Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Marvin Edwards]

Necessity doesn't establish free will.

Free will is established by a meaningful and relevant definition:
Free will is an event in which someone decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.

If we witness this event in empirical reality, then free will is established as a real event, something that really happens in physical reality.

Causal necessity is likewise established by a meaningful and relevant definition:
Causal necessity is a string of reliable causes and their effects, in which the effect of certain causes become the causes of a subsequent effects. Thus, if a set of effects 'A' reliably causes 'B', and 'B' reliably causes 'C', then whenever 'A' happens, 'C' will necessarily happen.

Note that this does not mean that 'A' causes 'C'. 'A' can only cause 'B', and 'B' will then cause 'C'. However, if 'A' happens, then 'C' must necessarily happen.

Thus, with causal necessity, we have the Big Bang making all subsequent events causally necessary, even though the Big Bang is not the meaningful or relevant cause of anything other than what immediately follows. The Big Bang doesn't choose our breakfast for us. Many necessary transformations of the state of things, including the formation of the planets, the evolution of life, and us waking up hungry in the morning inevitably led to our choice of breakfast.

Necessity is not freedom.

Freedom is the ability to do what we want. This requires reliably causing some effect. So, reliable causation is the basis of every freedom we have, to do anything at all.

Causal necessity is thus compatible with freedom, since freedom itself requires a world of reliable cause and effect.

Actions freely performed, as determined, do not qualify as free will.

If it is determined that we will choose for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and undue influence, then that is free will.

Your claim that determined actions do not qualify as free will is clearly false.

Nothing within a deterministic system is freely willed. Will itself is entailed by its own antecedents.

When will is entailed by our own decisions, while free of coercion and undue influence, then that will is both freely chosen and is deterministically entailed by that antecedent choosing event.

Determinism changes nothing. Deterministic causal necessity entails choosing, from the multiple things we can do, what we will do.

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

Searle is wrong to speak of freedom as a subjective experience. The waiter objectively observes us choosing from the menu what we will order. Thus, the waiter brings us the dinner and the bill. He observes no one pointing a gun to our heads. He observes no signs of insanity. Thus, his analysis, that we were free to make that decision for ourselves, of our own free will, is empirically confirmed.

Every customer is choosing for themselves what they will order for dinner, thus free will.
Every customer's choice is the inevitable result of the their own goals and reasons (all reliably caused by prior events), thus determinism.

Determinism + Free Will = Compatibilism. (Determinism - Free Will = Fatalism).

 

[fromderinside]

material measures

FDI, once you are taking measurements at all, you are entering the domain of set theory. To take a thing and quantify it is to operate set theory.

You write down a number? Welcome to set theory.

You speak about a quantity of stuff? Welcome to set theory.

You

physical measure evidence

You operate set theory to collect sets.

text or symbol

Strangely enough this is set theory.

meaningful

Representation Theory.

organized

Set theory.

You really do seem lost here.

Even the very idea of measuring a meter is standing in the concept of the set

Even the idea of measuring the mass of an object is operating by set theory.

Do you really not understand where the foundation of set theory exists in the hierarchchy of thought, reason, and scientific exploration?

There's a reason why Langlands program, a mathematical pursuit, is considered the endgame GUT.

The fact is that "deterministic system" really means "a system bound to a fixed logical truth in it's transition model."

All of science is in fact applied set theory.

We agree that mathematics is a frame for expressing methodological reality (science). WE disagree that mathematics (set theory) is absolute truth.

To wit:

Is Mathematics absolute truth?
https://www.quora.com/Is-mathematics-an-absolute-truth-1?no_redirect=1

It is no more an absolute truth than a microscope is an absolute truth.
https://www.quora.com/Is-mathematics-an-absolute-truth-1?no_redirect=1
Mathematics is a tool—specifically, a system of rules and a language with which to express those rules —that, if followed, can help to reveal truths. It is not, however, a truth on its own.
https://www.quora.com/Is-mathematics-an-absolute-truth-1?no_redirect=1

---

Consider a microscope. The “rules” of using one include positioning the slide onto the stage, turning the focus knob, opening the condenser, then continually adjusting all three to optimize the viewing quality. Are these rules “truths”? In the sense that they consistently lead to a clear image of the specimen, sure, they are truths about the microscope. But these rules work only because the microscope was designed—by humans—to make them work, and they exist only because the microscope exists.
https://www.quora.com/Is-mathematics-an-absolute-truth-1?no_redirect=1
How about the image of the specimen in the eyepiece? Is that a truth? The image observed is in fact a product of the magnifying lens, not the specimen itself as produced by nature. If the specimen’s natural appearance is a truth, our tool for viewing it can, at best, only approximate that truth. And if the image quality of the specimen seems poor or otherwise contradicts preexisting knowledge of the specimen’s true appearance, then we adjust those rules; for example, we improve or extend the microscope’s components until it produces an image consistent with that conflicting information.
https://www.quora.com/Is-mathematics-an-absolute-truth-1?no_redirect=1

---

All of this discussion about microscopes applies just as well to mathematics. Take the statement 1 + 1 = 2. This statement is true, but it is true only within the human construct of decimal notation, like the rules of a microscope. In binary, for example, 1 + 1 = 10. Even if these statements hint at a common truth about the wider universe, that truth is not the statements themselves, which are only impressions of it—like the image in the microscope. Both are at least one step removed from the actual truth they seek to represent. A classic example is the mathematics of Einstein’s theory of relativity, which proposes a new truth (or picture) that revises (or enhances—like an improved microscope) our view of the universe as depicted by Isaac Newton.
https://www.quora.com/Is-mathematics-an-absolute-truth-1?no_redirect=1
The term “absolute truth” implies a statement that is both immutable and eternally transcendent; however, the rules of mathematics and the descriptions of nature derived by their application are forever subject to revision. In mathematics, we apply its existing rules, which suggest preliminary truths. Then, as the rules lead to truths that contradict each other or our observations, we adjust the rules, deduce new truths from these new rules, and repeat the whole process ad infinitum. Granted, that system of rules has been refined over time to the point of becoming quite stable and reliable in certain areas—but, then, so have microscopes.

Does science have the absolute truth?

No. Science does not deal with absolutes.

Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.

That about covers it.

Necessity doesn't establish free will.

Free will is established by a meaningful and relevant definition:
Free will is an event in which someone decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.

If we witness this event in empirical reality, then free will is established as a real event, something that really happens in physical reality.

Causal necessity is likewise established by a meaningful and relevant definition:
Causal necessity is a string of reliable causes and their effects, in which the effect of certain causes become the causes of a subsequent effects. Thus, if a set of effects 'A' reliably causes 'B', and 'B' reliably causes 'C', then whenever 'A' happens, 'C' will necessarily happen.

Note that this does not mean that 'A' causes 'C'. 'A' can only cause 'B', and 'B' will then cause 'C'. However, if 'A' happens, then 'C' must necessarily happen.

Thus, with causal necessity, we have the Big Bang making all subsequent events causally necessary, even though the Big Bang is not the meaningful or relevant cause of anything other than what immediately follows. The Big Bang doesn't choose our breakfast for us. Many necessary transformations of the state of things, including the formation of the planets, the evolution of life, and us waking up hungry in the morning inevitably led to our choice of breakfast.

Necessity is not freedom.

Freedom is the ability to do what we want. This requires reliably causing some effect. So, reliable causation is the basis of every freedom we have, to do anything at all.

Causal necessity is thus compatible with freedom, since freedom itself requires a world of reliable cause and effect.

Actions freely performed, as determined, do not qualify as free will.

If it is determined that we will choose for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and undue influence, then that is free will.

Your claim that determined actions do not qualify as free will is clearly false.

Nothing within a deterministic system is freely willed. Will itself is entailed by its own antecedents.

When will is entailed by our own decisions, while free of coercion and undue influence, then that will is both freely chosen and is deterministically entailed by that antecedent choosing event.

Determinism changes nothing. Deterministic causal necessity entails choosing, from the multiple things we can do, what we will do.

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

Searle is wrong to speak of freedom as a subjective experience. The waiter objectively observes us choosing from the menu what we will order. Thus, the waiter brings us the dinner and the bill. He observes no one pointing a gun to our heads. He observes no signs of insanity. Thus, his analysis, that we were free to make that decision for ourselves, of our own free will, is empirically confirmed.

Every customer is choosing for themselves what they will order for dinner, thus free will.
Every customer's choice is the inevitable result of the their own goals and reasons (all reliably caused by prior events), thus determinism.

Determinism + Free Will = Compatibilism. (Determinism - Free Will = Fatalism).

Your posts lead me to question your handle on psychology, whether it is science or something else. Searle was quantitatively correct to call freedom subjective experience. Anything coming out of a brain fed by just so - that's how evolution works baby - senses is subjective.

As I've mentioned before I'm a retired experimental Neuro-physiological psychologist with about 45 years in the field. I've conducted experiments in all important sensory, perceptual, and emotive domains. Never have I found any quantitative value to words meaning for such as will. It's been operational analysis all the way down turtles.

You might have some claim as a philosopher but you have no claim as to the reality of those categories you gratuitously use probably drawn from coffee table book analyses. Oh sure, people use them. So what? Does spouting now count as material method.

 

[DBT]

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

Searle is wrong to speak of freedom as a subjective experience. The waiter objectively observes us choosing from the menu what we will order. Thus, the waiter brings us the dinner and the bill. He observes no one pointing a gun to our heads. He observes no signs of insanity. Thus, his analysis, that we were free to make that decision for ourselves, of our own free will, is empirically confirmed.

Searle is quite correct.

He is correct because freedom, by definition, means there is a possibility of taking any one of a number of options as they are presented.

Yet, as defined, a deterministic system only permits one outcome in any given instance in time; the determined action.

This is not a matter of choice, but entailment. As the action was entailed long before the decision was made (entailed), the decision is a foregone conclusion, neither freely chosen or freely willed.

Therefore, to define that which is neither freely chosen or freely willed as 'free will' is false.

Every customer is choosing for themselves what they will order for dinner, thus free will.
Every customer's choice is the inevitable result of the their own goals and reasons (all reliably caused by prior events), thus determinism.

Determinism + Free Will = Compatibilism. (Determinism - Free Will = Fatalism).

Given determinism as you have defined it, the customers cannot choose otherwise (choice requires realizable alternatives). They must necessarily do precisely whatever was fixed/determined to transpire before they even entered the restaurant.

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

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

 

[Jarhyn]

We agree that mathematics is a frame for expressing methodological reality (science). WE disagree that mathematics (set theory) is absolute truth

Then you disagree with yourself. Either logic and math is absolutely truth, or the universe is not Deterministic.

The statement that the universe is deterministic is the statement that the universe is bound to math as an absolute truth.

You can punt on one, but then you also punt on the other.

These are equivalent statements.

It's what I've been trying to explain to you from the very beginning.

You cannot make the claim "this is what is observed therefore" without logical claim being sound.

It just does not work.

All conclusion from evidence tacitly employs an application of the assumption of logic being sound.

Any use of language, any at all, is applied set theory.

You can disagree whether mathematics is an absolute truth of the universe, but you can't both disbelieve that and then believe it is deterministic.

So if you can find a set of axioms  other than those of set theory to base your operating definition of "deterministic" on, then go for it. Go right ahead I'll be waiting.

All theories of physics are built first on set theory.

All your discussion of it is built first on set theory.

All your descriptions are built on set theory.

The ability to say "therefore The Universe Is Deterministic"? Also Set Theory.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Your posts lead me to question your handle on psychology, whether it is science or something else. Searle was quantitatively correct to call freedom subjective experience. Anything coming out of a brain fed by just so - that's how evolution works baby - senses is subjective.

The fellow in jail wants a Big Mac for lunch. Is he free to drive to MacDonald's of not? Is this freedom a matter of subjective experience or objective fact?

As I've mentioned before I'm a retired experimental Neuro-physiological psychologist with about 45 years in the field. I've conducted experiments in all important sensory, perceptual, and emotive domains. Never have I found any quantitative value to words meaning for such as will. It's been operational analysis all the way down turtles.

If you have no notion of "intention" or "will", then you will flunk psychology. Consider the experiments on delayed gratification, where the child can either have one marshmallow now, or two marshmallows if he or she can wait. Children able to delay gratification tend to do better later in life.

You might have some claim as a philosopher but you have no claim as to the reality of those categories you gratuitously use probably drawn from coffee table book analyses. Oh sure, people use them. So what? Does spouting now count as material method.

I was a psych major, but I never finished my degree (not big on delayed gratification). I got involved in Student Government and the Honor Court. I was successful though at changing the Honor Court into a Student Court that had more than the single sanction of expulsion. Unfortunately, I had to drop out at that point due to inattention to my courses.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The waiter objectively observes us choosing from the menu what we will order. Thus, the waiter brings us the dinner and the bill. He observes no one pointing a gun to our heads. He observes no signs of insanity. Thus, his analysis, that we were free to make that decision for ourselves, of our own free will, is empirically confirmed.

Searle is quite correct. He is correct because freedom, by definition, means there is a possibility of taking any one of a number of options as they are presented.

In physical reality, there are the options on the menu. Now, tell me which of those options are impossible for me to choose, and how you decided which were possible and which were impossible.

Yet, as defined, a deterministic system only permits one outcome in any given instance in time; the determined action.

The first single outcome was my conclusion that all of the items on the menu could be ordered. Having been assured that they were all genuine possibilities, I could then consider the several items that looked good to me, and then choose which item I would order.

Now, if you were to convince me that it was impossible for me to order anything other than the Steak, then I would give no consideration to any other item on the menu, right?

This is not a matter of choice, but entailment. As the action was entailed long before the decision was made (entailed), the decision is a foregone conclusion, neither freely chosen or freely willed.

Again, just convince me which option is entailed, and I can save a lot of time and effort choosing.

Otherwise, your description of what is actually going on in physical reality is false.

Given determinism as you have defined it, the customers cannot choose otherwise (choice requires realizable alternatives).

Determinism, as I have defined it, means that the customers can choose anything from the menu, because all of the items on the menu can be ordered, and they can be prepared by the chef.

So stop misrepresenting what I've said.

What I've said, and said repeatedly, is that each customer can choose any item on the menu, but each customer only will choose one item.

Determinism assures that only one thing will happen. And, in the restaurant, one of the things that will happen is that each customer will consider the many things that they can choose to decide the single thing that they will choose.

And I've gone into some detail explaining to you the difference between the many things that "can" happen versus the single thing that "will" happen.

So, try to keep what I am saying straight in your head, and stop conflating it with what you would like for me to say.

 

[fromderinside]

Your posts lead me to question your handle on psychology, whether it is science or something else. Searle was quantitatively correct to call freedom subjective experience. Anything coming out of a brain fed by just so - that's how evolution works baby - senses is subjective.

The fellow in jail wants a Big Mac for lunch. Is he free to drive to MacDonald's of not? Is this freedom a matter of subjective experience or objective fact?

An objective option in a subjective environment is subjective.

As I've mentioned before I'm a retired experimental Neuro-physiological psychologist with about 45 years in the field. I've conducted experiments in all important sensory, perceptual, and emotive domains. Never have I found any quantitative value to words meaning for such as will. It's been operational analysis all the way down turtles.

If you have no notion of "intention" or "will", then you will flunk psychology. Consider the experiments on delayed gratification, where the child can either have one marshmallow now, or two marshmallows if he or she can wait. Children able to delay gratification tend to do better later in life.

Intention and will are the very reason one studies psychology. The belief that something is delayed is the subject. The child may have either any time he wants if there is no parental monitor. The problem for the child is the parent not the 'situation' devised by the parent. That the child does 'better' in life is because the child recognizes the resistance is caused by the intervening parent.

You might have some claim as a philosopher but you have no claim as to the reality of those categories you gratuitously use probably drawn from coffee table book analyses. Oh sure, people use them. So what? Does spouting now count as material method.

I was a psych major, but I never finished my degree (not big on delayed gratification). I got involved in Student Government and the Honor Court. I was successful though at changing the Honor Court into a Student Court that had more than the single sanction of expulsion. Unfortunately, I had to drop out at that point due to inattention to my courses.

Oh dear your inattention to what you chose to do 'caused' you to drop out. How quaint.

Excuses, excuses, excuses ... "...the landlord filled the flowing bowl, we drank, and then there was another ..."

 

[fromderinside]

We agree that mathematics is a frame for expressing methodological reality (science). WE disagree that mathematics (set theory) is absolute truth

Then you disagree with yourself. Either logic and math is absolutely truth, or the universe is not Deterministic.

The statement that the universe is deterministic is the statement that the universe is bound to math as an absolute truth.

You can punt on one, but then you also punt on the other.

These are equivalent statements.

It's what I've been trying to explain to you from the very beginning.

You cannot make the claim "this is what is observed therefore" without logical claim being sound.

It just does not work.

All conclusion from evidence tacitly employs an application of the assumption of logic being sound.

Any use of language, any at all, is applied set theory.

You can disagree whether mathematics is an absolute truth of the universe, but you can't both disbelieve that and then believe it is deterministic.

So if you can find a set of axioms  other than those of set theory to base your operating definition of "deterministic" on, then go for it. Go right ahead I'll be waiting.

All theories of physics are built first on set theory.

All your discussion of it is built first on set theory.

All your descriptions are built on set theory.

The ability to say "therefore The Universe Is Deterministic"? Also Set Theory.

Anything put into a box is limited. Surprise. You chose the wrong boxes. Only if there is determinism can there be math or set theory. If the world is deterministic then can there be those topics. Else no frame.

 

[DBT]

The waiter objectively observes us choosing from the menu what we will order. Thus, the waiter brings us the dinner and the bill. He observes no one pointing a gun to our heads. He observes no signs of insanity. Thus, his analysis, that we were free to make that decision for ourselves, of our own free will, is empirically confirmed.

The waiter observes physical actions. The waiter has no access to whatever is happening within the brains and minds of his customers.

Nor do the customers, as conscious entities, their experience of the world and self being generated by the activity of their brain as it receives inputs and responds to that information, have access to their means of their experience of consciousness, mind and thought.

The state and activity of the brain being equivalent to the state, thoughts and feelings of the person as a conscious entity.

Again, architecture and input equal's output: thought and action. This, then that. No deviation. Outcomes fixed by information acting upon architecture.

Free will has no part to play.

''A recent experiment showed that it was possible to manipulate the conscious awareness of willing a movement by delivering a transcranial magnetic stimulus to the area of the brain just in front of the supplementary motor area after the movement had already occurred. This suggests that the brain events of W may occur even after the movement.

If free will does not generate movement, what does? Movement generation seems to come largely from the primary motor cortex, and its input comes primarily from premotor cortices, parts of the frontal lobe just in front of the primary motor cortex. The premotor cortices receive input from most of the brain, especially the sensory cortices (which process information from our senses), limbic cortices (the emotional part of the brain), and the prefrontal cortex (which handles many cognitive processes). If the inputs from various neurons “compete,” eventually one input wins, leading to a final behavior. For example, take the case of saccadic eye movements, quick target-directed eye movements. Adding even a small amount of electrical stimulation in different small brain areas can lead to a monkey's making eye movements in a different direction than might have been expected on the basis of simultaneous visual cues. In general, the more we know about the various influences on the motor cortex, the better we can predict what a person will do. '' - Mark Hallett.

 

[Jarhyn]

Only if there is determinism can there be math or set theory

Says the person using a construct of set theory.

This is further false: all that is required for math and set theory to be identified is that some subset of the system is deterministic.

Making the leap to "the whole system is deterministic" then sits on those things.

As it is we have plenty of folks who think that the universe is not deterministic, right in this thread, who think that it is in fact probabilistic, and that if one were to repeat a moment, the microstates of the system would resolve differently -- but not differently enough to really change any outcomes in the short term.

Still, I would pose that none of them would state that the universe violates set theory or math.

At any rate, I meant what I said: "the universe is deterministic" is a conclusion built on the assumption that set theory is sound and reflected in the fundamental behavior of our universe.

And as I pointed out up thread, the pursuit of science (to derive theory, testable true things that can be said about the system) allows derivation, to the extent that the output of science describes true things about the system, of a list of "if->then", identify a place on that table that represents a "success".

Having a "success" marked out on the tables allows deriving "therefore X ought Y for success", and then all that remains is connecting Y to the output of X and then there is a will.

Whether it's free depends on how well science was done.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The waiter objectively observes us choosing from the menu what we will order. Thus, the waiter brings us the dinner and the bill. He observes no one pointing a gun to our heads. He observes no signs of insanity. Thus, his analysis, that we were free to make that decision for ourselves, of our own free will, is empirically confirmed.

The waiter observes physical actions. The waiter has no access to whatever is happening within the brains and minds of his customers.

Nor do the customers, as conscious entities, their experience of the world and self being generated by the activity of their brain as it receives inputs and responds to that information, have access to their means of their experience of consciousness, mind and thought.

The state and activity of the brain being equivalent to the state, thoughts and feelings of the person as a conscious entity.

Again, architecture and input equal's output: thought and action. This, then that. No deviation. Outcomes fixed by information acting upon architecture.

Free will has no part to play.

''A recent experiment showed that it was possible to manipulate the conscious awareness of willing a movement by delivering a transcranial magnetic stimulus to the area of the brain just in front of the supplementary motor area after the movement had already occurred. This suggests that the brain events of W may occur even after the movement.

If free will does not generate movement, what does? Movement generation seems to come largely from the primary motor cortex, and its input comes primarily from premotor cortices, parts of the frontal lobe just in front of the primary motor cortex. The premotor cortices receive input from most of the brain, especially the sensory cortices (which process information from our senses), limbic cortices (the emotional part of the brain), and the prefrontal cortex (which handles many cognitive processes). If the inputs from various neurons “compete,” eventually one input wins, leading to a final behavior. For example, take the case of saccadic eye movements, quick target-directed eye movements. Adding even a small amount of electrical stimulation in different small brain areas can lead to a monkey's making eye movements in a different direction than might have been expected on the basis of simultaneous visual cues. In general, the more we know about the various influences on the motor cortex, the better we can predict what a person will do. '' - Mark Hallett.

Fascinating, but irrelevant. Free will does not require freedom from our own brain or how our brains operate. It is quite sufficient to simply have a brain that makes decisions for us, while free of coercion and undue influence, to qualify as "free will".

Free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The notion that "free will" requires freedom from cause and effect, or freedom from our own brain, is silly nonsense. Yet the hard determinists keep insisting that we use such requirements in our definition of "free will". No thank you.

Ordinary people use the operational definition of "free will": a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.

Our waiter, for example, objectively observes us choosing from the menu what we will order. He then brings us our dinner and the bill. He observes no one pointing a gun to our heads. He observes no signs of insanity. Thus, he concludes that we were free to make that decision for ourselves, of our own free will, based on empirical evidence.

The waiter does not require a degree in neuroscience or philosophy to know who ordered the dinner and who is responsible for the bill.

That's the point. The compatibilist has a meaningful and relevant definition of "free will" that is consistent with both reliable causation and modern neuroscience. And it is our definition of free will that is actually used when assessing a person's moral or legal responsibility for their actions.

 

[fromderinside]

Only if there is determinism can there be math or set theory

Says the person using a construct of set theory.

This is further false: all that is required for math and set theory to be identified is that some subset of the system is deterministic.

Making the leap to "the whole system is deterministic" then sits on those things.

As it is we have plenty of folks who think that the universe is not deterministic, right in this thread, who think that it is in fact probabilistic, and that if one were to repeat a moment, the microstates of the system would resolve differently -- but not differently enough to really change any outcomes in the short term.

Still, I would pose that none of them would state that the universe violates set theory or math.

At any rate, I meant what I said: "the universe is deterministic" is a conclusion built on the assumption that set theory is sound and reflected in the fundamental behavior of our universe.

And as I pointed out up thread, the pursuit of science (to derive theory, testable true things that can be said about the system) allows derivation, to the extent that the output of science describes true things about the system, of a list of "if->then", identify a place on that table that represents a "success".

Having a "success" marked out on the tables allows deriving "therefore X ought Y for success", and then all that remains is connecting Y to the output of X and then there is a will.

Whether it's free depends on how well science was done.

I'm satisfied you acknowledge some aspect of the world be measured for any of your constructs to be even proposed.

As for your ridiculous tautology sans the need for measurement, you know into which bin it gets placed at the knowledge dairy.

 

[Jarhyn]

Only if there is determinism can there be math or set theory

Says the person using a construct of set theory.

This is further false: all that is required for math and set theory to be identified is that some subset of the system is deterministic.

Making the leap to "the whole system is deterministic" then sits on those things.

As it is we have plenty of folks who think that the universe is not deterministic, right in this thread, who think that it is in fact probabilistic, and that if one were to repeat a moment, the microstates of the system would resolve differently -- but not differently enough to really change any outcomes in the short term.

Still, I would pose that none of them would state that the universe violates set theory or math.

At any rate, I meant what I said: "the universe is deterministic" is a conclusion built on the assumption that set theory is sound and reflected in the fundamental behavior of our universe.

And as I pointed out up thread, the pursuit of science (to derive theory, testable true things that can be said about the system) allows derivation, to the extent that the output of science describes true things about the system, of a list of "if->then", identify a place on that table that represents a "success".

Having a "success" marked out on the tables allows deriving "therefore X ought Y for success", and then all that remains is connecting Y to the output of X and then there is a will.

Whether it's free depends on how well science was done.

I'm satisfied you acknowledge some aspect of the world be measured for any of your constructs to be even proposed.

No. Even the idea of measurement itself sits on set theory, the idea that a quantity shall be what it is rather than what it is not.

Even the very concept of measurement itself is built on a preexisting acceptance of set theory and logic.

As for your ridiculous tautology sans the need for measurement, you know into which bin it gets placed at the knowledge dairy.

Yes. It is the cup of knowledge itself, and whatever you drink comes from it, in the pursuit of knowledge.

 

[fromderinside]

Only if there is determinism can there be math or set theory

Says the person using a construct of set theory.

This is further false: all that is required for math and set theory to be identified is that some subset of the system is deterministic.

Making the leap to "the whole system is deterministic" then sits on those things.

As it is we have plenty of folks who think that the universe is not deterministic, right in this thread, who think that it is in fact probabilistic, and that if one were to repeat a moment, the microstates of the system would resolve differently -- but not differently enough to really change any outcomes in the short term.

Still, I would pose that none of them would state that the universe violates set theory or math.

At any rate, I meant what I said: "the universe is deterministic" is a conclusion built on the assumption that set theory is sound and reflected in the fundamental behavior of our universe.

And as I pointed out up thread, the pursuit of science (to derive theory, testable true things that can be said about the system) allows derivation, to the extent that the output of science describes true things about the system, of a list of "if->then", identify a place on that table that represents a "success".

Having a "success" marked out on the tables allows deriving "therefore X ought Y for success", and then all that remains is connecting Y to the output of X and then there is a will.

Whether it's free depends on how well science was done.

I'm satisfied you acknowledge some aspect of the world be measured for any of your constructs to be even proposed.

No. Even the idea of measurement itself sits on set theory, the idea that a quantity shall be what it is rather than what it is not.

Even the very concept of measurement itself is built on a preexisting acceptance of set theory and logic.

As for your ridiculous tautology sans the need for measurement, you know into which bin it gets placed at the knowledge dairy.

Yes. It is the cup of knowledge itself, and whatever you drink comes from it, in the pursuit of knowledge.

Without reality you have no basis for maths. That means there is no cup nor knowledge. There need be something to measure for there to be reality. Hard to put philosophy any simpler than that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Only if there is determinism can there be math or set theory

Says the person using a construct of set theory.

This is further false: all that is required for math and set theory to be identified is that some subset of the system is deterministic.

Making the leap to "the whole system is deterministic" then sits on those things.

As it is we have plenty of folks who think that the universe is not deterministic, right in this thread, who think that it is in fact probabilistic, and that if one were to repeat a moment, the microstates of the system would resolve differently -- but not differently enough to really change any outcomes in the short term.

Still, I would pose that none of them would state that the universe violates set theory or math.

At any rate, I meant what I said: "the universe is deterministic" is a conclusion built on the assumption that set theory is sound and reflected in the fundamental behavior of our universe.

And as I pointed out up thread, the pursuit of science (to derive theory, testable true things that can be said about the system) allows derivation, to the extent that the output of science describes true things about the system, of a list of "if->then", identify a place on that table that represents a "success".

Having a "success" marked out on the tables allows deriving "therefore X ought Y for success", and then all that remains is connecting Y to the output of X and then there is a will.

Whether it's free depends on how well science was done.

I'm satisfied you acknowledge some aspect of the world be measured for any of your constructs to be even proposed.

No. Even the idea of measurement itself sits on set theory, the idea that a quantity shall be what it is rather than what it is not.

Even the very concept of measurement itself is built on a preexisting acceptance of set theory and logic.

As for your ridiculous tautology sans the need for measurement, you know into which bin it gets placed at the knowledge dairy.

Yes. It is the cup of knowledge itself, and whatever you drink comes from it, in the pursuit of knowledge.

Without reality you have no basis for maths. That means there is no cup nor knowledge. There need be something to measure for there to be reality. Hard to put philosophy any simpler than that.

But it needs to conform to the basis of logic and set theory for there to be reality at all, for there to be things which are as they are rather than things which are as they are not.

Do you really not understand this? That the fundamental assumptions of logic, and yes they are assumptions, are necessary for even the concept of knowledge?

If you can't accept that reality is logical, then you cannot say "reality is deterministic" because determinism is a subset of logical behaviors.

How can you not understand this?

 

[DBT]

The waiter objectively observes us choosing from the menu what we will order. Thus, the waiter brings us the dinner and the bill. He observes no one pointing a gun to our heads. He observes no signs of insanity. Thus, his analysis, that we were free to make that decision for ourselves, of our own free will, is empirically confirmed.

The waiter observes physical actions. The waiter has no access to whatever is happening within the brains and minds of his customers.

Nor do the customers, as conscious entities, their experience of the world and self being generated by the activity of their brain as it receives inputs and responds to that information, have access to their means of their experience of consciousness, mind and thought.

The state and activity of the brain being equivalent to the state, thoughts and feelings of the person as a conscious entity.

Again, architecture and input equal's output: thought and action. This, then that. No deviation. Outcomes fixed by information acting upon architecture.

Free will has no part to play.

''A recent experiment showed that it was possible to manipulate the conscious awareness of willing a movement by delivering a transcranial magnetic stimulus to the area of the brain just in front of the supplementary motor area after the movement had already occurred. This suggests that the brain events of W may occur even after the movement.

If free will does not generate movement, what does? Movement generation seems to come largely from the primary motor cortex, and its input comes primarily from premotor cortices, parts of the frontal lobe just in front of the primary motor cortex. The premotor cortices receive input from most of the brain, especially the sensory cortices (which process information from our senses), limbic cortices (the emotional part of the brain), and the prefrontal cortex (which handles many cognitive processes). If the inputs from various neurons “compete,” eventually one input wins, leading to a final behavior. For example, take the case of saccadic eye movements, quick target-directed eye movements. Adding even a small amount of electrical stimulation in different small brain areas can lead to a monkey's making eye movements in a different direction than might have been expected on the basis of simultaneous visual cues. In general, the more we know about the various influences on the motor cortex, the better we can predict what a person will do. '' - Mark Hallett.

Fascinating, but irrelevant. Free will does not require freedom from our own brain or how our brains operate. It is quite sufficient to simply have a brain that makes decisions for us, while free of coercion and undue influence, to qualify as "free will".

It's not irrelevant.

The means by which our experience of the world and self is absolutely relevant to the issue of free will.

The brain doesn't 'make decisions for us' as if we are a separate, autonomous entity with the brain as an instrument, our means of making decisions.

We have no autonomous existence, there is no homunculus.

We are the activity of a brain. What we perceive, feel, think or do is the activity of a brain. We are whatever the brain is doing'

The condition of the brain is the condition of us. If the brain loses memory function, we no longer recognize ourselves, family, friends or the world.

Free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Nothing to do with free will. Nothing to do with will, but the brain as an information processor, information input interacting deterministically with neural architecture, where the state and condition of the system determines output, be it adaptive or maladaptive.

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


''The increments of a normal brain state is not as obvious as direct coercion, a microchip, or a tumor, but the “obviousness” is irrelevant here. Brain states incrementally get to the state they are in one moment at a time. In each moment of that process the brain is in one state, and the specific environment and biological conditions leads to the very next state. Depending on that state, this will cause you to behave in a specific way within an environment (decide in a specific way), in which all of those things that are outside of a person constantly bombard your senses changing your very brain state. The internal dialogue in your mind you have no real control over.''

The notion that "free will" requires freedom from cause and effect, or freedom from our own brain, is silly nonsense. Yet the hard determinists keep insisting that we use such requirements in our definition of "free will". No thank you.

Nobody has claimed that free will requires freedom from cause and effect.


Why do you keep bringing this up?

Ordinary people use the operational definition of "free will": a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.

That is the illusion of conscious free will.

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

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The waiter observes physical actions. The waiter has no access to whatever is happening within the brains and minds of his customers.

Correct. All that the waiter can empirically confirm for us is that the customer opened the menu, took some time, and then told him what they would have for dinner.

But the waiter also observes that the menu contains multiple possibilities and that the customer only ordered one of them. So, the waiter can empirically confirm that a decision, as commonly defined and understood, was made by the customer. Choosing inputs two or more options and outputs a single choice. The menu input followed by the order output, means a choosing operation just happened.

Nor do the customers, as conscious entities, their experience of the world and self being generated by the activity of their brain as it receives inputs and responds to that information, have access to their means of their experience of consciousness, mind and thought.

First, without even looking into the person's thoughts, each customer saw the same thing that the waiter saw. They noticed themselves opening the menu, and they noticed themselves ordering a dinner. So, each customer also objectively observed choosing happening.

Second, we know that the brain's narrator function is able to report on any thoughts and feelings that rose to conscious awareness during the choosing operation. For example, the brain is able to report that it considered the juicy Steak, and then it recalled the bacon and eggs it had for breakfast and the double cheeseburger for lunch, and started feeling bad about having Steak for dinner. And it felt better about ordering the Salad instead.

And if we scientists were to ask the customer why they ordered the Salad, when they could have had the juicy Steak, the customer's narrator function will provide us with a meaningful explanation of their choice.

The state and activity of the brain being equivalent to the state, thoughts and feelings of the person as a conscious entity. Again, architecture and input equal's output: thought and action. This, then that. No deviation. Outcomes fixed by information acting upon architecture.

Of course. Present events are caused by prior events and in turn cause subsequent events. That's deterministic causal necessity. For example, the menu necessitates choosing, the choosing considers the juicy Steak, but then recalls the bacon, eggs, and cheeseburger eaten earlier, and decides to order the Salad instead.

Your "outcomes fixed by information acting upon the architecture" is metaphorical though. Information does not act. The brain's architecture acts by acquiring information (opening the menu) and processing it via the choosing operation that selects the dinner order.

Free will has no part to play.

The brain, choosing from the menu what it will order for dinner, is the only "actor" on this stage. Free will is what we call it when the brain is free from coercion and undue influence while making this choice. You are right that free will is not an "actor playing a part". It is simply an empirical statement about the circumstances during the brain's choosing: "Was the brain subject to coercion or undue influence while choosing, yes or no?"

Choosing for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and undue influence, is what we call a "freely chosen will" or simply "free will" for short. Because choosing is a deterministic event (the choice is determined by our goals and reasons) so, free will is deterministic.

''A recent experiment showed that it was possible to manipulate the conscious awareness of willing a movement by delivering a transcranial magnetic stimulus to the area of the brain just in front of the supplementary motor area after the movement had already occurred. This suggests that the brain events of W may occur even after the movement."

Neuroscientists can manipulate the brain in many ways, including physical manipulation via TMS and simple hypnotic suggestion. Fortunately, the customers in the restaurant are free of such undue influences.

"If free will does not generate movement, what does?

But Mark, if I choose to raise my hand then my choice will undeniably generate that movement.

"Movement generation seems to come largely from the primary motor cortex, and its input comes primarily from premotor cortices, parts of the frontal lobe just in front of the primary motor cortex. The premotor cortices receive input from most of the brain, especially the sensory cortices (which process information from our senses), limbic cortices (the emotional part of the brain), and the prefrontal cortex (which handles many cognitive processes). If the inputs from various neurons “compete,” eventually one input wins, leading to a final behavior. For example, take the case of saccadic eye movements, quick target-directed eye movements. Adding even a small amount of electrical stimulation in different small brain areas can lead to a monkey's making eye movements in a different direction than might have been expected on the basis of simultaneous visual cues. In general, the more we know about the various influences on the motor cortex, the better we can predict what a person will do. '' - Mark Hallett.

Fascinating, but irrelevant. Free will does not require freedom from our own brain or how our brains operate. It is quite sufficient to simply have a brain that makes decisions for us, while free of coercion and undue influence. That is sufficient for free will.

... The brain doesn't 'make decisions for us' as if we are a separate, autonomous entity with the brain as an instrument, our means of making decisions. We have no autonomous existence, there is no homunculus. We are the activity of a brain. What we perceive, feel, think or do is the activity of a brain. We are whatever the brain is doing. The condition of the brain is the condition of us. ...

That is correct. When the brain makes decisions it is us making decisions. There is no separation between the brain and us while we are making decisions. So, it is truly us that is choosing what we will order for dinner.

And that is why Mark Hallett's lengthy exposition on the details of the brain's operation is irrelevant. The customer and the waiter already know who ordered the Salad for dinner and who must pay the bill.

Nothing to do with free will.

Free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Nothing to do with will, but the brain as an information processor, information input interacting deterministically with neural architecture, where the state and condition of the system determines output, be it adaptive or maladaptive.

Choosing is one of the brain's information processes. It is how the brain reduces the restaurant menu to a single dinner order.

And you're still unclear as to what "will" is about. A person's "will" is their specific intention to do something. The intent motivates and directs our subsequent thoughts and actions till we complete the task. This intention is usually chosen.

For example, we could have had dinner at home, but we decided we would have dinner at the restaurant instead. This freely chosen intent then motivated and directed our subsequent thoughts and actions as we got into the car, drove to the restaurant, walked in the door, sat at a table, opened the menu, and made our second decision, that we would order the Salad. The intention to order the Salad motivated and directed us to tell the waiter, "I will have the Salad, please".

That's how "will" works. We choose what we will do and then we do it. If our will was freely chosen (free of coercion and undue influence) then it is called "free will" for short.

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

If the person's brain is sufficiently dysfunctional to constitute an undue influence upon their behavior, then the dysfunction will be held responsible for the behavior. Otherwise, the person is held responsible for ordering the Salad, and is expected to pay the bill.

''The increments of a normal brain state is not as obvious as direct coercion, a microchip, or a tumor, but the “obviousness” is irrelevant here. Brain states incrementally get to the state they are in one moment at a time. In each moment of that process the brain is in one state, and the specific environment and biological conditions leads to the very next state. Depending on that state, this will cause you to behave in a specific way within an environment (decide in a specific way), in which all of those things that are outside of a person constantly bombard your senses changing your very brain state. The internal dialogue in your mind you have no real control over.''

So, you're going to continue trying to convince us that we should not pay for the Salad? You wish to draw us into the paradox where it is not us, but just our brain that ordered the Salad? Despite your earlier insistence that the brain choosing is actually us choosing?

What are you trying to do here?

Nobody has claimed that free will requires freedom from cause and effect.

What did you think that determinism was, other than cause and effect?

 

[fromderinside]

Do you really not understand this? That the fundamental assumptions of logic, and yes they are assumptions, are necessary for even the concept of knowledge?

If you can't accept that reality is logical, then you cannot say "reality is deterministic" because determinism is a subset of logical behaviors.

How can you not understand this?

Ideals are not reality. I understand full well what I mean.

I used measure which as you know is always uncertain and always in need of improving. No certainty nor perfection in our understanding of reality. If such were not so we'd know know everything already. Determinism as we understand it is approximately deterministic. We can't go further than that because we construct theory through experimental results, not through ideal model (set theory) behavior.

 

[DBT]

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

If the person's brain is sufficiently dysfunctional to constitute an undue influence upon their behavior, then the dysfunction will be held responsible for the behavior. Otherwise, the person is held responsible for ordering the Salad, and is expected to pay the bill.

Nobody is responsible for the state of their own brain. Nobody chooses a dysfunctional brain. Nobody chooses a functional brain. You get whatever cards that genes and environment deal you.

Those who have a functional brain, a functional brain that produces rational behaviour, a person of reason, able to make rational decisions, are expected to abide by the rules of society.

Keep in mind that decision making within a deterministic system is a matter of entailment, necessity, not choice, and that a computer can do that without 'will' or consciousness.

Recall what Martha Farah said:

''I don't think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don't need neuroscience to reject it -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will! Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality -- that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system -- After all, computers are rational physical systems!'' - Martha Farah, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuroethicist.

''It shows us how limited, even misleading, our introspections are. According to the authors, many seconds before we are aware that we have made a decision, we have -- or at least, our brain has! All of the data of cognitive neuroscience are pushing us to replace the idea of mind-body duality, which is so intuitive, with the idea that mental processes are brain processes. But these results on the neural processes underlying free decisions rub our noses in it! One can assimilate findings about color vision or motor control being brain functions a lot more easily than findings about consciously experienced "free will" being a brain function, and hence physically determined and not free at all!''

''The increments of a normal brain state is not as obvious as direct coercion, a microchip, or a tumor, but the “obviousness” is irrelevant here. Brain states incrementally get to the state they are in one moment at a time. In each moment of that process the brain is in one state, and the specific environment and biological conditions leads to the very next state. Depending on that state, this will cause you to behave in a specific way within an environment (decide in a specific way), in which all of those things that are outside of a person constantly bombard your senses changing your very brain state. The internal dialogue in your mind you have no real control over.''

So, you're going to continue trying to convince us that we should not pay for the Salad? You wish to draw us into the paradox where it is not us, but just our brain that ordered the Salad? Despite your earlier insistence that the brain choosing is actually us choosing?

What are you trying to do here?

I don't know how you came to ''you're going to continue trying to convince us that we should not pay for the Salad'' based on what the quote describes.

Nobody has claimed that free will requires freedom from cause and effect.

What did you think that determinism was, other than cause and effect?

The critical part: that what happens now is entailed by prior states of the system, which permit no choice or alternate actions. That the decision making process is a matter of entailment.

What is Determinism?
''How much say do you really have over your actions? Have you ever had that feeling that no matter what you do, the situation was always gonna end up the way it did?

Determinism is the idea that everything that happens in the world is determined completely by previously existing causes. We all know that the world runs on cause-and-effect. Imagine a shot in snooker (or “pool” for you Americans). You hit the cue ball which then strikes another, and the movement of the balls is determined by the laws of physics.

But once you’ve hit the ball, neither you or the balls have any say in which way things turn out! Once the initial cause (you hitting the cue ball) is set in place, everything just follows along through the laws of physics.''

 

[Jarhyn]

Ideals are not reality. I understand full well what I mean.

Then reality is not ideals and reality is not the ideal "deterministic"

Clearly you don't understand what you mean.

I used measure which as you know is always uncertain and always in need of improving. No certainty nor perfection in our understanding of reality

Then you can't make the declaration "reality is deterministic" the way you do...

The fact is that the very idea that things can be measured at all, perfectly or imperfectly, and that there is a set of stuff being measured is set theory.

You really don't understand that even the idea that "reality doesn't go away when I shut my eyes" is itself an assumption built on top of set theory?

All of quantum physics lies on the simple assumption that reality holds no contradictions, which itself assumes a system of axioms that does not trivialize all statements.

First comes set theory FDI. Before you can measure, before you can have even a concept of measurement, and even before you can accept the concept of error, you will find yourself operating in set theory.

Before you can say "there is a thing, let us measure it!" you already rely on "is", "a" and "thing", elements of set theory which assume logic (that which is is, is; that which isn't, isn't, and something cannot both be and not be in the same way at the same time).

You wish to step away from math and I can see why: it's terrifying in some ways to see something that is more fundamental than even our universe, something which constraints not just our concept of universe but which constrains all concepts of all universes.

We cannot perfectly understand our reality specifically, but we can perfectly understand math which constrains all universes. We don't need perfect understanding of reality to solve backwards from a target state such that the solution forms will to action presented to an actor.