not have time to do everything that we "can" do. That's why we end up choosing, from the many things that we can do, the single thing that we will do right now.

The vast majority of things that I "can" do right now must wait until I finish what I have decided that I "will" do right now. After all, that is the way that things "must" be.

The single actuality is the only reality. 'No deviation' is equivalent to 'single actuality.'

Exactly. And that is why we use a different word, 'possibility', to refer to things that may or may not end up being the single actuality. And that is why we use a different word, 'can', to refer to things that may or may not happen.

For example, we know for certain that we "can" order anything on the menu. That's one of the benefits of "can". There are multiple things that we "can" order, even though there is only one thing that we "will" order.

"Will" I order the juicy Steak or "will" I order the Salad? That is something that I cannot know yet. I can make no assertions as to what I "will" order until after I make my choice.

But before I make my choice I do know for certain that I "can" order the Steak. And I do know for certain that I "can" order the Salad. In fact, I know for certain that I "can" order everything listed on the menu.

Having two or more items that I "can" select is logically required by the choosing operation. Just like having two or more numbers that I can add together is logically required by the addition operation.

Determinism does not make choosing or addition disappear.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.
Any and every moment in time entails 'the only way the world can be.'

You're still conflating what "can" happen with what "will" happen. The correct statement is this:

Given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it will be at the next moment.
Any and every moment in time entails 'the only way the world will be'.

Determinism is not a magic trick that makes possibilities disappear. Possibilities are logical tokens within the decision making process. Decision making does not work without them. In fact, decision making logically insists upon having at least two real possibilities before it will even begin.

Because possibilities are logically necessary, we must presume that they are also causally necessary events, because here they are, in black and white, on the restaurant menu. There is no deciding what we will order for dinner without them. And without the deciding what we will order there will be no dinner.

Thus, the "deciding" and the "possibilities" must be seen as part of deterministic causal necessity, the way that events that "must" happen. Otherwise, the chain of causation breaks.

 

[fromderinside]

You know, write an equation and specify your terms materially for each instance

I could, say, build a structure that represents "choose the option represented by !A", and the structure, if created across an electromagnetic potential would most likely involve two resistors, a transistor, a power source, and a ground, creating at a certain point a "low" voltage when a "high" voltage is applied to the base of a transistor.

I can then put these together more readily: "choose, of high/low (see the activation energies of the source and the transistors), that which represents A and !B" for some other A and B.

I can in fact develop a structure from such simple choices that defines "add A and B to X and Y"
If 0 and 0 choose 0 and 0
If 0 and 1 choose 0 and 1
If 1 and 0 choose 0 and 1
If 1 and 1 choose 1 and 0

The bolded is good for operationalizing the zeros and ones in some transistor array, but useless for operationalizing choice. You need to show your array in ONTO relation with human construct 'choice'. Choice needs a brain relevant operationalization derived from the truth tables replicating them.

That neuron's use of chemo-electric mechanisms - 'See' - isn't an operationalization. Still with the mental woo woo. Presumption a toxic thing for those who would be scientists.

You also have to fit your nice little model into a then-then-that configuration. I see no place for If-this-and-if-this-then-that in determinism so you just waste time building your nice little model. You presume choice in a model which has no place for choice.

I've already explained that humans and probably any species with a tegmentum (see Crick et al.) convert their space into one that puts oneself rather than the event in the actor role. Form that perspective they refer to self centered views of activity. Not the way things happen just the way humans believe things happen.

 

[fromderinside]

...I'm just pointing out that saying 'can' and 'will' means nothing in the face of 'must.' That what happens must happen.

Anything that 'must' happen 'will' happen by causal necessity. Causal necessity is simply another term for 'must'. And we've been talking about what 'must' happen throughout these discussions, every time that we use "necessity" or "necessarily".

That a determined/entailed event not only can and will happen. but must happen as determined,

Of course. But only a few of the things that "can" happen "must" happen. Most of the things that "can" happen "must not" happen and thus they "will not" happen. For example, we "can" order every item on the menu, but we "must not" do that, because we'd never eat that much in one sitting.

No one ever thinks that "can" implies "must". And no one should ever think that "can" implies "will". We simply do not have time to do everything that we "can" do. That's why we end up choosing, from the many things that we can do, the single thing that we will do right now.

The vast majority of things that I "can" do right now must wait until I finish what I have decided that I "will" do right now. After all, that is the way that things "must" be.

The single actuality is the only reality. 'No deviation' is equivalent to 'single actuality.'

Exactly. And that is why we use a different word, 'possibility', to refer to things that may or may not end up being the single actuality. And that is why we use a different word, 'can', to refer to things that may or may not happen.

For example, we know for certain that we "can" order anything on the menu. That's one of the benefits of "can". There are multiple things that we "can" order, even though there is only one thing that we "will" order.

"Will" I order the juicy Steak or "will" I order the Salad? That is something that I cannot know yet. I can make no assertions as to what I "will" order until after I make my choice.

But before I make my choice I do know for certain that I "can" order the Steak. And I do know for certain that I "can" order the Salad. In fact, I know for certain that I "can" order everything listed on the menu.

Having two or more items that I "can" select is logically required by the choosing operation. Just like having two or more numbers that I can add together is logically required by the addition operation.

Determinism does not make choosing or addition disappear.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.
Any and every moment in time entails 'the only way the world can be.'

You're still conflating what "can" happen with what "will" happen. The correct statement is this:

Given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it will be at the next moment.
Any and every moment in time entails 'the only way the world will be'.

Determinism is not a magic trick that makes possibilities disappear. Possibilities are logical tokens within the decision making process. Decision making does not work without them. In fact, decision making logically insists upon having at least two real possibilities before it will even begin.

Because possibilities are logically necessary, we must presume that they are also causally necessary events, because here they are, in black and white, on the restaurant menu. There is no deciding what we will order for dinner without them. And without the deciding what we will order there will be no dinner.

Thus, the "deciding" and the "possibilities" must be seen as part of deterministic causal necessity, the way that events that "must" happen. Otherwise, the chain of causation breaks.

Speculation 'can' has no place in determinism, It's just another intervention attempt to preserve some dignity to the place of man in the world by man.