Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Marvin Edwards]

Speculation 'can' has no place in determinism...

I agree. Thus, determinism must remain silent as to things that "can" or "cannot" happen, and concern itself solely with what "will" or "will not" happen.

 

[Jarhyn]

The bolded is good for operationalizing the zeros and ones in some transistor array, but useless for operationalizing choice

Did you miss that big operationalization of, you know, pointing out what part of it is exactly conforming to 'choice'?

That neuron's use of chemo-electric mechanisms - 'See' - isn't an operationalization.

Yes, it is, it's just that most of the choices involved in the "seeing" system make choices on very small scales in fairly bizarre ways. Just because you don't understand the nature of the individual choices that happen on the way to the much more abstract choice process of "seeing", a process of choosing the shape of artifacts to present to another neural system upon which those later choices will accomplish more choices.

The fact that you do not understand that choices compound on one another to create compound choices (in the same way that transistors, resistors and capacitors arrayed between a source and a sink compound) means that you just can ot see that reality in fact allows artifacts to be generated which represent things.

As per the discussion previously, of course it's possible to generate artifacts which, in the context of the system, will be translated into dangerous nonsense, and cause systems to lie, violating another very abstracted form of choice, the choice to live in such a way as to see what is there, rather than seeing what is not there (assuming one makes that form of highly abstract compound choice).

Clearly reality has room for "if A and B, then C", even on its most basic levels: if Particle A is within (distance) of particle configuration B, least action dictates that THEN particle configuration C will arise..."

But it also has room to accomplish as much through simple arrangement of elements that resist, hold, and express further upon the level of activity (or inactivity) present in specific regions of space at some point in time

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

This is simply an expression of the choice "single bit addition with carry in and out".

Would you like me to show what simple choices this is a compound of?

Of course if the universe is deterministic and granular at the quantum level every operation in the universe must conform to some fundamental implementation of "if A then choose X" transition model, making, well... Everything a process of fixed deterministic choice processes, and so it would conform to the definition of "a Deterministic system".

It's just most of the things we care to contextualize specifically with the word "choice" are compound and abstract because they encompass so many other choices that we have to start simplifying the math to work through it all, and then (unwisely, IMO) contextualized it to the operation of humans choosing things that impact human survival.

If you presented different starting conditions, the same process would reify difference such choices.

 

[DBT]

...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".

If it must happen, being inevitable, of course it will happen.

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.

There are never a number of things that can happen in any given instance. Regardless of how many apparent options there are, there is 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.

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.

It's not that 'can' implies 'must,' but that 'must' determines 'can.'

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.

Our limited perspective on the state of the world and the language we use to express and convey our perceptions of it are not necessarily representative of the nature of the system and the inevitability of its events.

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.

No, that is the illusion of our limited perspective on events and actions as they unfold. We think we could have ordered any of the items listed on the menu.

But of course, if we refer to the given definition of determinism, that tells us that no alternate choice or action is possible, that what you order is the only possible thing that can happen in that moment. And of course, each and every moment that follows.

"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.

You cannot know yet...yet what you proceed to order was a forgone conclusion before you pondered over the menu. Your pondering is also fixed in every incremental point in the process, with the conclusion set long before the process was set in motion.

Free will? I think not.

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.

For the reasons outlined above, an illusion of mind and consciousness.

''Over and over, the participants made up just-so stories to account for their nonchoices. Instead of pondering their picks first and then acting on them, the study subjects appeared to act first and think later. Their improbable justifications indicate that we can use hindsight to determine our own motives—just as we might speculate about what drives someone else's behavior after the fact. In their now classic paper, Hall and Johansson dubbed this new illusion “choice blindness.”

Choice blindness reveals that not only are our choices often more constrained than we think, but our sense of agency in decision making can be a farce in which we are the first to deceive ourselves.''

Not only are our 'choices more constrained than we think,' if determinism is true, they are non-existent. An Illusion formed by the limitations of the brain as an information processor.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are never a number of things that can happen in any given instance

Spoken like someone who is incapable of adopting someone else's definition of words.

"can (happen if X happens)" is a discussion of the logical systemic model. It describes branches of the systemic truth, not the immediate output of a "live system."

There is an "if" for every "can", and the fact that you seem to ignore that is where you continually fall down.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

There are never a number of things that can happen in any given instance. Regardless of how many apparent options there are, there is only one possible outcome.

Equating what "can" happen with what "will" happen results in a paradox:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Given that we live in a deterministic world, there is only one possibility, only one thing that you can order."
Diner: "Oh. Okay. Then what is the one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I don't know. All I know is that there is just one thing."
Diner: "Well, I don't know either. So, what do we do now?"

Obviously, we cannot equate what "can" happen with what "will" happen. It distorts reality.

Even in a perfectly deterministic world, the restaurant menu will contain multiple possibilities, and we can choose any of these possibilities for dinner. We will choose just one, of course, but we also could have ordered any of the others.

Our limited perspective on the state of the world and the language we use to express and convey our perceptions of it are not necessarily representative of the nature of the system and the inevitability of its events.

Ironically, if we take the words literally, according to what they actually mean when actually used, they provide a practical and realistic depiction of what is going on.

For example, "I can" refers to an ability to do something that I may or may not do, and "I will" refers to the certainty that I will do something. There are many things that I "can" do, even though there is one thing that I "will" do. If we limit what "I can" do to what "I will" do, then we destroy the meaning of "I can", and may as well limit ourselves to using the word "I will" in all cases.

But we need "I can" to deal with all of the occasions where we do not know yet what we "will" do. It is by the consideration of the many things that we "can" do that we decide what we "will" do.

The deterministic causal mechanism of "deciding what we will do" requires more than one thing that we "can" do.

This is not an "illusion". It is how that deterministic causal mechanism goes about determining what will happen next. It is one of the prior events that causally necessitates our actions.

It is determinism. And, sometimes determinism requires that we consider multiple possibilities, multiple things that can happen, and multiple things that we can choose to do.

To suggest that determinism makes such causal mechanisms impossible is illogical. Such causal mechanisms are what make determinism possible!

 

[fromderinside]

Speculation 'can' has no place in determinism...

I agree. Thus, determinism must remain silent as to things that "can" or "cannot" happen, and concern itself solely with what "will" or "will not" happen.

Even that is too far. Will etc. isn't unless one conditions with 'can'.

 

[fromderinside]

The bolded is good for operationalizing the zeros and ones in some transistor array, but useless for operationalizing choice

Did you miss that big operationalization of, you know, pointing out what part of it is exactly conforming to 'choice'?

That neuron's use of chemo-electric mechanisms - 'See' - isn't an operationalization.

If you presented different starting conditions, the same process would reify difference such choices.

Jeez. Three paragraphs of baloney then a recapitulation of already discredited 'analysis'. I deleted them from my response because they've been presented before.

To you wanting to see what 'simple choice is. It's this or the other this caused that which is impossible since determinism is simply this then that.

Two related comments. 'Can' is one predicting future behavior or observing past behavior organized as one desires. You said it yourself.

 

[Jarhyn]

N

Speculation 'can' has no place in determinism...

I agree. Thus, determinism must remain silent as to things that "can" or "cannot" happen, and concern itself solely with what "will" or "will not" happen.

Even that is too far. Will etc. isn't unless one conditions with 'can'.

No, will still "is" without can: a will may be left undefined for parts it will not hit, but it is even then still a "will", a series of instructions which drive a behavioral engine.

It's that or the other that caused this which is impossible since determinism is simply this then that

Such a ridiculous assertion that it is all just-so, no rhyme or reason or consistent patterns, in the transitions from "these" to "those", which elucidate true things about the system, tables of truth that outline all the patterns: of this, then that.

never mind that I can use principles of such logic to explain "if this voltage is this, then there is at least so much of that".

 

[fromderinside]

N

Speculation 'can' has no place in determinism...

I agree. Thus, determinism must remain silent as to things that "can" or "cannot" happen, and concern itself solely with what "will" or "will not" happen.

Even that is too far. Will etc. isn't unless one conditions with 'can'.

No, will still "is" without can: a will may be left undefined for parts it will not hit, but it is even then still a "will", a series of instructions which drive a behavioral engine.

It's that or the other that caused this which is impossible since determinism is simply this then that

Such a ridiculous assertion that it is all just-so, no rhyme or reason or consistent patterns, in the transitions from "these" to "those", which elucidate true things about the system, tables of truth that outline all the patterns: of this, then that.

never mind that I can use principles of such logic to explain "if this voltage is this, then there is at least so much of that".

Logic is a very low bar dismissed prior the enlightenment.

Re: ''... at least..." Not unless you've confirmed it by experiment.

 

[Jarhyn]

N

Speculation 'can' has no place in determinism...

I agree. Thus, determinism must remain silent as to things that "can" or "cannot" happen, and concern itself solely with what "will" or "will not" happen.

Even that is too far. Will etc. isn't unless one conditions with 'can'.

No, will still "is" without can: a will may be left undefined for parts it will not hit, but it is even then still a "will", a series of instructions which drive a behavioral engine.

It's that or the other that caused this which is impossible since determinism is simply this then that

Such a ridiculous assertion that it is all just-so, no rhyme or reason or consistent patterns, in the transitions from "these" to "those", which elucidate true things about the system, tables of truth that outline all the patterns: of this, then that.

never mind that I can use principles of such logic to explain "if this voltage is this, then there is at least so much of that".

Logic is a very low bar dismissed prior the enlightenment.

Re: ''... at least..." Not unless you've confirmed it by experiment.

No, there still will be at least this much of that even if you never confirm it.

A person's belief in a fact makes it no less true or false.

Evolution would still be happening even if had never been tested and described.

The NOT gate will still be outputting "lows" when given "highs".

Of course it comes into our awareness usually only after we play a game where we formally recognize it following a test, but it will have been what it was both before and after the test.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Speculation 'can' has no place in determinism...

I agree. Thus, determinism must remain silent as to things that "can" or "cannot" happen, and concern itself solely with what "will" or "will not" happen.

Even that is too far. Will etc. isn't unless one conditions with 'can'.

?

 

[fromderinside]

Speculation 'can' has no place in determinism...

I agree. Thus, determinism must remain silent as to things that "can" or "cannot" happen, and concern itself solely with what "will" or "will not" happen.

Even that is too far. Will etc. isn't unless one conditions with 'can'.

?

I misread will. You've conditioned me?

 

[fromderinside]

N

Speculation 'can' has no place in determinism...

I agree. Thus, determinism must remain silent as to things that "can" or "cannot" happen, and concern itself solely with what "will" or "will not" happen.

Even that is too far. Will etc. isn't unless one conditions with 'can'.

No, will still "is" without can: a will may be left undefined for parts it will not hit, but it is even then still a "will", a series of instructions which drive a behavioral engine.

It's that or the other that caused this which is impossible since determinism is simply this then that

Such a ridiculous assertion that it is all just-so, no rhyme or reason or consistent patterns, in the transitions from "these" to "those", which elucidate true things about the system, tables of truth that outline all the patterns: of this, then that.

never mind that I can use principles of such logic to explain "if this voltage is this, then there is at least so much of that".

Logic is a very low bar dismissed prior the enlightenment.

Re: ''... at least..." Not unless you've confirmed it by experiment.

No, there still will be at least this much of that even if you never confirm it.

A person's belief in a fact makes it no less true or false.

Evolution would still be happening even if had never been tested and described.

The NOT gate will still be outputting "lows" when given "highs".

Of course it comes into our awareness usually only after we play a game where we formally recognize it following a test, but it will have been what it was both before and after the test.

Its an experiment FCS, a procedure that removes self from data.

 

[Jarhyn]

N

Speculation 'can' has no place in determinism...

I agree. Thus, determinism must remain silent as to things that "can" or "cannot" happen, and concern itself solely with what "will" or "will not" happen.

Even that is too far. Will etc. isn't unless one conditions with 'can'.

No, will still "is" without can: a will may be left undefined for parts it will not hit, but it is even then still a "will", a series of instructions which drive a behavioral engine.

It's that or the other that caused this which is impossible since determinism is simply this then that

Such a ridiculous assertion that it is all just-so, no rhyme or reason or consistent patterns, in the transitions from "these" to "those", which elucidate true things about the system, tables of truth that outline all the patterns: of this, then that.

never mind that I can use principles of such logic to explain "if this voltage is this, then there is at least so much of that".

Logic is a very low bar dismissed prior the enlightenment.

Re: ''... at least..." Not unless you've confirmed it by experiment.

No, there still will be at least this much of that even if you never confirm it.

A person's belief in a fact makes it no less true or false.

Evolution would still be happening even if had never been tested and described.

The NOT gate will still be outputting "lows" when given "highs".

Of course it comes into our awareness usually only after we play a game where we formally recognize it following a test, but it will have been what it was both before and after the test.

Its an experiment FCS, a procedure that removes self from data.

Experiments do not remove "self" from data, Whatever the fuck you think that means. An experiment just solidifies that the pattern perceived is a pattern in truth (or occasionally invalidates as much).

Again, no formal game is necessary to be played around a transistor for it to be, in fact a transistor. No formal game is necessary to be played around an AND gate for it to BE an AND gate.

It will have material properties necessary to the configuration of matter regardless of whether or how you test those properties.

Such game playing is part of being "sure enough" of a pattern to warrant bringing it up to someone else, but it is unimportant for things to exist as they are.

 

[fromderinside]

Re: ''... at least..." Not unless you've confirmed it by experiment.

No, there still will be at least this much of that even if you never confirm it.

A person's belief in a fact makes it no less true or false.

Data trumps theory especially when the data is rigorously tied to existing material operations.

Truth and falsity are not parts of the scientific method. The method depends on material operations, independence from opinion and on verification of method.

for your pleasure

Experiment in Physics:​

Experiment in Physics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Jarhyn]

Data trumps theory especially when the data is rigorously tied to existing material operations

This isn't a game of cards FDI, and nothing you've said in any way refutes that shits gonna do what shits gonna do, and shits gonna do it according to a fixed set of behaviors

Truth and falsity are not parts of the scientific method.

You appear not even to understand what has been discussed as the relationship of the "truth" of a system.

Clearly though trueness and falseness are a part of the scientific method: it's right there in the "test your conclusions" part: find out whether your hypothesis is "more correct" ("true, within the context") or "less correct" ("false, within the context").

You make a great many red herring claims, and this boring response chain is one of them.

But it's inclusion in the scientific method does not hold a candle to the fact that we can calculate what something that doesn't even exist would do if it did exist, when we have an accurate enough model of the pattern of how things function on a fundamental level.

Again, plenty of things have been spotted conforming to the compatibilist definition of "choice" to in fact include the most fundamental interactions in it: "if (free) electron (in area near atom), (amid field gradient), (while there is an electronic hole in atomic orbital), then ("probably") electron->hole."

and this is just one of the many fixed choice processes in the universe.

the universe is not "this then that". There is a pattern to interactions in how they MAY happen, but while how they MAY happen restricts what does happen, what does happen does not have any impact on what MAY happen according to the readily visible patterns in how the universe functions.

Those patterns, those  truths of the system will be true regardless of where you are in it.

The scientific method does not create such truths, it merely reveals them to us. They will be true regardless of how we faff about.

 

[fromderinside]

Data trumps theory especially when the data is rigorously tied to existing material operations

This isn't a game of cards FDI, and nothing you've said in any way refutes that shits gonna do what shits gonna do, and shits gonna do it according to a fixed set of behaviors

Truth and falsity are not parts of the scientific method.

You appear not even to understand what has been discussed as the relationship of the "truth" of a system.

Clearly though trueness and falseness are a part of the scientific method: it's right there in the "test your conclusions" part: find out whether your hypothesis is "more correct" ("true, within the context") or "less correct" ("false, within the context").

You make a great many red herring claims, and this boring response chain is one of them.

But it's inclusion in the scientific method does not hold a candle to the fact that we can calculate what something that doesn't even exist would do if it did exist, when we have an accurate enough model of the pattern of how things function on a fundamental level.

Again, plenty of things have been spotted conforming to the compatibilist definition of "choice" to in fact include the most fundamental interactions in it: "if (free) electron (in area near atom), (amid field gradient), (while there is an electronic hole in atomic orbital), then ("probably") electron->hole."

and this is just one of the many fixed choice processes in the universe.

the universe is not "this then that". There is a pattern to interactions in how they MAY happen, but while how they MAY happen restricts what does happen, what does happen does not have any impact on what MAY happen according to the readily visible patterns in how the universe functions.

Those patterns, those  truths of the system will be true regardless of where you are in it.

The scientific method does not create such truths, it merely reveals them to us. They will be true regardless of how we faff about.

Whether data falsifies or supports theory is not the same as better or worse, true or false. After all it's a theory, conjecture, fitting of data, something changeable depending on future data.

In my chosen field most data goes to estimating boundaries of hearing, seeing, touching, moving, identifying, lifting, etc. We know there are limits of sensing depending on the physics of that sensed.

Truth and false are rarely meaningful beyond one not reporting when something is there or reporting something is there when there was nothing presented. Even then it is couched in terms of uncertainty rather that that of true or false.

As I understand current physical theory what we experience has little to do with what is the physical basis for what we experience. The basis for that seems to be a result of scale and and the status of fields. Obviously truth or falsity has little meaning given what we experience.

 

[DBT]

There are never a number of things that can happen in any given instance. Regardless of how many apparent options there are, there is only one possible outcome.

Equating what "can" happen with what "will" happen results in a paradox:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Given that we live in a deterministic world, there is only one possibility, only one thing that you can order."
Diner: "Oh. Okay. Then what is the one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I don't know. All I know is that there is just one thing."
Diner: "Well, I don't know either. So, what do we do now?"

Obviously, we cannot equate what "can" happen with what "will" happen. It distorts reality.

Even in a perfectly deterministic world, the restaurant menu will contain multiple possibilities, and we can choose any of these possibilities for dinner. We will choose just one, of course, but we also could have ordered any of the others.

Conflating perceived choices with entailed actions creates the perception of a paradox.

Determinism itself, a series of entailed actions that have no alternatives or deviations, regardless of perception or verbiage, has no paradox.

Our limited perspective on the state of the world and the language we use to express and convey our perceptions of it are not necessarily representative of the nature of the system and the inevitability of its events.

Ironically, if we take the words literally, according to what they actually mean when actually used, they provide a practical and realistic depiction of what is going on.

Words are mere symbols representing our experience of the world that are used for the purpose of communicating information.

We describe what we experience.

Our experience and understanding of the world is limited by the architecture and ability of our brain as a means of experiencing life and the world.

How we use words and what we describe is not necessarily representative of the world as it is.

We may feel that we could have chosen this, that or the other as a number of options are presented to us.

But of course, given the terms of determinism, we should understand that only the determined action is possible at any point in time.

A single reality where other options may or may not be realized at a later time or by a different person, only if determined.

The state of the system and its progression of events entails what happens.

Entailment is not a matter of choice.


''To a determinist, all choice is illusory. The literal meaning of choice is that there are multiple options, and the person selects one of them. Thus, choice requires multiple possible outcomes, which is a no-no to determinism. To the determinist, the march of causality will make one outcome inevitable, and so it is wrong to believe that anything else was possible. The chooser does not yet know which option he or she is going to choose, hence the subjective experience of choice. Thus, the subjective choosing is simply a matter of one's own ignorance - ignorance that those other outcomes are not really possibilities at all.


To illustrate: When you sit in the restaurant looking at the menu, it may seem that there are many things that you might order: the fish, the chicken, the steak, the onion soup. Eventually you will make a selection and eat it. To a determinist, causal processes dictated that what you ordered was inevitable. When you entered the restaurant you may not have known, yet, that you would end up ordering the chicken, but that simply reflects your ignorance of what was happening in your unconscious mind. To a determinist, there was never any chance at all that you could have ordered the fish. Maybe you saw it on the menu and were tempted to get it, and maybe you even started to order it and then changed your mind. No matter. It was never remotely possible. The causal processes that ended up making you order the chicken were in motion. Your belief that you could have ordered the chicken was mistaken.''



Compatibilists are of course 'determinists' who define their own concept of free will in relation to determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

Whether data falsifies or supports theory is not the same as better or worse, true or false

Actually it is.

After all it's a theory, conjecture, fitting of data, something changeable depending on future data

And either it fits or it does not. It is either "true" or "false". Mostly, to be fair, theories end up being false.

But here we are discussing in fact the truth of a system..

The truth of the system is a discussion of what happens which you seem to be very keen on avoiding talking about.

The system is not merely "this then that". Our understanding and in fact every description of physics I have ever read is "IF this, then that."

That is what physics discovers: if/then, TRUTH relationships, in nature.

Try to run from it all you want, but it's right there.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

There are never a number of things that can happen in any given instance. Regardless of how many apparent options there are, there is only one possible outcome.

Equating what "can" happen with what "will" happen results in a paradox:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Given that we live in a deterministic world, there is only one possibility, only one thing that you can order."
Diner: "Oh. Okay. Then what is the one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I don't know. All I know is that there is just one thing."
Diner: "Well, I don't know either. So, what do we do now?"

Obviously, we cannot equate what "can" happen with what "will" happen. It distorts reality.

Even in a perfectly deterministic world, the restaurant menu will contain multiple possibilities, and we can choose any of these possibilities for dinner. We will choose just one, of course, but we also could have ordered any of the others.

Conflating perceived choices with entailed actions creates the perception of a paradox.

The choices are real because the choosing is a real event that takes place in physical reality. It is a logical operation that is actually performed by our own brains.

The paradox is created by attempting to limit what "can" happen to what "will" happen. It logically cannot be done! It produces the paradox of "having to choose between a single possibility", which is an irrational notion.

Determinism itself, a series of entailed actions that have no alternatives or deviations, regardless of perception or verbiage, has no paradox.

I agree. The paradox is created by misusing the words "can" and "will". So, if we stop doing that, then we can eliminate the irrationality that you and others continually insist upon inserting into the proper understanding of determinism.

Determinism means that every event is reliably caused by prior events, without randomness or deviation. And the sequence of events in the restaurant, including the events within the choosing operation itself, are reliably caused by prior events. The notion of possibilities, the things that we can choose to order for dinner, are integral to the choosing operation. They are logically necessary cogs in the fully deterministic decision-making process.

Words are mere symbols representing our experience of the world that are used for the purpose of communicating information.
We describe what we experience.
Our experience and understanding of the world is limited by the architecture and ability of our brain as a means of experiencing life and the world.

Of course. But there is no "mere" about these symbols. They are essential elements of our understanding how our world works, and enable us to pass on this understanding to our children and to our peers. They enable us to logically process events and to plan the things that we will do. In other words, our words are also part of the deterministic machinery.

How we use words and what we describe is not necessarily representative of the world as it is.

Of course. We are always learning new things and we often adjust our words to make them more useful and more accurate.

We may feel that we could have chosen this, that or the other as a number of options are presented to us.

Logic is not just a "feeling". It is a deterministic operation of thought, employed to help us to succeed in the world.

But of course, given the terms of determinism, we should understand that only the determined action is possible at any point in time.

Absolutely not! Determinism does not constrain our many possibilities to the single actuality. Determinism does not constrain what we can do to what we will do. That is an illogical conclusion and a misunderstanding of "no deviation".

Multiple possibilities, multiple things that we can do, are integral components of the logical machinery of invention, planning, and choosing. They exist within that logic and cannot be removed without destroying the logical operation itself.

And, since these logical operations have evolved within the brain because of their survival advantage, it poses an existential threat to attempt to remove them.

''To a determinist, all choice is illusory. ... "

Ironically, Baumeister's conclusion at the end of the article is this: "Hence accepting the reality of choice amid genuinely multiple possibilities seems a more prudent and useful basis for psychological theorizing than deterministic inevitability."

But Roy's picture of determinism is similar to yours. He sees deterministic inevitability as something that eliminates possibilities. And, as a psychologist, he must side with the possibilities and against the inevitability.

I see deterministic inevitability a bit differently. Normally, "inevitability" suggests that something will happen and we cannot do anything about it. But with deterministic inevitability, the mechanism that causes us to choose the Salad instead of the Steak happens to be located within us, specifically our own brain. And it will be our own choosing that causes the Salad to be inevitable.

As a couple of other philosophers (Schopenhauer and Kane) have pointed out, determinism is the basis of our wants. Thus, determinism, when metaphorically taken to be the source of our will, can never make us do anything against our will. It is already what we ourselves were going to choose to do. And it would not happen without our choosing to make it happen.

Deterministic inevitability, in regard to us, is still us choosing for ourselves what we will order for dinner. It happens just so, without deviation.