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

Compatibilism: What's that About?

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
This has been dealt with numerous times.

Yes. It has.

Yet the question of menu selection came up again in the assumption that the compatibilist narrative is correct.

It is not correct because, to reiterate, only one action is possible in any instance in time within a determined system. Being determined by the circumstances, inputs (menu items) brain state/processing, where if Steak and Salad is determined, you select Steak and Salad, the option is fixed, that is your option/action in that instance in time, being determined, no alternative possible. Other diners have their own [determined] options and actions.......the menu caters for many tastes/brain information states.

Determinism is a Harsh Mistress. One that doesn't allow alternate choice or freedom of will, a total and complete control freak.

''Proponents of many popular compatibilist arguments often agree in rejecting contra-causal or magical free will. Yet they seem to be trying, at all costs, to rescue some snippet of freedom from the obvious fact that everything that happens in this universe is either caused by something that went before or is a truly random event.

Neither of these alternatives provides any room for what most people would call free will. Of course human beings make choices. I am not denying this. Nor am I denying that we can be more or less constrained in the choices available to us, nor that we can be held responsible for some choices and not others. But we should not confuse the decision making powers of a living creature with freedom of the will.''
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
Wow, According to Compatibilists, Computers have free will. Magical thinking in the twenty first century.

You seem to have a lot of mythical beliefs about compatibilists.



Jarhyn has made that claim. Hence my comment.
You have made the claim that free will is not possible at all so why should anyone care that you think that suddenly "computers have wills, and the wills can be free" is a invalid statement?

It's not a clear case that they cannot; I have made a clear case in fact that they may.

My comment was related to your claim that computers may have not only have will, but free will.

I pointed out that you are making a category error by conflating function with will.

Again, will is not the same as function. Function is determined by the construction of a mechanism, which has no 'will' - but functions as designed and constructed, current through circuits, information is processed, output is produced. Information in, information out. Garbage in garbage out. Rational input in, rational results out......

Nothing is being willed, nothing is being freely willed. Mechanical systems do not operate on the principle of will or free will.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Wow, According to Compatibilists, Computers have free will. Magical thinking in the twenty first century.

You seem to have a lot of mythical beliefs about compatibilists.



Jarhyn has made that claim. Hence my comment.
You have made the claim that free will is not possible at all so why should anyone care that you think that suddenly "computers have wills, and the wills can be free" is a invalid statement?

It's not a clear case that they cannot; I have made a clear case in fact that they may.

My comment was related to your claim that computers may have not only have will, but free will.

I pointed out that you are making a category error by conflating function with will.

Again, will is not the same as function. Function is determined by the construction of a mechanism, which has no 'will' - but functions as designed and constructed, current through circuits, information is processed, output is produced. Information in, information out. Garbage in garbage out. Rational input in, rational results out......

Nothing is being willed, nothing is being freely willed. Mechanical systems do not operate on the principle of will or free will.
And yet again you fail to even make a a single criticism or argument against it beyond a mere dismissal, which you offer to any thing approaching "wills which are free".

Your ascertainment of what is a "category error" given the fact that you seem unable to understand or parse the difference between "mutability" and "subjectivity" and your inability to understand that "will can be a function" means that it is probably pointless to have this conversation with you, DBT, at all.

Anything into garbage is garbage, in this math, I think.

I have pointed out a series of instructions unto a requirement, held observably in a system.

Scripts fairly trivially in fact meet the qualities of a "will", as I have defined the word.

Wills can contain whole definitions of functions.

Definitions of functions can contain packaged wills.

The very idea of "function" and "will" here as defined may be homologous.

As to whether DBT, talking to a firmware engineer, understands the idea of "function" is questionable at best, too.

So why should I give a rat's fuck whether you, someone who does not believe humans (or anything) can hold the thing we call "wills" and whether such "wills" can be "free, with respect to their requirements", think that computers can or cannot have such?

Why would this be more "absurd*" than humans holding the same?

Unless you really don't think it's all that absurd that humans do?

But we are machines in a deterministic system, so sauce for the goose...



*(you, or at least I mean nonsensical, btw)
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It has become apparent that DBT does not understand what is meant by the utterance of the phrase "choice function"

Let's look at a concrete, objective, mathematical "choice function" which is "free to it's requirement" of making a choice.

For this we need to define a system, and a system state, on a base field (which will for our case be R, the set of all reals).

This is not a "closed system", though it may be contained inside a closed system.

Let listA {[1,Y1],[2,Y2],...[n,Yn]} such that listA.pop yields (Y1), and listA becomes {[1,Y2],...,[n-1,Yn]}. For the sake of brevity

Let us then also implement "listA.push(Yv)" which will likewise add rather than subtract an element at the head.

Pop is a simple choice function on listA.

It will make a choice OF listA and return the choice.

Note that there is a requirement to this choice function: when listA is empty, it must return not "0" but ∅. These are not the same.

Therefore this choice function itself has a freedom that may be addressed: whether the list is free to pop.

Most engineered choice functions have a function in fact to ascertain this, which returns an objective measurement of its own momentary provisional freedom: listA.empty() returns "true" when listA is exactly ∅. We will arbitrarily use "1" to denote true, just to keep it R(eal).

This is an imaginary idea of freedom, though; if pushed, and then popped, the idea will be invalidated, as the list will have the freedom and never have returned a ∅; if simply popped after, it will be a valid assessment and the function will return whatever it does to show an error. It will in that moment BE unfree rather than Imagine it's unfreeness.

listA is an object with a choice function.

But moreover, listA.pop is also a choice function that deterministically "pops" the first element.

Determinism does no injury to the idea of choice, or even of "freedom of choice": listA.pop is a recognizably "constrained" choice function, and is entirely deterministic in it's actions.

Also, another interesting fact of listA: it must have had something pushed into it so to have something popped off.

Hence the need for the menu, and why they are "possibilities" in that context. They have been "pushed" into listA, and while listA is not empty, it has the "freedom" to return an element.

All these words are describing concrete operations of an object.
 
Last edited:

Marvin Edwards

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
806
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Yet the question of menu selection came up again in the assumption that the compatibilist narrative is correct.
It is not correct because, to reiterate, only one action is possible in any instance in time within a determined system.

You're confusing an actuality with a possibility. Every item on the restaurant menu is a possibility. However, the Chef Salad on the table in front of me is an actuality. There will be only one actuality. However, there are always multiple possibilities.

Choosing, inputs multiple possibilities, and, outputs an intention to actualize exactly one of them.

Because choosing is a deterministic operation, it should be obvious to you that multiple possibilities are a logical requirement. And they will always be present in the mind whenever choosing happens. Therefore, the claim that "only one action is possible in any instance in time within a determined system" is clearly false.

In a deterministic system that includes a human brain with the neurological capacity to make decisions, that mind will always have multiple possibilities to choose from during that operation.

The correct formulation of the idea of determinism is that "only one possibility will be actualized". But there is never any possibility that is removed by determinism. Every possibility that occurs to the mind will be causally necessary, inevitable, and will appear at that time and place without deviation.

Determinism is a Harsh Mistress.

And apparently she's not very bright, either.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Wow, According to Compatibilists, Computers have free will. Magical thinking in the twenty first century.

You seem to have a lot of mythical beliefs about compatibilists.



Jarhyn has made that claim. Hence my comment.
You have made the claim that free will is not possible at all so why should anyone care that you think that suddenly "computers have wills, and the wills can be free" is a invalid statement?

It's not a clear case that they cannot; I have made a clear case in fact that they may.

So, just in case you missed it:
You confuse what we can do with both subjective and objective analysis. Taking what we sense without measurement and calling it computer misses the fact that the computer is not possible without the use of the scientific method to frame it's structure and function. That man does both sense and measure gives us a step up from anything that just senses no matter how close those senses are to what is measured. Your statement computer lacks demonstrated materiality which is measured as well. The rest of your snowstorm fails as well for the same reason. This is a flaw you cannot overcome with just subjective sense, language, and mathematics. The bottom line is that man interpreting determinism with only subjective and subjective based tools is not even up to what man can do nor is that adequate for defining determinism.
I think we've known since the time we first picked up a stone that there was something important beyond our mind. I also think that other species are progressing toward similar understanding of their worlds as they use material to live and succeed in it.
It's interesting insofar as someone who wishes to discuss subjective versus objective measures does not actually pay attention and hand-waves away discussions of what makes something "subjective" or "objective" in the first part.

Your bloviation on such is a hot, sick, confused mess.

The computer is an object, observable in all it's functions, such that it can objectively and observably instantiate a mathematical principle.

This has been used specifically to prove a number of things in math which extend to proving a number of things of physics.

And since we are attempting to treat a structure of math -- "Deterministic systems" -- objectively observing a computer "doing the thing" proves the claims of hard determinism to be spurious.

As much as you dislike it, showing a mathematical structure to positively contain some thing that you FDI claim is impossible of something with that structure proves your claims wrong.

And that something is an object, wholely observable, entirely made of materials, being examined of it's immediate physical properties.

One of it's immediate physical properties is that it clearly and observably contains some thing that has a "will".

One of those immediate physical properties is that that will has an observable "freedom value", which in this moment is "unfree" because the door is locked.

What exactly do you think is not an observable object here?

Do you think because the structure of the dwarf is electrons that it is not a real object?

Do you think that just because that structure is distributed across a large number of transistors that it is not a real object?

The actual physical dwarf looks not a thing like the depiction on the screen, nor do the "doors" or the "levers". The interface is itself a subjective interpretation of the objective behavior of the system.

I'm not talking about the interface though, I'm talking about the real, actual machine, with real parts that have real properties.

one of those parts is a single "bit" of memory that is "locked" as in "will not 'open' for a dwarf"

that single bit in memory is an object.

the several bits in memory that when presented to the processor such that result contains new bits that will direct the dwarf's bits to change such that they objectively create "proximity" to the door, and which will drive the attempt? Those are objects too.

All of this is object properties all the way down.

You are clearly not ready to think about this on "whole human person" level scales yet.
Bottom line. Objective is material humans measure. It's not something humans make that humans program to then use to execute subjective brain pfarts. In the sense that a scientist uses a computer to execute equipment that present material experiments it is a tools of science. It is programmed to provide material inputs to humans from which it records and performs designed analyses that output to humans. I was doing such in the sixties.
And then FDI claimed that a physical computing machine is not a piece of material that humans measure.

There you have it folks.

FDI, a computer is an object and not only is it an object, it is an object made very easy to measure. It is an object which is objectively capable of measuring itself (re:debuggers).

As I have said, I have produced an object, inside this object. That it is made of an orientation of charge potentials, and operates as a cogitation of a machine makes no difference to it's object properties.

You can wave your hand claiming it is "subjective" but it is an object no less objectively than a human brain.

The fact that you don't understand this means that it is to me unlikely that you will ever understand how or that you have been proven wrong.

Not just demonstrated or evidenced as wrong but proven, in the same way that any other Computer assisted proof functions.

The difference, the conflation, the failure of FDI's understanding is the confusion of "subjective" with "arbitrarily configurable".

Arbitrary configurability does no damage to using an object like a computer to prove that "objects may be configured in some given way" because it is trivially true a computer is an object so if it can be configured to hold some thing that satisfied the definition of a will, operate a behaviorally closed system in a manner observably meeting the definition of "deterministic", and be shown to contain events in which the "will" is observably going to have it's requirements met, and in which it is possible for that "will" to NOT have it's requirements met, you have proven something of "deterministic system": that deterministic systems may contain free wills.
There you go. You produced an object within the computer. The object (a self designed object) is not an objective thing. It is a human fashioned thing, something you produced of your design. Hint, hint, hint "arbitrarily configurable" is your design. It is something you (feel the self reference coming on) designed, not objective. BTW I said computer - it is an instrument - is something one uses to measure.

No speedskating my interpretations please. Uh, no it isn't capable of debugging itself since it reacts to cosmic objects causing unforeseeable errors that need external justifications for their occurrences. If you've never worked on something that gets up into the atmosphere you probably aren't going to be among those who are aware these things happen. Redundancy, debuggers both internal and collateral, knowledge of effects like radiation and comsmic activity are necessary for proving and preserving operablility.
Wow, According to Compatibilists, Computers have free will. Magical thinking in the twenty first century.
"The object is not an object": the hard determinists.

The two of you don't think HUMANS have this particular will I describe nor do you think that it can be "free" or "constrained" by the definitions offered so why should I give a rats fuck about whatever else you think is incapable of holding it?

I offered definitions and I am not about to shy away from the implications those definitions have for animals and other non-human objects.

"Arbitrarily configurable" is not subjective.

Mutability is not subjectivity, it is only mutability. Subjectivity is looking at the same object and coming to different conclusions about how you relate to it, such as "I think it is beautiful" and "I think it is not beautiful" because each person has a different "subjective definition" of beauty.

Objectively, the object is a 3x3 cube of copper.

I could take a hammer and hammer the object into any shape I wish. It is still going to be an object with objective properties. This is mutability. Some people may consider it more or less beautiful (subjectivity) but objectively, it will have whatever shape it has been given (objective mutability).

It doesn't matter if the computer has whatever design I put over it. It's mutability is not subjectivity.

What we call the "dwarf", what we call the "door" what word we use to describe "locked state" THAT is all subjective and in fact has a cohomology with the situation where we rename them "elf", "portal", and "DNE state".

The important point is understanding "this entity holds a list of instructions unto a requirement" and "the requirement shall/shall not be met".
EYUP. Human will, any will, is a delusion when sensed by humans. Sensing is self referenced so here we go round and round.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Wow, According to Compatibilists, Computers have free will. Magical thinking in the twenty first century.

You seem to have a lot of mythical beliefs about compatibilists.



Jarhyn has made that claim. Hence my comment.
You have made the claim that free will is not possible at all so why should anyone care that you think that suddenly "computers have wills, and the wills can be free" is a invalid statement?

It's not a clear case that they cannot; I have made a clear case in fact that they may.

So, just in case you missed it:
You confuse what we can do with both subjective and objective analysis. Taking what we sense without measurement and calling it computer misses the fact that the computer is not possible without the use of the scientific method to frame it's structure and function. That man does both sense and measure gives us a step up from anything that just senses no matter how close those senses are to what is measured. Your statement computer lacks demonstrated materiality which is measured as well. The rest of your snowstorm fails as well for the same reason. This is a flaw you cannot overcome with just subjective sense, language, and mathematics. The bottom line is that man interpreting determinism with only subjective and subjective based tools is not even up to what man can do nor is that adequate for defining determinism.
I think we've known since the time we first picked up a stone that there was something important beyond our mind. I also think that other species are progressing toward similar understanding of their worlds as they use material to live and succeed in it.
It's interesting insofar as someone who wishes to discuss subjective versus objective measures does not actually pay attention and hand-waves away discussions of what makes something "subjective" or "objective" in the first part.

Your bloviation on such is a hot, sick, confused mess.

The computer is an object, observable in all it's functions, such that it can objectively and observably instantiate a mathematical principle.

This has been used specifically to prove a number of things in math which extend to proving a number of things of physics.

And since we are attempting to treat a structure of math -- "Deterministic systems" -- objectively observing a computer "doing the thing" proves the claims of hard determinism to be spurious.

As much as you dislike it, showing a mathematical structure to positively contain some thing that you FDI claim is impossible of something with that structure proves your claims wrong.

And that something is an object, wholely observable, entirely made of materials, being examined of it's immediate physical properties.

One of it's immediate physical properties is that it clearly and observably contains some thing that has a "will".

One of those immediate physical properties is that that will has an observable "freedom value", which in this moment is "unfree" because the door is locked.

What exactly do you think is not an observable object here?

Do you think because the structure of the dwarf is electrons that it is not a real object?

Do you think that just because that structure is distributed across a large number of transistors that it is not a real object?

The actual physical dwarf looks not a thing like the depiction on the screen, nor do the "doors" or the "levers". The interface is itself a subjective interpretation of the objective behavior of the system.

I'm not talking about the interface though, I'm talking about the real, actual machine, with real parts that have real properties.

one of those parts is a single "bit" of memory that is "locked" as in "will not 'open' for a dwarf"

that single bit in memory is an object.

the several bits in memory that when presented to the processor such that result contains new bits that will direct the dwarf's bits to change such that they objectively create "proximity" to the door, and which will drive the attempt? Those are objects too.

All of this is object properties all the way down.

You are clearly not ready to think about this on "whole human person" level scales yet.
Bottom line. Objective is material humans measure. It's not something humans make that humans program to then use to execute subjective brain pfarts. In the sense that a scientist uses a computer to execute equipment that present material experiments it is a tools of science. It is programmed to provide material inputs to humans from which it records and performs designed analyses that output to humans. I was doing such in the sixties.
And then FDI claimed that a physical computing machine is not a piece of material that humans measure.

There you have it folks.

FDI, a computer is an object and not only is it an object, it is an object made very easy to measure. It is an object which is objectively capable of measuring itself (re:debuggers).

As I have said, I have produced an object, inside this object. That it is made of an orientation of charge potentials, and operates as a cogitation of a machine makes no difference to it's object properties.

You can wave your hand claiming it is "subjective" but it is an object no less objectively than a human brain.

The fact that you don't understand this means that it is to me unlikely that you will ever understand how or that you have been proven wrong.

Not just demonstrated or evidenced as wrong but proven, in the same way that any other Computer assisted proof functions.

The difference, the conflation, the failure of FDI's understanding is the confusion of "subjective" with "arbitrarily configurable".

Arbitrary configurability does no damage to using an object like a computer to prove that "objects may be configured in some given way" because it is trivially true a computer is an object so if it can be configured to hold some thing that satisfied the definition of a will, operate a behaviorally closed system in a manner observably meeting the definition of "deterministic", and be shown to contain events in which the "will" is observably going to have it's requirements met, and in which it is possible for that "will" to NOT have it's requirements met, you have proven something of "deterministic system": that deterministic systems may contain free wills.
There you go. You produced an object within the computer. The object (a self designed object) is not an objective thing. It is a human fashioned thing, something you produced of your design. Hint, hint, hint "arbitrarily configurable" is your design. It is something you (feel the self reference coming on) designed, not objective. BTW I said computer - it is an instrument - is something one uses to measure.

No speedskating my interpretations please. Uh, no it isn't capable of debugging itself since it reacts to cosmic objects causing unforeseeable errors that need external justifications for their occurrences. If you've never worked on something that gets up into the atmosphere you probably aren't going to be among those who are aware these things happen. Redundancy, debuggers both internal and collateral, knowledge of effects like radiation and comsmic activity are necessary for proving and preserving operablility.
Wow, According to Compatibilists, Computers have free will. Magical thinking in the twenty first century.
"The object is not an object": the hard determinists.

The two of you don't think HUMANS have this particular will I describe nor do you think that it can be "free" or "constrained" by the definitions offered so why should I give a rats fuck about whatever else you think is incapable of holding it?

I offered definitions and I am not about to shy away from the implications those definitions have for animals and other non-human objects.

"Arbitrarily configurable" is not subjective.

Mutability is not subjectivity, it is only mutability. Subjectivity is looking at the same object and coming to different conclusions about how you relate to it, such as "I think it is beautiful" and "I think it is not beautiful" because each person has a different "subjective definition" of beauty.

Objectively, the object is a 3x3 cube of copper.

I could take a hammer and hammer the object into any shape I wish. It is still going to be an object with objective properties. This is mutability. Some people may consider it more or less beautiful (subjectivity) but objectively, it will have whatever shape it has been given (objective mutability).

It doesn't matter if the computer has whatever design I put over it. It's mutability is not subjectivity.

What we call the "dwarf", what we call the "door" what word we use to describe "locked state" THAT is all subjective and in fact has a cohomology with the situation where we rename them "elf", "portal", and "DNE state".

The important point is understanding "this entity holds a list of instructions unto a requirement" and "the requirement shall/shall not be met".
You make your bed when you say "cube 3x3." A severely limited person would as three whah? The rest of us would say "it lacks physical/material reference. More than copper is required."
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Wow, According to Compatibilists, Computers have free will. Magical thinking in the twenty first century.

You seem to have a lot of mythical beliefs about compatibilists.



Jarhyn has made that claim. Hence my comment.
You have made the claim that free will is not possible at all so why should anyone care that you think that suddenly "computers have wills, and the wills can be free" is a invalid statement?

It's not a clear case that they cannot; I have made a clear case in fact that they may.

So, just in case you missed it:
You confuse what we can do with both subjective and objective analysis. Taking what we sense without measurement and calling it computer misses the fact that the computer is not possible without the use of the scientific method to frame it's structure and function. That man does both sense and measure gives us a step up from anything that just senses no matter how close those senses are to what is measured. Your statement computer lacks demonstrated materiality which is measured as well. The rest of your snowstorm fails as well for the same reason. This is a flaw you cannot overcome with just subjective sense, language, and mathematics. The bottom line is that man interpreting determinism with only subjective and subjective based tools is not even up to what man can do nor is that adequate for defining determinism.
I think we've known since the time we first picked up a stone that there was something important beyond our mind. I also think that other species are progressing toward similar understanding of their worlds as they use material to live and succeed in it.
It's interesting insofar as someone who wishes to discuss subjective versus objective measures does not actually pay attention and hand-waves away discussions of what makes something "subjective" or "objective" in the first part.

Your bloviation on such is a hot, sick, confused mess.

The computer is an object, observable in all it's functions, such that it can objectively and observably instantiate a mathematical principle.

This has been used specifically to prove a number of things in math which extend to proving a number of things of physics.

And since we are attempting to treat a structure of math -- "Deterministic systems" -- objectively observing a computer "doing the thing" proves the claims of hard determinism to be spurious.

As much as you dislike it, showing a mathematical structure to positively contain some thing that you FDI claim is impossible of something with that structure proves your claims wrong.

And that something is an object, wholely observable, entirely made of materials, being examined of it's immediate physical properties.

One of it's immediate physical properties is that it clearly and observably contains some thing that has a "will".

One of those immediate physical properties is that that will has an observable "freedom value", which in this moment is "unfree" because the door is locked.

What exactly do you think is not an observable object here?

Do you think because the structure of the dwarf is electrons that it is not a real object?

Do you think that just because that structure is distributed across a large number of transistors that it is not a real object?

The actual physical dwarf looks not a thing like the depiction on the screen, nor do the "doors" or the "levers". The interface is itself a subjective interpretation of the objective behavior of the system.

I'm not talking about the interface though, I'm talking about the real, actual machine, with real parts that have real properties.

one of those parts is a single "bit" of memory that is "locked" as in "will not 'open' for a dwarf"

that single bit in memory is an object.

the several bits in memory that when presented to the processor such that result contains new bits that will direct the dwarf's bits to change such that they objectively create "proximity" to the door, and which will drive the attempt? Those are objects too.

All of this is object properties all the way down.

You are clearly not ready to think about this on "whole human person" level scales yet.
Bottom line. Objective is material humans measure. It's not something humans make that humans program to then use to execute subjective brain pfarts. In the sense that a scientist uses a computer to execute equipment that present material experiments it is a tools of science. It is programmed to provide material inputs to humans from which it records and performs designed analyses that output to humans. I was doing such in the sixties.
And then FDI claimed that a physical computing machine is not a piece of material that humans measure.

There you have it folks.

FDI, a computer is an object and not only is it an object, it is an object made very easy to measure. It is an object which is objectively capable of measuring itself (re:debuggers).

As I have said, I have produced an object, inside this object. That it is made of an orientation of charge potentials, and operates as a cogitation of a machine makes no difference to it's object properties.

You can wave your hand claiming it is "subjective" but it is an object no less objectively than a human brain.

The fact that you don't understand this means that it is to me unlikely that you will ever understand how or that you have been proven wrong.

Not just demonstrated or evidenced as wrong but proven, in the same way that any other Computer assisted proof functions.

The difference, the conflation, the failure of FDI's understanding is the confusion of "subjective" with "arbitrarily configurable".

Arbitrary configurability does no damage to using an object like a computer to prove that "objects may be configured in some given way" because it is trivially true a computer is an object so if it can be configured to hold some thing that satisfied the definition of a will, operate a behaviorally closed system in a manner observably meeting the definition of "deterministic", and be shown to contain events in which the "will" is observably going to have it's requirements met, and in which it is possible for that "will" to NOT have it's requirements met, you have proven something of "deterministic system": that deterministic systems may contain free wills.
There you go. You produced an object within the computer. The object (a self designed object) is not an objective thing. It is a human fashioned thing, something you produced of your design. Hint, hint, hint "arbitrarily configurable" is your design. It is something you (feel the self reference coming on) designed, not objective. BTW I said computer - it is an instrument - is something one uses to measure.

No speedskating my interpretations please. Uh, no it isn't capable of debugging itself since it reacts to cosmic objects causing unforeseeable errors that need external justifications for their occurrences. If you've never worked on something that gets up into the atmosphere you probably aren't going to be among those who are aware these things happen. Redundancy, debuggers both internal and collateral, knowledge of effects like radiation and comsmic activity are necessary for proving and preserving operablility.
Wow, According to Compatibilists, Computers have free will. Magical thinking in the twenty first century.
"The object is not an object": the hard determinists.

The two of you don't think HUMANS have this particular will I describe nor do you think that it can be "free" or "constrained" by the definitions offered so why should I give a rats fuck about whatever else you think is incapable of holding it?

I offered definitions and I am not about to shy away from the implications those definitions have for animals and other non-human objects.

"Arbitrarily configurable" is not subjective.

Mutability is not subjectivity, it is only mutability. Subjectivity is looking at the same object and coming to different conclusions about how you relate to it, such as "I think it is beautiful" and "I think it is not beautiful" because each person has a different "subjective definition" of beauty.

Objectively, the object is a 3x3 cube of copper.

I could take a hammer and hammer the object into any shape I wish. It is still going to be an object with objective properties. This is mutability. Some people may consider it more or less beautiful (subjectivity) but objectively, it will have whatever shape it has been given (objective mutability).

It doesn't matter if the computer has whatever design I put over it. It's mutability is not subjectivity.

What we call the "dwarf", what we call the "door" what word we use to describe "locked state" THAT is all subjective and in fact has a cohomology with the situation where we rename them "elf", "portal", and "DNE state".

The important point is understanding "this entity holds a list of instructions unto a requirement" and "the requirement shall/shall not be met".
You make your bed when you say "cube 3x3." A severely limited person would as three whah? The rest of us would say "it lacks physical/material reference. More than copper is required."
So you fail to accept SI, then.

Playing at idiotic responses because someone fails to reference units? As if any of the discussion of SuBjEcTiViTy has anything to do with that.

Mutability is not subjectivity.

You seem to be trying really hard at this point to look away.

Why do you need so badly for the object to not be an object?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Wow, According to Compatibilists, Computers have free will. Magical thinking in the twenty first century.

You seem to have a lot of mythical beliefs about compatibilists.



Jarhyn has made that claim. Hence my comment.
You have made the claim that free will is not possible at all so why should anyone care that you think that suddenly "computers have wills, and the wills can be free" is a invalid statement?

It's not a clear case that they cannot; I have made a clear case in fact that they may.

So, just in case you missed it:
You confuse what we can do with both subjective and objective analysis. Taking what we sense without measurement and calling it computer misses the fact that the computer is not possible without the use of the scientific method to frame it's structure and function. That man does both sense and measure gives us a step up from anything that just senses no matter how close those senses are to what is measured. Your statement computer lacks demonstrated materiality which is measured as well. The rest of your snowstorm fails as well for the same reason. This is a flaw you cannot overcome with just subjective sense, language, and mathematics. The bottom line is that man interpreting determinism with only subjective and subjective based tools is not even up to what man can do nor is that adequate for defining determinism.
I think we've known since the time we first picked up a stone that there was something important beyond our mind. I also think that other species are progressing toward similar understanding of their worlds as they use material to live and succeed in it.
It's interesting insofar as someone who wishes to discuss subjective versus objective measures does not actually pay attention and hand-waves away discussions of what makes something "subjective" or "objective" in the first part.

Your bloviation on such is a hot, sick, confused mess.

The computer is an object, observable in all it's functions, such that it can objectively and observably instantiate a mathematical principle.

This has been used specifically to prove a number of things in math which extend to proving a number of things of physics.

And since we are attempting to treat a structure of math -- "Deterministic systems" -- objectively observing a computer "doing the thing" proves the claims of hard determinism to be spurious.

As much as you dislike it, showing a mathematical structure to positively contain some thing that you FDI claim is impossible of something with that structure proves your claims wrong.

And that something is an object, wholely observable, entirely made of materials, being examined of it's immediate physical properties.

One of it's immediate physical properties is that it clearly and observably contains some thing that has a "will".

One of those immediate physical properties is that that will has an observable "freedom value", which in this moment is "unfree" because the door is locked.

What exactly do you think is not an observable object here?

Do you think because the structure of the dwarf is electrons that it is not a real object?

Do you think that just because that structure is distributed across a large number of transistors that it is not a real object?

The actual physical dwarf looks not a thing like the depiction on the screen, nor do the "doors" or the "levers". The interface is itself a subjective interpretation of the objective behavior of the system.

I'm not talking about the interface though, I'm talking about the real, actual machine, with real parts that have real properties.

one of those parts is a single "bit" of memory that is "locked" as in "will not 'open' for a dwarf"

that single bit in memory is an object.

the several bits in memory that when presented to the processor such that result contains new bits that will direct the dwarf's bits to change such that they objectively create "proximity" to the door, and which will drive the attempt? Those are objects too.

All of this is object properties all the way down.

You are clearly not ready to think about this on "whole human person" level scales yet.
Bottom line. Objective is material humans measure. It's not something humans make that humans program to then use to execute subjective brain pfarts. In the sense that a scientist uses a computer to execute equipment that present material experiments it is a tools of science. It is programmed to provide material inputs to humans from which it records and performs designed analyses that output to humans. I was doing such in the sixties.
And then FDI claimed that a physical computing machine is not a piece of material that humans measure.

There you have it folks.

FDI, a computer is an object and not only is it an object, it is an object made very easy to measure. It is an object which is objectively capable of measuring itself (re:debuggers).

As I have said, I have produced an object, inside this object. That it is made of an orientation of charge potentials, and operates as a cogitation of a machine makes no difference to it's object properties.

You can wave your hand claiming it is "subjective" but it is an object no less objectively than a human brain.

The fact that you don't understand this means that it is to me unlikely that you will ever understand how or that you have been proven wrong.

Not just demonstrated or evidenced as wrong but proven, in the same way that any other Computer assisted proof functions.

The difference, the conflation, the failure of FDI's understanding is the confusion of "subjective" with "arbitrarily configurable".

Arbitrary configurability does no damage to using an object like a computer to prove that "objects may be configured in some given way" because it is trivially true a computer is an object so if it can be configured to hold some thing that satisfied the definition of a will, operate a behaviorally closed system in a manner observably meeting the definition of "deterministic", and be shown to contain events in which the "will" is observably going to have it's requirements met, and in which it is possible for that "will" to NOT have it's requirements met, you have proven something of "deterministic system": that deterministic systems may contain free wills.
There you go. You produced an object within the computer. The object (a self designed object) is not an objective thing. It is a human fashioned thing, something you produced of your design. Hint, hint, hint "arbitrarily configurable" is your design. It is something you (feel the self reference coming on) designed, not objective. BTW I said computer - it is an instrument - is something one uses to measure.

No speedskating my interpretations please. Uh, no it isn't capable of debugging itself since it reacts to cosmic objects causing unforeseeable errors that need external justifications for their occurrences. If you've never worked on something that gets up into the atmosphere you probably aren't going to be among those who are aware these things happen. Redundancy, debuggers both internal and collateral, knowledge of effects like radiation and comsmic activity are necessary for proving and preserving operablility.
Wow, According to Compatibilists, Computers have free will. Magical thinking in the twenty first century.
"The object is not an object": the hard determinists.

The two of you don't think HUMANS have this particular will I describe nor do you think that it can be "free" or "constrained" by the definitions offered so why should I give a rats fuck about whatever else you think is incapable of holding it?

I offered definitions and I am not about to shy away from the implications those definitions have for animals and other non-human objects.

"Arbitrarily configurable" is not subjective.

Mutability is not subjectivity, it is only mutability. Subjectivity is looking at the same object and coming to different conclusions about how you relate to it, such as "I think it is beautiful" and "I think it is not beautiful" because each person has a different "subjective definition" of beauty.

Objectively, the object is a 3x3 cube of copper.

I could take a hammer and hammer the object into any shape I wish. It is still going to be an object with objective properties. This is mutability. Some people may consider it more or less beautiful (subjectivity) but objectively, it will have whatever shape it has been given (objective mutability).

It doesn't matter if the computer has whatever design I put over it. It's mutability is not subjectivity.

What we call the "dwarf", what we call the "door" what word we use to describe "locked state" THAT is all subjective and in fact has a cohomology with the situation where we rename them "elf", "portal", and "DNE state".

The important point is understanding "this entity holds a list of instructions unto a requirement" and "the requirement shall/shall not be met".
EYUP. Human will, any will, is a delusion when sensed by humans. Sensing is self referenced so here we go round and round.
So, note where I make the discussion in this post which has been bolded. Read the whole post but I think you're making a category error, and looking at things sloppily.
It has become apparent that DBT does not understand what is meant by the utterance of the phrase "choice function"

Let's look at a concrete, objective, mathematical "choice function" which is "free to it's requirement" of making a choice.

For this we need to define a system, and a system state, on a base field (which will for our case be R, the set of all reals).

This is not a "closed system", though it may be contained inside a closed system.

Let listA {[1,Y1],[2,Y2],...[n,Yn]} such that listA.pop yields (Y1), and listA becomes {[1,Y2],...,[n-1,Yn]}. For the sake of brevity

Let us then also implement "listA.push(Yv)" which will likewise add rather than subtract an element at the head.

Pop is a simple choice function on listA.

It will make a choice OF listA and return the choice.

Note that there is a requirement to this choice function: when listA is empty, it must return not "0" but ∅. These are not the same.

Therefore this choice function itself has a freedom that may be addressed: whether the list is free to pop.

Most engineered choice functions have a function in fact to ascertain this, which returns an objective measurement of its own momentary provisional freedom: listA.empty() returns "true" when listA is exactly ∅. We will arbitrarily use "1" to denote true, just to keep it R(eal).

This is an imaginary idea of freedom, though; if pushed, and then popped, the idea will be invalidated, as the list will have the freedom and never have returned a ∅; if simply popped after, it will be a valid assessment and the function will return whatever it does to show an error. It will in that moment BE unfree rather than Imagine it's unfreeness.


listA is an object with a choice function.

But moreover, listA.pop is also a choice function that deterministically "pops" the first element.

Determinism does no injury to the idea of choice, or even of "freedom of choice": listA.pop is a recognizably "constrained" choice function, and is entirely deterministic in it's actions.

Also, another interesting fact of listA: it must have had something pushed into it so to have something popped off.

Hence the need for the menu, and why they are "possibilities" in that context. They have been "pushed" into listA, and while listA is not empty, it has the "freedom" to return an element.

All these words are describing concrete operations of an object.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Objectively, the object is a 3x3 cube of copper.

I could take a hammer and hammer the object into any shape I wish. It is still going to be an object with objective properties. This is mutability. Some people may consider it more or less beautiful (subjectivity) but objectively, it will have whatever shape it has been given (objective mutability).

It doesn't matter if the computer has whatever design I put over it. It's mutability is not subjectivity.

What we call the "dwarf", what we call the "door" what word we use to describe "locked state" THAT is all subjective and in fact has a cohomology with the situation where we rename them "elf", "portal", and "DNE state".

The important point is understanding "this entity holds a list of instructions unto a requirement" and "the requirement shall/shall not be met".
You make your bed when you say "cube 3x3." More than copper is required."
So you fail to accept SI, then.

Playing at idiotic responses because someone fails to reference units? As if any of the discussion of SuBjEcTiViTy has anything to do with that.

Mutability is not subjectivity.

You seem to be trying really hard at this point to look away.

Why do you need so badly for the object to not be an object?
Units by material dimension measures which specify the material extent of the object making it an identifiable material object as opposed to a subjective thing such as 3x3 cube (whatever) copper? It's fiction, made up, subjective, unless all the elements of dimensionality including number correct potential measures (length width, depth, extents) of object 'copper cube'. Also, if relevant you can include form and extent of mutated(ness)
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Objectively, the object is a 3x3 cube of copper.

I could take a hammer and hammer the object into any shape I wish. It is still going to be an object with objective properties. This is mutability. Some people may consider it more or less beautiful (subjectivity) but objectively, it will have whatever shape it has been given (objective mutability).

It doesn't matter if the computer has whatever design I put over it. It's mutability is not subjectivity.

What we call the "dwarf", what we call the "door" what word we use to describe "locked state" THAT is all subjective and in fact has a cohomology with the situation where we rename them "elf", "portal", and "DNE state".

The important point is understanding "this entity holds a list of instructions unto a requirement" and "the requirement shall/shall not be met".
You make your bed when you say "cube 3x3." More than copper is required."
So you fail to accept SI, then.

Playing at idiotic responses because someone fails to reference units? As if any of the discussion of SuBjEcTiViTy has anything to do with that.

Mutability is not subjectivity.

You seem to be trying really hard at this point to look away.

Why do you need so badly for the object to not be an object?
Units by material dimension measures which specify the material extent of the object making it an identifiable material object as opposed to a subjective thing such as 3x3 cube (whatever) copper? It's fiction, made up, subjective, unless all the elements of dimensionality including number correct potential measures (length width, depth, extents) of object 'copper cube'. Also, if relevant you can include form and extent of mutated(ness)
You are being pedantic about how much information I am including about a "physical reality", a hypothetical but still entirely valid discussion about the concept of subjectivity in a discussion of definition.

Thought experiments in the realm of settled physics are entirely valid.

Obtuse does not even BEGIN to describe what you are doing.

Why, again, do you need so badly for the computer to not be an object, albeit highly mutable, when it so clearly is?

You are trying so hard to look away from this as if looking at it will somehow break you.

It has not broken Marvin.

It has not broken Pood.

Why are you so afraid it will break you?
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
You are being pedantic about how much information I am including about a "physical reality", a hypothetical but still entirely valid discussion about the concept of subjectivity in a discussion of definition.

Thought experiments in the realm of settled physics are entirely valid.

Obtuse does not even BEGIN to describe what you are doing.

Why, again, do you need so badly for the computer to not be an object, albeit highly mutable, when it so clearly is?

You are trying so hard to look away from this as if looking at it will somehow break you.

It has not broken Marvin.

It has not broken Pood.

Why are you so afraid it will break you?
No. it has only been broken by you the self proclaimed one who does magic with computers. Anyone can, if the follow a simple set of principles can design and execute an experiment. So far you've failed to show you are up to the task. Your ---, .... to date has not demonstrated you can even do the logic of an experiment. You have failed to specify anything resembling an experiment or an experimental result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
You are being pedantic about how much information I am including about a "physical reality", a hypothetical but still entirely valid discussion about the concept of subjectivity in a discussion of definition.

Thought experiments in the realm of settled physics are entirely valid.

Obtuse does not even BEGIN to describe what you are doing.

Why, again, do you need so badly for the computer to not be an object, albeit highly mutable, when it so clearly is?

You are trying so hard to look away from this as if looking at it will somehow break you.

It has not broken Marvin.

It has not broken Pood.

Why are you so afraid it will break you?
No. it has only been broken by you the self proclaimed one who does magic with computers. Anyone can, if the follow a simple set of principles can design and execute an experiment. So far you've failed to show you are up to the task. Your ---, .... to date has not demonstrated you can even do the logic of an experiment. You have failed to specify anything resembling an experiment or an experimental result.
No, YOU claimed I do "magic" with computers.

I claim I do material operations with computers and I have the policy do describe in fairly painstaking detail what it is, how, and how what I do with them is an objective exercise.

What is interesting is that you want so very badly to look away from an object existing as an object, and away from specific observable object properties it has.

The fact of the matter is that I'm using settled science. That's what a computer sits on: it is an object formed from confident operation of physics in a deterministic way.

I took an object, showed it can harbor some thing that is "a list of actions unto a requirement" (I opened up the dwarf's structure and showed it containing a list), and then I proved "the requirement MAY be satisfied" (by situations each where it was, and other situations where it was not), as well as objective, observable situations wherein the origin of the requirement of the will could also be ascertained.

Then you claimed that mutability was subjectivity when it is not.

Again, why do you, FDI need so badly for the object to not be an object? Would you like me to give you a file which will mutate your own computer into a static object where you can observe Urist's will, crack it open and see the literal, bitwise shape of Urist's will to open the door such that his will is deterministically "not free"?

But no, I am not going to do that for you. You can download the game yourself and watch it happen in front of you, see the computer objectively tell you in big red job cancellation notifications when wills are objectively, observably unfree to their requirements, particularly ones that come from "administrated tasks".

I don't have any faith that you would be able to make any sense of the engine, but it would be funny to watch you try.

All I need really from it is a valid construction of it's math: a dwarf in a room with a will to open a door.

Then I can observe whether his will is free: is the door locked? Of course, I'm calculating whether his will is free knowing all the secrets of his universe's physics: my answer that I get IS his freedom. What I come up with on paper is what happens in his reality, in our reality owing to the statistical levelling of computers to a mathematical, deterministic (not merely superdeterministic) form.

What I come up with on paper is in fact "the door is locked, will is not free".

There is a real freedom in whether the door opens.

Again, all mere properties of objects.

Why do you want the object to not be an object so badly FDI?
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
You are being pedantic about how much information I am including about a "physical reality", a hypothetical but still entirely valid discussion about the concept of subjectivity in a discussion of definition.

Thought experiments in the realm of settled physics are entirely valid.

Obtuse does not even BEGIN to describe what you are doing.

Why, again, do you need so badly for the computer to not be an object, albeit highly mutable, when it so clearly is?

You are trying so hard to look away from this as if looking at it will somehow break you.

It has not broken Marvin.

It has not broken Pood.

Why are you so afraid it will break you?
No. it has only been broken by you the self proclaimed one who does magic with computers. Anyone can, if the follow a simple set of principles can design and execute an experiment. So far you've failed to show you are up to the task. Your ---, .... to date has not demonstrated you can even do the logic of an experiment. You have failed to specify anything resembling an experiment or an experimental result.
No, YOU claimed I do "magic" with computers.

I claim I do material operations with computers and I have the policy do describe in fairly painstaking detail what it is, how, and how what I do with them is an objective exercise.

What is interesting is that you want so very badly to look away from an object existing as an object, and away from specific observable object properties it has.

The fact of the matter is that I'm using settled science. That's what a computer sits on: it is an object formed from confident operation of physics in a deterministic way.

I took an object, showed it can harbor some thing that is "a list of actions unto a requirement" (I opened up the dwarf's structure and showed it containing a list), and then I proved "the requirement MAY be satisfied" (by situations each where it was, and other situations where it was not), as well as objective, observable situations wherein the origin of the requirement of the will could also be ascertained.

Then you claimed that mutability was subjectivity when it is not.

Again, why do you, FDI need so badly for the object to not be an object? Would you like me to give you a file which will mutate your own computer into a static object where you can observe Urist's will, crack it open and see the literal, bitwise shape of Urist's will to open the door such that his will is deterministically "not free"?

But no, I am not going to do that for you. You can download the game yourself and watch it happen in front of you, see the computer objectively tell you in big red job cancellation notifications when wills are objectively, observably unfree to their requirements, particularly ones that come from "administrated tasks".

I don't have any faith that you would be able to make any sense of the engine, but it would be funny to watch you try.

All I need really from it is a valid construction of it's math: a dwarf in a room with a will to open a door.

Then I can observe whether his will is free: is the door locked? Of course, I'm calculating whether his will is free knowing all the secrets of his universe's physics: my answer that I get IS his freedom. What I come up with on paper is what happens in his reality, in our reality owing to the statistical levelling of computers to a mathematical, deterministic (not merely superdeterministic) form.

What I come up with on paper is in fact "the door is locked, will is not free".

There is a real freedom in whether the door opens.

Again, all mere properties of objects.

Why do you want the object to not be an object so badly FDI?
My problem with computer 'experiments' is in the area of the universe presumed. It is always determined by the designer of the experiment so that outputs are always constrained to best guesses by the designer about the nature of the world rather than reality. Simulation cannot emulate reality. It can only approximate it to the extent that reality is known and that to the limits of computer capacity. An example is weather simulation. Such have improved over the years as more data was fed in to the models. This only strengthens one's surmise that unless we know everything about something outcomes will aways degrade over length of experiment.

I find such experiments useful as first guesses about what is known will come out in time. But, as with weather emulation the outputs are only as good as the inputs and the inputs are always limited leading to increasing uncertainty over duration, projection, of simulation. In the case of weather this reduces to I dunno from about two week simulations.

When dealing with unknowns of possibilities such as will in a determined environment, the presumptions required cannot be directly verified since we don't how it works, if it works, in the real world. One of those unknown unknowns.

Physics isn't settled nor is it knowable through simulation on a device that fails as the result of changes in the world in which it operates. Your stomping of feet aside you have not presented a verifiable reasoned argument for your hypotheses nor simulation outcomes.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
You are being pedantic about how much information I am including about a "physical reality", a hypothetical but still entirely valid discussion about the concept of subjectivity in a discussion of definition.

Thought experiments in the realm of settled physics are entirely valid.

Obtuse does not even BEGIN to describe what you are doing.

Why, again, do you need so badly for the computer to not be an object, albeit highly mutable, when it so clearly is?

You are trying so hard to look away from this as if looking at it will somehow break you.

It has not broken Marvin.

It has not broken Pood.

Why are you so afraid it will break you?
No. it has only been broken by you the self proclaimed one who does magic with computers. Anyone can, if the follow a simple set of principles can design and execute an experiment. So far you've failed to show you are up to the task. Your ---, .... to date has not demonstrated you can even do the logic of an experiment. You have failed to specify anything resembling an experiment or an experimental result.
No, YOU claimed I do "magic" with computers.

I claim I do material operations with computers and I have the policy do describe in fairly painstaking detail what it is, how, and how what I do with them is an objective exercise.

What is interesting is that you want so very badly to look away from an object existing as an object, and away from specific observable object properties it has.

The fact of the matter is that I'm using settled science. That's what a computer sits on: it is an object formed from confident operation of physics in a deterministic way.

I took an object, showed it can harbor some thing that is "a list of actions unto a requirement" (I opened up the dwarf's structure and showed it containing a list), and then I proved "the requirement MAY be satisfied" (by situations each where it was, and other situations where it was not), as well as objective, observable situations wherein the origin of the requirement of the will could also be ascertained.

Then you claimed that mutability was subjectivity when it is not.

Again, why do you, FDI need so badly for the object to not be an object? Would you like me to give you a file which will mutate your own computer into a static object where you can observe Urist's will, crack it open and see the literal, bitwise shape of Urist's will to open the door such that his will is deterministically "not free"?

But no, I am not going to do that for you. You can download the game yourself and watch it happen in front of you, see the computer objectively tell you in big red job cancellation notifications when wills are objectively, observably unfree to their requirements, particularly ones that come from "administrated tasks".

I don't have any faith that you would be able to make any sense of the engine, but it would be funny to watch you try.

All I need really from it is a valid construction of it's math: a dwarf in a room with a will to open a door.

Then I can observe whether his will is free: is the door locked? Of course, I'm calculating whether his will is free knowing all the secrets of his universe's physics: my answer that I get IS his freedom. What I come up with on paper is what happens in his reality, in our reality owing to the statistical levelling of computers to a mathematical, deterministic (not merely superdeterministic) form.

What I come up with on paper is in fact "the door is locked, will is not free".

There is a real freedom in whether the door opens.

Again, all mere properties of objects.

Why do you want the object to not be an object so badly FDI?
My problem with computer 'experiments' is in the area of the universe presumed. It is always determined by the designer of the experiment so that outputs are always constrained to best guesses by the designer about the nature of the world rather than reality. Simulation cannot emulate reality. It can only approximate it to the extent that reality is known and that to the limits of computer capacity. An example is weather simulation. Such have improved over the years as more data was fed in to the models. This only strengthens one's surmise that unless we know everything about something outcomes will aways degrade over length of experiment.

I find such experiments useful as first guesses about what is known will come out in time. But, as with weather emulation the outputs are only as good as the inputs and the inputs are always limited leading to increasing uncertainty over duration, projection, of simulation. In the case of weather this reduces to I dunno from about two week simulations.

When dealing with unknowns of possibilities such as will in a determined environment, the presumptions required cannot be directly verified since we don't how it works, if it works, in the real world. One of those unknown unknowns.

Physics isn't settled nor is it knowable through simulation on a device that fails as the result of changes in the world in which it operates. Your stomping of feet aside you have not presented a verifiable reasoned argument for your hypotheses nor simulation outcomes.
The area of the universe presumed is exactly the area of the universe the computer occupies.

Think about it this way, perhaps, if you are not afraid of seeing the object as an object: the computer is an object, highly mutable.

The computer itself (not talking specifically about simulation, but the object of the computer) contains a relationship where one thing observably holds a will. This is not arbitrary, nor subjective. It is there, and it is painfully easy to observe, through a debugger window. The debugger window can't debug itself but it doesn't need to.

That will exists in "a deterministic closed system which exists in the broader universe".

It is not disconnected per SE, it is not existing in a vacuum, and it can ONLY have "properties and relationships that are allowed by our broader deterministic universe".

So if I show a property existing "there", I have ALSO shown it existing here, because "there" exists subordinate to "here" and is limited in properties to the ones "here" allows of it.

They can hold "wills"? That means "wills" exist, even if it is only inside the computer. It would be up to you to prove that they are isolated to that context but it also disproves through counter example your central contention: wills may exist and that while provisional freedom is imaginary that there is still also a real moment of determination on freedom.

Their wills can objectively, observably be dependently "free or constrained" on the basis of their deterministic system? That means "freedom" is a property of a will in a deterministic context. It is important to note, absent this context, the will is just free-floating, like the "type" listA, rather than a given instantiation.

Thus by demonstrating these things existing observably on a (mutable) object, I demonstrate them existing in reality.

And yes, computers function by fairly settled physics with observable large scale mechanics.

You might not know "how it works" in humans but my goal here has never been to discuss specifically how it works in humans.

My goal is to prove, with mathematical certainty, that these things are not forbidden by determinism.

For that, I use the computer, by which the fundamental pieces are proven as certainly existing. How neurons Implement richer variations of such things is also something I'm working my way through, but in all honesty we may never know.

What I DO know is that if a simple, low-mutability Turing machine can host these structures and operate concretely on these as observed, a human brain can as well, and add many more layers of nuance and complexity besides.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
Wow, According to Compatibilists, Computers have free will. Magical thinking in the twenty first century.

You seem to have a lot of mythical beliefs about compatibilists.



Jarhyn has made that claim. Hence my comment.
You have made the claim that free will is not possible at all so why should anyone care that you think that suddenly "computers have wills, and the wills can be free" is a invalid statement?

It's not a clear case that they cannot; I have made a clear case in fact that they may.

My comment was related to your claim that computers may have not only have will, but free will.

I pointed out that you are making a category error by conflating function with will.

Again, will is not the same as function. Function is determined by the construction of a mechanism, which has no 'will' - but functions as designed and constructed, current through circuits, information is processed, output is produced. Information in, information out. Garbage in garbage out. Rational input in, rational results out......

Nothing is being willed, nothing is being freely willed. Mechanical systems do not operate on the principle of will or free will.
And yet again you fail to even make a a single criticism or argument against it beyond a mere dismissal, which you offer to any thing approaching "wills which are free".

Your ascertainment of what is a "category error" given the fact that you seem unable to understand or parse the difference between "mutability" and "subjectivity" and your inability to understand that "will can be a function" means that it is probably pointless to have this conversation with you, DBT, at all.

Anything into garbage is garbage, in this math, I think.

I have pointed out a series of instructions unto a requirement, held observably in a system.

Scripts fairly trivially in fact meet the qualities of a "will", as I have defined the word.

Wills can contain whole definitions of functions.

Definitions of functions can contain packaged wills.

The very idea of "function" and "will" here as defined may be homologous.

As to whether DBT, talking to a firmware engineer, understands the idea of "function" is questionable at best, too.

So why should I give a rat's fuck whether you, someone who does not believe humans (or anything) can hold the thing we call "wills" and whether such "wills" can be "free, with respect to their requirements", think that computers can or cannot have such?

Why would this be more "absurd*" than humans holding the same?

Unless you really don't think it's all that absurd that humans do?

But we are machines in a deterministic system, so sauce for the goose...



*(you, or at least I mean nonsensical, btw)


Bluff and Bluster. Empty Rhetoric. You fail to understand what has been explained and supported. You make ludicrous claims like computers have will or free will.

You have yet to grasp the nature and implications of determinism even though you gave a reasonable definition of it.

To save time and effort;


''Compatibilists are unable to present a rational argument that supports their belief in the existence of free will in a deterministic universe, except by defining determinism and/or free will in a way that is a watered down version of one or both of the two concepts.
As I understand it, Determinism (which I take to be Causal Determinism) posits that all activity in the universe is both (i) the effect of [all] antecedent activity, and (ii) the only activity that can occur given the antecedent activity. That is what is meant by saying that everything is “determined” — it is the inexorable consequence of activity that preceded it. In a deterministic universe, everything that has ever occurred, is occurring, and will occur since the universe came into existence (however that might have occurred) can only occur exactly as it has occurred, is occurring, or will occur, and cannot possibly occur in any different manner. This mandated activity necessarily includes all human action, including all human cognition.''


''As I understand the notion of Free Will, it posits that a human being, when presented with more than one course of action, has the freedom or agency to choose between or among the alternatives, and that the state of affairs that exists in the universe immediately prior to the putative exercise of that freedom of choice does not eliminate all but one option and compel the selection of only one of the available options.

Based on the foregoing:

  1. If Causal Determinism is true (i.e., accurately describes the state of the universe), then humans lack Free Will because the truth of Causal Determinism means that (a) humans lack the ability to think in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside of their control, as human cognition is simply a form of activity that is governed by Causal Determinism, and (b) there are no such thing as true “options” or “alternatives” because there is one, and only one, activity that can ever occur at any given instant; and
  2. If Free-Will exists in its pure form, then Causal Determinism is not true because the existence of Free Will in its pure form depends upon (a) the existence of true “options” or “alternatives,” and (b) humans being capable of thinking (and acting) in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside their control.

''It should suffice to say that none of the various arguments for Compatibilism courageously presented on the Stanford website is satisfying, and all suffer from the same flaw identified above — namely, a stubborn refusal to come to grips with the true and complete nature of Causal Determinism and Free Will. Or, as William James less generously observed, all efforts to harmonize Causal Determinism an Free Will are a “quagmire of evasion.” - Bruce Silverstein B.A. in Philosophy
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
@DBT:

Bluff and Bluster. Empty Rhetoric. You fail to understand what has been explained and supported.

What I find interesting is that you, who claim "no thing has "free will" even when presented with an object containing a will that is free to it's requirement", thinks it's somehow "MORE impossible" or "nonsensical" for a computer to have a "will" than a human.

It's almost as if you think humans DO have free will and only computers don't?

But in a deterministic system, if one machine has a will that has "determined freedom", then any machine of sufficient complexity and mutability may.

You have yet to grasp the nature and implications of determinism.

'Compatibilists are unable to present a rational argument that supports their belief in the existence of free will in a deterministic universe, except by defining determinism and/or "free" and "will" in a way [that hard determinsts ignore]"

Means that compatibilists have a rational argument that supports their concepts of free will in a deterministic universe. Full stop.


''As I understand the notion of Free Will, it posits that a human being, when presented with more than one course of action, has the freedom or agency to choose between or among the alternatives, and that the state of affairs that exists in the universe immediately prior to the putative exercise of that freedom of choice does not eliminate all but one option and compel the selection of only one of the available options.

So... Libertarian free will again? The thing that everyone here chucks out the window?

Yawn...

From there everything else you speak falls apart.

Again, since you did not appear to have read it, the discussion on what is meant when discussing "freedom of choice" in deterministic systems.

It has become apparent that DBT does not understand what is meant by the utterance of the phrase "choice function"

Let's look at a concrete, objective, mathematical "choice function" which is "free to it's requirement" of making a choice.

For this we need to define a system, and a system state, on a base field (which will for our case be R, the set of all reals).

This is not a "closed system", though it may be contained inside a closed system.

Let listA {[1,Y1],[2,Y2],...[n,Yn]} such that listA.pop yields (Y1), and listA becomes {[1,Y2],...,[n-1,Yn]}. For the sake of brevity

Let us then also implement "listA.push(Yv)" which will likewise add rather than subtract an element at the head.

Pop is a simple choice function on listA.

It will make a choice OF listA and return the choice.

Note that there is a requirement to this choice function: when listA is empty, it must return not "0" but ∅. These are not the same.

Therefore this choice function itself has a freedom that may be addressed: whether the list is free to pop.

Most engineered choice functions have a function in fact to ascertain this, which returns an objective measurement of its own momentary provisional freedom: listA.empty() returns "true" when listA is exactly ∅. We will arbitrarily use "1" to denote true, just to keep it R(eal).

This is an imaginary idea of freedom, though; if pushed, and then popped, the idea will be invalidated, as the list will have the freedom and never have returned a ∅; if simply popped after, it will be a valid assessment and the function will return whatever it does to show an error. It will in that moment BE unfree rather than Imagine it's unfreeness.

listA is an object with a choice function.

But moreover, listA.pop is also a choice function that deterministically "pops" the first element.

Determinism does no injury to the idea of choice, or even of "freedom of choice": listA.pop is a recognizably "constrained" choice function, and is entirely deterministic in it's actions.

Also, another interesting fact of listA: it must have had something pushed into it so to have something popped off.

Hence the need for the menu, and why they are "possibilities" in that context. They have been "pushed" into listA, and while listA is not empty, it has the "freedom" to return an element.

All these words are describing concrete operations of an object.
 
Last edited:

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
Yet the question of menu selection came up again in the assumption that the compatibilist narrative is correct.
It is not correct because, to reiterate, only one action is possible in any instance in time within a determined system.

You're confusing an actuality with a possibility. Every item on the restaurant menu is a possibility. However, the Chef Salad on the table in front of me is an actuality. There will be only one actuality. However, there are always multiple possibilities.

Every item is not only a possibility, but a necessity for someone. Each person to their own menu item. Each menu item that is selected is not probabilistically selected, not freely willed, but necessarily selected. It cannot happen otherwise.

If you select Steak and Salad, your wife selects Lasagna, your friend selects Spanish Mackerel and his wife selects Caeser Salad, four menu items are taken, each and every item selection necessitated/fixed/ determined by the mental/physical condition of the person/brain/mind involved in the process of determination.

.
  1. If Causal Determinism is true (i.e., accurately describes the state of the universe), then humans lack Free Will because the truth of Causal Determinism means that (a) humans lack the ability to think in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside of their control, as human cognition is simply a form of activity that is governed by Causal Determinism, and (b) there are no such thing as true “options” or “alternatives” because there is one, and only one, activity that can ever occur at any given instant; and
  2. If Free-Will exists in its pure form, then Causal Determinism is not true because the existence of Free Will in its pure form depends upon (a) the existence of true “options” or “alternatives,” and (b) humans being capable of thinking (and acting) in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside their control.'' - Bruce Silverstein - BA Philosophy - Quora
    https://www.quora.com/profile/Bruce-Silverstein-1
,
Choosing, inputs multiple possibilities, and, outputs an intention to actualize exactly one of them.

'Possibility' implies uncertainty, that something may or may not happen. There are no 'possibilities' in determinism. What is determined must necessarily happen as determined


Because choosing is a deterministic operation, it should be obvious to you that multiple possibilities are a logical requirement. And they will always be present in the mind whenever choosing happens. Therefore, the claim that "only one action is possible in any instance in time within a determined system" is clearly false.

Options within a determined system are not 'possibilities' in the sense that an action may or may not happen. Options are either open or closed for someone depending on the state of the system.

There is, for instance, the option to become an astronaut, to fly to the Space Station, an option that is not realizable for 99.999% of the population

In a deterministic system that includes a human brain with the neurological capacity to make decisions, that mind will always have multiple possibilities to choose from during that operation.

There are no possibilities within the brain/mind in the sense that something not determined could possibly happen. Each incremental state of the brain in each and every moment in time is fixed by antecedents. No other 'possibility' exists within a determined system.

''As I understand it, Determinism (which I take to be Causal Determinism) posits that all activity in the universe is both (i) the effect of [all] antecedent activity, and (ii) the only activity that can occur given the antecedent activity. That is what is meant by saying that everything is “determined” — it is the inexorable consequence of activity that preceded it. In a deterministic universe, everything that has ever occurred, is occurring, and will occur since the universe came into existence (however that might have occurred) can only occur exactly as it has occurred, is occurring, or will occur, and cannot possibly occur in any different manner. This mandated activity necessarily includes all human action, including all human cognition.'' - Bruce Silverstein - BA Philosophy - Quora


The correct formulation of the idea of determinism is that "only one possibility will be actualized". But there is never any possibility that is removed by determinism. Every possibility that occurs to the mind will be causally necessary, inevitable, and will appear at that time and place without deviation.

Correct, with the caveat that other 'possibilities' are not your possibilities, but other people's necessitations. Which is why determinism negates freedom of will.


Determinism is a Harsh Mistress.

And apparently she's not very bright, either.

Events proceed as determined, no deviation, no possibility of doing otherwise. Fixed as determined. No negotiation. No alteration. No going back.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
not freely willed

It cannot happen otherwise.
And again, like a child who doesn't understand algebra, you fail to distinguish between what we are talking about (compatibilist free will, which does not get injured by "cannot do otherwise"), and libertarian free will.

It's right at the top of your post, and all the rest is blatherskite attached to that wrongness.

Libertarian free will, as has been denounced a hundred times and more, is not the topic here, but compatibilist concepts of "free" and "will" and "that one particular will happening to be free or not"

As I pointed out, the concept we use to denote freeness is the same concept used in discussing listA's freeness: it is the objective resolution of a given determined event in a way involving a normal return rather than a null return.

The ultimate point here is that there is exactly one definition of "free" and "will" that will ever be capable of making sense, and that all definitions that make sense are that definition worded differently but still fundamentally cohomologous.

To then gripe that we are being precise and "it only works when being precise" is in fact just complaining that there is an underlying mathematical structure that is being discussed.

Do we have to go back to °°° and •••?
 
Last edited:

Marvin Edwards

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
806
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
You're confusing an actuality with a possibility. Every item on the restaurant menu is a possibility. However, the Chef Salad on the table in front of me is an actuality. There will be only one actuality. However, there are always more than one possibility.

Each person to their own menu item. Each menu item that is selected is not probabilistically selected, not freely willed, but necessarily selected. It cannot happen otherwise.

The choices made "will" not happen otherwise, but they certainly "can" happen otherwise. Every item on the menu is a real possibility for every person at the table. The fact that they will not choose an item does not logically imply that they could not choose that item.

It is a simple matter of what "can" and "will" actually mean. What "will" happen is not the same as what "can" happen.

And whenever choosing happens, there will always be at least two things that "can" happen, even though there is only one thing that "will" happen.

If you select Steak and Salad, your wife selects Lasagna, your friend selects Spanish Mackerel and his wife selects Caeser Salad, four menu items are taken, each and every item selection necessitated/fixed/ determined by the mental/physical condition of the person/brain/mind involved in the process of determination.

Absolutely correct! Even though I "could" have selected the Lasagna, I didn't. And given those exact same circumstances, I never "would have" selected the Lasagna, even though I "could have".

  1. If Causal Determinism is true ... - Bruce Silverstein - BA Philosophy - Quora

If Bruce would like to participate in this conversation, then I'd be happy to straighten him out as well. But I see no point in trying to have a conversation with someone who isn't here to defend his position. You may prefer his rhetoric to your own, but he is not actually saying anything that you are not already saying. So, let's avoid unnecessary redundancy.

'Possibility' implies uncertainty, that something may or may not happen.

Exactly. The function of our notions of "possibility" is to deal with everyday uncertainty. When we do not know what "will" happen, we imagine what "can" happen, to prepare for what does happen.

There are no 'possibilities' in determinism.

When we are in the context of deterministic reality, there are no possibilities. Thus, when addressing functional possibilities we shift into a different context, the context where we speak of things that "can" happen, rather than things that "will" happen. We don't know whether the traffic light will be red or green when we get there (the deterministic reality is unknown), but we know for certain that it could be red and it also could be green (two real possibilities).

The function of a "possibility" is to allow us to imagine things that may or may not happen. The restaurant menu, for example, is a list of things that we might or might not choose for dinner. The function of such an imagined future is to "try it out" to see if we might want to choose it. For example, when I considered having that steak for dinner, I recalled having bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, and what first looked good to me suddenly seemed less appetizing. That's how a "possibility", something that "can" happen, logically functions.

A possibility might never be selected, but it remains a possibility, something we have the "ability" to do, something that we "can" do, even if we never actually do it.

What is determined must necessarily happen as determined

Yes. And if it is "determined" (causally necessary) that I would consider the possibility of the steak, and then reject it, then that possibility, as a mental event, was causally necessary from any prior point in time and inevitably "would" happen, without deviation.

Of course, it "could" have happened differently. If I had coffee and toast for breakfast, and a salad for lunch, then the possibility of steak for dinner "would" have been very appealing, and I "would", under those circumstances, order the steak instead of the salad for dinner.

But that, of course, did not happen, even though it "could" have.

Options within a determined system are not 'possibilities' in the sense that an action may or may not happen. Options are either open or closed for someone depending on the state of the system.

An "option" is a possible choice. It is something that you "can" choose, even if you never choose it. To use the word "option" invokes the context of possibilities.

The fact that we definitely will not choose that option does not mean that we could not choose it.

Both the salad and the steak were options that were "open" to me. To be "open" simply means that I had the ability to choose it, if I wanted to.

In one scenario, where I had the bacon at breakfast and the cheeseburger at lunch, that recollection "closed" the steak option, and I chose the salad.

But the closing was done by me, due to my own reasons. Determinism did not step in and close that option for me. I did that myself. In fact, determinism simply insured that it would be me, and no one else, that would close that option.

There is, for instance, the option to become an astronaut, to fly to the Space Station, an option that is not realizable for 99.999% of the population

That's a good point. We may imagine ourselves as astronauts without it being a real possibility. That would be a fantasy for most people. A fantasy is not expected to be a real possibility.

Superman may "leap tall buildings in a single bound", but that is physically impossible for us.

A real possibility is something that we actually can do, if we choose to do it.

In a deterministic system that includes a human brain with the neurological capacity to make decisions, that mind will always have multiple possibilities to choose from during that operation.

There are no possibilities within the brain/mind in the sense that something not determined could possibly happen.

The paradox here is created by conflating the two "senses" that we're talking about. Are we speaking in the sense of possibilities, or, are we speaking in the sense of actualities. These are two very different senses. Are we speaking of things that "can" happen, or, are we speaking of things that "will" happen.

I believe it is a mental error to confuse these two contexts. Most of the time, we use them correctly, and even closely, without confusion.

For example, "I chose the salad, even though I could have chosen the steak", is considered a true statement in both its parts.

But now the hard determinist comes along and says, "No, you never could have chosen the steak". Which makes no sense at all, because, just a moment ago, before I had made my choice, "I can choose the salad" and "I can choose the steak" were both equally true.

If "I can choose the steak" was ever true at any point in the past, then "I could have chosen the steak" will be forever true in the future, when referring to that same past. It is a simple change in the tense of the verb. It is built into the logic of our language.

So, back to your original question. What does it mean to say "something that is not determined cannot possibly happen"? It means we're confusing things.

Why? Because something that can possibly happen may or may not be determined to happen.

Events proceed as determined, no deviation,

Correct.

no possibility of doing otherwise.

Still logically false. Determinism never eliminates any possibility of doing otherwise. The possibility of doing otherwise never requires that we actually do otherwise, but only that we can do otherwise if we choose to. I chose the salad, but I could have chosen the steak. The steak was a real possibility, and my choosing it was really possible, even though I would never choose it under those conditions.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I would go so far as to say, if we are going to whittle all this complexity of "could" and "shall", we can just dispense with "shall" and acknowledge that choice functions don't need to be indeterministic to be "free".

Really wills just need to return a product of their choice function rather than being interrupted and having that choice revoked or forced by operations external to the choice function either by failure to push, or a superceding choice function.

listA.pop is still, after all, a choice function. It can never return the second element (could not ever choose listA[2]), despite being in listA as "possibilities" under the definition of what a "possibility" is: an object which is contained in the set listA.

We can observe the "possibilities" of listA objectively. They are real things.

They are clearly never going to get chosen in an "immediate" operation of listA pop, but this presents no challenge of listA.pop's "freedom".

The only challenge to that freedom is when listA = {∅}, and it lets you know by returning ∅ rather than any member of set R.

listA does not need to even be capable of realizing possibilities for them to BE possibilities, and it only needs to be capable of returning an object in the set of R to be "free", which is dependent on whether it has had a Push operation operated.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Freedom from what? That's the question that makes freedom meaningful.
I pose it as freedom to, rather than freedom from.

"Freedom from" assumes specific impediments, an infinite set.

"Freedom to" looks at a specific, singular event: the return of the will.
 

Marvin Edwards

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
806
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Freedom from what? That's the question that makes freedom meaningful.
I pose it as freedom to, rather than freedom from.

"Freedom from" assumes specific impediments, an infinite set.

"Freedom to" looks at a specific, singular event: the return of the will.
Freedom to X implies freedom from anything that would prevent you from X'ing. "Freedom to" is the default assumption until something gets in the way of doing what you want. "Freedom to" implies "freedom from" that which prevents you from doing what you want.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Freedom from what? That's the question that makes freedom meaningful.
I pose it as freedom to, rather than freedom from.

"Freedom from" assumes specific impediments, an infinite set.

"Freedom to" looks at a specific, singular event: the return of the will.
Freedom to X implies freedom from anything that would prevent you from X'ing. "Freedom to" is the default assumption until something gets in the way of doing what you want. "Freedom to" implies "freedom from" that which prevents you from doing what you want.
There is only one freedom to: the event that it happens. It is not an assumption but a reality, the individual singular thing that was "free from *".

It's really more a 1->inf; 1/x as x->0 kind of debate though.

They are likely the same idea but viewed from different angles.

You can always, from "freedom to requirement" begin enumerating things the will was "free from". You can't get whether the thing was free to it's requirement by discussing what it was free from, though.

The only "free from" is "free from *"

I guess I just like the idea of pointing to the requirement, the actual objective that produces a "returning state" that triggers, in some way, the release of the will with the gold star rather than "son, I am disappoint" or "try again".

I'm thinking about this, if you might imagine, because I actually want to use these discussions as a basis for hammering the necessary wills into HTMs, and stringing them together, and then tuning them until I have something that isn't entirely alien.

I'm not even going to get the power to start that work in earnest for a few more years, but I can discuss the requirements and the structure, and work out the algorithms and functions to make the kind of computer system that is, for lack of a better word, "a person".

To understand, though, it would be useful to have a identifier in unfree wills of what, in particular, first failed and a description of why.

A lot of it is going to be ripped off of and built unapologetically from the work of Tarn Adams.
 

Marvin Edwards

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
806
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
You can't get whether the thing was free to it's requirement by discussing what it was free from, though.
You get to whether the thing was "free to" by simply setting the requirement and watching it happen. If it happens, then it was necessarily "free to" happen. If it doesn't happen, then you'll look for what prevented it from happening, and attempt to set it "free from" that constraint, until it eventually happens. ... For example, if Tarn Adams sues you for copyright infringement, then you may not be free to rip off Mr. Adams.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
You're confusing an actuality with a possibility. Every item on the restaurant menu is a possibility. However, the Chef Salad on the table in front of me is an actuality. There will be only one actuality. However, there are always more than one possibility.

No confusion. it's just how determinism works by definition.

Every item is realizable (in fact necessitated) for someone in any instance in time, but not everyone. Who gets which menu item is determined, not freely willed.

Your selected menu item is fixed. Everyone's menu item, though different, though all options are taken by someone, is determined not freely willed.

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

Free Will? Not likely.

Each person to their own menu item. Each menu item that is selected is not probabilistically selected, not freely willed, but necessarily selected. It cannot happen otherwise.

The choices made "will" not happen otherwise, but they certainly "can" happen otherwise. Every item on the menu is a real possibility for every person at the table. The fact that they will not choose an item does not logically imply that they could not choose that item.

They are all realizable for someone, but not everyone. Each their own necessitated option. Their only option in the instance of realization of the menu item.


It is a simple matter of what "can" and "will" actually mean. What "will" happen is not the same as what "can" happen.

What will happen within a determined system must necessarily happen. It cannot not happen. It cannot be otherwise.

And whenever choosing happens, there will always be at least two things that "can" happen, even though there is only one thing that "will" happen.


There can never be two things that can happen. There is no probability within a determined system. Whatever happens must happen as determined, no deviation.



If you select Steak and Salad, your wife selects Lasagna, your friend selects Spanish Mackerel and his wife selects Caeser Salad, four menu items are taken, each and every item selection necessitated/fixed/ determined by the mental/physical condition of the person/brain/mind involved in the process of determination.

Absolutely correct! Even though I "could" have selected the Lasagna, I didn't. And given those exact same circumstances, I never "would have" selected the Lasagna, even though I "could have".

There was never a possibility of you choosing Lasagna if it is determined that you select Steak and Salad. Determinism doesn't allow alternate actions, each and every Diner their own selection with no possible alternative.

Determinism allows no wriggle room, no 'I may have gone with Lasagna' - it's too late, hindsight cannot alter what was determined to happen.

  1. If Causal Determinism is true ... - Bruce Silverstein - BA Philosophy - Quora

If Bruce would like to participate in this conversation, then I'd be happy to straighten him out as well. But I see no point in trying to have a conversation with someone who isn't here to defend his position. You may prefer his rhetoric to your own, but he is not actually saying anything that you are not already saying. So, let's avoid unnecessary redundancy.

Bruce is quite correct. He understands the rules of determinism and their consequences for all thought and action.

I don't prefer anyone's rhetoric. I post quotes because their descriptions describe the determinism and its consequences for the notion of free will.

In its simplest terms: if a deterministic system, everything is determined, hence nothing is freely willed or chosen in the sense that another option is possible. Other 'possibilities' are not your possibilities, but other people's necessitated actions, and the reason why determinism negates freedom of will.


'Possibility' implies uncertainty, that something may or may not happen.

Exactly. The function of our notions of "possibility" is to deal with everyday uncertainty. When we do not know what "will" happen, we imagine what "can" happen, to prepare for what does happen.

If ''possibility'' means that there is the possibility of something other than what is determined to happen, there are no possibilities in determinism. Everything proceeds as determined. No deviations, no alternate action, no may have been different.


There are no 'possibilities' in determinism.

When we are in the context of deterministic reality, there are no possibilities. Thus, when addressing functional possibilities we shift into a different context, the context where we speak of things that "can" happen, rather than things that "will" happen. We don't know whether the traffic light will be red or green when we get there (the deterministic reality is unknown), but we know for certain that it could be red and it also could be green (two real possibilities).
The function of a "possibility" is to allow us to imagine things that may or may not happen. The restaurant menu, for example, is a list of things that we might or might not choose for dinner. The function of such an imagined future is to "try it out" to see if we might want to choose it. For example, when I considered having that steak for dinner, I recalled having bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, and what first looked good to me suddenly seemed less appetizing. That's how a "possibility", something that "can" happen, logically functions.



We don't have the necessary information to accurately predict future states of the system. Which is why we speak of possibilities or likelihoods.

Ours is a limited perspective, and our predictions are only as good as the information we have.


A possibility might never be selected, but it remains a possibility, something we have the "ability" to do, something that we "can" do, even if we never actually do it.

If something happens, it happens because it was determined to happen, the state of the world, the state of you as events unfold. No deviation, if you recall your definition.

What is determined must necessarily happen as determined

Yes. And if it is "determined" (causally necessary) that I would consider the possibility of the steak, and then reject it, then that possibility, as a mental event, was causally necessary from any prior point in time and inevitably "would" happen, without deviation.

Of course, it "could" have happened differently. If I had coffee and toast for breakfast, and a salad for lunch, then the possibility of steak for dinner "would" have been very appealing, and I "would", under those circumstances, order the steak instead of the salad for dinner.

But that, of course, did not happen, even though it "could" have.

You can't consider anything that is not determined by information conditions, brain, environment, inputs, etc, in the instance of consideration. Your considerations are deterministic.


There is, for instance, the option to become an astronaut, to fly to the Space Station, an option that is not realizable for 99.999% of the population

That's a good point. We may imagine ourselves as astronauts without it being a real possibility. That would be a fantasy for most people. A fantasy is not expected to be a real possibility.

Fantasies are enabled by the information the brain has acquired, processed and extrapolated to include oneself in the scenario of space travel, imagining what it would feel like, etc, after all, the brain is an intelligent, rational system capable of generating a mental representation of the external world and self.

Superman may "leap tall buildings in a single bound", but that is physically impossible for us.

A real possibility is something that we actually can do, if we choose to do it.

In a deterministic system that includes a human brain with the neurological capacity to make decisions, that mind will always have multiple possibilities to choose from during that operation.

A real possibility is something someone will do, but not necessarily you or me. The someone that does these things does them because their brains, minds and events put them in that situation.

You don't just decide to become an Astronaut and become one, there's the matter of aptitude, circumstances, time, opportunity.....somebody gets to be an Astronaut but most of the world's population are ruled out, for them, there is no possibility.


There are no possibilities within the brain/mind in the sense that something not determined could possibly happen.

The paradox here is created by conflating the two "senses" that we're talking about. Are we speaking in the sense of possibilities, or, are we speaking in the sense of actualities. These are two very different senses. Are we speaking of things that "can" happen, or, are we speaking of things that "will" happen.

That's the thing, I am not conflating. We speak of possibilities because our understanding of current and future states of the system is limited, we extrapolate, we guess, while the system itself proceeds or unfolds as determined, without deviation, where everything that happens must happen as determined. Fixed. No deviation.

It is not what 'can' happen, but what must necessarily happen.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Without a realizable alternative, no decision was made
This boils down logically, when pointed at listA, to a demonstrable nonsense:

"Without listA.pop() being capable of returning listA[2] ∅ must be returned".

If listA contains {[1,1],[2,2]}, listA.pop returns 1, not ∅.

As the thesis is not a true statement of listA, you are provably speaking nonsense in this claim.

Your entire argument boils down to repetitions of this idea.

It is nonsense, and proven so, directly, through contradiction of example
 

Marvin Edwards

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
806
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Every item is realizable (in fact necessitated) for someone in any instance in time, but not everyone.

No. Realizable means "able to be realized". It does not mean that it will ever actually be realized.

Each specific order, by each person, will be necessarily realized. And each item that will not be realized will necessarily be not realized.

But the fact that a specific item will necessarily not be realized does not make the item "unrealizable". It remains an item that could have been realized if someone had chose to order it.

An ability implies a possibility to do something. I am able to walk to the grocery store. But I always drive my car, because I expect to bring back several bags of groceries. The fact that it is causally necessary that I never will walk to the grocery store does not in any way diminish my ability to walk to the grocery store.

Realizability is the ability to realize a possibility, to make it an actuality. And every person in the restaurant is able to choose any possibility from the menu, order it, and have it brought to their table and set in front of them. Every item on the menu is realizable, including every item that necessarily will not be realized tonight.

The ability remains constant, regardless of what will actually happen. I am able to walk to the grocery store even if I never will do so. I am able to order the Lasagna, even if I chose to order the steak with a side salad. My abilities are never changed by causal necessity.

Who gets which menu item is determined, not freely willed.

That would be the hard determinist's word game. The freedom is in the choosing, not in the willing. You are taking advantage of the abbreviated form "free will", and imagining that it means the will must be free of the choosing. But if you consult any general dictionary, you'll see that free will is a "voluntary", "unforced" choice, not some kind of free-floating will.

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

He's still correct, as always. We will choose for ourselves from multiple possibilities what we will do. This will be a causally necessary event, that will happen without deviation, and will be inevitable from the Big Bang to this moment.

It will inevitably be our own choice. It will inevitably be ourselves doing the choosing, and doing so for our own reasons and our own interests. And it will be called a freely chosen will.

Or, it will inevitably be a choice imposed upon by someone or something else, in which case it will be called coercion or undue influence. In which case it will not be a choice of our own free will.

What will happen within a determined system must necessarily happen. It cannot not happen. It cannot be otherwise.

Again, you're creating a paradox when you misuse the word "can" when you actually mean "will". The correct statement is this: "What will happen within a determined system must necessarily happen. It will not not happen. It will not be otherwise."

Using "can" in place of "will" throws us out of the context of deterministic necessity and into the context of possibilities. And, we end up with paradoxes like this one:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer: "I don't know. What can I order?"
Waiter: "Given determinism, there is only one thing you can order, sir."
Customer: "Oh. Then what is that one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I have no clue".

To remove the paradox, and start making sense again (despite David Byrne's advice), we can pragmatically reframe the example:
Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer: "I don't know. What can I order?"
Waiter: "Sorry sir. Here is our menu. You can order anything you want from the menu."
Customer: "Cool. I will have the Steak with a side salad".

From the menu of the many things that we can order, we select the single thing that we will order. And, all of the other items on the menu become things that we could have ordered instead.

Deterministic causal necessity does not remove any of the things we can do. It only necessitates that we will do only one of things that we can do.

And whenever choosing happens, there will always be at least two things that "can" happen, even though there is only one thing that "will" happen.

There can never be two things that can happen.

Then I wish to see the manager about getting a new waiter.

Bruce is quite correct. He understands the rules of determinism and their consequences for all thought and action.

Bruce Silverstein is saying the same thing that you are. And you are both wrong for the same reasons.

The function of a "possibility" is to allow us to imagine things that may or may not happen. The restaurant menu, for example, is a list of things that we might or might not choose for dinner. The function of such an imagined future is to "try it out" to see if we might want to choose it. For example, when I considered having that steak for dinner, I recalled having bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, and what first looked good to me suddenly seemed less appetizing. That's how a "possibility", something that "can" happen, logically functions.

We don't have the necessary information to accurately predict future states of the system. Which is why we speak of possibilities or likelihoods.

Precisely. That's why humans evolved specific linguistic concepts to deal logically with the problems of our frequent uncertainties.

Ours is a limited perspective, and our predictions are only as good as the information we have.

Correct.

If something happens, it happens because it was determined to happen, the state of the world, the state of you as events unfold. No deviation, if you recall your definition.

That is correct. But to keep in touch with the truth, we need to be aware of our own role as causal agents within the overall scheme of causation, and not indulge the fantasy that someone or something else is causing events that we are actually causing ourselves.

You can't consider anything that is not determined by information conditions, brain, environment, inputs, etc, in the instance of consideration. Your considerations are deterministic.

I certainly hope so. But keep in mind that the brain you mention is my own brain, and essentially my own self. And I (my brain) exercise some control over which information I subject myself to, and which changes I wish to make to my environment, etc. These too are matters of consideration that are deterministic (but then again, everything is, so why even bring it up?).
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
Every item is realizable (in fact necessitated) for someone in any instance in time, but not everyone.

No. Realizable means "able to be realized". It does not mean that it will ever actually be realized.

The point with determinism being: whatever is not determined to happen cannot be realized. If not determined, it literally cannot happen.

If it's determined that you select Steak and Salad, nothing else is realizable, hence no 'able to be realized.'

Each according to their state and action, nothing more, nothing less.

That's determinism.


Each specific order, by each person, will be necessarily realized. And each item that will not be realized will necessarily be not realized.

Exactly. Which is what negates any claim for free will within a determined system. Compatibilism's definition is based on action, not will, which is a category error.

Determined actions even when not coerced by external factors must necessarily proceed as determined, not freely willed.

But the fact that a specific item will necessarily not be realized does not make the item "unrealizable". It remains an item that could have been realized if someone had chose to order it.

Nobody is able choose something if that 'choice' is not determined. There are no alternate possibilities. If it's determined (state and condition of the system, including the brains/minds of the diners) that Lasagna is not chosen by anyone present, Lasagna literally cannot be chosen. Nobody chooses it. If determined, it cannot be chosen.

An ability implies a possibility to do something. I am able to walk to the grocery store. But I always drive my car, because I expect to bring back several bags of groceries. The fact that it is causally necessary that I never will walk to the grocery store does not in any way diminish my ability to walk to the grocery store.

You are able to do anything that is determined by the state and condition of the system in any given instance in time, you can run, jump, push a barrow, ride a bike, if it's determined, you can do it.

Moreover, not only can you do it, you must necessarily do it.

You cannot not do it.

Realizability is the ability to realize a possibility, to make it an actuality. And every person in the restaurant is able to choose any possibility from the menu, order it, and have it brought to their table and set in front of them. Every item on the menu is realizable, including every item that necessarily will not be realized tonight.

Nope, there are no multiple options or alternate actions within a determined system in any given instance in time....there is only one per person.

Each person 'opts' for an item on the menu according to their own state and condition in relation to the circumstance they are in.

Each and every item may be selected by someone with no possible alternative action in any instance of selection.

Selection is necessitated, not freely chosen or willed.

No deviations possible for anyone or anything.


The ability remains constant, regardless of what will actually happen. I am able to walk to the grocery store even if I never will do so. I am able to order the Lasagna, even if I chose to order the steak with a side salad. My abilities are never changed by causal necessity.

If you don't walk to the grocery store, this being determined, there was never a possibility of it happening. Unless its determined that you take that walk, it literally cannot happen.

We with our limited perspective may say. 'I could have gone to the grocery store' - which really means 'I should have gone to the grocery store.' Too late. It didn't happen and could never have happened because conditions, if determined, did not allow it to happen.

''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 lead 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.''
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
"Cannot" happen
Again, you are mixing contexts. In one context we take all the rules of physics, all those mysterious mechanisms that are understood to the extent they may be, and we present a different state field to all that.

This is what "can" means. Different stuff, same basic mathematical operations happening.

"Cannot" does not operate in the concept of concrete reality.

When I say "the dwarf cannot climb up a smoothed stone wall" I am making a statement not about A universe of physical interactions but of all hypothetical localities of all Dwarven physics on a given "raw configuration": "smoothed stone walls" are, in that physics, "unclimbable".

It is in effect saying "this math does not allow reaching this value from this other value". So, it is applicable in terms of "multiplying two integers numbers together using standard integer multiplication, you CANNOT generate a number that is not itself an integer"

This is different from saying "when I am done multiplying 7 * 5 in this sentence, I shall reach the answer 35."

One is a discussion of "multiplication, as an operation of an algebraic group on a field" and the other is a discussion of "what happens in this moment of reality?"

"Cannot" only ever happens in the imagination, in terms of provisional freedoms.

When you try to mix contexts, you just spew foolishness.
 

Marvin Edwards

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
806
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
If not determined, it literally cannot happen.

No, not "literally", but only "figuratively". If you take it literally you end up with nonsense. For example, you end up with the waiter telling the customer that he has only one choice for dinner, but neither the customer nor the waiter can say what that one choice is. The result is an absurdity.

There must be at least two things that a person can choose before choosing begins. It is a logical requirement of the operation. Therefore, it is nonsensical to claim that only one thing can be chosen, because if that were the case, then the choosing operation would immediately come to a screeching halt. One cannot choose between a single possibility!

We get similar nonsense with another example where we have two things that can happen even though only one thing will happen:

We're driving down the road and see a traffic light up ahead. The light is currently red, but it could turn green by the time we get there. On the other hand, it could remain red. So, we slow down. But as we arrive it turns green, so we resume speed. Our passenger, a hard determinist, asks, "Why did you slow down back there?". We respond, "The light could have remained red." The passenger says, "No, you're wrong. It was determined, from any prior point in time, that the light would be green when we arrived. So, why did you slow down?". We respond, "BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE REMAINED RED!". "No, it could not!", he exclaims. We pull over to the side of the road, and say "Get out of the car." Then we drive off without his nonsense.

So, your claim is not literally true, but literally false.

How then did you get to your conclusion? Through figurative thinking. If it is the case that only one choice will be made and that only one thing will happen, then it seems AS IF only one choice can be made and AS IF only one thing can happen. But that is literally false.

Figurative speech is commonly used in human communication. However it has one small flaw: Every figurative statement is literally false. So, if our goal is to get closer to the truth of the matter, we need to be aware of errors introduced by figurative thinking.

If it's determined that you select Steak and Salad, nothing else is realizable, hence no 'able to be realized.'

Nope. Every item on the menu was realizable. Every item on the menu could have been chosen. To say otherwise is nonsense. And it is easily demonstrated to be nonsense by simply ordering every item on the menu. As each item is brought to the table it will be obvious that it was always realizable, whether we chose to realize it or not.

Determinism can only claim that it was inevitable that the item we chose would be chosen, and it was inevitable that the other items would not be chosen. Determinism can make no logical claims as to what could or could not be chosen, or what could or could not happen.

You are able to do anything that is determined by the state and condition of the system in any given instance in time, you can run, jump, push a barrow, ride a bike, if it's determined, you can do it.

What you seem to forget is that I am able to do those things whether it is determined that I will do those things or not. An ability to do something, whether it is to "run, jump, push a barrow, ride a bike", does not require that I actually do any of those things at any specific time or place. I have the ability to do those things whenever I choose to do them, and I retain those abilities even when I choose not to do them.

Moreover, not only can you do it, you must necessarily do it. You cannot not do it.

First, what I can and cannot do is not affected by whether it is necessary that I do it or not.

Second, it may be causally necessary that I will choose to push a barrow of my own free will, or it may be causally necessary that someone with a gun will require me to push that barrow against my will. Thus, both free will and coercion remain meaningful within a deterministic system. That is the simple claim of compatibilism.

Nope, there are no multiple options or alternate actions within a determined system in any given instance in time....there is only one per person.

Customer: "What do you mean when you tell me that there is only one possibility for dinner, and then refuse to tell me what that possibility is?!"

Your claim, if true, results in nonsense.

Each person 'opts' for an item on the menu according to their own state and condition in relation to the circumstance they are in.

Yes. For example, if I had not had the bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, I would have chosen the steak for dinner instead of the salad. That was my own state and condition that evening and it determined my choice. But my own state and condition is part of who and what I am. So, it remains I, myself, that is choosing to order the salad for dinner.

If you don't walk to the grocery store, this being determined, there was never a possibility of it happening.

There was always the possibility of it happening. After all, I always had the ability to walk to the grocery store. And, if my car broke down, and I didn't have any food in the house, then I would have had to walk to the grocery store even though I didn't want to.

A possibility is not required to happen in order to be a possibility. The whole point of a possibility is that it need not happen in order to serve its function of imagining a future that may or may not be chosen. In the restaurant, when choosing between ordering the steak versus ordering the salad, each represented a different possible future, one in which I ate steak for dinner and the other in which I ate a salad for dinner.

Determinism cannot assert that there is only one possibility, or only one thing that can happen, or only one choice that can be made. All of those claims result in absurdity. Determinism may only claim that one possibility will be actualized, that one thing will happen, and that one choice will be made.

We with our limited perspective may say. 'I could have gone to the grocery store' - which really means 'I should have gone to the grocery store.' Too late. It didn't happen and could never have happened because conditions, if determined, did not allow it to happen.

Ironically, it is hard determinism that "limits our perspective". It insists that there is only one possibility, only one thing that can happen, only one choice that can be made. And in doing so it simply leaves us with a collection of absurdities and paradoxes.

It is odd that they have not yet been able to escape from their own self-induced hoax.

''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 lead 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.''

And here we have Trick Slattery trying to pull us into the same hoax, using the neuroscience approach. What he fails to mention is that our brain states include our own thoughts and feelings that we experiences as we make our choices. I can explain why I chose the salad instead of the steak for dinner tonight. It was that bacon and egg breakfast and that double cheeseburger lunch. So, it was I, myself, who placed the order for the salad, and the waiter will bring me the bill to pay. Neuroscience does not say otherwise.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
OK. So simplify. 'May' isn't possible, neither is 'can' Choice isn't part of the paradigm.

It's 'this' then 'that'.

Conditions are explicit.

Yes there are be many this's and that's but they all reduce single objective transactions.

It's 'not this' 'not that'; Nor even 'if this' 'then that'. We know that because 'not' isn't an option conditioner. Nor is it ever 'what if' 'perhaps then'.

What can or may aren't options in the paradigm.

All that counts is material. Subjective is never objectively testable.

By the by Neuroscience has no say. So why suggest it says anything?

Everything reduces to singular cause and effect. That's determinism.

Just because you are too lazy to find a way to reduce to single cause when there are apparently many possible has no weight.

Materiality has been shown to reduce every time we define limits such as atom, quark, etc. and everything observable without instrumentation also demonstrates singularity of events. I'm sure that quantum solutions will reduce as well since space and time are now in play.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
'May' isn't possible, neither is 'can' Choice isn't part of the paradigm.
Then you, again, fail to understand the actual definition of "choice", "may", and "can" and even the reasons humans study physics, or what "physics" even means.

listA is a choice function with a deterministic return. It does not need to be capable of returning listA[2] for this to be true.

As we have all discussed, "can" is an imaginary game humans play and operates in the context of imagination. What things "can" do is imaginary. The object containing the imagination of a false future is objectively there, even if the thing imagined is not reality. The object holding this imagination is, like it or not, an objective part of the choice function.

if(!listA.empty()) val=listA.pop();

listA.empty(), as discussed, returns an image of listA. The image, while imaginary, still objectively impacts the function of the system.. because the image itself is an object.

So "can" is definitely a sensible notion separate from "will".

But moreover, listA.pop() is a choice function even though any given call can only ever return a single, deterministically known answer.

Images have objective shapes, because all images are made of objects, even if the image is not exactly the thing it imagines.

The objective shape of the image plays a large role in determining what does happen, and in this context "CAN" is the discussion of the system's behavior across the set of all images it may contain when a choice function is operated so as to make a decision.

Look at that construction: it operates outside of physics and describes the constraints physics generates in a general way. This is in fact the whole idea of physics, to describe the "can" not the "will" of the universe.

listA is unambiguously a choice function, though. It returns a single member of a given set.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
If not determined, it literally cannot happen.

No, not "literally", but only "figuratively". If you take it literally you end up with nonsense. For example, you end up with the waiter telling the customer that he has only one choice for dinner, but neither the customer nor the waiter can say what that one choice is. The result is an absurdity.

literally

adverb exactly, really, closely, actually, simply, plainly, truly, precisely, strictly, faithfully, to the letter, verbatim, word for word The word 'volk' translates literally as 'folk'.

There must be at least two things that a person can choose before choosing begins. It is a logical requirement of the operation. Therefore, it is nonsensical to claim that only one thing can be chosen, because if that were the case, then the choosing operation would immediately come to a screeching halt. One cannot choose between a single possibility!

As there are no alternative actions within a determined system, there are no two things that a person can do. Freedom of choice is an illusion.

There may be different actions, multiple actions, but each and every action is determined, not chosen. If it is determined that you turn left, that is your only possible action. Turning right was never a possibility for you.

The driver behind you turns right because that is her determined action, she cannot turn left.

There are two roads and two ways to go, but only one possible action for each driver, one to the left, the other to the right.

No deviation possible.

That, by the given and agreed upon definition, is how determinism works.


We get similar nonsense with another example where we have two things that can happen even though only one thing will happen:

But two things can't happen. Every state of an object within a series of events is in a fixed state as the system progresses deterministically, x, y, z..... no deviation.

Nothing else can happen. Complexity doesn't change that. Complexity just makes prediction more difficult, chaotic but deterministic systems virtually impossible.

We're driving down the road and see a traffic light up ahead. The light is currently red, but it could turn green by the time we get there. On the other hand, it could remain red. So, we slow down. But as we arrive it turns green, so we resume speed. Our passenger, a hard determinist, asks, "Why did you slow down back there?". We respond, "The light could have remained red." The passenger says, "No, you're wrong. It was determined, from any prior point in time, that the light would be green when we arrived. So, why did you slow down?". We respond, "BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE REMAINED RED!". "No, it could not!", he exclaims. We pull over to the side of the road, and say "Get out of the car." Then we drive off without his nonsense.

What the light does is determined by any number of elements, of which we have no access to, or awareness of.

We don't know precisely when the lights will cycle, 'our' brain responds according to past experience (memory function) with traffic lights.
We have a good idea of how they work.

So, your claim is not literally true, but literally false.

Not in the least. Whatever the lights do is determined by whatever is happening within the system. We don't have that information.

Because we don't have the necessary information, we wait to see what happens. A state of waiting in anticipation is our condition until fresh information prompts us to move; the lights have turned green



How then did you get to your conclusion? Through figurative thinking. If it is the case that only one choice will be made and that only one thing will happen, then it seems AS IF only one choice can be made and AS IF only one thing can happen. But that is literally false.

Determinism doesn't allow alternate actions. Everything must proceed as determined with no deviation.

It's not my conclusion. It's how determinism works according to the given and agreed upon definition;

''Each state of the universe and its events are the necessary result of its prior state and prior events. ("Events" change the state of things.)
Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation").

However, in order for determinism to be true, it must include all events. For example, determinism cannot exclude the effects of natural forces, like volcanoes and tidal waves or a meteor hitting the Earth. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of biological organisms that transform their environments, like tree seedlings changing bare land into a forest. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of deliberate choices, like when the chef prepares me the salad that I chose for lunch.

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




If it's determined that you select Steak and Salad, nothing else is realizable, hence no 'able to be realized.'

Nope. Every item on the menu was realizable. Every item on the menu could have been chosen. To say otherwise is nonsense. And it is easily demonstrated to be nonsense by simply ordering every item on the menu. As each item is brought to the table it will be obvious that it was always realizable, whether we chose to realize it or not.

Not realizable by everyone or anyone where or when it is not determined. Each action is fixed by antecedents, not freely chosen.

The options exist for a range of people and a range of tastes. And the world, if deterministic, does not allow alternate actions.

If it's determined that you opt with fish and chips at 8:05pm on a Sunday night, events bring you to that point in time to order fish and chips at 8:05pm Sunday night.

The other items on the menu exist for other people in that moment in time, but not for you. Each to their own determined menu item at 8:05pm Sunday night.

That is how determinism works. No ifs, buts or maybes.



You are able to do anything that is determined by the state and condition of the system in any given instance in time, you can run, jump, push a barrow, ride a bike, if it's determined, you can do it.

What you seem to forget is that I am able to do those things whether it is determined that I will do those things or not. An ability to do something, whether it is to "run, jump, push a barrow, ride a bike", does not require that I actually do any of those things at any specific time or place. I have the ability to do those things whenever I choose to do them, and I retain those abilities even when I choose not to do them.

If an action is determined, the action must necessarily happen as determined. You jump, you run, you ride a bike, eat a meal, drink a pint of lager, whatever, and you do it unimpeded, the actions performed freely and precisely as determined.

Nothing restricts your jump, your bike ride, you eating your meal or downing a pint of lager because all of these actions must proceed as determined, not freely chosen.

Not freely chosen, because you never had a choice.

Never had a choice because by definition determinism allows no alternatives.

And here we have Trick Slattery trying to pull us into the same hoax, using the neuroscience approach. What he fails to mention is that our brain states include our own thoughts and feelings that we experiences as we make our choices. I can explain why I chose the salad instead of the steak for dinner tonight. It was that bacon and egg breakfast and that double cheeseburger lunch. So, it was I, myself, who placed the order for the salad, and the waiter will bring me the bill to pay. Neuroscience does not say otherwise.

But there is no hoax.

Given the rules of determinism, no possibility of alternate actions, etc, what he says is correct.

It has to be that way. Events must proceed as determined.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Not freely chosen, because you never had a choice.
And again your failure to understand choice functions is apparent.

listA.pop is a choice function.

"free choice" for listA is not defined as listA.pop returning listA[2]. Rather, "free choice" for listA.pop is listA.pop not returning ∅.

There are clearly situations where listA can make a free choice, even when "it cannot have chosen otherwise".

In other words, you speak nonsense.
 

Marvin Edwards

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
806
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
literally adverb exactly, really, closely, actually, simply, plainly, truly, precisely, strictly, faithfully, to the letter, verbatim, word for word
The word 'volk' translates literally as 'folk'.

Good. You looked it up, and gave us the thesaurus list of synonyms.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines literally this way:
I. In a literal manner or sense.
1.a. In a literal, exact, or actual sense; not figuratively, allegorically, etc.

Literally is the opposite of figuratively.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines figuratively this way:
In a figurative manner.
1. In or by means of a figure or emblem.
2. By or as a figure of speech; metaphorically.

One small complication in using these two words correctly is that the words, literally, really, and actually are sometimes misused as intensifiers when making a figurative statement. From the American Heritage Dictionary in your original citing:
Usage Note: For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherence of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of "in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words." In 1926, for example, H.W. Fowler deplored the example "The 300,000 Unionists ... will be literally thrown to the wolves."

Obviously, the 300,000 soldiers will not be literally "thrown to the wolves". They may be abandoned on the field without backup or support, such that it is AS IF they were "thrown to the wolves". But that is literally a figurative statement. 😎

When I use the word "literally", I am referring to a correct statement as to what is actually going on in the real world, as a matter of objective fact.

And when I complain about someone speaking "figuratively", I am criticizing the statement for being an inaccurate and false depiction of what is actually happening in the real world.

The criteria for determining whether a statement is literal or figurative is to compare it to empirical reality. Are the 300,000 soldiers being actually thrown to the wolves? No. So the statement is figurative, not literal.

And I hope that clears up the distinction between figurative and literal. It is an important distinction, because it has to do with what is true and what is not true.

In debates about determinism we see many figurative statements. For example, consider the statement: "If my choice is already determined then it is as if I never made the choice at all". But is it literally true that you never made the choice? No. You actually made a choice. That is an empirical fact. And it was also causally necessary that you would be actually making that specific choice. That too would be an empirical fact. And there is never any contradiction between two empirical facts (all empirical facts are compatible).

As there are no alternative actions within a determined system, there are no two things that a person can do.

Figurative or literal? Figurative, because whenever choosing happens (and it empirically does happen), there will always be at least two distinct things that the person can do. The person literally can choose one and the person literally can choose the other. This is a logical requirement of the choosing operation. It is built into the mechanism of decision-making.

Freedom of choice is an illusion.

Figurative or literal? Figurative, again.

Freedom of choice is literally the ability to choose from multiple options the single thing that we will do, while we are free of coercion and undue influence. Coercion and undue influence are real events in the real world. And we can actually be either free of them or we can actually be subjected to them. In matters of legal responsibility, there will be case law precedents, expert testimony, and objective evidence of these facts.

There may be different actions, multiple actions, but each and every action is determined, not chosen.

Figurative or literal? This time we get a mixture!

Each and every action is certainly determined by some actual object and some actual event.
But choosing happens to be an actual event that is actually performed by us.

So, we cannot conclude that all determined events are "not chosen", because some determined events are literally chosen.

If it is determined that you turn left, that is your only possible action. Turning right was never a possibility for you.

Figuratively or literally? That depends entirely on what is the determining cause.

For example, if you are in a building, walking down a hallway on the right side of the building, and it intersects with a hallway that requires you to turn left, then that is certainly your only possible action.

But if you're in the same building with a central hallway, that intersects halls on both the left and right, then it would be equally possible for you to turn left or right.

And you having those two possibilities would be causally necessary from any prior point in time.

That, by the given and agreed upon definition, is how determinism works.

But two things can't happen.

No, two things won't happen, but any number of things can happen.

What will happen is constrained by what can happen, because if it cannot happen, then it will not happen.

But what can happen is only constrained by our imagination and our ability to actually make it happen.

Every state of an object within a series of events is in a fixed state as the system progresses deterministically, x, y, z..... no deviation.

Correct!

Nothing else can happen.

Figurative or literal? Figurative. What can happen is not constrained by what will happen.

"Nothing else will happen" is the literal fact of the matter.
"Nothing else can happen" is a figure of speech, derived by "if nothing else will happen then it is as if nothing else can happen".

Like all figurative statements, "nothing else can happen" is literally false.



We're driving down the road and see a traffic light up ahead. The light is currently red, but it could turn green by the time we get there. On the other hand, it could remain red. So, we slow down. But as we arrive it turns green, so we resume speed. Our passenger, a hard determinist, asks, "Why did you slow down back there?". We respond, "The light could have remained red." The passenger says, "No, you're wrong. It was determined, from any prior point in time, that the light would be green when we arrived. So, why did you slow down?". We respond, "BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE REMAINED RED!". "No, it could not!", he exclaims. We pull over to the side of the road, and say "Get out of the car." Then we drive off without his nonsense.

Whatever the lights do is determined by whatever is happening within the system. We don't have that information. Because we don't have the necessary information, we wait to see what happens. A state of waiting in anticipation is our condition until fresh information prompts us to move; the lights have turned green

But we didn't wait to see what happens. We slowed down, just in case the light remained red. If we had not slowed down and the light remained red, then we would have gone through the red light, and collided with cars in the crossing road.

We took action, we slowed down, upon the possibility that the light would remain red.

For safety sake, we needed to consider both possibilities, the possibility that the light could change green and the possibility that the light could remain red. Two possibilities. Two things that could have happened. Not just one.

That's how the human mind must work in order to avoid traffic collisions.

To suggest otherwise creates nonsense.

I'll just close with the same quote you provided, and hope that eventually you understand what it means:

''Each state of the universe and its events are the necessary result of its prior state and prior events. ("Events" change the state of things.)
Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation").

However, in order for determinism to be true, it must include all events. For example, determinism cannot exclude the effects of natural forces, like volcanoes and tidal waves or a meteor hitting the Earth. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of biological organisms that transform their environments, like tree seedlings changing bare land into a forest. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of deliberate choices, like when the chef prepares me the salad that I chose for lunch.

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

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,789
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Freedom is simply the absence of knowledge; It's a specific subset of ignorance that refers to future events.

The chef sees the customer walk into the restaurant, and asks the waiter "What's that guy going to order?". The waiter replies "I don't know. He could order anything off the menu".

Is the waiter wrong? As we know, in a deterministic universe, the customer cannot do anything other than conform to his destiny. The customer couldn't order anything off the menu, except what he ultimately does order.

What I am seeing in this thread isn't any disagreement about whether freedom of will exists, but simply a disagreement about the perspective that the individual philosophers might take.

The hard determinist takes a 'god's eye view', and says that as everything is determined, we could in principle know what the customer is going to order.

The compatibilist takes a 'waiter's eye view', and says that it's irrelevant that god knows what the customer is going to order; The waiter can only say that the customer is free to order anything on the menu.

As an atheist, I doubt that the former is possible; As a realist, I am certain that it's not possible for any human being.

The god's eye view is of little value outside philosophical musings, but the waiter's eye view is a genuinely useful way to model our reality on a day to day basis.

Neither is wrong.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Freedom is simply the absence of knowledge; It's a specific subset of ignorance that refers to future events.

The chef sees the customer walk into the restaurant, and asks the waiter "What's that guy going to order?". The waiter replies "I don't know. He could order anything off the menu".

Is the waiter wrong? As we know, in a deterministic universe, the customer cannot do anything other than conform to his destiny. The customer couldn't order anything off the menu, except what he ultimately does order.

What I am seeing in this thread isn't any disagreement about whether freedom of will exists, but simply a disagreement about the perspective that the individual philosophers might take.

The hard determinist takes a 'god's eye view', and says that as everything is determined, we could in principle know what the customer is going to order.

The compatibilist takes a 'waiter's eye view', and says that it's irrelevant that god knows what the customer is going to order; The waiter can only say that the customer is free to order anything on the menu.

As an atheist, I doubt that the former is possible; As a realist, I am certain that it's not possible for any human being.

The god's eye view is of little value outside philosophical musings, but the waiter's eye view is a genuinely useful way to model our reality on a day to day basis.

Neither is wrong.
Well, subjective freedom, "provisional freedom" is a lack of knowledge. It is imaginary, and everyone here generally agrees on this.

There's another freedom being discussed here in "real freedom".

The compatibilist says no such thing as you say we do, that we need this "provisional freedom" at all. Both the compatibilist AND the hard determinist reject that this "provisional freedom" is "real freedom".

Rather the hard determinist says "we have no choice because we cannot choose otherwise", not understanding that a choice, at least for the compatibilist is not between "what will happen" and "otherwise" but "a selection of one of a set", and when the compatibilist says "free to choose" they mean "the choice will be of that set".

Likewise a will being free is not exactly about the "provisional freedom" you're referencing here even though that is an element of how choice of will happens (choose a will from the set as the element on the basis of provisional freedom being "true" or "high" and priority is "high"). It is rather about whether the will has its goal structure satisfied in the resolution of events.

When we talk about "free will", as compatibilists, we are talking about a specific will having real freedom in a given moment: whether the constant will "to decide for oneself" is currently, in that moment, having it's goal structure met.

Not the provisional "if I do this then goal" but "right now, goal!" Specifically of that structure of will.

"He has free will to choose" would unpack for the compatibilist as "he has a will to choose from this list of things he has planned for himself and what he will do will, deterministically, come from that list, and not the request of, say, a guy with a gun."
 

Marvin Edwards

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
806
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Freedom is simply the absence of knowledge; It's a specific subset of ignorance that refers to future events.

The chef sees the customer walk into the restaurant, and asks the waiter "What's that guy going to order?". The waiter replies "I don't know. He could order anything off the menu".

Is the waiter wrong? As we know, in a deterministic universe, the customer cannot do anything other than conform to his destiny. The customer couldn't order anything off the menu, except what he ultimately does order.

What I am seeing in this thread isn't any disagreement about whether freedom of will exists, but simply a disagreement about the perspective that the individual philosophers might take.

The hard determinist takes a 'god's eye view', and says that as everything is determined, we could in principle know what the customer is going to order.

The compatibilist takes a 'waiter's eye view', and says that it's irrelevant that god knows what the customer is going to order; The waiter can only say that the customer is free to order anything on the menu.

As an atheist, I doubt that the former is possible; As a realist, I am certain that it's not possible for any human being.

The god's eye view is of little value outside philosophical musings, but the waiter's eye view is a genuinely useful way to model our reality on a day to day basis.

Neither is wrong.

"Determine" has two meanings, one is to cause and the other is to know. For example, "We could not determine (know) whether it was the pressure or the temperature that determined (caused) when the chemical reaction would take place." Indeterminism can be a problem of prediction (knowledge) or a problem of causation. And I suspect that "random" and "chaotic" events are problems of unreliable prediction rather than unreliable causation.

As we know, in a deterministic universe, the customer cannot do anything other than conform to his destiny.
The customer has the same problem as the waiter: "Well, I try my best to conform to my destiny, but nobody will tell me what it is!"

The god's eye view is of little value outside philosophical musings, but the waiter's eye view is a genuinely useful way to model our reality on a day to day basis.
"Amen" for pragmatism!
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
'May' isn't possible, neither is 'can' Choice isn't part of the paradigm.
Then you, again, fail to understand the actual definition of "choice", "may", and "can" and even the reasons humans study physics, or what "physics" even means.

listA is a choice function with a deterministic return. It does not need to be capable of returning listA[2] for this to be true.

As we have all discussed, "can" is an imaginary game humans play and operates in the context of imagination. What things "can" do is imaginary. The object containing the imagination of a false future is objectively there, even if the thing imagined is not reality. The object holding this imagination is, like it or not, an objective part of the choice function.

if(!listA.empty()) val=listA.pop();

listA.empty(), as discussed, returns an image of listA. The image, while imaginary, still objectively impacts the function of the system.. because the image itself is an object.

So "can" is definitely a sensible notion separate from "will".

But moreover, listA.pop() is a choice function even though any given call can only ever return a single, deterministically known answer.

Images have objective shapes, because all images are made of objects, even if the image is not exactly the thing it imagines.

The objective shape of the image plays a large role in determining what does happen, and in this context "CAN" is the discussion of the system's behavior across the set of all images it may contain when a choice function is operated so as to make a decision.

Look at that construction: it operates outside of physics and describes the constraints physics generates in a general way. This is in fact the whole idea of physics, to describe the "can" not the "will" of the universe.

listA is unambiguously a choice function, though. It returns a single member of a given set.
Uh, I started with determinism. It's pretty clear that determinism is a reductionist model. No place for choice, ergo no place for compatibilism. Not in any fiction about how such you construct might appear you can't justify it against determinism.

If you, a philosopher try to construct such from determinism you can't make it hold when all statements are deterministically reduced. There is an effect for every cause and no set of causes that can't be reduced to singular C-E statements.

What I read from you are presumptions justified by presumptive, not demonstrated, exceptions to determinism as basis for presumptions. Circles everywhere.

Even your rationalizations tells us they convenient fictions, imaginary without substance. Lists not withstanding.

That a human would construct a logic system suited to his impressions is to be presumed and rejected as subjective. That is what I've been doing all along and you've been feeding my argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,789
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The customer has the same problem as the waiter: "Well, I try my best to conform to my destiny, but nobody will tell me what it is!"
As Obi-Wan Kenobi may have remarked:

"Your mass shall be divided by your volume, Luke.

It is your density"

I am still unconvinced that our universe is, in fact, deterministic; That view is about a century behind modern physics. But it genuinely doesn't matter.

We don't and can't know, and our ignorance is a fundamental element of the inputs that cause the outputs. We try to change the future, and as nobody seriously wants to live in a dystopian and apocalyptic future in which the waiter brings a salad rather than a nice steak, we are largely successful in getting the future we want - whether or not we can be said from a god's eye view to have influenced that future at all.

I chose the steak because I like steak. I also chose the steak because of the laws of physics and the starting conditions of the universe, but telling the waiter that just delays my meal, because he doesn't care.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
'May' isn't possible, neither is 'can' Choice isn't part of the paradigm.
Then you, again, fail to understand the actual definition of "choice", "may", and "can" and even the reasons humans study physics, or what "physics" even means.

listA is a choice function with a deterministic return. It does not need to be capable of returning listA[2] for this to be true.

As we have all discussed, "can" is an imaginary game humans play and operates in the context of imagination. What things "can" do is imaginary. The object containing the imagination of a false future is objectively there, even if the thing imagined is not reality. The object holding this imagination is, like it or not, an objective part of the choice function.

if(!listA.empty()) val=listA.pop();

listA.empty(), as discussed, returns an image of listA. The image, while imaginary, still objectively impacts the function of the system.. because the image itself is an object.

So "can" is definitely a sensible notion separate from "will".

But moreover, listA.pop() is a choice function even though any given call can only ever return a single, deterministically known answer.

Images have objective shapes, because all images are made of objects, even if the image is not exactly the thing it imagines.

The objective shape of the image plays a large role in determining what does happen, and in this context "CAN" is the discussion of the system's behavior across the set of all images it may contain when a choice function is operated so as to make a decision.

Look at that construction: it operates outside of physics and describes the constraints physics generates in a general way. This is in fact the whole idea of physics, to describe the "can" not the "will" of the universe.

listA is unambiguously a choice function, though. It returns a single member of a given set.
Uh, I started with determinism. It's pretty clear that determinism is a reductionist model. No place for choice, ergo no place for compatibilism. Not in any fiction about how such you construct might appear you can't justify it against determinism.

If you, a philosopher try to construct such from determinism you can't make it hold when all statements are deterministically reduced. There is an effect for every cause and no set of causes that can't be reduced to singular C-E statements.

What I read from you are presumptions justified by presumptive, not demonstrated, exceptions to determinism as basis for presumptions. Circles everywhere.

Even your rationalizations tells us they convenient fictions, imaginary without substance. Lists not withstanding.

That a human would construct a logic system suited to his impressions is to be presumed and rejected as subjective. That is what I've been doing all along and you've been feeding my argument.

It appears that some folks are just unable to get a grip on the implications of determinism.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
'May' isn't possible, neither is 'can' Choice isn't part of the paradigm.
Then you, again, fail to understand the actual definition of "choice", "may", and "can" and even the reasons humans study physics, or what "physics" even means.

listA is a choice function with a deterministic return. It does not need to be capable of returning listA[2] for this to be true.

As we have all discussed, "can" is an imaginary game humans play and operates in the context of imagination. What things "can" do is imaginary. The object containing the imagination of a false future is objectively there, even if the thing imagined is not reality. The object holding this imagination is, like it or not, an objective part of the choice function.

if(!listA.empty()) val=listA.pop();

listA.empty(), as discussed, returns an image of listA. The image, while imaginary, still objectively impacts the function of the system.. because the image itself is an object.

So "can" is definitely a sensible notion separate from "will".

But moreover, listA.pop() is a choice function even though any given call can only ever return a single, deterministically known answer.

Images have objective shapes, because all images are made of objects, even if the image is not exactly the thing it imagines.

The objective shape of the image plays a large role in determining what does happen, and in this context "CAN" is the discussion of the system's behavior across the set of all images it may contain when a choice function is operated so as to make a decision.

Look at that construction: it operates outside of physics and describes the constraints physics generates in a general way. This is in fact the whole idea of physics, to describe the "can" not the "will" of the universe.

listA is unambiguously a choice function, though. It returns a single member of a given set.
Uh, I started with determinism. It's pretty clear that determinism is a reductionist model. No place for choice, ergo no place for compatibilism. Not in any fiction about how such you construct might appear you can't justify it against determinism.

If you, a philosopher try to construct such from determinism you can't make it hold when all statements are deterministically reduced. There is an effect for every cause and no set of causes that can't be reduced to singular C-E statements.

What I read from you are presumptions justified by presumptive, not demonstrated, exceptions to determinism as basis for presumptions. Circles everywhere.

Even your rationalizations tells us they convenient fictions, imaginary without substance. Lists not withstanding.

That a human would construct a logic system suited to his impressions is to be presumed and rejected as subjective. That is what I've been doing all along and you've been feeding my argument.

It appears that some folks are just unable to get a grip on the implications of determinism.
It is impressive how both of you are buried so deeply in your dogma, indeed, that neither of you understand what "choice", or even a number of words, even means.

I don't think either of you even really have produced any evidence that you are capable of abstract thought in the first place.

It's kind of sad and occasionally I run into folks like that in my line of work where I just have to ask "how did you even get this far?"

Still, abstract thought, while useful, is not necessary for every profession. Abstraction to 3-5 layers is necessary for software engineering and computer science.

listA is an abstraction. It's not really subjective, but a description of a generic machine, a configuration a computer can be mutated to conform to. It is a description which is homologous to many observable structures in nature, and in fact which is homologous to all "stacks".

Your computer has an objectively real "stack" structure running right now. It is the objective form by which functions operate memory.

I wouldnt have even brought up listA if I couldn't demonstrate instantiability: the ability to apply a mere description readily to the large scale properties of a real object.

listA operates a choice function. Choosing is what it does. It's process, and in fact the process of all choice functions is still deterministic.

If either of you think "determinism removes choice" you are both failing to understand the meaning of the word "choice" as anyone but someone from your religion uses it.

"Free choice on listA" does not mean listA will ever return listA's second element, "free choice on the list" means listA dererministically returns a member of listA. listA is just nice because it is an incredibly simple construct, something that anyone, at least anyone capable of abstract thought, can understand.

Note, here, that constructs are not subjective either, they are just "objects, which happen to have been constructed just-so to instantiate a given pattern of behaviors."

There are no exceptions made of determinism in any of this.

Choice functions always resolve deterministically. They are still making choices of their alternatives when their return is of those alternatives by the action of the choice function.

Calling listA.pop and getting listA[2] and not listA[1] would in fact indicate list A was making a "coerced" choice and similarly would indicate an unfreeness of choice on listA.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The customer has the same problem as the waiter: "Well, I try my best to conform to my destiny, but nobody will tell me what it is!"
As Obi-Wan Kenobi may have remarked:

"Your mass shall be divided by your volume, Luke.

It is your density"

I am still unconvinced that our universe is, in fact, deterministic; That view is about a century behind modern physics. But it genuinely doesn't matter.

We don't and can't know, and our ignorance is a fundamental element of the inputs that cause the outputs. We try to change the future, and as nobody seriously wants to live in a dystopian and apocalyptic future in which the waiter brings a salad rather than a nice steak, we are largely successful in getting the future we want - whether or not we can be said from a god's eye view to have influenced that future at all.

I chose the steak because I like steak. I also chose the steak because of the laws of physics and the starting conditions of the universe, but telling the waiter that just delays my meal, because he doesn't care.
Well, this gets down to discussions of what determinism is.

There are some discussions upthread on "superdeterminism" and "just-so determinism".

To understand what is meant by this, and to save you the trouble of having to search it up, it is The idea that all "stochastic" systems may be represented as deterministic systems, by adding stochastic resolution mechanisms to "the initial configuration".

Think about "war, the card game": you start with a (randomly? Chaotically?) Arranged deck for each player. Each player plays their cards in the order they exist, then the decks of collected cards flip and then you play through those.

This game resolved chaotically, but deterministically, from the initial setup. You can repeat the game, the exact same series of captures and so on, just by presenting the same orderings of initial deck to the players.

The game is stochastic but as you can see, is also describable in deterministic terms.

Take for example the game "snakes and ladders", as well. In this game each player takes turns rolling the dice, and doing whatever the square says. Like the card game "War", this too is apparently stochastic (relying on moments of randomness)... But it is still a deterministic resolution of a determined set of dice rolls: you can in fact play the game by rolling a dice a hundred times, writing down the result, and executing that series of dice rolls in series.

Any game or system which incorporates randomness is in fact describable as such a "just-so determinism" or "superdeterministic system".

Taking this even further, we can observe Dwarf Fortress, that stupid game I keep bringing up: given a set of fixed "raw files" a configuration profile, and an integer, a series of RNG outputs is born, and that series of outputs then builds a whole simulated universe deterministically.

Given those pieces of information, the whole simulated universe unfolds the same way every time. There wouldn't be any way to distinguish in the execution of the algorithm what the seed is, or how the next event will resolve from within the universe. It looks "stochastic" from the inside and for their intents and purposes, the future may not be predicted.

The useful feature, however, is that we can stop the cogitation of time there, calculate what will happen to mathematical certainty, and then watch exactly that thing happen, and so make true statements about what is going on: Urist has a will (step forward); Urist's will SHALL be fulfilled by satisfaction of requirement (the place to step may be stepped to, and shall remain such as he steps there); thus Urist's will to step forward is  free with respect to it's requirement.

So for the sake of this whole discussion we are generally just accepting "superdeterministic" mechanics, since all systems, deterministic or stochastic to the player, are fundamentally describable as deterministic.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
literally adverb exactly, really, closely, actually, simply, plainly, truly, precisely, strictly, faithfully, to the letter, verbatim, word for word
The word 'volk' translates literally as 'folk'.

Good. You looked it up, and gave us the thesaurus list of synonyms.


I pointed out the meaning of the word in the context in which it was used. That's all.

Obviously, the 300,000 soldiers will not be literally "thrown to the wolves". They may be abandoned on the field without backup or support, such that it is AS IF they were "thrown to the wolves". But that is literally a figurative statement. 😎

It was rhetoric. What I meant is not hard to grasp.


When I use the word "literally", I am referring to a correct statement as to what is actually going on in the real world, as a matter of objective fact.

And when I complain about someone speaking "figuratively", I am criticizing the statement for being an inaccurate and false depiction of what is actually happening in the real world.

The criteria for determining whether a statement is literal or figurative is to compare it to empirical reality. Are the 300,000 soldiers being actually thrown to the wolves? No. So the statement is figurative, not literal.

Have you got that off your chest now?

It doesn't change anything. Determinism still doesn't allow alternate choices or alternate actions, nothing is freely willed, there are no alternate possibilities, only what is determined.


And I hope that clears up the distinction between figurative and literal. It is an important distinction, because it has to do with what is true and what is not true.

You missed the point in the first place.

In debates about determinism we see many figurative statements. For example, consider the statement: "If my choice is already determined then it is as if I never made the choice at all". But is it literally true that you never made the choice? No. You actually made a choice. That is an empirical fact. And it was also causally necessary that you would be actually making that specific choice. That too would be an empirical fact. And there is never any contradiction between two empirical facts (all empirical facts are compatible).

It is literally true that every action you take is not freely willed or freely chosen. There are no alternatives. The 'choice' is fixed by antecedents before it happens, and the event proceeds as determined.

Refer to your own definition of determinism;

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

As there are no alternative actions within a determined system, there are no two things that a person can do.

Figurative or literal? Figurative, because whenever choosing happens (and it empirically does happen), there will always be at least two distinct things that the person can do. The person literally can choose one and the person literally can choose the other. This is a logical requirement of the choosing operation. It is built into the mechanism of decision-making.

There is no actual choosing.

Choosing implies the possibility of taking another option.

There are no other options within a deterministic system.

Events proceed literally as determined.

literally
Adverb; exactly, actually, precisely, strictly....


Freedom of choice is an illusion.

Figurative or literal? Figurative, again.

Nothing figurative about it. An illusion is the ''perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature'' - Merriam Webster


Freedom of choice is literally the ability to choose from multiple options the single thing that we will do, while we are free of coercion and undue influence. Coercion and undue influence are real events in the real world. And we can actually be either free of them or we can actually be subjected to them. In matters of legal responsibility, there will be case law precedents, expert testimony, and objective evidence of these facts.

Except that there are no multiple options to choose from for any person in any given instance in time, only the determined action.

It has been explained that the multiple options, the items on the menu or whatever, are not there for everyone, that each person must necessarily take the determined action, one takes this item someone else a different option, etc.

Each person has their own course of action, with no deviation.

No one has multiple options in any given instance in time.

Everything proceeds without deviation;

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



There may be different actions, multiple actions, but each and every action is determined, not chosen.

Figurative or literal? This time we get a mixture!

No mixture. What happens is not freely willed or freely selected, but determined, fixed, set, non-negotiable, no possible alternative.


Each and every action is certainly determined by some actual object and some actual event.
But choosing happens to be an actual event that is actually performed by us.

So, we cannot conclude that all determined events are "not chosen", because some determined events are literally chosen.

Literally chosen? Choice requires the possibility of taking a different option. Determined means that there is no possibility of an alternative action.


If it is determined that you turn left, that is your only possible action. Turning right was never a possibility for you.

Figuratively or literally? That depends entirely on what is the determining cause.

No it doesn't. The state of the system fixes the next state of the system, which fixes the next and the next....if it is determined that you turn left at the next corner, that is precisely what happens. No deviation.
For example, if you are in a building, walking down a hallway on the right side of the building, and it intersects with a hallway that requires you to turn left, then that is certainly your only possible action.

But if you're in the same building with a central hallway, that intersects halls on both the left and right, then it would be equally possible for you to turn left or right.

And you having those two possibilities would be causally necessary from any prior point in time.

That, by the given and agreed upon definition, is how determinism works.


You misconstrue determinism. If the building has a central hallway where the other hypothetical building doesn't, the state of system is different, therefore determines a different set of actions, but being a deterministic system, you still don't have multiple realizable options.

The second scenario may have you turning right, but that action is as fixed as the first scenario.

I think you may be trying to circumvent the rules of determinism.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It is literally true that every action you take is not freely willed or freely chosen
No, it is literally, objectively false: many actions I take are willed, many wills I hold are, in this moment, free with respect to requirements such as "hold bag" and "prove DBT wrong yet again, not that there's any expectation that they are capable of understanding ideas at all".

You cannot change from the compatibilist definition of free to argue that it does not exist. At least not if you are to be taken seriously, anyway. To do so is to argue against a position that someone else does not hold, which is the very definition of "straw-man argument".

Free, in the compatibilist context, is "freedom to requirement"; "freedom from all constraints to the requirement".

Will is "a series of instructions with requirement(s)"

Choice is "selection of a thing from a set of things".

When a will is free, it is "a series of instructions that shall or is meet(ing) it's requirement(s)".

When a choice is free, it is "selection of a thing from a set of things by a given process NOT some other set of things or by some other process".

When a will is not free, it is "a series of instructions that shall fail it's requirement"

When a choice is not free, it is "selection of a thing outside of the aforementioned set or process".

And when we say "free will" without denoting which will is intended, it is a reference to a specific will, in the moment, satisfying it's requirement.

"He had free will" unpacks to "the will he held had a requirement freely chosen by a given process (the process' not-coerced branch)."

It is not about being able to go down either branch in the moment! It is about which branch is actually, objectively utilized.

If you refuse to pick up these definitions and produce the contradiction you claim exists within that syntax, then you ought accept that you cannot, either by force of will or virtue of ideas, defend incompatibilism, because you will not be defending incompatibilism.
 

Marvin Edwards

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
806
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
When I use the word "literally", I am referring to a correct statement as to what is actually going on in the real world, as a matter of objective fact. And when I complain about someone speaking "figuratively", I am criticizing the statement for being an inaccurate and false depiction of what is actually happening in the real world. The criteria for determining whether a statement is literal or figurative is to compare it to empirical reality.

It doesn't change anything. Determinism still doesn't allow alternate choices or alternate actions, nothing is freely willed, there are no alternate possibilities, only what is determined.

The fact is that determinism doesn't change anything. Choosing is still happening in the real world. Literal menus of alternate possibilities exist in restaurants. And it was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity that everything would be just so.

Ironically, "freely willed" becomes nonsense when taken literally. Free will is an intention that is freely chosen, that is, specifically "chosen while free of coercion and undue influence".

It is literally true that every action you take is not freely willed or freely chosen. There are no alternatives.

Every customer is free (of coercion and undue influence) to choose for themselves what they will have for dinner. And they will be choosing from a literal menu of alternatives.

The fact that they are not free from causal necessity does not contradict the fact that they are free of coercion and undue influence. Determinism does not change anything.

The 'choice' is fixed by antecedents before it happens, and the event proceeds as determined.

The choice is fixed by the antecedent events happening within the customer's own brain, thus it is each customer deciding from themselves what they will order for dinner.

The customer's own brain, as it is during its choosing operation, will also have antecedent causes stretching back in time to any prior point in eternity. But this fact does not change the fact that it is the customer's own brain that is doing the decision-making that is the final responsible prior cause of the choice.

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

Correct. It was causally necessary from any prior point in time that each customer would be free (from coercion and undue influence) to choose for themselves what they would order for dinner. And that choosing process itself would proceed deterministically within each customer's own brain.

For example, upon considering the steak, I recalled that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, so, I inevitably chose the salad rather than the steak for dinner.

All events, including my thoughts and feelings as I made my choice, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. This included the menu of alternate possibilities, my considering those possibilities in terms of my own goals and interests, my choosing the salad rather than the steak, and the waiter bringing me the bill for my deliberate action.

Causal necessity does not mean what you think it means. It doesn't actually change anything. All of the events proceeded reliably, one after another, caused by some combination of physical, biological, and rational causal mechanisms.

There is no actual choosing.

That would be "actual" used as a rhetorical intensifier. You might also have used "literal" or "real" in the same figurative fashion.

The truth is that there is actual, real, literal choosing happening in the real world all the time.

Choosing implies the possibility of taking another option.

Correct. And, since there is actual, real, literal choosing happening in the real world there are also possibilities. For example, the restaurant has a literal, actual, real menu of such possibilities that you can choose from.

Events proceed literally as determined.

Correct. And, as it turns out, what we ordered for dinner in the restaurant proceeded literally as determined by us choosing for ourselves what we would order.

You see, events are not simply "determined", they are specifically determined by specific causes. A person, for example, is caused to be who and what they are, starting by prior biological (mating) and rational ("Will you marry me?") decisions by the person's parents. Then the person's own biology and rationality interacts socially with its social environment and physically with its physical environment over the years until he finds himself as an adult, sitting in a restaurant facing a menu of possibilities to choose from.

Then the person chooses for himself to order the salad for dinner rather than the steak, for his own reasons, including his dietary goals. That is determinism. That is also free will, a choice he made for himself while free of coercion and undue influence.

An illusion is the ''perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature'' - Merriam Webster

Good. Then you will understand when I say that the idea that determinism contradicts free will is an illusion. It misinterprets the actual nature of determinism, and, it misinterprets the actual nature of free will.

It has been explained that the multiple options, the items on the menu or whatever, are not there for everyone, that each person must necessarily take the determined action, one takes this item someone else a different option, etc.

The options and possibilities, the many different things that we can order for dinner, are right there on the menu. And they are there, equally, for every customer in the restaurant. Each customer has the ability to choose any of those options.

And they must have this ability, because they have no knowledge at all, as to what choice was causally necessary, until after they complete the decision making process that specifically chooses that option.

Each person has their own course of action, with no deviation.

But that course of action has not yet been finally determined until after they make their choice. No event will ever happen until its final prior causes have played themselves out. And the final prior cause of a deliberate act is the act of deliberation that precedes it.

Literally chosen? Choice requires the possibility of taking a different option. Determined means that there is no possibility of an alternative action.

Yes. Literally chosen. In fact, it was causally necessary, from any prior point in eternity, that the choosing would happen, and each customer would be making their own choice, free of coercion and undue influence.

Causal necessity is a fact which does not change any of the other facts.

You misconstrue determinism.

No. You do. But, then, many otherwise intelligent people also misconstrue determinism. They portray it as a monstrous causal agent that robs us of our freedom and our control, when it is actually just plain ol' reliable cause and effect, something we all take for granted in everything we do.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,960
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
When I use the word "literally", I am referring to a correct statement as to what is actually going on in the real world, as a matter of objective fact. And when I complain about someone speaking "figuratively", I am criticizing the statement for being an inaccurate and false depiction of what is actually happening in the real world. The criteria for determining whether a statement is literal or figurative is to compare it to empirical reality.

When I said 'literally' I meant - literally; Adverb; exactly, actually, precisely, strictly - (Merriam Webster) That's all. Nothing controversial.

It doesn't change anything. Determinism still doesn't allow alternate choices or alternate actions, nothing is freely willed, there are no alternate possibilities, only what is determined.

The fact is that determinism doesn't change anything. Choosing is still happening in the real world. Literal menus of alternate possibilities exist in restaurants. And it was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity that everything would be just so.

The fact is that determinism entails that everything...meaning all objects and events, within the system proceed according to past states of the system. That including human activity. There are no exceptions.


Options are not chosen, they are determined before they happen. Events must inevitably lead to option A for you, option B for your partner, etc, where option A was never a possibility for your partner and option B was never an option for you.

Realizable alternatives do not exist within a deterministic system.

Hence, there is no choice. Choice entails the ability to have done otherwise.

'Could have Done otherwise' does not exist within deterministic systems.

There are no choices. Any and every action taken is not chosen, it is determined. It is inevitable, Fixed, Set, Necessitated, done and dusted, no alternatives.

Conscious thought and deliberation come too late in the causal sequence to be effective in producing 'freely willed' actions, it is instead, unconscious neural states that determine actions.

That, essentially, is the death knell for the notion of free will.


Compatibilism fails to make a case for free will because it tries to redefine both freedom and will.

A critique of Compatibilism.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,052
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
When I use the word "literally", I am referring to a correct statement as to what is actually going on in the real world, as a matter of objective fact. And when I complain about someone speaking "figuratively", I am criticizing the statement for being an inaccurate and false depiction of what is actually happening in the real world. The criteria for determining whether a statement is literal or figurative is to compare it to empirical reality.

When I said 'literally' I meant - literally; Adverb; exactly, actually, precisely, strictly - (Merriam Webster) That's all. Nothing controversial.

It doesn't change anything. Determinism still doesn't allow alternate choices or alternate actions, nothing is freely willed, there are no alternate possibilities, only what is determined.

The fact is that determinism doesn't change anything. Choosing is still happening in the real world. Literal menus of alternate possibilities exist in restaurants. And it was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity that everything would be just so.

The fact is that determinism entails that everything...meaning all objects and events, within the system proceed according to past states of the system. That including human activity. There are no exceptions.


Options are not chosen, they are determined before they happen. Events must inevitably lead to option A for you, option B for your partner, etc, where option A was never a possibility for your partner and option B was never an option for you.

Realizable alternatives do not exist within a deterministic system.

Hence, there is no choice. Choice entails the ability to have done otherwise.

'Could have Done otherwise' does not exist within deterministic systems.

There are no choices. Any and every action taken is not chosen, it is determined. It is inevitable, Fixed, Set, Necessitated, done and dusted, no alternatives.

Conscious thought and deliberation come too late in the causal sequence to be effective in producing 'freely willed' actions, it is instead, unconscious neural states that determine actions.

That, essentially, is the death knell for the notion of free will.


Compatibilism fails to make a case for free will because it tries to redefine both freedom and will.

A critique of Compatibilism.
Determinism alone entails nothing. You need a deterministic system and a given state to entail anything.

Choice in compatibilism, again, does not require the ability to do otherwise.

This post already answers your blatherskite:


You cannot change from the compatibilist definition of free to argue that it does not exist. At least not if you are to be taken seriously, anyway. To do so is to argue against a position that someone else does not hold, which is the very definition of "straw-man argument".

Free, in the compatibilist context, is "freedom to requirement"; "freedom from all constraints to the requirement".


Will is "a series of instructions with requirement(s)"

Choice is "selection of a thing from a set of things".

When a will is free, it is "a series of instructions that shall or is meet(ing) it's requirement(s)".

When a choice is free, it is "selection of a thing from a set of things by a given process NOT some other set of things or by some other process".

When a will is not free, it is "a series of instructions that shall fail it's requirement"

When a choice is not free, it is "selection of a thing outside of the aforementioned set or process".

And when we say "free will" without denoting which will is intended, it is a reference to a specific will, in the moment, satisfying it's requirement.

"He had free will" unpacks to "the will he held had a requirement freely chosen by a given process (the process' not-coerced branch)."

It is not about being able to go down either branch in the moment! It is about which branch is actually, objectively utilized.

If you refuse to pick up these definitions
and produce the contradiction you claim exists within that syntax, then you ought accept that you cannot, either by force of will or virtue of ideas, defend incompatibilism, because you will not be defending incompatibilism.
 
Top Bottom