Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Marvin Edwards]

Without deliberation, the deliberate act has no prior cause. And, that is illegal in a deterministic system. The deliberation is part of the natural unfolding of events.

All deliberate actions are causally necessitated by a chosen will. You cannot call it determinism if you deliberately ignore prior causes.

Nothing within a determined system, by definition, can be its own cause, nor - by definition - does anything, human or not - have regulative control over its own behaviour.

Dude, nothing is ever its own cause. However, I do not need to cause myself in order to be the meaningful and relevant cause of my own deliberate actions.

It's not logical to select a certain form of human behaviour and declare it to be an instance of free will.

Determinism asserts that every event must have a prior cause. Free will asserts that the prior cause of any deliberate act is the act of deliberation that precedes it. But assertions are true. Thus, determinism and free will are compatible concepts. Free will happens to be just another deterministic event in the chain of causation.

To claim that the brain does no choosing is false. To ignore choosing, as a causal mechanism within the universal scheme of causation, makes your determinism incomplete and false. So, the hard determinist's version of determinism is an illusion. It is a fraudulent determinism.

On the other hand, my presumption is a perfectly deterministic universe, in which all events are reliably caused, by some specific combination of physical, biological, and/or rational causal mechanisms. My determinism is the real thing.

Everything within a determined system has precisely the same status; fixed as a matter of natural law. Will having no privileged status, falsifies compatibilism.

Well, if you're using a false determinism, then you certainly will think that you have falsified compatibilism. So, stop using a false determinism, and end this delusion.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Quote:

''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. ''

The challenge to basic-desert responsibility is a question of justice. The notion of "just deserts" is an abbreviation of "what the criminal offender justly deserves". So, what does the criminal offender justly deserve? Since a system of justice is designed to protect everyone's rights, a just penalty would include the following elements: (a) repair the harm to the victim if possible, (b) correct the offender's future behavior if corrigible, (c) secure the offender to protect others until his behavior is corrected, and (d) do no more harm to the offender or his rights than is reasonably required to accomplish (a), (b), and (c).

The role of free will is to distinguish a deliberate act by a rational mind, from a coerced act, or an insane act. This distinction guides our efforts at correction.
1. If the behavior was not deliberate, but was coerced, then removing the threat is sufficient to correct the behavior.
2. If the behavior was due to mental illness, then correcting the behavior will require medical and psychiatric treatment in a secure facility.
3. If the behavior was a deliberate act by a rational mind, then we need to correct the offender's thinking about such choices in the future. This requires rehabilitation programs that include such things as counseling, addiction treatment, education, skills training, post release follow-up, job placement, etc.

 

[Copernicus]

Just because you don't agree with Einstein doesn't mean that what he said is stupid. He was pointing out the undeniable consequences of determinism. It is compatibilism that fails to relate to the consequences of determinism, therefore fails as an argument.

Speaking of Einstein, his position on free will is incoherent. Consider this quote from the Saturday Evening Post many years ago:

"In a sense, we can hold no one responsible. I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will. ... Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community,I must act as if man is a responsible being."
Page 114 of "The Saturday Evening Post" article "What Life Means to Einstein" "An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck" (Oct 26, 1929)

On the one hand, he says that being a determinist means that he does not believe in free will or responsibility, then he turns around and says he must act as if he does believe in them. Even Einstein was taken in by the paradox. So, you're certainly in good company.

Exactly. So the question for those who wish to eliminate "free will" on grounds of determinism: Why would you hold anyone responsible for the crimes they commit? Seriously. I would like to hear some rationale that does not involve you invoking free will or some equivalent concept as part of your argument. Einstein said that he wished to live in a civilized community, but how could he possibly freely choose to live in a civilized community?

 

[DBT]

Just because you don't agree with Einstein doesn't mean that what he said is stupid. He was pointing out the undeniable consequences of determinism. It is compatibilism that fails to relate to the consequences of determinism, therefore fails as an argument.

Speaking of Einstein, his position on free will is incoherent. Consider this quote from the Saturday Evening Post many years ago:

"In a sense, we can hold no one responsible. I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will. ... Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community,I must act as if man is a responsible being."
Page 114 of "The Saturday Evening Post" article "What Life Means to Einstein" "An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck" (Oct 26, 1929)

On the one hand, he says that being a determinist means that he does not believe in free will or responsibility, then he turns around and says he must act as if he does believe in them. Even Einstein was taken in by the paradox. So, you're certainly in good company.

That's induction, he said - ''Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed'' - which may be taken mean that the perception of free will is an illusion.... supported by his comment; ''If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord on the strength of a resolution taken once and for all.''

There is no contradiction, only perspective. The illusion of free will/agency where none exists within a determined system.

 

[fromderinside]

You chatter.

And you don't??

In a determined world no person decides freely.

Well, they cannot be "free of causal necessity". Nor can they be "free from themselves". But their choosing can most certainly be free from coercion and undue influence.

I'll be more specific. In a determined world there is no choosing. One's own impression of what one is doing, or of what others are doing, is subjective. Causation is objective. Subjective isn't up to the task.

 

[DBT]

Quote:

''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. ''

Quote:

''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. ''

The challenge to basic-desert responsibility is a question of justice. The notion of "just deserts" is an abbreviation of "what the criminal offender justly deserves". So, what does the criminal offender justly deserve? Since a system of justice is designed to protect everyone's rights, a just penalty would include the following elements: (a) repair the harm to the victim if possible, (b) correct the offender's future behavior if corrigible, (c) secure the offender to protect others until his behavior is corrected, and (d) do no more harm to the offender or his rights than is reasonably required to accomplish (a), (b), and (c).

The role of free will is to distinguish a deliberate act by a rational mind, from a coerced act, or an insane act. This distinction guides our efforts at correction.
1. If the behavior was not deliberate, but was coerced, then removing the threat is sufficient to correct the behavior.
2. If the behavior was due to mental illness, then correcting the behavior will require medical and psychiatric treatment in a secure facility.
3. If the behavior was a deliberate act by a rational mind, then we need to correct the offender's thinking about such choices in the future. This requires rehabilitation programs that include such things as counseling, addiction treatment, education, skills training, post release follow-up, job placement, etc.

The reality of free will as an agency of change, veto or control must first be established. All types of behaviour within a determined system, be they described as deliberate or coerced are necessitated behaviours.

Therefore: 'an action’s production by a deterministic process presents no less of a challenge to responsibility - or freedom of the will - than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. '

Not from want of trying, there is just no way around this.

 

[Copernicus]

...

That's induction, he said - ''Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed'' - which may be taken mean that the perception of free will is an illusion.... supported by his comment; ''If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord on the strength of a resolution taken once and for all.''

There is no contradiction, only perspective. The illusion of free will/agency where none exists within a determined system.

Are you sort of admitting that free will exists from the perspective of actors within the deterministic system? You, like Einstein, seem to be admitting that there is no practical consequence of defining free will as if it meant exactly what Marvin said. It is a fully determined process, and it makes perfect sense from the perspective of all of us sentient automatons interacting with each other. Sounds like that sense of free will is pretty compatible with determinism.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Just because you don't agree with Einstein doesn't mean that what he said is stupid. He was pointing out the undeniable consequences of determinism. It is compatibilism that fails to relate to the consequences of determinism, therefore fails as an argument.

Speaking of Einstein, his position on free will is incoherent. Consider this quote from the Saturday Evening Post many years ago:

"In a sense, we can hold no one responsible. I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will. ... Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community,I must act as if man is a responsible being."
Page 114 of "The Saturday Evening Post" article "What Life Means to Einstein" "An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck" (Oct 26, 1929)

On the one hand, he says that being a determinist means that he does not believe in free will or responsibility, then he turns around and says he must act as if he does believe in them. Even Einstein was taken in by the paradox. So, you're certainly in good company.

That's induction, he said - ''Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed'' - which may be taken mean that the perception of free will is an illusion.... supported by his comment; ''If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord on the strength of a resolution taken once and for all.''

There is no contradiction, only perspective. The illusion of free will/agency where none exists within a determined system.

Einstein is making up a story with no evidence. If the moon had self-consciousness, it would just as likely perceive itself as a passive entity enjoying the trip. It would not observe itself making choices, because the moon never makes any choices. So it would never have the notion of choosing what it will do next. Without choosing, it would never have the notion that it controls anything. But we can watch ourselves choosing what we will have for breakfast, or choosing which route we will take to work, or choosing all the other things we choose throughout the day. So, Einstein's analogy, like all analogies, is false.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I'll be more specific. In a determined world there is no choosing.

Choosing is a deterministic operation that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice, usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is that which we have decided we will do.

And you're saying this never happens? Come with me to the restaurant. Watch the people walk in, sit at a table, browse the menu, and place their orders. How was the literal menu of options reduced to a single choice, if not by choosing?

If we stick around, we will notice the waiter bringing each person their bill, holding them responsible for their deliberate act.

Like all events, these events were causally necessary from any prior point in the past. Causal necessity does eliminate choosing, it assures it will inevitably happen.

One's own impression of what one is doing, or of what others are doing, is subjective.

Watching people in the restaurant reducing a menu of options into a single "I will have the chef salad, please", is an objective observation, not a subjective impression. That's why I use it. Everyone has seen people actually making choices in the real world.

Causation is objective.

And we just objectively observed choosing actually happening. Cool, huh?

Subjective isn't up to the task.

So, are you suggesting that we, as objective observers, were just imagining that people in the restaurant were making choices? We cannot see inside their heads. But we did see a menu of options going into it, and a single choice coming out of it. Choosing happens. It is a real deterministic event that occurs in the real world.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The reality of free will as an agency of change, veto or control must first be established.

Have you been to a restaurant lately? Choosing is a deterministic event in which two or more options are input, some criteria of comparative evaluation is applied, and a single choice is output.

We watch the people walk in, sit down, browse the menu, and place their order. At the end of the meal the waiter brings them the bill, holding them responsible for their deliberate act.

The waiter brings the bill to the agents of change, the persons who placed the order and ate the meal. He does not bring the bill to the customer's parents. He does not bring the bill to evolution. He does not bring the bill to the laws of nature. He does not bring the bill to the Big Bang.

It is obvious to the waiter who was responsible for ordering the meal and who ate it. It was the customer, and not any other object in the entire universe.

And, if the waiter brings the wrong meal to the customer, the customer will veto that meal and the waiter must find who ordered it, or return it to the kitchen.

All types of behaviour within a determined system, be they described as deliberate or coerced are necessitated behaviours.

Yes! Now you're getting it. All events are equally causally necessary/inevitable from any prior point in time. Causal necessity makes no distinctions whatever between any two events.

And that is why the notion of causal necessity is pretty useless. In order to make productive choices, we must be able to distinguish between events. Having eggs for breakfast is one event. Having pancakes is a different event. Whatever we choose will be causally necessary from any prior point in time. So, the fact of causal necessity tells us nothing that helps us to decide what we should have for breakfast. In fact, it never tells us anything more that "what will be, will be". Useless!

But any number of other facts can help me choose between eggs and pancakes. What are my dietary goals? What did I have for breakfast yesterday? Do I really have time to fix pancakes? Etc. Any or all of these things may play a useful role in making my choice.

But causal necessity is a useless fact. It is a logical fact, derived from my presumption of a deterministic world of reliable cause and effect, but it is neither a meaningful nor a relevant fact, simply because it is always true of every event, without distinction.

Only by knowing the specific causes of specific effects do I get any useful information.

Therefore: 'an action’s production by a deterministic process presents no less of a challenge to responsibility - or freedom of the will - than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. '

I've already solved this problem. Right in front of you.

Not from want of trying, there is just no way around this.

Then, I suggest you do as I did, and go through it.

 

[pood]

Yes, “what will be, will be” is useless, but more, the hard determinist conflates “what will be, will be,” which is true but trivial, with, “what will be, must be,” which is untrue.

Look at Einstein’s moon metaphor, raised in the compatibilism thread. If the moon were sentient, it would either perceive itself to be “along for the ride,” or it would perceive itself to have choices. Suppose it decided to stop moving. If it found itself unable to stop moving despite its decision to do so, then that would be evidence that it lacked free will.

Yet when I decide to order either eggs or pancakes for breakfast, I do not find my decision to be thwarted. If I decide to order eggs I get eggs. If I decide to order pancakes I get pancakes. And later if I am walking on the street and decide to stop, I stop without any problem.

If I decided to order eggs but found my mouth forming the word “pancakes” against my will, or if I found myself walking on the sidewalk and decided to stop but found, to my shock, my legs refusing to obey me and continuing to move me forward, those would be evidences of a lack of free will. We never observe these things to happen, obviously, unless some external force like hypnosis or drugs or internal brain injury were to cause such things to happen.

Of course the hard determinist will argue that there is an external force that causes me both to desire to have eggs and successfully mouth the word “eggs.” On his account that force is causal determinism. But causal determinism isn’t a force, a reified entity. It is rather a list of descriptions of what happens in the world. As Norman Swartz noted, we don’t get to choose the charge on an electron or a great many other constants or laws of nature. But we do get to choose the color of the shirt we will wear today.

Schopenhauer said that we can do as we will, we just can’t will what we will. Fine. Even then I would say it’s a stretch to say that our will was determined by antecedent events. I would say it was influenced by them. But whether you wish to use the verb “determined” or “influenced” makes little difference, it seems to me. Obviously our desires are predicated upon the past.

If I decide not to touch a flame it is because I touched one in the past, and got burned, and so learn not to do that again. Or perhaps I refrain from touching it because someone warns me of the consequences of doing so. This is another form of past influence. Or perhaps I begin to touch the flame and feel the heat, which is unpleasant, and swiftly draw back. Again my behavior or desire is influenced or determined by past or present events. But my action is still my choice. Some people override such past influences and put their hand in a flame anyway. G. Gordon Liddy of Watergate infamy comes to mind.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'll be more specific. In a determined world there is no choosing.

Choosing is a deterministic operation that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice, usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is that which we have decided we will do.

And you're saying this never happens? Come with me to the restaurant. Watch the people walk in, sit at a table, browse the menu, and place their orders. How was the literal menu of options reduced to a single choice, if not by choosing?

If we stick around, we will notice the waiter bringing each person their bill, holding them responsible for their deliberate act.

Like all events, these events were causally necessary from any prior point in the past. Causal necessity does eliminate choosing, it assures it will inevitably happen.

One's own impression of what one is doing, or of what others are doing, is subjective.

Watching people in the restaurant reducing a menu of options into a single "I will have the chef salad, please", is an objective observation, not a subjective impression. That's why I use it. Everyone has seen people actually making choices in the real world.

Causation is objective.

And we just objectively observed choosing actually happening. Cool, huh?

Subjective isn't up to the task.

So, are you suggesting that we, as objective observers, were just imagining that people in the restaurant were making choices? We cannot see inside their heads. But we did see a menu of options going into it, and a single choice coming out of it. Choosing happens. It is a real deterministic event that occurs in the real world.

And why I choose software as an example. "Choice" as a concept, in fact the more general term "decision", requires no/very little "intelligence" at all, the intelligence of a single gate.

I think where people get lost is that logical structures can be imposed in the physical, and those logical structures may be then modeled, completely ignoring the physical substrate, to perform an act of literal thaumaturgy: to make happen so below, and then follow that determined path above in the other system that performs "the same".

I can see how such ideas got off the rails though... It's a short but fatal leap to where people in ancient times took it, in our modern understanding.

But, Body Rituals of the Nacirema and all that...

 

[Copernicus]

Intelligence entails the ability to learn from experience. People use that ability to make better choices in the future under similar circumstances. So they can imagine how they might have made different choices in the past. Although we can program computers to behave in a nondeterministic way when confronted with a novel situation or new obstacle, it is really hard to figure out how to get them to learn from experience. In any case, it is useless to try to understand how free will works without taking into account all of the factors that go into making it work the way it does. The field of Artificial Intelligence is not just about mimicking intelligent behavior. It is also about coming to understand how human brains work by discovering how to mimic that behavior. Programming a robot that has legs for walking tells us a lot about how humans manage to achieve that feat. We learn to watch where we step, but AI programmers have to actually figure out the real choices we make when we watch our steps. Our walking robots don't necessarily do that on their own, but our toddlers do. Maybe someday robots will, too.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I'll be more specific. In a determined world there is no choosing.

Choosing is a deterministic operation that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice, usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is that which we have decided we will do.

And you're saying this never happens? Come with me to the restaurant. Watch the people walk in, sit at a table, browse the menu, and place their orders. How was the literal menu of options reduced to a single choice, if not by choosing?

If we stick around, we will notice the waiter bringing each person their bill, holding them responsible for their deliberate act.

Like all events, these events were causally necessary from any prior point in the past. Causal necessity does eliminate choosing, it assures it will inevitably happen.

One's own impression of what one is doing, or of what others are doing, is subjective.

Watching people in the restaurant reducing a menu of options into a single "I will have the chef salad, please", is an objective observation, not a subjective impression. That's why I use it. Everyone has seen people actually making choices in the real world.

Causation is objective.

And we just objectively observed choosing actually happening. Cool, huh?

Subjective isn't up to the task.

So, are you suggesting that we, as objective observers, were just imagining that people in the restaurant were making choices? We cannot see inside their heads. But we did see a menu of options going into it, and a single choice coming out of it. Choosing happens. It is a real deterministic event that occurs in the real world.

And why I choose software as an example. "Choice" as a concept, in fact the more general term "decision", requires no/very little "intelligence" at all, the intelligence of a single gate.

I think where people get lost is that logical structures can be imposed in the physical, and those logical structures may be then modeled, completely ignoring the physical substrate, to perform an act of literal thaumaturgy: to make happen so below, and then follow that determined path above in the other system that performs "the same".

I can see how such ideas got off the rails though... It's a short but fatal leap to where people in ancient times took it, in our modern understanding.

But, Body Rituals of the Nacirema and all that...

Geez, you're making me look up words like "thaumaturgy", which means working miracles. As a Humanist, I don't believe in miracles.

 

[Elixir]

Who else thought this thread was going to be about cannibalism?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Intelligence entails the ability to learn from experience. People use that ability to make better choices in the future under similar circumstances. So they can imagine how they might have made different choices in the past. Although we can program computers to behave in a nondeterministic way when confronted with a novel situation or new obstacle, it is really hard to figure out how to get them to learn from experience. In any case, it is useless to try to understand how free will works without taking into account all of the factors that go into making it work the way it does. The field of Artificial Intelligence is not just about mimicking intelligent behavior. It is also about coming to understand how human brains work by discovering how to mimic that behavior. Programming a robot that has legs for walking tells us a lot about how humans manage to achieve that feat. We learn to watch where we step, but AI programmers have to actually figure out the real choices we make when we watch our steps. Our walking robots don't necessarily do that on their own, but our toddlers do. Maybe someday robots will, too.

I don't know. It seems like these robots are watching their steps:

 

[Copernicus]

To be clear, I mean that current versions of walking robots do watch their steps, but they don't necessarily teach themselves how to do that. They simply lack episodic memories and an ability to use those memories the modify future behavior. However, they can be programmed to dance and to navigate obstacle courses via nondeterministic programming methods.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'll be more specific. In a determined world there is no choosing.

Choosing is a deterministic operation that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice, usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is that which we have decided we will do.

And you're saying this never happens? Come with me to the restaurant. Watch the people walk in, sit at a table, browse the menu, and place their orders. How was the literal menu of options reduced to a single choice, if not by choosing?

If we stick around, we will notice the waiter bringing each person their bill, holding them responsible for their deliberate act.

Like all events, these events were causally necessary from any prior point in the past. Causal necessity does eliminate choosing, it assures it will inevitably happen.

One's own impression of what one is doing, or of what others are doing, is subjective.

Watching people in the restaurant reducing a menu of options into a single "I will have the chef salad, please", is an objective observation, not a subjective impression. That's why I use it. Everyone has seen people actually making choices in the real world.

Causation is objective.

And we just objectively observed choosing actually happening. Cool, huh?

Subjective isn't up to the task.

So, are you suggesting that we, as objective observers, were just imagining that people in the restaurant were making choices? We cannot see inside their heads. But we did see a menu of options going into it, and a single choice coming out of it. Choosing happens. It is a real deterministic event that occurs in the real world.

And why I choose software as an example. "Choice" as a concept, in fact the more general term "decision", requires no/very little "intelligence" at all, the intelligence of a single gate.

I think where people get lost is that logical structures can be imposed in the physical, and those logical structures may be then modeled, completely ignoring the physical substrate, to perform an act of literal thaumaturgy: to make happen so below, and then follow that determined path above in the other system that performs "the same".

I can see how such ideas got off the rails though... It's a short but fatal leap to where people in ancient times took it, in our modern understanding.

But, Body Rituals of the Nacirema and all that...

Geez, you're making me look up words like "thaumaturgy", which means working miracles. As a Humanist, I don't believe in miracles.

Not particularly? More, "as above, so below". It is a concept of magic, not miracles. In any deeper discussion than the ignorant It's "an act of doing something on a symbolic scale to effect a change on a different scale; to manipulate one image so as to effect change on another."

Modeled action exactly that, doing something at small scale, observing the results, translating that to a course of action, and executing it to get those results on different scale.

I was being arcane and obtuse for silliness purposes.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

To be clear, I mean that current versions of walking robots do watch their steps, but they don't necessarily teach themselves how to do that. They simply lack episodic memories and an ability to use those memories the modify future behavior. However, they can be programmed to dance and to navigate obstacle courses via nondeterministic programming methods.

I don't think there are nondeterministic programming methods. There may be choices that are unpredictable, but not causally indeterministic.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I'll be more specific. In a determined world there is no choosing.

Choosing is a deterministic operation that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice, usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is that which we have decided we will do.

And you're saying this never happens? Come with me to the restaurant. Watch the people walk in, sit at a table, browse the menu, and place their orders. How was the literal menu of options reduced to a single choice, if not by choosing?

If we stick around, we will notice the waiter bringing each person their bill, holding them responsible for their deliberate act.

Like all events, these events were causally necessary from any prior point in the past. Causal necessity does eliminate choosing, it assures it will inevitably happen.

One's own impression of what one is doing, or of what others are doing, is subjective.

Watching people in the restaurant reducing a menu of options into a single "I will have the chef salad, please", is an objective observation, not a subjective impression. That's why I use it. Everyone has seen people actually making choices in the real world.

Causation is objective.

And we just objectively observed choosing actually happening. Cool, huh?

Subjective isn't up to the task.

So, are you suggesting that we, as objective observers, were just imagining that people in the restaurant were making choices? We cannot see inside their heads. But we did see a menu of options going into it, and a single choice coming out of it. Choosing happens. It is a real deterministic event that occurs in the real world.

And why I choose software as an example. "Choice" as a concept, in fact the more general term "decision", requires no/very little "intelligence" at all, the intelligence of a single gate.

I think where people get lost is that logical structures can be imposed in the physical, and those logical structures may be then modeled, completely ignoring the physical substrate, to perform an act of literal thaumaturgy: to make happen so below, and then follow that determined path above in the other system that performs "the same".

I can see how such ideas got off the rails though... It's a short but fatal leap to where people in ancient times took it, in our modern understanding.

But, Body Rituals of the Nacirema and all that...

Geez, you're making me look up words like "thaumaturgy", which means working miracles. As a Humanist, I don't believe in miracles.

Not particularly? More, "as above, so below". It is a concept of magic, not miracles. In any deeper discussion than the ignorant It's "an act of doing something on a symbolic scale to effect a change on a different scale; to manipulate one image so as to effect change on another."

Modeled action exactly that, doing something at small scale, observing the results, translating that to a course of action, and executing it to get those results on different scale.

I was being arcane and obtuse for silliness purposes.

And, you were successful.