• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Compatibilism: What's that About?

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,672
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
The compatibilist proposition is simply that free will is a meaningful concept within a deterministic world.

The proof is this:
P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

Agency just comes down to state and condition of a brain in any moment in time. The internal condition of the brain and external elements that act upon it in each moment in time producing a necessarily fixed response in each and every moment in time.

Right. My brain, faced with the multiple possibilities on the menu, must choose what I will have for dinner. And, since I am free of coercion and undue influence, the choice is my own freely chosen "I will have the lobster, please".

Information acts upon the brain upon which the brain produces an action which is brought to mind.

''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.

The “hard incompatibilist” such as myself says that a person’s brain state at any given moment outputs a person’s wants and desires, and that very brain state is dictated entirely by the person’s biology (no one controls their genes) and environment (and that environment is filled with other people and things that influence those brain states all the time).''
And, because it was I, myself, that made the choice and placed the order, the waiter will bring me the lobster dinner, and will also hold me responsible for my deliberate act by bringing me the bill.

Free will is pretty straightforward that way. So is compatibilism:

The choice is deterministic, because it is reliably caused by my own goals and my own reasons (which have their own prior causes).

The choice is free will, because it is reliably caused by my own goals and my own reasons (which have their own prior causes).

The action was not willed, but necessitated by inputs acting upon neural networks and acquired proclivities.

It is trivially true that 'you' made a decision (common language), but it is specifically true that it was a part of you, your brain, that responded to its inputs without 'you' being aware of the process until thoughts were brought to conscious attention.

You did not freely will your decision. You were not aware of it until after the fact.


You cannot do something one moment, but the next you can do what you could not a moment ago....

You're a little confused there. If "I can choose the steak" was true a moment ago, then "I could have chosen the steak" will be true later, even after I have chosen the lobster. The "I could have" is simply the past tense of "I can".

Nope, time and new information alters the system. You change your mind because information has altered the state of the brain.

The fact that I did not choose the steak does not imply that I could not have chosen the steak. When we speak of something that we "could have done", we are always implying that we "did not do it". So, "did not do" never rules out "could have done", as it is always implied and fully expected by the "could have".

''To make a long story short, the brain state you have at any given moment is dictated by causal processes that are ultimately out of your control. To dismiss this because we “want”, “desire”, “make decisions”, and so on, but then use qualifiers to disqualify other causal mechanisms that would play into those wants, desires, or decision making processes because they seem “less free” – is to make arbitrary distinctions between what causal processes grant “free will” and what one’s prevent “free will”. These arbitrary qualifiers miss the greater point, which is that we don’t have this free will: FREE WILL and no process is “more free”.

For example, remember the traffic light that "could have" remained red, even though it "did not" remain red. We may safely say that the light "would not have remained red", but we cannot say that it "could not have remained red".

We may say the light could have remained red, or could have cycled normally, could have failed entirely....or any of the possibilities that are associated with traffic lights due to their mechanisms and faults, but whatever we say is spoken from our ignorance of the state of the system, but whatever the light does in any given instance in time is determined by its information state in each and every instance in time....with no possible alternate action in any given instance.

The actions that the traffic lights perform proceed as determined. We in our ignorance can only guess based on statistics and our past experience with traffic lights.


That's just how these words work. Because "I can choose the steak" was true at the beginning of the choosing operation, "I could have chosen the steak" will be true at the end, even though "I did not choose the steak", and even though, given determinism, "I never would have chosen the steak". I still could have chosen the steak.

Words are used to communicate our thoughts and perceptions of the world. As such, words do not necessarily represent the means by which decisions are made and actions are taken. Which, for the large part, are unconscious processes.


''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.'' -
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,387
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Your notions of consciousness require too much of growth in capabilities in a single species, and are supported by too little evidence.

... and how do we express their awareness? We consciously recite it. We can't avoid expressing our conscious thoughts in our native language. How's that happen unless something goes through our language processing apparatus? Try to express your consciousness of what you see in visual form, or our smells and tastes. Sure you can be conscious of what you are seeing but when it comes to expressing what you are seeing? Oops. Gotta use that language processor again. So why not take advantage of the vocalization apparatus outputs to make it seem like it is you speaking.

Eyup, Homo Erectus and Neanderthals made pretty complex tools too and they were in the hominid line. So if being a hominid was, with complex tools, the point at where speech became important why not they also be able to keep thoughts and stories alive via speech and perhaps the beginning of consciousness.

Actually, I still give Crick some credit for identifying the minimum neural structures necessary for consciousness. So it's possible that birds and mammals all potentially have some form of consciousness. That would be especially true for those species that have advanced social communication capabilities.

So, Francis Crick is the DNA guy. I haven't read anything by Crick. But I've read books by Michael Graziano, Michael Gazzaniga, and David Eagleman who are all neuroscientists.

My impression is that we can be aware of things without describing them, but we cannot describe them without being aware of them. The semi-spatial neglect syndrome that Graziano describes is an unawareness of objects on one side of the room. Not only is the patient unaware of that side of the room, but he is also unaware that anything is missing. Toss a beach ball at the patient's head from the missing side, and he will reflexively swat it away, but he cannot explain his actions. This demonstrates that the problem is not in the visual mechanism, but actually in the mechanism of awareness.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, let's take a look at something else then, if this pathway of pointing the hard determinist at a real choice is not going to work.

I sit down at a table with my friends. This night we are playing D&D. We are not making choices based on lights, not making choices based on menus. We are looking at a group of nerds spewing varying sounds at each other and drawing absurd marks on paper.

Nothing here has anything to do with survival.

It's barely doing anything at all.

Yet more choice lives around this table than in most restaurants.

Lets look at it...

The rulebook described all the various things one may do. It describes the entire Freedom of Action, in a general way, and even that isn't necessarily "hard and fast".

Most notably, the rulebook offers MANY things.

Despite the fact that the player MAY play one of many classes, they MUST choose at least one*.

Similarly for "race".

At the end of this process over the course, of many offered classes, one is chosen.

It is not chosen by the DM. It is not chosen by the particles on the barest edge of the universe reflecting still older particles back.

There is no cosmic wave from Sirrus B of origin:first cause that may penetrate the walls of this bedroom such that the nerd will choose differently either.

You could, in fact, mostly excise the house these nerds are living in, put in an oxygen feed, and teleport the whole house to the surface of a roughly earth shaped mass with the nerds none the wiser, and they will make all the same decisions they would have had you left them on earth, for the most part.

You might get some divergence just from quantum foam dependent probabilistic outcome differences.

But in the moment, the moment force of THIS stuff no other stuff anywhere, is the stuff that causes the interactions we are concerned about, the flapping around of the meat that causes such patterns as "I slay the dwarf with my crossbow" and "no you didn't unless that's a 20 on your die" and "oh you know it!" And "HUZAAH!"

Nobody asks, in our world of compatibilist determinism, whether we can decide to be both a Wizard and a Rogue at level 1. Unless, of course, the DM reveals in the next moment "oh, forgot to mention Gestalt rules" and then the player says "oh, then I'll be a rogue as well, that was my second choice".

And then the DM may ask "why didn't you choose it" and then the player says "because last week you chose Rogue and I didn't want to seem as though I was following on."

Note that they didn't say "because at the big bang there was a quark at this here position instead of a gluon".

What is missing, even in discussion of "could it have been", which is itself imaginary, is the discussion of momentary state.

In the moment, it is not "all particles everywhere" determining whether a collection of particles on average in some place is in 'high' or 'low' energy state. It is exactly the particles in the neighboring neurons. 'This' collection is agent to 'that' decision, and when a collection of stuff is agent to the decision of events in the moment, this is what the compatibilist calls "choice".

This is not something you cannot claim is non-existent. Localities, collections of stuff, in the moment, act as the decider of events within moments.

If you are not speaking to the reality or lack thereof of collections of stuff acting as agent to the decision of events, then you are not speaking or even debating with the compatibilist but rather just spouting religious preaching.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,387
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
The compatibilist proposition is simply that free will is a meaningful concept within a deterministic world.

The proof is this:
P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

Information acts upon the brain upon which the brain produces an action which is brought to mind.

The brain acts upon the information. To say that the "information acts upon the brain" creates another imaginary causal agent. The restaurant menu lists the meals that the chef is able to prepare for us. But the menu does not force us to choose any of the listed items.

Each person is free to choose for themselves what they will have for dinner.

''The compatibilist might say ...

The compatibilist has actually said P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. So, let's not go wandering all over the place with Trick Slattery.

Coercion is when someone imposes their choices upon us by force or the threat of force.

Undue influences include any other influences that can prevent us from making reasonable choices for ourselves. A significant mental illness or brain injury that imposes hallucinations or delusions upon us, or that impairs our ability to reason, or that subjects us to an irresistible impulse would be one example. Another example would be manipulation by hypnosis or through deception. Another example would the influences of unequal power such as between parent and child, commander and soldier, doctor and patient, etc.

The action was not willed, but necessitated by inputs acting upon neural networks and acquired proclivities.

The definition of free will (P1) does not require freedom from information.
The definition of free will (P1) does not require freedom from our neural networks.
The definition of free will (P1) does not require freedom from our acquired proclivities.

The action of ordering each dinner was deliberately chosen by each customer. And what did they deliberately choose? They deliberately chose an "I will have this for dinner" or an "I will have that for dinner".

The choosing causally necessitated the will. The will causally necessitated the dinner order given to the waiter. It's quite simple

It is trivially true that 'you' made a decision (common language), but it is specifically true that it was a part of you, your brain, that responded to its inputs without 'you' being aware of the process until thoughts were brought to conscious attention.

Nope. You've over played your Libet. I was consciously aware that I was in a restaurant. I was consciously aware while browsing the menu. I was consciously aware that everyone else at the table had already given the waiter their order and they were all waiting on me to make up my mind. Your notion that I was unconscious through all these events is absurd.

There is an interaction of conscious and unconscious brain activity throughout this experience of deliberately choosing what I will do.

As to the timing of my conscious awareness of the choice itself, it was only required that it be in time to tell the waiter, "I will have the lobster dinner, please".

Oh, one more thing, it was not "trivial" that it was "I" that made the decision. After all, the waiter had to know who ordered which dinner and who should receive each bill.

...You change your mind because information has altered the state of the brain.

Right. For example, I may get home and find that the lobster disagreed with my tummy. That's new information. I may find that I regret my choice, and I will think about what I could have done instead. For example, I could have had the steak, or, I could have had the fried chicken, etc.

Another key function of "could have" is examining our past choices. If the choice turned out badly, we want to learn from them. What could I have done differently? How would things have been different if I had chosen that other option instead?

You break these functions when you destroy the meaning of "could have". And worse, when you make us the victims of a slew of imaginary causal agents (determinism, causation, laws of nature, the past, information, etc.) that plot together to control our future, you make the future hopeless.

''To make a long story short, the brain state you have at any given moment is dictated by causal processes that are ultimately out of your control. "

What you and Trick Slattery fail to realize is that those brain states that deliberately choose what I will have for dinner happen to be "me" deliberately choosing what I will have for dinner.

You're creating an imaginary problem, just like Zeno does in his paradoxes. The false, but believable, suggestion that creates the paradox is that my brain states do not include me. Thus you claim that I must somehow exist in a form that is separate from my brain and that I must control what my brain does. It sounds like we must exist as "souls", separate from our brains! So, is that what you're preaching?

The definition of free will (P1) does not require freedom from our brain processes.

We may say the light could have remained red, or could have cycled normally, could have failed entirely....or any of the possibilities that are associated with traffic lights due to their mechanisms and faults, but whatever we say is spoken from our ignorance of the state of the system, but whatever the light does in any given instance in time is determined by its information state in each and every instance in time....with no possible alternate action in any given instance.

The actions that the traffic lights perform proceed as determined. We in our ignorance can only guess based on statistics and our past experience with traffic lights.

The notion of "can happen" is exactly that, a matter of our uncertainty, our "ignorance" of what will actually happen. When we don't know what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare for what does happen.

We slowed down, because the light could have remained red. And we say that with certainty even though we know for a fact that it did not remain red.

When deciding between the steak and the lobster, we begin in ignorance of what our choice will be. But we know with certainty that it can be the steak. And, we know with certainty that it can be the lobster. We are only uncertain about what it actually will be.

At the end of deciding, we know with certainty that it will be the lobster, and we know with certainty that it could have been the steak.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,236
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
From your defining article comes the next paragraph.
A related but narrower definition of active perception represents perception and action within the brain as the same thing. It states that when a person sees an action, it internally translates into, and is understood within the context of, a possible action. This supports the capability in people and animals of learning what to do based on what they see others doing.
So I took the narrower definition, found where scientists applied nervous system attributes in their computer models, and successfully modeled observed behavior. In fact, the primary references to your definition come out of J. J. Gibson's work out of the fifties, sixties, and seventies. That ensemble of behavior are cognitively processed together has never really been an issue. That's predicted in the actual design of the central nervous system.

One can take attributes of the NS and model them as computer modules or one can take psychological complexes and model them by computer. What one needs to ask is whether the presumption of the psychological ensemble is verifiable. It's easier to verify if one model found nervous designs as computer routines then verify the module act as it appears the nervous system acts.

Fair enough. That Wikipedia article is a bit confusing anyway, since it doesn't really address the history of the concept of  Active perception, which originated in  Gestalt psychology. The reason I brought it up is that people tend to think of perception as passive in nature. That is, it is just a raw report of incoming data. What Gestalt psychologists discovered in the early 20th century--well before digital computers--was that humans tended to perceive patterns in nature. That is, the mind supplies information to fill in elements of patterns, even when the raw report from the peripheral nervous system is missing those elements of the pattern. It is easy to prove this phenomenon experimentally, which is why it normally figures into introductory courses on psychology. The narrower sensorimotor concept of "active perception" is not germane to my point. To reiterate, my point is that the mind does not just perceive what the peripheral senses tell us. It matches that against pattern templates, and it can be shown to interpolate elements of a pattern that don't actually exist in the sense data. That is the point I was trying to make to you earlier about the difference between a sound and a noise. A sound is an interpreted noise.

You had said earlier that it should have been evident from your posts that we cannot build models of reality, but pattern templates matched against incoming data from the peripheral nervous system are hard to interpret as anything but building blocks for mental models. And all of this is well-established through observation and experimentation on human behavior. You can't even talk about illusions, let alone optical illusions, without in some way acknowledging that minds, which are created by physical brain activity, build, maintain, and modify models of reality.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Your notions of consciousness require too much of growth in capabilities in a single species, and are supported by too little evidence.

... and how do we express their awareness? We consciously recite it. We can't avoid expressing our conscious thoughts in our native language. How's that happen unless something goes through our language processing apparatus? Try to express your consciousness of what you see in visual form, or our smells and tastes. Sure you can be conscious of what you are seeing but when it comes to expressing what you are seeing? Oops. Gotta use that language processor again. So why not take advantage of the vocalization apparatus outputs to make it seem like it is you speaking.

Eyup, Homo Erectus and Neanderthals made pretty complex tools too and they were in the hominid line. So if being a hominid was, with complex tools, the point at where speech became important why not they also be able to keep thoughts and stories alive via speech and perhaps the beginning of consciousness.

Actually, I still give Crick some credit for identifying the minimum neural structures necessary for consciousness. So it's possible that birds and mammals all potentially have some form of consciousness. That would be especially true for those species that have advanced social communication capabilities.

So, Francis Crick is the DNA guy. I haven't read anything by Crick. But I've read books by Michael Graziano, Michael Gazzaniga, and David Eagleman who are all neuroscientists.

My impression is that we can be aware of things without describing them, but we cannot describe them without being aware of them. The semi-spatial neglect syndrome that Graziano describes is an unawareness of objects on one side of the room. Not only is the patient unaware of that side of the room, but he is also unaware that anything is missing. Toss a beach ball at the patient's head from the missing side, and he will reflexively swat it away, but he cannot explain his actions. This demonstrates that the problem is not in the visual mechanism, but actually in the mechanism of awareness.
 Francis Crick

  • Temporal Resolution of Tonal Pulses

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51, 644 (1972); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912888
Kendrick N. Williams and David R. Perrott

ABSTRACT
Temporal resolution, as defined by the minimum detectable gap between successive tonal pulses, was observed to decrease as a direct function of both the frequency disparity between successive pulses and the duration of the pulses. An interaction between frequency disparity and pulse duration was also observed.

Says awareness of actual input is dependent on duration and intensity of signal input.


Nuff sed.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
From your defining article comes the next paragraph.
A related but narrower definition of active perception represents perception and action within the brain as the same thing. It states that when a person sees an action, it internally translates into, and is understood within the context of, a possible action. This supports the capability in people and animals of learning what to do based on what they see others doing.
So I took the narrower definition, found where scientists applied nervous system attributes in their computer models, and successfully modeled observed behavior. In fact, the primary references to your definition come out of J. J. Gibson's work out of the fifties, sixties, and seventies. That ensemble of behavior are cognitively processed together has never really been an issue. That's predicted in the actual design of the central nervous system.

One can take attributes of the NS and model them as computer modules or one can take psychological complexes and model them by computer. What one needs to ask is whether the presumption of the psychological ensemble is verifiable. It's easier to verify if one model found nervous designs as computer routines then verify the module act as it appears the nervous system acts.

Fair enough. That Wikipedia article is a bit confusing anyway, since it doesn't really address the history of the concept of  Active perception, which originated in  Gestalt psychology. The reason I brought it up is that people tend to think of perception as passive in nature. That is, it is just a raw report of incoming data. What Gestalt psychologists discovered in the early 20th century--well before digital computers--was that humans tended to perceive patterns in nature. That is, the mind supplies information to fill in elements of patterns, even when the raw report from the peripheral nervous system is missing those elements of the pattern. It is easy to prove this phenomenon experimentally, which is why it normally figures into introductory courses on psychology. The narrower sensorimotor concept of "active perception" is not germane to my point. To reiterate, my point is that the mind does not just perceive what the peripheral senses tell us. It matches that against pattern templates, and it can be shown to interpolate elements of a pattern that don't actually exist in the sense data. That is the point I was trying to make to you earlier about the difference between a sound and a noise. A sound is an interpreted noise.

You had said earlier that it should have been evident from your posts that we cannot build models of reality, but pattern templates matched against incoming data from the peripheral nervous system are hard to interpret as anything but building blocks for mental models. And all of this is well-established through observation and experimentation on human behavior. You can't even talk about illusions, let alone optical illusions, without in some way acknowledging that minds, which are created by physical brain activity, build, maintain, and modify models of reality.
Why? It is obvious that no sensing system in humans captures the extent of stimuli available in the local sense world if our limited sensors are within range. We can't model or claim to model reality if we can't imagine or sense reality.

My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,236
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
...
You had said earlier that it should have been evident from your posts that we cannot build models of reality, but pattern templates matched against incoming data from the peripheral nervous system are hard to interpret as anything but building blocks for mental models. And all of this is well-established through observation and experimentation on human behavior. You can't even talk about illusions, let alone optical illusions, without in some way acknowledging that minds, which are created by physical brain activity, build, maintain, and modify models of reality.
Why? It is obvious that no sensing system in humans captures the extent of stimuli available in the local sense world if our limited sensors are within range. We can't model or claim to model reality if we can't imagine or sense reality.

But that's the point. We can imagine the reality that we can't sense. That is exactly what the Gestalt school discovered and proved beyond reasonable doubt with experimentation. You say that you are a retired psychophysicist, but you seem to be completely unaware of the fact that human perception is active, not passive. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I'm not confident at this point that you really understand the evidence. You can use a  tachistoscope to prove it experimentally.

My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
Then explain why it is so easy to prove that perception in humans (and other animals) is active, not passive. That is, we recognize patterns in what we sense, even if the sensory information does not fully support every element of the pattern.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
...
You had said earlier that it should have been evident from your posts that we cannot build models of reality, but pattern templates matched against incoming data from the peripheral nervous system are hard to interpret as anything but building blocks for mental models. And all of this is well-established through observation and experimentation on human behavior. You can't even talk about illusions, let alone optical illusions, without in some way acknowledging that minds, which are created by physical brain activity, build, maintain, and modify models of reality.
Why? It is obvious that no sensing system in humans captures the extent of stimuli available in the local sense world if our limited sensors are within range. We can't model or claim to model reality if we can't imagine or sense reality.

But that's the point. We can imagine the reality that we can't sense. That is exactly what the Gestalt school discovered and proved beyond reasonable doubt with experimentation. You say that you are a retired psychophysicist, but you seem to be completely unaware of the fact that human perception is active, not passive. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I'm not confident at this point that you really understand the evidence. You can use a  tachistoscope to prove it experimentally.

My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
Then explain why it is so easy to prove that perception in humans (and other animals) is active, not passive. That is, we recognize patterns in what we sense, even if the sensory information does not fully support every element of the pattern.
Active perception is clear observing innervation that descending/ascending nervous activity modulates input nervous activity in most human sensory and effector systems. That is irrelevant to my argument.

If one has no access to information one has no means for verifying other than existing information. One cannot model something which one can't experience. If you don't have a palette all you can do is fill in the blanks with the tools you have. That's not going to get you to reality.

It does not matter whether one has the ability to create a map as known by inserting data to complete existing models. Existing models always change as understanding increases.

An example today is dark energy and matter. They are proposed fillers to complete the current theory. But we already see there are elements outside our theoretical model. So completing the model without including the new data goes nowhere because the model has changed in unknown ways.

My problem is we have glimpsed knowledge of the amount of energy out there from our existing models but we will never have the capacity to exploit that knowledge/energy because harnessing such energy is beyond our reach forever. And darn it we don't even know whether energy is the tool we really need to exploit. We may be at the stage mankind was 60,000 years ago and we may not have another 60000 ears to find out.

Finally, imagine what we know versus what is the reality now is like what we knew 60000 years ago was to what we know now. Time problem.
 
Last edited:

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,672
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
The compatibilist proposition is simply that free will is a meaningful concept within a deterministic world.

The proof is this:
P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

Sure, that is the compatibilist argument, the conclusion does follow from the premises....but...as the premises are questionable - the argument from Incompatibilism, etc - the argument is not sound, the conclusion does not prove the proposition of ''free will.''

''A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.''

The problem for the notion of free will is, basically, unconscious agency, the non chosen state of neural networks being acted upon by external information: inner necessitation. Lacking the necessary regulative ability to qualify as being free will.

Necessitation and freedom are not compatible.




Information acts upon the brain upon which the brain produces an action which is brought to mind.

The brain acts upon the information. To say that the "information acts upon the brain" creates another imaginary causal agent. The restaurant menu lists the meals that the chef is able to prepare for us. But the menu does not force us to choose any of the listed items.

Each person is free to choose for themselves what they will have for dinner.

Sensory information is not imaginary. Acquiring and processing sensory information is the very thing the brain has evolved to do. Its role and purpose is to respond to information acquired from the external world.

The restaurant menu is information acquired by your senses, processed, integrated with memory and proclivities, the determined response activated; thoughts and actions proceeding without impediment or restriction.

A highly evolved intelligent system, but not a free will system.

You can do what you want, but what you want is fixed by the state and condition of the information processor. Not the generic 'person,' but specifically the brain.


''The compatibilist might say ...

The compatibilist has actually said P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. So, let's not go wandering all over the place with Trick Slattery.

Its never a freely chosen decision. Determinism means necessitated actions. Each step of the cognitive process is determined from input to action.

We may say ''he is free to chose '' on the basis of outer appearances. After all, we can think and act. That is what we see.

What we don't see is the means and mechanisms by which all of this is possible or how it works.

Our casual comments do not take the underlying means of thought and action into account.


Coercion is when someone imposes their choices upon us by force or the threat of force.

Sure, and necessitation is when information acquired by the senses alters brain activity, with thoughts and feeling brought to mind in response, with no free will involved, just the form and function of the system at work.

Each person according to their own makeup. Each animal according to the architecture of their own brain.



The actions that the traffic lights perform proceed as determined. We in our ignorance can only guess based on statistics and our past experience with traffic lights.

The notion of "can happen" is exactly that, a matter of our uncertainty, our "ignorance" of what will actually happen. When we don't know what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare for what does happen.

Our uncertainty is not the uncertainty of the system, which, if determined has no inherent uncertainy, with events proceeding according to initial conditions and each and every action fixed thereafter.



We slowed down, because the light could have remained red. And we say that with certainty even though we know for a fact that it did not remain red.

When deciding between the steak and the lobster, we begin in ignorance of what our choice will be. But we know with certainty that it can be the steak. And, we know with certainty that it can be the lobster. We are only uncertain about what it actually will be.

At the end of deciding, we know with certainty that it will be the lobster, and we know with certainty that it could have been the steak.

We as conscious being do not have access to the mechanical/ electrical state of the traffic lights, or systems and workings of our own brains.

The brain itself is a modular system with different regions competing for attention. The results are not willed.

How we perceive the world, the traffic lights, our own estimations, uncertainties, thoughts and actions are a reflection of our limited understanding


The compatibilist conclusion may follow from its premises, but as its premises are flawed, the argument is not sound.


''A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.''
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,387
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
 Francis Crick

  • Temporal Resolution of Tonal Pulses

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51, 644 (1972); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912888
Kendrick N. Williams and David R. Perrott

ABSTRACT
Temporal resolution, as defined by the minimum detectable gap between successive tonal pulses, was observed to decrease as a direct function of both the frequency disparity between successive pulses and the duration of the pulses. An interaction between frequency disparity and pulse duration was also observed.

Says awareness of actual input is dependent on duration and intensity of signal input.

Nuff sed.

Sure. There are limits to our sensory apparatus, whether sight, smell, sound, touch, taste, etc. And these vary from species to species. We can see more colors than dogs. Dogs can distinguish more things by smell. I assume the abstracted article is about hearing, and the thresholds of a tone's duration and frequency needed to detect the tone.

Through our curiosity and our imagination we have designed experiments to increase our knowledge of these sensory mechanisms.

Through our curiosity and our imagination we have also created many ways to extended our senses, building telescopes to better examine distant objects, building microscopes to better examine tiny objects.

Perhaps our curiosity and our imagination are, in themselves, mechanisms of sensing the world around us, and another means of making sense of it.

One of the things we have observed is the reliable operation of certain causal mechanisms, like the force of gravity upon the masses of two objects. Another thing we have observed is people encountering problems or issues that require them to make choices about what they will do next (for example, people in a restaurant deciding what they will have for dinner).

Two objective observations, like gravity and people making choices, cannot contradict each other. So, we must assume that the two notions cannot be incompatible. The fact of gravity cannot contradict the fact of choosing. Both are causal mechanisms. Gravity causes objects dropped from the leaning tower of Pisa to fall at a constant rate of acceleration until they hit the ground. Choosing causes the person in the restaurant to resolve the many options on the menu into a single "I will have this, please" or an "I will have that, please".

In the same way that we observe people making choices for themselves, we have also observed people forcing choices upon others. The bank robber points a gun at the cashier, and demands that she fill his bag with money.

The customer in the restaurant was free to decide for himself what he would have for dinner. The bank cashier was not free to decide for herself what to do with the banks money. This is the distinction, between a freely chosen will and a coerced will, is necessary when deciding who is responsible for what happened.

The waiter will bring the bill to the customer, holding the customer responsible for his deliberate act.
But the police will not hold the bank cashier responsible for her actions, because she was forced to act against her will. Instead, they will hold the robber with the gun responsible for her actions.

That is what free will is about, who is properly held responsible for their actions and who is not held responsible.

Determinism asserts that all actions are reliably caused by prior events. This includes the actions of the customer in the restaurant, the actions of the bank cashier, and the actions of the bank robber. And it even includes our own actions, as we decide who is responsible for what in each of these cases.

So, within a deterministic world, the determination of responsibility is reliably caused by the assessment of which parties acted of their own free will and which parties were forced to act against their will.

Thus, we find free will and the lack of free will to be meaningful concepts that are still significant within a fully deterministic world.

Determinism and free will appear to be compatible notions.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,387
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

Sure, that is the compatibilist argument, the conclusion does follow from the premises....but...as the premises are questionable - the argument from Incompatibilism, etc - the argument is not sound, the conclusion does not prove the proposition of ''free will.''

Premise 1 is the definition of "free will". You can challenge the definition by providing your own definition. But, lacking that, the question is simply whether there is any evidence of free will as defined in P1.

The evidence presented for the existence of a choice, that is free from coercion and undue influence, was straightforward. We have all the people in the restaurant deciding for themselves what they will have for dinner. Everyone has seen it and everyone has actually made such a choice for themselves. So, that is sufficient to prove that free will as defined is a real event actually taking place in the real world.

''A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.''

The form is clearly valid and each of the premises are right there for you to attempt to prove any of them false.

The problem for the notion of free will is, basically, unconscious agency, the non chosen state of neural networks being acted upon by external information: inner necessitation. Lacking the necessary regulative ability to qualify as being free will.

1. The brain performs the information processing called "choosing" using functions that include both conscious and unconscious processes. The specific mix is unimportant. But it has already been pointed out to you that each customer is conscious of being in a restaurant, conscious of the menu and the possibilities listed on it, conscious of the need to make a choice, and conscious of themselves telling the waiter, "I will have this, please" or "I will have that, please."

2. You again suggest that we must have the ability to step outside the brain and control what is going on inside it. Unless you are positing a supernatural "soul", your claim is clearly bogus. We, ourselves, are part of the brain's processing. And when the brain tells the waiter, "I will have the lobster dinner, please", that is actually "us" telling the waiter what "we" have decided that "we" will have for dinner.

Necessitation and freedom are not compatible.

I've just proven they are compatible. Now, it is your turn to prove they are not. Good luck!

... The restaurant menu is information acquired by your senses, processed, integrated with memory and proclivities, the determined response activated; thoughts and actions proceeding without impediment or restriction.

Yes. The specific operation is called "choosing". Choosing inputs two or more real possibilities, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and based on that evaluation outputs a single choice. The choice is usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is the thing we have decided to do. Their chosen will sets their specific intent, and that intent then motivates and directs their subsequent action. This is what the brain does.

In the restaurant, choosing inputs a menu of possibilities. Each customer will apply their own criteria of evaluating these options, which can include things like how well it will satisfy their hunger and their tastes, whether it is consistent with their dietary goals, and perhaps the price of the dinner. The option that seems best becomes their choice. Having set their intent upon a specific option, their subsequent action is to tell the waiter, "I will have the X dinner, please".

A highly evolved intelligent system, but not a free will system.

It is a system that causally determines what they will have for dinner by choosing it from many possible options.

Free will is about specific conditions that might or might not apply while choosing. For example, was someone pointing a gun at us and forcing his choice upon us against our will? If so, then we were not free to decide for ourselves what we would order for dinner.

So, either we were free to decide for ourselves or someone or something else imposed a choice upon us against our will.

You can do what you want, but what you want is fixed by the state and condition of the information processor.

Choosing is how the brain's information processing fixes the will upon some specific option.

Not the generic 'person,' but specifically the brain.

I'm pretty sure the 'generic person' includes their brain. The waiter hands the dinner bill to the generic person, making it readily available to the brain through the information processing known as 'reading'.

Its never a freely chosen decision.

Free in what sense? It was certainly a choice free of coercion and undue influence. Thus the "I will have the steak dinner" was a freely chosen will.

Determinism means necessitated actions.

Determinism means causally necessitated actions, that is, the actions were the reliable result of prior events.

A) The prior events may have been our freely choosing the action.
B) Or, the prior events may have been a guy pulling out a gun and telling us what to do.

Determinism makes no distinction between these two events. But we must.

Thus, we have the notions of free will, coercion, and insanity, to determine the nature of the cause, so that we may apply the appropriate means of correction. These distinctions are necessary for us to function as a society.

... We may say ''he is free to chose '' on the basis of outer appearances. After all, we can think and act. That is what we see.

And in most cases, what you see is an accurate picture of reality.

What we don't see is the means and mechanisms by which all of this is possible or how it works. Our casual comments do not take the underlying means of thought and action into account.

We don't see the bones and tendons and veins either. But we can see the robber walk into the bank, point a gun at the bank teller, and demand that she fill his bag with money. We will arrest him for his deliberate act, but we will not arrest the bank teller because she was forced to act against her will.

Some facts are relevant. Some facts are not.

... necessitation is when information acquired by the senses alters brain activity, with thoughts and feeling brought to mind in response, with no free will involved, just the form and function of the system at work.

Causal necessity is granted in P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events. But, because it is always true of every event, without distinction, it is never a meaningful or relevant truth.

Our uncertainty is not the uncertainty of the system, which, if determined has no inherent uncertainy, with events proceeding according to initial conditions and each and every action fixed thereafter.

Yes. Determinism and causal necessity are matters of certainty. They have no knowledge at all of possibilities, of things that might or might not happen. Therefore, determinism must remain silent about what "can" or "cannot" happen, and what "could have" happened or "could not have" happened.

We, on the other hand, must deal with uncertainty on a daily basis. When we do not know what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare for what does happen. These logical tokens are essential to our rational mechanisms for dealing with uncertainty and possibility. To use determinism to wipe out these tokens would also wipe out our means of dealing with uncertainty in a rational manner.

And that would not be a good thing. So, stop trying to harm us all by suggesting that we wipe out free will, responsibility, self, and other meaningful concepts that we humans have evolved to help us deal with the reality before us.

We as conscious being do not have access to the mechanical/ electrical state of the traffic lights, or systems and workings of our own brains.

That's right. Fortunately, we have evolved many concepts and tools of logic to deal with matters of which we lack detailed information, so that we can continue to function effectively, even though we lack omniscience.

The brain itself is a modular system with different regions competing for attention.

Yep.

The results are not willed.

It is unnecessary for us to manage the neural activity within our brain as it goes about choosing what we will do. The result of the choosing is our will and it is our own brains that are doing the choosing.

Determinism isn't doing it. Causal necessity isn't doing it. The "laws of nature" aren't doing it. The "Past" isn't doing it.

It is our own brains that are doing the choosing that causally necessitates our actions.

How we perceive the world, the traffic lights, our own estimations, uncertainties, thoughts and actions are a reflection of our limited understanding

Yep.

The compatibilist conclusion may follow from its premises, but as its premises are flawed, the argument is not sound.

The premises have held up to your objections. They are sound. The argument is thus sound and the conclusion is sound.

''A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.''

Exactly!
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,236
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
Then explain why it is so easy to prove that perception in humans (and other animals) is active, not passive. That is, we recognize patterns in what we sense, even if the sensory information does not fully support every element of the pattern.
Active perception is clear observing innervation that descending/ascending nervous activity modulates input nervous activity in most human sensory and effector systems. That is irrelevant to my argument.

Using technical jargon in a discussion group like this serves no purpose other than to obfuscate what you are trying to say, not that you are saying much with it here. Jargon of this sort turns out to be more of a barrier than a help in explaining your position. I get that you are a retired psychophysicist. Let's focus on the topic--some clear explanation of how you think the well-established gestalt phenomenon works.

If one has no access to information one has no means for verifying other than existing information. One cannot model something which one can't experience. If you don't have a palette all you can do is fill in the blanks with the tools you have. That's not going to get you to reality.

It does not matter whether one has the ability to create a map as known by inserting data to complete existing models. Existing models always change as understanding increases.

None of this is in dispute. Nobody is denying that there is access to existing information from the peripheral nervous system. The fact appears to be that the central nervous system matches them against pattern templates. Those templates or models have to come from somewhere, but I'm glad to see you clearly acknowledging the existence here. That, at least, is progress, in light of what seemed to be your earlier claim that people couldn't build models of reality.

An example today is dark energy and matter. They are proposed fillers to complete the current theory. But we already see there are elements outside our theoretical model. So completing the model without including the new data goes nowhere because the model has changed in unknown ways.

My problem is we have glimpsed knowledge of the amount of energy out there from our existing models but we will never have the capacity to exploit that knowledge/energy because harnessing such energy is beyond our reach forever. And darn it we don't even know whether energy is the tool we really need to exploit. We may be at the stage mankind was 60,000 years ago and we may not have another 60000 ears to find out.

Finally, imagine what we know versus what is the reality now is like what we knew 60000 years ago was to what we know now. Time problem.

Ok, now you are talking about dark energy and matter. Off you go on another gish gallop. I'm sure you'll have fun, but I'll pass on the opportunity to go with you. o_O
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
Then explain why it is so easy to prove that perception in humans (and other animals) is active, not passive. That is, we recognize patterns in what we sense, even if the sensory information does not fully support every element of the pattern.
Active perception is clear observing innervation that descending/ascending nervous activity modulates input nervous activity in most human sensory and effector systems. That is irrelevant to my argument.

Using technical jargon in a discussion group like this serves no purpose other than to obfuscate what you are trying to say, not that you are saying much with it here. Jargon of this sort turns out to be more of a barrier than a help in explaining your position. I get that you are a retired psychophysicist. Let's focus on the topic--some clear explanation of how you think the well-established gestalt phenomenon works.

If one has no access to information one has no means for verifying other than existing information. One cannot model something which one can't experience. If you don't have a palette all you can do is fill in the blanks with the tools you have. That's not going to get you to reality.

It does not matter whether one has the ability to create a map as known by inserting data to complete existing models. Existing models always change as understanding increases.

None of this is in dispute. Nobody is denying that there is access to existing information from the peripheral nervous system. The fact appears to be that the central nervous system matches them against pattern templates. Those templates or models have to come from somewhere, but I'm glad to see you clearly acknowledging the existence here. That, at least, is progress, in light of what seemed to be your earlier claim that people couldn't build models of reality.

An example today is dark energy and matter. They are proposed fillers to complete the current theory. But we already see there are elements outside our theoretical model. So completing the model without including the new data goes nowhere because the model has changed in unknown ways.

My problem is we have glimpsed knowledge of the amount of energy out there from our existing models but we will never have the capacity to exploit that knowledge/energy because harnessing such energy is beyond our reach forever. And darn it we don't even know whether energy is the tool we really need to exploit. We may be at the stage mankind was 60,000 years ago and we may not have another 60000 ears to find out.

Finally, imagine what we know versus what is the reality now is like what we knew 60000 years ago was to what we know now. Time problem.

Ok, now you are talking about dark energy and matter. Off you go on another gish gallop. I'm sure you'll have fun, but I'll pass on the opportunity to go with you. o_O
I reject that one cannot model that which they can't experience. I do it all the time. I'm fairly certain that I can't experience, for example, a zombie apocalypse. Yet somehow I have models for it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

I admittedly don't know whether I can experience time travel or how "I" would experience it, but I habe some models for that too. Albeit incomplete models.

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
Then explain why it is so easy to prove that perception in humans (and other animals) is active, not passive. That is, we recognize patterns in what we sense, even if the sensory information does not fully support every element of the pattern.
Active perception is clear observing innervation that descending/ascending nervous activity modulates input nervous activity in most human sensory and effector systems. That is irrelevant to my argument.

Using technical jargon in a discussion group like this serves no purpose other than to obfuscate what you are trying to say, not that you are saying much with it here. Jargon of this sort turns out to be more of a barrier than a help in explaining your position. I get that you are a retired psychophysicist. Let's focus on the topic--some clear explanation of how you think the well-established gestalt phenomenon works.

If one has no access to information one has no means for verifying other than existing information. One cannot model something which one can't experience. If you don't have a palette all you can do is fill in the blanks with the tools you have. That's not going to get you to reality.

It does not matter whether one has the ability to create a map as known by inserting data to complete existing models. Existing models always change as understanding increases.

None of this is in dispute. Nobody is denying that there is access to existing information from the peripheral nervous system. The fact appears to be that the central nervous system matches them against pattern templates. Those templates or models have to come from somewhere, but I'm glad to see you clearly acknowledging the existence here. That, at least, is progress, in light of what seemed to be your earlier claim that people couldn't build models of reality.

An example today is dark energy and matter. They are proposed fillers to complete the current theory. But we already see there are elements outside our theoretical model. So completing the model without including the new data goes nowhere because the model has changed in unknown ways.

My problem is we have glimpsed knowledge of the amount of energy out there from our existing models but we will never have the capacity to exploit that knowledge/energy because harnessing such energy is beyond our reach forever. And darn it we don't even know whether energy is the tool we really need to exploit. We may be at the stage mankind was 60,000 years ago and we may not have another 60000 ears to find out.

Finally, imagine what we know versus what is the reality now is like what we knew 60000 years ago was to what we know now. Time problem.

Ok, now you are talking about dark energy and matter. Off you go on another gish gallop. I'm sure you'll have fun, but I'll pass on the opportunity to go with you. o_O
I reject that one cannot model that which they can't experience. I do it all the time. I'm fairly certain that I can't experience, for example, a zombie apocalypse. Yet somehow I have models for it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

I admittedly don't know whether I can experience time travel or how "I" would experience it, but I habe some models for that too. Albeit incomplete models.

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,236
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
Science assumes that all observable phenomena have physical causes, not that free will is incompatible with determinism. That philosophical position is more widely known as "hard determinism", and it has nothing to do with science.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist

Using technical jargon in a discussion group like this serves no purpose other than to obfuscate what you are trying to say, not that you are saying much with it here. Jargon of this sort turns out to be more of a barrier than a help in explaining your position. I get that you are a retired psychophysicist. Let's focus on the topic--some clear explanation of how you think the well-established gestalt phenomenon works.


:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Is it, 'the well-established gestalt phenomenon' really more than the sum of its parts. Or is it more like generating a model that matches up with existing expectations (models) do for most illusions?
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
Science assumes that all observable phenomena have physical causes, not that free will is incompatible with determinism. That philosophical position is more widely known as "hard determinism", and it has nothing to do with science.
I see determinism differently from you. It is simply determinism and when applied observation and experiment one presumes a physical basis. One looks back to Descartes and sees he's self-referencing which is something modern scientists have learned to avoid like the plague.

If there is a mind it arises from brain and body information and consciousness seems to be primarily one talking to himself like he's rehearsing a procedure such as toolmaking.

I'm sure animals have been conscious of visual olfactory, somesthetic, motion, scenes for most of the existence of innervated organisms. What's different is that man, with speech, has taken it to subtext just prior to and just after, such as when justifying, execution.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,236
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
Science assumes that all observable phenomena have physical causes, not that free will is incompatible with determinism. That philosophical position is more widely known as "hard determinism", and it has nothing to do with science.
I see determinism differently from you. It is simply determinism and when applied observation and experiment one presumes a physical basis. One looks back to Descartes and sees he's self-referencing which is something modern scientists have learned to avoid like the plague.

If there is a mind it arises from brain and body information and consciousness seems to be primarily one talking to himself like he's rehearsing a procedure such as toolmaking.

I'm sure animals have been conscious of visual olfactory, somesthetic, motion, scenes for most of the existence of innervated organisms. What's different is that man, with speech, has taken it to subtext just prior to execution.
We really aren't connecting with each other on this subject, so it is best to let it go. I know I've said that before, but you seemed to want to keep it going. I'm content to let it rest where it is.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
Science assumes that all observable phenomena have physical causes, not that free will is incompatible with determinism. That philosophical position is more widely known as "hard determinism", and it has nothing to do with science.
I see determinism differently from you. It is simply determinism and when applied observation and experiment one presumes a physical basis. One looks back to Descartes and sees he's self-referencing which is something modern scientists have learned to avoid like the plague.

If there is a mind it arises from brain and body information and consciousness seems to be primarily one talking to himself like he's rehearsing a procedure such as toolmaking.

I'm sure animals have been conscious of visual olfactory, somesthetic, motion, scenes for most of the existence of innervated organisms. What's different is that man, with speech, has taken it to subtext just prior to execution.
We really aren't connecting with each other on this subject, so it is best to let it go. I know I've said that before, but you seemed to want to keep it going. I'm content to let it rest where it is.
As I see it the only reason to posit 'hard' determinism is to make room in determinism for such as self-referenced attributes. Unless you can specify something beyond that you are right we have little to discuss.

However, if you can show that determinism has meaning relative to will beyond self-reference attribution we should be game on.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,236
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
However, if you can show that determinism has meaning relative to will beyond self-reference attribution we should be game on.
I will refer you to Marvin's posts. He does an excellent job of explaining the meaning of free will in the context of determinism. The "freedom" in free will is not in reference to freedom from causal necessity. You don't need me for that, and I think it's best that we terminate our discussion on this subject.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
However, if you can show that determinism has meaning relative to will beyond self-reference attribution we should be game on.
I will refer you to Marvin's posts. He does an excellent job of explaining the meaning of free will in the context of determinism. The "freedom" in free will is not in reference to freedom from causal necessity. You don't need me for that, and I think it's best that we terminate our discussion on this subject.
I agree. Since you don't know that 'causal necessity' is a door opener for self-reference further between s would probably hopeless. Besides I've engaged Marvin and he thinks the world of Wundt which is why I don't bother with him any more.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,672
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

Sure, that is the compatibilist argument, the conclusion does follow from the premises....but...as the premises are questionable - the argument from Incompatibilism, etc - the argument is not sound, the conclusion does not prove the proposition of ''free will.''

Premise 1 is the definition of "free will". You can challenge the definition by providing your own definition. But, lacking that, the question is simply whether there is any evidence of free will as defined in P1.

As I happen to be arguing that the term 'free will' does not represent the mechanics of cognition, decision making or motor action - for the given reasons - I argue that there is no such thing as 'free will.'

If I was to speculate on what free will would look like, I would say it must include regulative control through the power of will, the ability to do otherwise in any given instance in time.

Which of course is impossible within a determined system. And of course, will does not play the role of decisionmaker within the brain, which - you guessed it - is unconscious information processing that produces experiences and actions.

Consequently, free will is impossible any way you look at it, and carefully crafted definitions fail to prove the proposition;

''If you accept regulative control as a necessary part of free will, it seems impossible either way:
1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise
2. Indeterminate actions happens randomly and without intent or control
3. Therefore indeterminism and free will are incompatible
4. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable
5. Therefore determinism is incompatible with free will.''


The compatibilist conclusion may follow from its premises, but as its premises are flawed, the argument is not sound.

The premises have held up to your objections. They are sound. The argument is thus sound and the conclusion is sound.

I disagree. Compatibilist premises fail to account for the nature of determinism (fixed outcomes rather than 'reliable causality'), brain function, information processing and motor action - that unconscious processes determine action based on architecture, inputs, proclivities, etc - therefore do not hold up as a valid set of premises.

''Almost all of behavior involves motor function, from talking to gesturing to walking. But even a simple movement like reaching out to pick up a glass of water can be a complex motor task to study. Not only does your brain have to figure out which muscles to contract and in which order to steer your hand to the glass, it also has to estimate the force needed to pick up the glass. Other factors, like how much water is in the glass and what material the glass is made from, also influence the brains calculations. Not surprisingly, there are many anatomical regions which are involved in motor function.''

''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. ''


''A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.''

Exactly!

Which, for the given reasons, is a problem for compatibilism.

Trouble with Compatibilism

''Here, in a nutshell, is Sartorio's main thesis: even if everything in the universe is fully determined in advance, there is nevertheless a sense in which our actions can make a difference in the world.

But of course here's what puzzles me, and what seems to puzzle most of compatibilism's opponents as far as I can tell: how compatibilism is supposed to be at all interesting, regardless of how we spell it out. After all, suppose I said to you: "All of your actions were determined billions of years ago. But, don't worry, you can make a real difference in the world. I have a philosophical analysis of 'making a difference' that proves it!" The obvious enough rejoinder seems to me to be this: "Well, of course. Surely there has to be a sense in which I can make a difference in the world. My actions are mine, after all -- they belong to me -- and there's clearly a sense in which they do make a difference in what happens. If the laws of nature cause me to drink a Coke, then, indeed, I have made a difference in the world: there is one less Coke to drink. But so what? It's one thing to say that there's a sense in which I can make a difference in the world. It's another thing to show that it is a sense worth philosophically caring about."


Here is the problem. Frankfurt cases are strongly disanalogous to physical determinism. In a Frankfurt case, the person's action is not determined by any actual physical laws. The sense in which the person "cannot do otherwise" is entirely counterfactual. It is that if they tried to choose otherwise, someone (or some mechanism) would step in and ensure that they don't succeed. But this "trying" isn't even possible under physical determinism. It's not the case that if I tried to behave otherwise than I do, physical laws would step in and stop me. It's that I can't even try to behave otherwise if physical determinism is true (it is not a physical possibility). This, then, is the problem with Frankfurt cases. They push certain intuitions -- that we can be morally responsible for our actions even if we couldn't do otherwise -- because, contrary to determinism, they smuggle in libertarian intuitions. They do this because alternative possibilities are only ruled out counterfactually. For all Frankfurt cases show, the reason why we judge a person free and responsible in those cases is that (A) we judge the person had libertarian free will to make the choice (they caused their action independently of physical laws), but (B) alternative possibilities are counterfactually ruled out because, if they libertarian-ly tried to choose something else, some mechanism would force them to behave the same way.

Accordingly, Frankfurt cases don't seem sufficient to me to philosophically motivate compatibilism. They're a poor analogy to determinism. In order to motivate compatibilism, we would have to tell a story like the one above (about voting for democrats) using determinism. But when we tell such a story, it doesn't seem at all like the person is free or morally responsible.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist

Using technical jargon in a discussion group like this serves no purpose other than to obfuscate what you are trying to say, not that you are saying much with it here. Jargon of this sort turns out to be more of a barrier than a help in explaining your position. I get that you are a retired psychophysicist. Let's focus on the topic--some clear explanation of how you think the well-established gestalt phenomenon works.

[Not even any of the actual content of my post]
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
[Nothing to do with my comments or post]
I'm not digging into your Gish Gallop or any red herrings. Swing again maybe?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
Then explain why it is so easy to prove that perception in humans (and other animals) is active, not passive. That is, we recognize patterns in what we sense, even if the sensory information does not fully support every element of the pattern.
Active perception is clear observing innervation that descending/ascending nervous activity modulates input nervous activity in most human sensory and effector systems. That is irrelevant to my argument.

Using technical jargon in a discussion group like this serves no purpose other than to obfuscate what you are trying to say, not that you are saying much with it here. Jargon of this sort turns out to be more of a barrier than a help in explaining your position. I get that you are a retired psychophysicist. Let's focus on the topic--some clear explanation of how you think the well-established gestalt phenomenon works.

If one has no access to information one has no means for verifying other than existing information. One cannot model something which one can't experience. If you don't have a palette all you can do is fill in the blanks with the tools you have. That's not going to get you to reality.

It does not matter whether one has the ability to create a map as known by inserting data to complete existing models. Existing models always change as understanding increases.

None of this is in dispute. Nobody is denying that there is access to existing information from the peripheral nervous system. The fact appears to be that the central nervous system matches them against pattern templates. Those templates or models have to come from somewhere, but I'm glad to see you clearly acknowledging the existence here. That, at least, is progress, in light of what seemed to be your earlier claim that people couldn't build models of reality.

An example today is dark energy and matter. They are proposed fillers to complete the current theory. But we already see there are elements outside our theoretical model. So completing the model without including the new data goes nowhere because the model has changed in unknown ways.

My problem is we have glimpsed knowledge of the amount of energy out there from our existing models but we will never have the capacity to exploit that knowledge/energy because harnessing such energy is beyond our reach forever. And darn it we don't even know whether energy is the tool we really need to exploit. We may be at the stage mankind was 60,000 years ago and we may not have another 60000 ears to find out.

Finally, imagine what we know versus what is the reality now is like what we knew 60000 years ago was to what we know now. Time problem.

Ok, now you are talking about dark energy and matter. Off you go on another gish gallop. I'm sure you'll have fun, but I'll pass on the opportunity to go with you. o_O
I reject that one cannot model that which they can't experience. I do it all the time. I'm fairly certain that I can't experience, for example, a zombie apocalypse. Yet somehow I have models for it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

I admittedly don't know whether I can experience time travel or how "I" would experience it, but I habe some models for that too. Albeit incomplete models.

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
Good thing that I'm a determinist then.

Compatibilist are determinists, we just recognize that the ideas of free will are not incompatible with determinism.

Or in other words: I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events. Which each themselves generate a frame and put it on the screen in a fully deterministic fashion.

Yet I can still point in this to localities which have free will relative to the others and these relationships are part of the system: they are real. I could not even set up the system were this not so, so as to have it contain events that isolate from one another.

The fact that the data sits in the available field of the context (memory in this case) doesn't change the fact that it, like our own more complicated (ostensibly) universe, contains discrete localities and those discrete localities do not express the same stuff in the same fields at the same location.

Compatibilism IS determinism. It's just that determinism does not require as you think it does the removal of concepts of free will, it merely exposed it as a very sloppy concept prior to compatibilism picking it up, dusting it off, knocking a bunch of weird and unnecessary assumptions about it, and then shoving it back into the world view to pin down the gears of goal oriented thinking once more and otherwise prevent the birth of The Stranger.

Even knowing the future (as long as it's not my future... Things get very fucky in that space!) Does not change this, that in the moment we are the causal agents insofar as we isolate our question to "as it relates to some particular event such as which path we walk down"
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,387
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

As I happen to be arguing that the term 'free will' does not represent the mechanics of cognition, decision making or motor action - for the given reasons - I argue that there is no such thing as 'free will.'

Cognition and decision making is how free will operates. Our deliberate motor actions are the result of that cognition and decision making. So, the facts of neuroscience confirm the mechanisms by which we choose what we will do.

When we are free to choose for ourselves what we will do, it is a freely chosen will. But if the choice is imposed upon us by someone or something else, then we are not free to make that choice for ourselves.

How the brain operates is a constant that is not in dispute here. Whether we make the choice ourselves, or someone points a gun at us, making us do his will, the brain continues to operate through cognition and decision making. The brain deals with the empirical conditions it faces, whether coerced or free of coercion.

But whether we are coerced or free of coercion is a significant distinction between the two cases. It makes a difference in how we assess who is responsible for the action.

If I was to speculate on what free will would look like, I would say it must include regulative control through the power of will, the ability to do otherwise in any given instance in time.

1. Regulative control falls to that which decides what will happen next. And that is us, specifically our brains, deciding what the we will do next. So, your first condition is satisfied.

2. The ability to do otherwise in any given instance in time always shows up whenever a choosing operation appears in the causal chain. Choosing logically requires at least two real possibilities to choose from and it logically requires that it is possible to choose either one. This means that there will always be at least two things that we "can" do. And when we've make our choice there will be the single thing that we inevitably "will" do, plus each of the other things that we inevitably "could have done" instead. So, your second condition is also satisfied.

Which of course is impossible within a determined system.

Apparently those two things, regulative control and the ability to do otherwise, are right there, staring you in the face, within a perfectly deterministic system.

And of course, will does not play the role of decisionmaker within the brain,

You keep putting the cart before the horse. Decision making is the source of our deliberate will. The process of deliberation chooses what we will deliberately do. I thought for a long time about whether to order the steak or the lobster, because I was uncertain which dinner I would enjoy the most. It was only after that deliberation that I was able to tell the waiter, "I will have the lobster, please".

The sequence is this: (1) multiple possibilities -> (2) choosing -> (3) "I will have the lobster". That's where the will comes from, and it is why it is important to know who or what is actually deciding what I will do.


which - you guessed it - is unconscious information processing that produces experiences and actions.

And I can see that you have the notion that unconscious information processing somehow changes things, but it doesn't. Choosing still happens, because it is the only way to get from the multiple possibilities on the menu to the "I will have the lobster, please".

Consequently, free will is impossible any way you look at it, and carefully crafted definitions fail to prove the proposition;

Freedom from ourselves is impossible. Freedom from our brains is impossible.

But our freedom to decide for ourselves what we will do is certainly possible, because we do it all the time. And having a brain is what makes it possible.

Since there are simpler definitions of free will, which not only make it possible, but also meaningful and relevant, I would suggest that your definition is the one that is bogus, and contrived.

My definition actually works, and is commonly used when assessing a person's moral or legal responsibility for their actions.

Compatibilist premises fail to account for the nature of determinism (fixed outcomes rather than 'reliable causality'), brain function, information processing and motor action - that unconscious processes determine action based on architecture, inputs, proclivities, etc - therefore do not hold up as a valid set of premises.

Compatibilism recognizes that all events are the reliable result of prior events (determinism), and thus, every event can in theory be traced back through a fixed series of reliably caused events to things and events as they were at any prior point in time.
Compatibilism recognizes that people have brains, and that it is the brain that processes information and makes choices.
Compatibilism recognizes that most of the brain's activity takes place outside of conscious awareness.
Compatibilism recognizes that each person has a history of prior causes that include their genetic proclivities and their prior life experiences.

Compatibilism also recognizes that a person can either be free decide for themselves what they will do, or, they can be coerced into doing something they would rather not do. Making the distinction between these two cases does not contradict any of the above facts.

Therefore, determinism and free will are compatible.

... "It's one thing to say that there's a sense in which I can make a difference in the world. It's another thing to show that it is a sense worth philosophically caring about." ...

Why do you quote people with such a snotty view of humanity, responsibility, and ethics?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It's one thing to say that there's a sense in which I can make a difference in the world. It's another thing to show that it is a sense worth philosophically caring about.
It's not often I find a view so wrong I would use the term "repugnant".

The fact is we can each make exactly the difference in the world that a human existing where we are with the power to decide (choose; "exercise free will") can make. The difference your existence imparts on the world may be a difference reflected back onto yourself, or the invention of some new things, or perhaps even just sadly repeating someone else's "greatest hits". All of the above are possible.

To ignore this is to blind yourself to what you are
and to merely exist, as The Stranger.

I recognize that I have choices, and that I do not always have to accept, repeat, implement, or respect every (or any) thought that passes across my awareness. I pick and choose.

It's a fun game. Look at what you decide in a moment, ask "what else could I do in the coming moments besides what I just considered" and actually look for something (sometimes you draw a blank, that's OK it happens to all of us). Then ask "which of those do I think better for myself?" And then do that thing of the things.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
Then explain why it is so easy to prove that perception in humans (and other animals) is active, not passive. That is, we recognize patterns in what we sense, even if the sensory information does not fully support every element of the pattern.
Active perception is clear observing innervation that descending/ascending nervous activity modulates input nervous activity in most human sensory and effector systems. That is irrelevant to my argument.

Using technical jargon in a discussion group like this serves no purpose other than to obfuscate what you are trying to say, not that you are saying much with it here. Jargon of this sort turns out to be more of a barrier than a help in explaining your position. I get that you are a retired psychophysicist. Let's focus on the topic--some clear explanation of how you think the well-established gestalt phenomenon works.

If one has no access to information one has no means for verifying other than existing information. One cannot model something which one can't experience. If you don't have a palette all you can do is fill in the blanks with the tools you have. That's not going to get you to reality.

It does not matter whether one has the ability to create a map as known by inserting data to complete existing models. Existing models always change as understanding increases.

None of this is in dispute. Nobody is denying that there is access to existing information from the peripheral nervous system. The fact appears to be that the central nervous system matches them against pattern templates. Those templates or models have to come from somewhere, but I'm glad to see you clearly acknowledging the existence here. That, at least, is progress, in light of what seemed to be your earlier claim that people couldn't build models of reality.

An example today is dark energy and matter. They are proposed fillers to complete the current theory. But we already see there are elements outside our theoretical model. So completing the model without including the new data goes nowhere because the model has changed in unknown ways.

My problem is we have glimpsed knowledge of the amount of energy out there from our existing models but we will never have the capacity to exploit that knowledge/energy because harnessing such energy is beyond our reach forever. And darn it we don't even know whether energy is the tool we really need to exploit. We may be at the stage mankind was 60,000 years ago and we may not have another 60000 ears to find out.

Finally, imagine what we know versus what is the reality now is like what we knew 60000 years ago was to what we know now. Time problem.

Ok, now you are talking about dark energy and matter. Off you go on another gish gallop. I'm sure you'll have fun, but I'll pass on the opportunity to go with you. o_O
I reject that one cannot model that which they can't experience. I do it all the time. I'm fairly certain that I can't experience, for example, a zombie apocalypse. Yet somehow I have models for it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

I admittedly don't know whether I can experience time travel or how "I" would experience it, but I habe some models for that too. Albeit incomplete models.

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
Good thing that I'm a determinist then.

I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.
You can make (self reference). We're done here.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
Then explain why it is so easy to prove that perception in humans (and other animals) is active, not passive. That is, we recognize patterns in what we sense, even if the sensory information does not fully support every element of the pattern.
Active perception is clear observing innervation that descending/ascending nervous activity modulates input nervous activity in most human sensory and effector systems. That is irrelevant to my argument.

Using technical jargon in a discussion group like this serves no purpose other than to obfuscate what you are trying to say, not that you are saying much with it here. Jargon of this sort turns out to be more of a barrier than a help in explaining your position. I get that you are a retired psychophysicist. Let's focus on the topic--some clear explanation of how you think the well-established gestalt phenomenon works.

If one has no access to information one has no means for verifying other than existing information. One cannot model something which one can't experience. If you don't have a palette all you can do is fill in the blanks with the tools you have. That's not going to get you to reality.

It does not matter whether one has the ability to create a map as known by inserting data to complete existing models. Existing models always change as understanding increases.

None of this is in dispute. Nobody is denying that there is access to existing information from the peripheral nervous system. The fact appears to be that the central nervous system matches them against pattern templates. Those templates or models have to come from somewhere, but I'm glad to see you clearly acknowledging the existence here. That, at least, is progress, in light of what seemed to be your earlier claim that people couldn't build models of reality.

An example today is dark energy and matter. They are proposed fillers to complete the current theory. But we already see there are elements outside our theoretical model. So completing the model without including the new data goes nowhere because the model has changed in unknown ways.

My problem is we have glimpsed knowledge of the amount of energy out there from our existing models but we will never have the capacity to exploit that knowledge/energy because harnessing such energy is beyond our reach forever. And darn it we don't even know whether energy is the tool we really need to exploit. We may be at the stage mankind was 60,000 years ago and we may not have another 60000 ears to find out.

Finally, imagine what we know versus what is the reality now is like what we knew 60000 years ago was to what we know now. Time problem.

Ok, now you are talking about dark energy and matter. Off you go on another gish gallop. I'm sure you'll have fun, but I'll pass on the opportunity to go with you. o_O
I reject that one cannot model that which they can't experience. I do it all the time. I'm fairly certain that I can't experience, for example, a zombie apocalypse. Yet somehow I have models for it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

I admittedly don't know whether I can experience time travel or how "I" would experience it, but I habe some models for that too. Albeit incomplete models.

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
Good thing that I'm a determinist then.

I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.
You can make (self reference). We're done here.
Ah, so this is where you bury your head in the sand! It's been nice, I guess.

The fact that you recognize the existence of the "self" as a discrete entity and process of discrete phenomena making decisions (being the sole momentary causal agency of a large-scale event) is almost there. Now you just have to recognize that there is language that discusses the causal agency and those things that supercede one causal agency with another in the momentary determination of a given event.

That there is more context does not void the actual existence of "the text itself".
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.
"I can make ..." is self-reference. Everything that follows from that phrase is not objective, material. We're done here. Self-reference is not objective, not science.

The fact that you recognize the existence of the "self" as a discrete entity and process of discrete phenomena making decisions (being the sole momentary causal agency of a large-scale event) is almost there. Now you just have to recognize that there is language that discusses the causal agency and those things that supercede one causal agency with another in the momentary determination of a given event.
The fact that you think that recognizing an introspected construct as material is evidence you don't know the meaning of objective or material.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.
"I can make ..." is self-reference.
No, it's example. You can pretend all you want that things put right in front of you do not exist but they are there, and extant.

The fact that you wish to deny a machine is or can be real and behave the way it is described as behaving is silliness.

Unless you wish to accuse me of dishonesty about what the machine is doing, though I could as easily provide source code.

You say "things can't have a particular kind of relationship, wherein one thing prevents another thing from meaningfully impacting the statistical out one of an event (to impede a free will)".

I propose to hold up something doing that thing right in front of you, to point it out, to even describe in context and text what it is doing and why, and what the "causal diagram" of the system looks like, and how some momentary agencies would be causal drivers and some would not be.

But of course it's not science. It's something much more basic in the stack of philosophy than science. It's much closer to math and logic.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.
"I can make ..." is self-reference.
No, it's example. You can pretend all you want that things put right in front of you do not exist but they are there, and extant.

The fact that you wish to deny a machine is or can be real and behave the way it is described as behaving is silliness.

Unless you wish to accuse me of dishonesty about what the machine is doing, though I could as easily provide source code.

You say "things can't have a particular kind of relationship, wherein one thing prevents another thing from meaningfully impacting the statistical out one of an event (to impede a free will)".

I propose to hold up something doing that thing right in front of you, to point it out, to even describe in context and text what it is doing and why, and what the "causal diagram" of the system looks like, and how some momentary agencies would be causal drivers and some would not be.

But of course it's not science. It's something much more basic in the stack of philosophy than science. It's much closer to math and logic.
That you know mathematics is nice. However is there anything in mathematics that requires it be related to material? No!!!

Just because you self reference and build a mathematical or logical construct from that self-reference doesn't mean it relates to the material world. You can't go from imagined construct to application to material brain or nervous system.

I insist on taking a scientific view here.

It's in that failure where you lose your way. Introspection fails for the same reasons, as do any things built up like "I am", "mind", "consciousness". That are all place holders for what one hopes may be real but they cannot be treated as if they are real until they are verified as arising the material. Don't get caught up in the mystique, the charm, the elegance, of the proposition. One needs material findings. That's why Bridgeman proposed Operationalism and that's where Skinner screwed it up.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.
"I can make ..." is self-reference.
No, it's example. You can pretend all you want that things put right in front of you do not exist but they are there, and extant.

The fact that you wish to deny a machine is or can be real and behave the way it is described as behaving is silliness.

Unless you wish to accuse me of dishonesty about what the machine is doing, though I could as easily provide source code.

You say "things can't have a particular kind of relationship, wherein one thing prevents another thing from meaningfully impacting the statistical out one of an event (to impede a free will)".

I propose to hold up something doing that thing right in front of you, to point it out, to even describe in context and text what it is doing and why, and what the "causal diagram" of the system looks like, and how some momentary agencies would be causal drivers and some would not be.

But of course it's not science. It's something much more basic in the stack of philosophy than science. It's much closer to math and logic.
That you know mathematics is nice. However is there anything in mathematics that requires it to be related to the material? No!!!

Just because you self-reference and build a mathematical or logical construct from that self-reference doesn't mean it relates to the material world. You can't go from imagined construct to material brain or nervous system until you have material evidence it is physically so. Mind remains a construct. it is not a Thing.

I insist on taking a scientific view here.

It's in that failure where you lose your way. Introspection fails for the same reasons, as do any things built up like "I am", "mind", "consciousness". They are all placeholders for what one hopes may be real but they cannot be treated as if they are real until they are verified as arising the material. Don't get caught up in the mystique, the charm, the elegance, of the proposition. One needs material findings. That's why Bridgeman proposed Operationalism and that's where Skinner screwed it up.

Just a thought. If, by "I can make ..." you re saying I can take physical evidence parameters and model the existing theoretical interpretation as a model that is one thing.

However, if you have in mind a mental logical or mathematical model that is imagined, isn't directly supported, and derived from measurement of physical activity of physical stuff obeying existing physical laws you are introspecting or self-referencing.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,672
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

As I happen to be arguing that the term 'free will' does not represent the mechanics of cognition, decision making or motor action - for the given reasons - I argue that there is no such thing as 'free will.'

Cognition and decision making is how free will operates. Our deliberate motor actions are the result of that cognition and decision making. So, the facts of neuroscience confirm the mechanisms by which we choose what we will do.

The critical part is the means and mechanisms of decision making. Wording the process of motor as 'deliberate motor actions' gives the impression that conscious will runs the show.

A motor action, while you can say that it deliberate in the sense that it's a response to stimuli, has not been consciously deliberated, regulated or willed into being.

The motor response is determined by unconscious neural activity prior to conscious awareness. Rather than being willed, it is necessitated and fixed by information exchange between the brain and environment.

This is not free will.


When we are free to choose for ourselves what we will do, it is a freely chosen will. But if the choice is imposed upon us by someone or something else, then we are not free to make that choice for ourselves.

How the brain operates is a constant that is not in dispute here. Whether we make the choice ourselves, or someone points a gun at us, making us do his will, the brain continues to operate through cognition and decision making. The brain deals with the empirical conditions it faces, whether coerced or free of coercion.

But whether we are coerced or free of coercion is a significant distinction between the two cases. It makes a difference in how we assess who is responsible for the action.

The distinction between being forced by external agent and routine information processing does not establish the latter as freely willed activity.

The distinction being.

1 - You being forced against your will.

2 - You act according to your will, but your will is fixed by determinants beyond your control.

Neither case is an example of free will



If I was to speculate on what free will would look like, I would say it must include regulative control through the power of will, the ability to do otherwise in any given instance in time.

1. Regulative control falls to that which decides what will happen next. And that is us, specifically our brains, deciding what the we will do next. So, your first condition is satisfied.

2. The ability to do otherwise in any given instance in time always shows up whenever a choosing operation appears in the causal chain. Choosing logically requires at least two real possibilities to choose from and it logically requires that it is possible to choose either one. This means that there will always be at least two things that we "can" do. And when we've make our choice there will be the single thing that we inevitably "will" do, plus each of the other things that we inevitably "could have done" instead. So, your second condition is also satisfied.

If actions are determined, there is never the possibility of an alternate choice or action. The state of a brain produces the action that is determined in any given instance. To call this freedom of will is a mistake.

It is information processing. The unique state of a brain produces actions that are specific to that brain.

Intelligence, but not free will.

''This is shown here: if the absence of constraints is all that is needed for us to make free choices then surely this should apply to inanimate objects such as rocks, boulders or clouds. If there was a rock fall which killed a person camping underneath, it seems ridiculous to attribute blame to those rocks. In addition, if acting voluntarily is to be considered central to the theory then animals could be seen to be morally responsible. Either way it can be argued that the theory rests on a flawed principle; thus undermining the whole compatibilist theory.''
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,672
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
It's one thing to say that there's a sense in which I can make a difference in the world. It's another thing to show that it is a sense worth philosophically caring about.
It's not often I find a view so wrong I would use the term "repugnant".

Whatever you may feel about it, doesn't alter the nature of determinism. It is the nature of determinism that all actions within the system are fixed.

Being fixed means that your actions are an inevitable part of the system. You can't do otherwise, you can't will otherwise.

Like it or not, repugnant or not, that is the system works.


The fact is we can each make exactly the difference in the world that a human existing where we are with the power to decide (choose; "exercise free will") can make. The difference your existence imparts on the world may be a difference reflected back onto yourself, or the invention of some new things, or perhaps even just sadly repeating someone else's "greatest hits". All of the above are possible.

If determined, the difference we make is determined. That is the point. Not that we can't think or act, but how thinking and acting is enabled by the system, of which the brain is an inseparable aspect or component.

Compatibilists, it seems, shy away from the harsh reality of determinism by using language like 'reliable causation' - as if 'free will' uses 'reliable causation' as a means to a freedom that is not compatible with determinism.

Harsh? Perhaps, but I don't set the definition. Merely point out the consequences.

To ignore this is to blind yourself to what you are
and to merely exist, as The Stranger.

I recognize that I have choices, and that I do not always have to accept, repeat, implement, or respect every (or any) thought that passes across my awareness. I pick and choose.


Multiple options may be present, but only one is realizable in any given instance in time. Being determined, there was never the possibility of you choosing option A over option B in any given instance in time.

Determinism doesn't allow alternate actions, only what is determined.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
is there anything in mathematics that requires it be related to material? No!!!
Everything in our universe is related to mathematics, and to logic.

Mathematics was in fact developed to be able to consistently describe the properties of material, and then continued to be developed on account of us finding that not only did math describe material, but that there was nothing about material that couldn't be described by math.

And then later we find that there is no thing in our universe that may not be so described by set, and graph, and other such basic concepts as numbers.

If everything in our universe is describable by science, which you claim is the case, and everything in science is built on math (it is), then this simple statement of yours takes the cake for nonsensical religious beliefs.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.
"I can make ..." is self-reference.
No, it's example. You can pretend all you want that things put right in front of you do not exist but they are there, and extant.

The fact that you wish to deny a machine is or can be real and behave the way it is described as behaving is silliness.

Unless you wish to accuse me of dishonesty about what the machine is doing, though I could as easily provide source code.

You say "things can't have a particular kind of relationship, wherein one thing prevents another thing from meaningfully impacting the statistical out one of an event (to impede a free will)".

I propose to hold up something doing that thing right in front of you, to point it out, to even describe in context and text what it is doing and why, and what the "causal diagram" of the system looks like, and how some momentary agencies would be causal drivers and some would not be.

But of course it's not science. It's something much more basic in the stack of philosophy than science. It's much closer to math and logic.
That you know mathematics is nice. However is there anything in mathematics that requires it to be related to the material? No!!!

Just because you self-reference and build a mathematical or logical construct from that self-reference doesn't mean it relates to the material world. You can't go from imagined construct to material brain or nervous system until you have material evidence it is physically so. Mind remains a construct. it is not a Thing.

I insist on taking a scientific view here.

It's in that failure where you lose your way. Introspection fails for the same reasons, as do any things built up like "I am", "mind", "consciousness". They are all placeholders for what one hopes may be real but they cannot be treated as if they are real until they are verified as arising the material. Don't get caught up in the mystique, the charm, the elegance, of the proposition. One needs material findings. That's why Bridgeman proposed Operationalism and that's where Skinner screwed it up.

Just a thought. If, by "I can make ..." you re saying I can take physical evidence parameters and model the existing theoretical interpretation as a model that is one thing...
You are trying to make judgements of the existence or nonexistence of aspects of a relationship. This judgement is of the form "(choice) is not a property or extant relationship of (deterministic systems)."

To disprove this, I don't need reality entire, I merely need any deterministic system, which according to both of us, everything that exists in reality is.

My requirement to disprove your bullshit merely needs to hold up a well modeled deterministic system and point out the choice that exists there.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Being fixed means that your actions are an inevitable part of the system. You can't do otherwise, you can't will otherwise.
This is plainly an assertion fallacy. It is non sequitur. It does not follow from "you cannot do otherwise" to "you cannot will otherwise". I can absolutely "will otherwise." I just won't get it. Whether I "will otherwise" is in fact the measure of whether my will is free.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,387
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

The critical part is the means and mechanisms of decision making. Wording the process of motor as 'deliberate motor actions' gives the impression that conscious will runs the show.

It is necessary to distinguish between autonomic actions, like a heart beat, reflexive actions, like a hand jerks away from hot surface, and deliberate actions, like choosing to raise our hand to ask a question in class.

A motor action, while you can say that it deliberate in the sense that it's a response to stimuli, has not been consciously deliberated, regulated or willed into being.

That would be a reflex. For example, the doctor taps under your patella producing a knee-jerk response. It is not something that you choose to do.

The motor response is determined by unconscious neural activity prior to conscious awareness. Rather than being willed, it is necessitated and fixed by information exchange between the brain and environment.

Well, no. The only "information" is the signal from the nerves under the patella to the spinal cord and back to the muscle. It never reaches the brain. Reflexes have nothing to do with free will.

Free will is a decision we make for ourselves while free coercion and undue influence. It will involved the brain, thinking about options, and choosing between them. You will know when you have made a deliberate decision.

The distinction between being forced by external agent and routine information processing does not establish the latter as freely willed activity.

The distinction being.
1 - You being forced against your will.
2 - You act according to your will, but your will is fixed by determinants beyond your control.

The "determinants beyond my control" happen to be "me" deciding what I will have for dinner. You are still resting your argument upon a delusion that these determinants are somehow not me. But they are uniquely located within me, and within each person sitting with me in the restaurant. They are an integral part of who and what we are. They have no control at all except by their being part of an intelligent species that is capable of choosing what it will have for dinner and communicating that choice to the waiter.

And, if I choose to make a ruckus in the restaurant, such that the owner throws me out, those "determinants beyond my control" will also go out the door. So, I had best learn some self-control, which would again be those "determinants beyond my control" controlling themselves better.

I am they and they are me. There is no dualism to be found here. That would be a delusion.

If actions are determined, there is never the possibility of an alternate choice or action.

That has been repeatedly refuted. There is not merely the "possibility" of an alternate choice or action, but the "necessity" of an alternate choice and action!

Look at the menu. In a deterministic world that menu had to be there. It was inevitable. And, there on the menu, are a list of alternate choices for dinner, every one of which is a real possibility. So, your claim that "there is never the possibility of an alternate choice or action" is empirically false, because there they are.

The state of a brain produces the action that is determined in any given instance.

Of course. We wouldn't want it to happen any other way. The brain functions deterministically, and every choice it ever makes will be the reliable result of some specific combination of the physical, biological, and rational causal mechanisms. The last thing we would want is an unreliable brain. (And yet it seems to be the last thing we get).

It is information processing. The unique state of a brain produces actions that are specific to that brain.

Yes. Information processing is the rational causal mechanism. It's what the brain evolved to do. With intelligence species we get imagination, evaluation, and choosing. When we are free to decide for ourselves what we will do, we get free will. When someone imposes their will upon us at gunpoint, our will is subjugated to their will, and we are not free to decide for ourselves what we will do.

''This is shown here: if the absence of constraints is all that is needed for us to make free choices then surely this should apply to inanimate objects such as rocks, boulders or clouds. ..."

Are you kidding me? Inanimate objects do not have brains. They do not make choices as to what they will or will not do. They respond passively to physical forces. We, on the other hand, do have brains. We can choose what we will or will not do. If something bumps into us, we can bump back.

I would like to think that we were above that rather silly level of argument.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Inanimate objects do not have brains. They do not make choices as to what they will or will not do
I pose that "inanimate" is an arbitrary declaration.

For the record "arbitrary" and "absolute" are much more useful here than concepts of "subjective" and "objective" even if there is much overlap, at least as regards discussions of free will and determinism.

What can be said of them is that their model is of "very low quality", composed as it is by a chaotic assembly of silicon and oxygen. When a thing bumps into it's rigid body, it's rigid body spits some force back dictated by and not modified much from the expectations of a thing as chaotically assembled as a rock.

What can be said of us is that we have models "of higher quality", more representative of our universe, and these models of higher quality allow us more freedom of will specifically because our stuff well models the universe and the game theory of various strategies which themselves preserve the existence of the model.

The wants of a rock are much more absolute than the wants of a person. A rock wants to be cohesive to itself, and not much more; this in .any ways defines it's shape as a rock. People want this too, or at least our material does, though interestingly not as badly as the rock wants it... Person meets rock and the rock will almost certainly have more free will as regards to remaining entirely cohesive.

That the rock cannot change to want anything else does not change these facts, except through massive and generally "violent" abrogation of the will it does have. We just don't care about this because the will we are destroying is literally a thing of pure and useless chaos.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,387
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Inanimate objects do not have brains. They do not make choices as to what they will or will not do
I pose that "inanimate" is an arbitrary declaration.

For the record "arbitrary" and "absolute" are much more useful here than concepts of "subjective" and "objective" even if there is much overlap, at least as regards discussions of free will and determinism.

What can be said of them is that their model is of "very low quality", composed as it is by a chaotic assembly of silicon and oxygen. When a thing bumps into it's rigid body, it's rigid body spits some force back dictated by and not modified much from the expectations of a thing as chaotically assembled as a rock.

What can be said of us is that we have models "of higher quality", more representative of our universe, and these models of higher quality allow us more freedom of will specifically because our stuff well models the universe and the game theory of various strategies which themselves preserve the existence of the model.

The wants of a rock are much more absolute than the wants of a person. A rock wants to be cohesive to itself, and not much more; this in .any ways defines it's shape as a rock. People want this too, or at least our material does, though interestingly not as badly as the rock wants it... Person meets rock and the rock will almost certainly have more free will as regards to remaining entirely cohesive.

That the rock cannot change to want anything else does not change these facts, except through massive and generally "violent" abrogation of the will it does have. We just don't care about this because the will we are destroying is literally a thing of pure and useless chaos.
A rock is called "inanimate" because if you place it on a chair, it will just sit there. Living organisms come with built-in needs that animate them to seek food, shelter, a mate, etc.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Inanimate objects do not have brains. They do not make choices as to what they will or will not do
I pose that "inanimate" is an arbitrary declaration.

For the record "arbitrary" and "absolute" are much more useful here than concepts of "subjective" and "objective" even if there is much overlap, at least as regards discussions of free will and determinism.

What can be said of them is that their model is of "very low quality", composed as it is by a chaotic assembly of silicon and oxygen. When a thing bumps into it's rigid body, it's rigid body spits some force back dictated by and not modified much from the expectations of a thing as chaotically assembled as a rock.

What can be said of us is that we have models "of higher quality", more representative of our universe, and these models of higher quality allow us more freedom of will specifically because our stuff well models the universe and the game theory of various strategies which themselves preserve the existence of the model.

The wants of a rock are much more absolute than the wants of a person. A rock wants to be cohesive to itself, and not much more; this in .any ways defines it's shape as a rock. People want this too, or at least our material does, though interestingly not as badly as the rock wants it... Person meets rock and the rock will almost certainly have more free will as regards to remaining entirely cohesive.

That the rock cannot change to want anything else does not change these facts, except through massive and generally "violent" abrogation of the will it does have. We just don't care about this because the will we are destroying is literally a thing of pure and useless chaos.
A rock is called "inanimate" because if you place it on a chair, it will just sit there. Living organisms come with built-in needs that animate them to seek food, shelter, a mate, etc.
Except it will not "just" sit there. A lot is happening as a function of what it is, while it is, generally, there. This is decided by the matter that composes it in the same way as other matter you arbitrarily declare "animate". The chemistry and physics of it's "decision of force" is not different meaningfully on that qualitative dimension.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,387
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Except it will not "just" sit there. A lot is happening as a function of what it is, while it is, generally, there. This is decided by the matter that composes it in the same way as other matter you arbitrarily declare "animate". The chemistry and physics of it's "decision of force" is not different meaningfully on that qualitative dimension.

I'm pretty sure it will just sit there, until I pick it up and throw it at you.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Except it will not "just" sit there. A lot is happening as a function of what it is, while it is, generally, there. This is decided by the matter that composes it in the same way as other matter you arbitrarily declare "animate". The chemistry and physics of it's "decision of force" is not different meaningfully on that qualitative dimension.

I'm pretty sure it will just sit there, until I pick it up and throw it at you.
No, it's going to be vibrating, translating the forces of kinetic energy from one end to the other, perhaps reflecting them back in along it's surface unto thermal chaos, perhaps refracting those waves of force along the interface of it's surface All according to the conformity and uniformity of it's material matrix.

Just sitting there is still a lot of stuff.

It is not fundamentally different insofar as the locality decides on force in a discrete way.

It has the free will to do all these things mo matter if you pick it up and throw it, so long as it is not thrown so hard as to violate this will and fracture it.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,387
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
No, it's going to be vibrating, translating the forces of kinetic energy from one end to the other, perhaps reflecting them back in along it's surface unto thermal chaos, perhaps refracting those waves of force along the interface of it's surface All according to the conformity and uniformity of it's material matrix.

Just sitting there is still a lot of stuff.

It is not fundamentally different insofar as the locality decides on force in a discrete way.

It has the free will to do all these things mo matter if you pick it up and throw it, so long as it is not thrown so hard as to violate this will and fracture it.

I would never hurt you. Just trying to convey my frustration at your attempt to give rocks intelligence. There are at least three distinct causal mechanisms, physical, biological, and rational. The bowling ball (a rock shaped to roll) placed on a slope will always roll downhill, its behavior governed by the force of gravity. Place a squirrel on that same slope, and he'll go up, down, or any other direction where he hopes to find his next acorn, or perhaps a mate. While the squirrel is affected by gravity, he is not governed by it (like the rock). Instead, the living organism is governed by biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. Place a woman on that slope, and she will chop down trees, build a house, form a nation, and any other thing that she can imagine. The woman is affected by gravity and by biological drives, but she is not governed by them. She is governed by her own choices.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.
"I can make ..." is self-reference.
No, it's example. You can pretend all you want that things put right in front of you do not exist but they are there, and extant.

The fact that you wish to deny a machine is or can be real and behave the way it is described as behaving is silliness.

Unless you wish to accuse me of dishonesty about what the machine is doing, though I could as easily provide source code.

You say "things can't have a particular kind of relationship, wherein one thing prevents another thing from meaningfully impacting the statistical out one of an event (to impede a free will)".

I propose to hold up something doing that thing right in front of you, to point it out, to even describe in context and text what it is doing and why, and what the "causal diagram" of the system looks like, and how some momentary agencies would be causal drivers and some would not be.

But of course it's not science. It's something much more basic in the stack of philosophy than science. It's much closer to math and logic.
That you know mathematics is nice. However is there anything in mathematics that requires it to be related to the material? No!!!

Just because you self-reference and build a mathematical or logical construct from that self-reference doesn't mean it relates to the material world. You can't go from imagined construct to material brain or nervous system until you have material evidence it is physically so. Mind remains a construct. it is not a Thing.

I insist on taking a scientific view here.

It's in that failure where you lose your way. Introspection fails for the same reasons, as do any things built up like "I am", "mind", "consciousness". They are all placeholders for what one hopes may be real but they cannot be treated as if they are real until they are verified as arising the material. Don't get caught up in the mystique, the charm, the elegance, of the proposition. One needs material findings. That's why Bridgeman proposed Operationalism and that's where Skinner screwed it up.

Just a thought. If, by "I can make ..." you re saying I can take physical evidence parameters and model the existing theoretical interpretation as a model that is one thing...
You are trying to make judgements of the existence or nonexistence of aspects of a relationship. This judgement is of the form "(choice) is not a property or extant relationship of (deterministic systems)."

To disprove this, I don't need reality entire, I merely need any deterministic system, which according to both of us, everything that exists in reality is.

My requirement to disprove your bullshit merely needs to hold up a well modeled deterministic system and point out the choice that exists there.
Determinism isn't "if this then thatA or thatB", it's simply that! Self reference is basically pulling imaginary shit out of your imaginary ass as ploy to appear systematic. Example: Jesus fed the multitudes with a few fish and a few loaves - Miracle.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.
"I can make ..." is self-reference.
No, it's example. You can pretend all you want that things put right in front of you do not exist but they are there, and extant.

The fact that you wish to deny a machine is or can be real and behave the way it is described as behaving is silliness.

Unless you wish to accuse me of dishonesty about what the machine is doing, though I could as easily provide source code.

You say "things can't have a particular kind of relationship, wherein one thing prevents another thing from meaningfully impacting the statistical out one of an event (to impede a free will)".

I propose to hold up something doing that thing right in front of you, to point it out, to even describe in context and text what it is doing and why, and what the "causal diagram" of the system looks like, and how some momentary agencies would be causal drivers and some would not be.

But of course it's not science. It's something much more basic in the stack of philosophy than science. It's much closer to math and logic.
That you know mathematics is nice. However is there anything in mathematics that requires it to be related to the material? No!!!

Just because you self-reference and build a mathematical or logical construct from that self-reference doesn't mean it relates to the material world. You can't go from imagined construct to material brain or nervous system until you have material evidence it is physically so. Mind remains a construct. it is not a Thing.

I insist on taking a scientific view here.

It's in that failure where you lose your way. Introspection fails for the same reasons, as do any things built up like "I am", "mind", "consciousness". They are all placeholders for what one hopes may be real but they cannot be treated as if they are real until they are verified as arising the material. Don't get caught up in the mystique, the charm, the elegance, of the proposition. One needs material findings. That's why Bridgeman proposed Operationalism and that's where Skinner screwed it up.

Just a thought. If, by "I can make ..." you re saying I can take physical evidence parameters and model the existing theoretical interpretation as a model that is one thing...
You are trying to make judgements of the existence or nonexistence of aspects of a relationship. This judgement is of the form "(choice) is not a property or extant relationship of (deterministic systems)."

To disprove this, I don't need reality entire, I merely need any deterministic system, which according to both of us, everything that exists in reality is.

My requirement to disprove your bullshit merely needs to hold up a well modeled deterministic system and point out the choice that exists there.
Determinism isn't "if this then thatA or thatB", it's simply that! Self reference is basically pulling imaginary shit out of your imaginary ass as ploy to appear systematic. Example: Jesus fed the multitudes with a few fish and a few loaves - Miracle. Or alternatively, Jarhyn found choice in a well-modeled self-referenced system with determined outputs. - Miracle.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
fromderinside said:
Determinism isn't "if this then thatA or thatB", it's simply that! Self reference is basically pulling imaginary shit out of your imaginary ass as ploy to appear systematic. Example: Jesus fed the multitudes with a few fish and a few loaves - Miracle.
This is your claim, and you don't own "determinism", and you certainly do not know what "deterministic systems" actually are in logic, science, or math if this is the case.

All those mathematicians with all their imagined things proving things within the context of math, by which such concepts as "deterministic" originated. You wish to apply a mathematical term to all of reality: "deterministic".

You don't then get to dodge when someone then operates on the principle or concept that you claim the universe has within the framework that defined the concept entire and crystalline!
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The bowling ball (a rock shaped to roll) placed on a slope will always roll downhill, its behavior governed by the force of gravity.
What I'm trying to point out is that, we are governed by four forces, and how those four forces interact.

The way those four forces interact is called physics. Everything is a physical assembly of those forces, and the principles by which they interact regularly. If we are to model choice in the most general way, to understand choice within the context of math and determinism and game theory, and use that to understand something within the physics those things describe, it is something that is going to have to scale.

I am a compatibilist not because once several years ago a very good friend muttered some words about compatibilism. Rather, I am a compatibilist because I had for years felt the need to reconcile the meaningfulness and study of decision against determinism and I just acquired a more commonly used word for it at that point.

I came at this from the direction of the machine, not the meat. It can be easy coming at it from the meat to not see how deep it goes and if you don't understand how deep the concept embeds, it's easy to have folks play games at the boundaries of your understanding.

I'm down here at the foundations of choice.

I find if you simplify your problems, solutions become easier to locate.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
fromderinside said:
Determinism isn't "if this then thatA or thatB", it's simply that! Self reference is basically pulling imaginary shit out of your imaginary ass as ploy to appear systematic. Example: Jesus fed the multitudes with a few fish and a few loaves - Miracle.
This is your claim, and you don't own "determinism", and you certainly do not know what "deterministic systems" actually are in logic, science, or math if this is the case.

All those mathematicians with all their imagined things proving things within the context of math, by which such concepts as "deterministic" originated. You wish to apply a mathematical term to all of reality: "deterministic".

You don't then get to dodge when someone then operates on the principle or concept that you claim the universe has within the framework that defined the concept entire and crystalline!
Puleez.
Don't equate your self-defined proposition as akin to those who take material elements and apply them in a logical system. That is a simulation using known variables through proven logics verifying realized material outcomes. You pulled your demonstration out of the Mind of Mencia which is my polite way of saying your thought it up out of pure cloth.
 
Top Bottom