Compatibilism: What's that About?

[bilby]

That is how it works. If there are no consequences, the behaviour may become widespread. A message must be sent that the consequences of doing this action results in that penalty.

How does sending such a message have any effect whatsoever?

Everything that happens within a deterministic system must have an effect. Information input has an effect on the brain. The content of that information has an effect. If that information happens to be a truck bearing down on you as you cross the road, you jump and run.

Your position (bolded for your convenience) is nonsensical unless it's a choice to impose or not impose consequences for bad behaviour.

IF there are no consequences
THEN
the behaviour may become widespread
ELSE
the behaviour may not become widespread
FI

It's a function that makes a choice. Which is something that cannot be, in the universe as you describe it.

But not only does it MAKE a choice; It DEMANDS a different choice - do we or do we not choose to impose consequences for wrongdoing?

Whether or not the behaviour may become widespread, we don't have any choice about whether to impose consequences, according to your thesis.

So why does that imposition occur? We can't have chosen to punish wrongdoers. Or can we?

None of what you said:

That is how it works. If there are no consequences, the behaviour may become widespread. A message must be sent that the consequences of doing this action results in that penalty.

makes the slightest sense, UNLESS you believe that people can and do make choices.

Nothing like believing to mess up a nice picnic. Belief is all the choice advocate has. Bad pot for pissing, that. Every action has an antecedent. It's not every action is chosen. Agency only resides in the mind of the supposed observing agent, the one who has no choice in the matter.

So what's the point of the observation:

That is how it works. If there are no consequences, the behaviour may become widespread. A message must be sent that the consequences of doing this action results in that penalty.

Why "must" such a message be sent?

The question of whether or not there are consequences is not up for choice; It will happen (or not happen) regardless of our opinions, and the behaviour will or won't become widespread despite anything we might want to do to prevent it.

Unless, of course, our opinions matter, because they help determine our choices.

Your dislike for calling a choice a choice is irrelevant; It looks like a choice and quacks like a choice. It's a choice. It's totally unimportant whether it's a conscious choice, or an unconscious one that's later rationalised as a conscious choice.

Either way, a choice is made. As it must be, because choice is as unavoidable as any other event in a deterministic system.

 

[fromderinside]

Nothing like believing to mess up a nice picnic. Belief is all the choice advocate has. Bad pot for pissing, that. Every action has an antecedent. It's not every action is chosen. Agency only resides in the mind of the supposed observing agent, the one who has no choice in the matter.

So what's the point of the observation:

That is how it works. If there are no consequences, the behaviour may become widespread. A message must be sent that the consequences of doing this action results in that penalty.

Why "must" such a message be sent?

The question of whether or not there are consequences is not up for choice; It will happen (or not happen) regardless of our opinions, and the behaviour will or won't become widespread despite anything we might want to do to prevent it.

Unless, of course, our opinions matter, because they help determine our choices.

Your dislike for calling a choice a choice is irrelevant; It looks like a choice and quacks like a choice. It's a choice. It's totally unimportant whether it's a conscious choice, or an unconscious one that's later rationalised as a conscious choice.

Either way, a choice is made. As it must be, because choice is as unavoidable as any other event in a deterministic system.

You got it right. It doesn't depend on what an observer thinks or believes. An action determined by a previous action is never optional to other regardless of what some observer believes. It was going to happen, it happened, and it caused yet another event to happen in a deterministic chain. It never could have been another.

I don't care if you think it looks like a choice from your perspective of being within the system. It is merely a determined event. Keep your duck, just don't let it convince you what took place is other than a caused event. Leave that to Marvin Edwards at the restaurant.

 

[DBT]

That is how it works. If there are no consequences, the behaviour may become widespread. A message must be sent that the consequences of doing this action results in that penalty.

How does sending such a message have any effect whatsoever?

Everything that happens within a deterministic system must have an effect. Information input has an effect on the brain. The content of that information has an effect. If that information happens to be a truck bearing down on you as you cross the road, you jump and run.

Your position (bolded for your convenience) is nonsensical unless it's a choice to impose or not impose consequences for bad behaviou

IF there are no consequences

THEN
the behaviour may become widespread
ELSE
the behaviour may not become widespread
FI

It's a function that makes a choice. Which is something that cannot be, in the universe as you describe it.

But not only does it MAKE a choice; It DEMANDS a different choice - do we or do we not choose to impose consequences for wrongdoing?

Whether or not the behaviour may become widespread, we don't have any choice about whether to impose consequences, according to your thesis.

So why does that imposition occur? We can't have chosen to punish wrongdoers. Or can we?

None of what you said:

The threat of a penalty modifies behaviour. Most people do not want a hefty fine, lose their license or face jail, for instance.

Some, of course, are not deterred by the law, breaking it if they see the reward makes it worthwhile and the risk of being caught it low. A cost to benefit ratio and a lack of civic conscience.

Most would probably not take the risk.

Neuroscience and the Law:
... Our contention is not that neuroscience does (or will) disprove free will; rather, we contend that free will is an antiquated concept that impairs our understanding of human behavior and thereby clouds our thinking about ethics. ...''


Free Will as a Matter of Law

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


Does moral accountability assume free will…?
It requires a functional brain. To be of sound mind. Sociopaths may have an otherwise functional brain, intelligent, but are unable to feel empathy or care for others, a deficiency in brain function that allows them to kill, steal, rape or torture with a clear conscience.

That is how it works. If there are no consequences, the behaviour may become widespread. A message must be sent that the consequences of doing this action results in that penalty.

makes the slightest sense, UNLESS you believe that people can and do make choices.

Just considering the terms and conditions of determinism as given and accepted by compatibilists, where there are no possible alternate actions.

And as I pointed out, choice requires the possibility of more than one possible course of action when a set of options are presented, yet determinism permits no alternate action, what happens, must happen. Whatever is going to happen, must happen.

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

Determinism
All events develop or evolve as they must without deviation, there are no possible alternate actions, consequently determinism does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

Without realizable alternate options, where lies the choice?

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

''Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

 

[DBT]

Whatever happens within the system is not only possible, it must necessarily happen.

Correct, but you have yet to acknowledge the possibilities that must necessarily not happen.

They were never possibilities. They were perceived as being possibilities. Perceived to be possible does not make it possible.

An illusion formed by limited information. If someone had the necessary information, they could predict what will or won't happen. What won't happen, of course, never had a chance of happening.

That's determinism as you define it.

If events come to the point where you feel the need to 'add a column of numbers' for whatever reason drives your need, you add your column of numbers as determined.

Correct. And, it is indeed my own reasoning that motivates and directs the behavior.

Your own reasoning is subject to the same determination as the action that follows. Every step of your reasoning is fixed by countless elements where you not only have no control or regulation, but no awareness of.

”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.


''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents.''

By your own definition, there are no alternatives, you add your column of numbers and you do it without impediments because - if determined - it is a necessary action.

If it is causally necessary that I will add a column of numbers, then I certainly will do so. But we cannot rule out alternatives or impediments. There actually may be alternatives, but I will not choose them. There actually may be impediments, but I will overcome them.

You will not choose them because they are not a realizable possibility. They cannot happen.

They cannot happen because the terms of your definition do not permit alternatives to happen.

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

The flaw in your definition is saying 'choices' when there was never a chance of choosing an alternative - events - in your own words - being ''causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

Causal necessity does not eliminate alternatives or impediments. Any alternatives or impediments that show up will also be causally necessary from any prior point in time.

The interaction of constituent elements of the system determine what happens. If your future actions are entailed by the state and evolution of system, of which you are inseparable, you have no choice in how it evolves.

You play your evolutionary role while believing in your illusionary freedom to do otherwise.

”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.

 

[Jarhyn]

Scientific Causal determinism is scientific THEORY

Theories are models built on logic founded on set theory

These are then tested through material experiment,

Material experiment? Well, the experiment operates the logic of the universe in a way that has been logically modeled to check the initial observation, but that's all operation of logic and logical comparison.

It's built on logical models of causality. All experiment is as such, creating puzzles from data to isolate causal elements according to the structures of set theory and logic.

You're never getting away from set theory no matter how hard and far you run.

 

[Jarhyn]

You play your evolutionary role while believing in your illusionary freedom to do otherwise

Um, I'm going in later this month to explore the option of castrating myself.

Explain "evolutionary role" there. I'm a being of sight and sound songs and art and text, oh so much text.

I would see that this place is elevated as an eternal beacon with all the words I and others have ever spoken here, so people can read my words and see how I think, and those with empathy towards people such as me can absorb and reflect me into themselves.

While you are busy scrabbling in the dirt, I'm busy rejecting your evolutionary prerogatives for some better model, worked out by the application of hard work and doubt in our own understanding.

The doubt in our understanding does not invalidate the solidity of the reality that there is something there that we are understanding and it points away from the notion that our futures have been optimized or guided by anything other than chaos of some kind, as @steve_bank pointed out.

There is no indication of experiment or observation that makes such "invisible pink unicorns changing the dials" more likely than "the dials are indicating something 'approximately true'".

I don't know why I need to argue this with atheists.

Further, punishment is about helping people change. If you're using "determinism" as such an excuse to think "people can't change, they can only be made afraid" that's just abusive.

Some people can't change that much, I'll grant.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Most possibilities will never happen. Consider the items on the restaurant menu. It is possible for you to order all of the items on the menu. But do you ever expect to do so? No. A possibility is not something that we presume will happen. It is only presumed that it can happen, if we choose to make it happen.

And that is why this claim:

They were never possibilities.

Sounds so damn silly.

They were perceived as being possibilities. Perceived to be possible does not make it possible.

As explained before, a possibility exists solely in the imagination. It is not the same thing as an actuality. We cannot drive a car across the possibility of a bridge. We can only drive across an actual bridge.

However, we cannot build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge.

An illusion formed by limited information.

No, a real possibility is not an "illusion". It is a different kind of mental event, one that serves a practical purpose when choosing a dinner, or planning a vacation, or inventing the light bulb, or designing an actual bridge.

A real possibility is something that we can actually make happen if we choose to do so. It is a realizable option. For example, if we choose to make the Salad happen, we can do so, by simply telling the waiter, "I will have the Salad, please". If we choose to make the Steak dinner happen, we can do that too, by telling he waiter, "I will have the Steak dinner, please".

So, both the Salad and the Steak dinner are real possibilities. Now, if we were to order a cement truck for dinner, then that would be an illusion, not a real possibility. If we tell the waiter, "I will have a cement truck for dinner, please", the waiter will assume we are mentally ill, and having an illusion.

Do you understand now the difference between a real possibility and the illusion of a possibility?

If someone had the necessary information, they could predict what will or won't happen.

Yes. And we often do know what will happen. For example, I can predict what will happen when I press one of the keys on my keyboard: a letter will appear in the text that I'm typing.

However, when I visit a new restaurant, where I'm opening their menu for the first time, I cannot predict yet what I will order. First, I must have some idea of what I can order. The menu will contain multiple possibilities. It lists the many things that I can order. But it is up to me to decide what I will order.

That is how real possibilities work in the real world. There are many things that I can choose but only one that I will choose.

What won't happen, of course, never had a chance of happening.

A possibility has the chance of happening. But having the chance of happening never requires that it actually does happen. Every item on the menu had the chance of being ordered. But only one item would be ordered.

That's determinism as you define it.

You know well by now how I define determinism. Determinism means that everything that ever happens will be reliably caused by prior things that have happened. All events will metaphorically "unfold" in precisely one way. Basically, what we see is what we get.

How did the events unfold in the restaurant? Each customer walked in, sat at a table, opened the menu, considered their many possibilities, and choose what they would order.

Each of these events was reliably caused by prior events, thus satisfying the definition of determinism.

And, in each case, the customer chose for themselves, what they would order from menu of alternate possibilities, thus satisfying the definition of free will (a choice we make for ourselves that is free of coercion and undue influence).

These conclusions are compatible with neuroscience, as well as with sound reasoning.

 

[bilby]

The threat of a penalty modifies behaviour.

Because people can choose how they behave. Yes.

Even in a deterministic universe.

 

[fromderinside]

Scientific Causal determinism is scientific THEORY

Theories are models built on logic founded on set theory

These are then tested through material experiment,

Material experiment? Well, the experiment operates the logic of the universe in a way that has been logically modeled to check the initial observation, but that's all operation of logic and logical comparison.

It's built on logical models of causality. All experiment is as such, creating puzzles from data to isolate causal elements according to the structures of set theory and logic.

You're never getting away from set theory no matter how hard and far you run.

WTF is the logic of the universe? logically modelling logic. Wow. ... and WTF is the initial observation?

What I see is one blinded by logic as the reason generale. The only reason I'd run is if I decided the one so deluded was violent. You've already admitted that whatever logic you form is based on the approximations inherent in measurement. Putting that admission together with your current blast results in squishy.

My methodology holds together much better (See https://iidb.org/threads/compatibilism-whats-that-about.24773/post-1055133)

 

[fromderinside]

The threat of a penalty modifies behaviour.

Because people can choose how they behave. Yes.

Even in a deterministic universe.

(I would have put a thumbs up on your comment had I the leeway for doing so because it makes obvious what is going on in this discussion. ergo this friend of the court comment)

DBT's threat statement is an empirical observation not a choice. That a threat is observed adds to what we know about what determines how we behave generally. It makes more specific why a cause results in a particular effect. It tells us something about how we are wired. That someone would interpret that as choice says more about our ignorance about how one functions in the world than it says about what one is doing.

 

[bilby]

The threat of a penalty modifies behaviour.

Because people can choose how they behave. Yes.

Even in a deterministic universe.

(I would have put a thumbs up on your comment had I the leeway for doing so because it makes obvious what is going on in this discussion. ergo this friend of the court comment)

DBT's threat statement is an empirical observation not a choice. That a threat is observed adds to what we know about what determines how we behave generally. It makes more specific why a cause results in a particular effect. It tells us something about how we are wired. That someone would interpret that as choice says more about our ignorance about how one functions in the world than it says about what one is doing.

How do you get to "modifies" without choice?

How does a threat modify behaviour, if not by causing the threatened party to choose to do something they otherwise would not have done (or to choose not do do something they otherwise would have done)?

Modification demands that until the intervention (in this case, a threat), the choice would have been different.

Which of course, it would.

 

[DBT]

The threat of a penalty modifies behaviour.

Because people can choose how they behave. Yes.

Even in a deterministic universe.

Not according to the given terms and conditions. Choosing, by definition, requires the possibility of taking alternate options.

Determinism, by definition, has no realizable different options.

Which means that our actions are necessitated or entailed, not chosen.

We feel that we are making choices. Given determinism, what we feel as freely choosing from a set of options is an illusion of conscious mind.

''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.''

 

[DBT]

The threat of a penalty modifies behaviour.

Because people can choose how they behave. Yes.

Even in a deterministic universe.

(I would have put a thumbs up on your comment had I the leeway for doing so because it makes obvious what is going on in this discussion. ergo this friend of the court comment)

DBT's threat statement is an empirical observation not a choice. That a threat is observed adds to what we know about what determines how we behave generally. It makes more specific why a cause results in a particular effect. It tells us something about how we are wired. That someone would interpret that as choice says more about our ignorance about how one functions in the world than it says about what one is doing.

How do you get to "modifies" without choice?

How does a threat modify behaviour, if not by causing the threatened party to choose to do something they otherwise would not have done (or to choose not do do something they otherwise would have done)?

Modification is entailed. People breaking the law prompts the need for penalties and penalties set the following conditions. The system evolves as it must. The modification of behaviour is entailed, not freely chosen or freely willed. It's a matter of how the course of deterministic events must evolve.

The law breakers don't will a new attitude or way of thinking, they are compelled to think in terms of punishment, a matter of cost to benefit and how that effects the individuals brain and thought processes (information processing).

Modification demands that until the intervention (in this case, a threat), the choice would have been different.

Which of course, it would.

It can't be different. If it that it can be different, it's not determinism and compatibilists can throw their definition of determinism out of the window and call themselves Libertarians. Which is what many of them are at heart.

 

[DBT]

Most possibilities will never happen. Consider the items on the restaurant menu. It is possible for you to order all of the items on the menu. But do you ever expect to do so? No. A possibility is not something that we presume will happen. It is only presumed that it can happen, if we choose to make it happen.

And that is why this claim:

They were never possibilities.

Sounds so damn silly.

Silly? Nope. It's based on your own definition of determinism. It is stated in terms and conditions that you gave;

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

All events proceeding without deviation is equivalent to nothing else can happen.

Where nothing else can happen, all events proceeding without deviation - your own terms - logically, alternate events are not possible.

They were perceived as being possibilities. Perceived to be possible does not make it possible.

As explained before, a possibility exists solely in the imagination. It is not the same thing as an actuality. We cannot drive a car across the possibility of a bridge. We can only drive across an actual bridge.

However, we cannot build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge.

Imaginary possibilities are irrelevant. They are irrelevant because deterministic reality proceeds without alternate possibilities.

We may imagine all sorts of things that do not and cannot happen, Superman flying through the air, Zeus hurling lightning bolts down from Mt Olympus.....

An illusion formed by limited information.

No, a real possibility is not an "illusion". It is a different kind of mental event, one that serves a practical purpose when choosing a dinner, or planning a vacation, or inventing the light bulb, or designing an actual bridge.

A real possibility in determinism is something that must necessarily happen. What we imagine as being a possibility has no bearing on whether it happens or not.

It either must happen, or it doesn't happen.

If it doesn't happen, given your terms and conditions, there was never a possibility of it happening, just the perception that it might have.....which is an illusion formed by insufficient information.

A possibility has the chance of happening. But having the chance of happening never requires that it actually does happen. Every item on the menu had the chance of being ordered. But only one item would be ordered.

If there was never the possibility of it happening, it is not a possibility.

That's determinism as you define it.

You know well by now how I define determinism. Determinism means that everything that ever happens will be reliably caused by prior things that have happened. All events will metaphorically "unfold" in precisely one way. Basically, what we see is what we get.

Yes, all well and good, but then you throw 'choosing' into the definition, which based on the given terms and conditions of determinism, is an error.

How did the events unfold in the restaurant? Each customer walked in, sat at a table, opened the menu, considered their many possibilities, and choose what they would order.

Each and every consideration unfolded as it must, deterministic information processing resulting in the inevitable order being placed.

Each and every customer according their own state and condition in any given instance in time.

''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.''

 

[Jarhyn]

WTF is the logic of the universe

This is always the question science asks. It first assumes two things: that the universe exists and things maybe known about it, even if that which may be known can contain errors.

logically modelling logic

Wow. Basic conflation and equivocation.

"Application of the rules of logic to model a logical truth"

At least try not to abuse language.

The rules of logic are inviolable and absolute and have been well understood for thousands of years on a basic level.

The logical truth being modeled is inviolable and absolute but we are born ignorant of what that happens to be.

It's all built on set theory, every last bit of science, on the idea that stuff is persistent and operates against itself in fixed ways.

You cannot calculate on measurements or even have units to measure without reliance on set theory.

 

[steve_bank]

The rules of logic are a human invention.

Logic is not reality, or 'The map is not the countryside'. The unverse does not obey logic or scince. Logic and science are human ways to describe reality as we perceive it.

"Application of the rules of logic to model a logical truth"

Say that 10 times fast. The problem with that as I see it is it is self referential, an error in reasoning. Logic is logical because it is logic.

What is the logic of logic? What is the metaphysics of metaphysics? What is the lnguage of language?

How does one realize when one is arguig nonsense.

 

[Jarhyn]

The unverse does not obey logic

Yes, the universe obeys logic, otherwise the fundamental assumptions of science fall apart.

The basis of science is the tacit acceptance that something cannot be both true and false in the same way at the same time.

Everything you believe, think and rely upon, the very definition of determinism, of "system" is founded on that assumption.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

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

Choosing is a causal mechanism. It is a both a logical and a physical process that causally necessitates our deliberate behavior. Thus, it cannot be excluded from the series of events that causally necessitate our actions.

Determinism means that everything that ever happens will be reliably caused by prior things that have happened. All events will metaphorically "unfold" in precisely one way.

Yes, all well and good, but then you throw 'choosing' into the definition, which based on the given terms and conditions of determinism, is an error.

It would be an error to exclude any real causal mechanism from determinism. You have pointed this out yourself, every time that you bring up the unconscious neurological processes that produce our conscious experiences.

Choosing includes all of those unconscious and conscious neurological activities that accomplish the human brain's decision-making function.

This decision-making function is invoked by every customer in the restaurant as they choose from the menu of what they will order for dinner.

I didn't "throw choosing in" to the definition of determinism. It has always been there, by the implication that all events are reliably caused by some deterministic mechanism. Choosing is one of those deterministic mechanisms.

And you are attempting to "throw choosing out". If we throw it out, our determinism becomes an incomplete, and false version of determinism. So, we cannot throw it out.

They were never possibilities.

A possibility is a logical token used by the decision-making function. It is part of the machinery. We cannot throw out parts of the machinery without breaking the decision-making function.

Choosing is a logical operation, just like addition and subtraction. Choosing inputs two or more things that we can do, evaluates these options by some appropriate criteria, and then outputs a single choice, the single thing that we have decided that we will do.

These "things that we can do" are possibilities. And there must always be at least two real possibilities before choosing between them can begin.

Thus, it would be silly to say that "they were never possibilities". They must be real possibilities, by logical necessity, just as a triangle must have three sides, by logical necessity.

All events proceeding without deviation is equivalent to nothing else can happen.

No. As has been explained repeatedly, all events proceeding without deviation is equivalent to nothing else will happen.

It can never imply that nothing else "can" (present) or "could" (future) or "could have" (past) happened. These words invoke the context of possibilities, and the context of possibilities is built into the logical machinery of planning, choosing, inventing, evaluating, etc. The context of multiple possibilities cannot be destroyed without destroying those functions of the human brain. So, let's try not to do that.

We may imagine all sorts of things that do not and cannot happen, Superman flying through the air, Zeus hurling lightning bolts down from Mt Olympus.....

Of course. Our imagination is capable of entertaining impossibilities as well as possibilities. And the decision-making function would screen out impossibilities from our menu of options whenever making real choices. Real possibilities are things that we can actually do if we choose to do them. That's why we stick to the restaurant menu when deciding what to order for dinner. All of the items on the menu are presumed to be real possibilities, items that we can actually have for dinner if we choose them.

Once we know what our real possibilities are, we can proceed to choose between them. That's how the logical machinery works.

A real possibility in determinism is something that must necessarily happen.

That's obviously incorrect. If we took that literally then we would feel compelled to order every possibility on the menu! That's kind of silly, don't you think?

What we imagine as being a possibility has no bearing on whether it happens or not.

Oh, but it does! If an item is not on the menu of possibilities, then it will not happen. (With the exception of my little sister, who is a vegetarian, and will negotiate with the restaurant staff to satisfy her requirements consistent with theirs).

If it doesn't happen, given your terms and conditions, there was never a possibility of it happening, just the perception that it might have.....which is an illusion formed by insufficient information.

There is a difference between a logical object and a physical object. A logical object is, of course, represented via neurological events that take place in the physical brain, so it is not divorced from physical reality, but it is only observed from within the brain.

A real possibility is a logical object. It is the concept of something that can happen or that we can do, under realistic circumstances. In the restaurant, all of the items listed on the menu are real possibilities. They are not "imaginary" possibilities or "illusions" of possibilities. They are as real as any possibility ever gets to be. (When adding 3 to 4 to get 7, 3 and 4 are logical objects that are fed to the addition function to produce the sum of 7. Our possibilities on the restaurant menus are just as real as 3, 4, and 7. The numbers are not "illusions" of numbers, nor are they "imaginary" numbers. They are "real" numbers. The same applies to the possibilities on the restaurant menu.)

The possibility of having the Salad for dinner, and, the possibility of having the Steak dinner, are both real possibilities. We can choose either one of them. The choosing operation will be deterministic, of course, and every step of the process will be causally necessary from any prior point in time.

This means that the possibilities will be guaranteed to show up, as real possibilities, by causal necessity as well as by logical necessity.

 

[steve_bank]

The unverse does not obey logic

Yes, the universe obeys logic, otherwise the fundamental assumptions of science fall apart.

The basis of science is the tacit acceptance that something cannot be both true and false in the same way at the same time.

Everything you believe, think and rely upon, the very definition of determinism, of "system" is founded on that assumption.

Does the USA conform to a map or is a map a crude representaion of reality?

Logic exists in your barin s an abstraction and nowhere else.

Unless of course you board the woo woo choo choo. If the unverse cofrms to logic who invented the logic? Hmmm. God, or maybe The Great Spirit?

Newton's Laws and time as measured by clocks were once cosiderd absolute truth. Then along came time dilation, relativistic mechanics, and quantum mechanics. To call something a law in science is just a manner of speaking. It infers nothing absolute and inviolate.

Science is in n way absolute and I doubt any credible modern scientist would say otherwise. One only has to look at the last 200 yearss of science.

An exercise for you. Extend your index finger, either hand will suffice, and put it against your forehead. Then repeat 'It is all in my head. It is all in my had.'.

I did not say determinism was true, I said it can be based in science. I applied science for most of my adult life. It is not some philiosphal debate for me.

 

[Jarhyn]

Does the USA conform to a map or is a map a crude representaion of reality

Rather, can maps represent countries? Will the representation of the map have error? There is a country there, and the fact of the map and it's ability to be operated is speaking to the solidity of the idea of "logic" in general, something immutably true about reality itself: that there is a thing there to be mapped out in the first place.

We are getting very close here now to first principles.

Either the universe exists and is bound to operate in a logical way, or science would not work, and all is unknowable and unknown nonsense.

Again, I cannot go into the cave and drag you out of it.

If the unverse cofrms to logic who invented the logic? Hmmm. God, or maybe The Great Spirit?

Not my problem, I'm afraid. The very idea of there being something that could be codified as "god" or "a great spirit" would in fact first suppose some logical truth that it operated by, a lack of contradiction.

Where does it come from? Personally I think it is eternal and timeless and unchanging, a set of facts that stands alone, independent of implementations of it.

We get plenty of nutters through here who call it 'god', like that crazy fuck a few months back worshipping binary or whatever and calling themselves god.

It's unimportant what gives rise to such logical systems in isolation. It is merely important to recognize that the system has logical truths even if we cannot access or ascertain the nature of all of those truths.

It infers nothing absolute and inviolate.

Except that reality does not contain actual contradictions. To infer anything at all is in fact to assume the axioms of set theory are to be considered true, that something cannot be true and false in the same way at the same time.

Set Theory, math, comes before science. Science assumes first this is concrete. If it is not and something can be both true and false in the same way at the sam time, then we are in serious trouble. To assume as much as to reject the fundamental premise that knowledge can be realized, even if containing error.

If you could present a different set of axioms than the ones set theory largely converges on, then you would be famous for inventing some new system of knowledge.