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

Compatibilism: What's that About?

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
946
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Yes, of course, he could have bought out the whole store. Better to say this: Jim can either order pistachos, or not order pistachios. He cannot BOTH order pistachios, and NOT order pistachios, at the same time. That would be a violation of the Law of Non-contradiction. The relevant bit is that because it is within his power to either order or not order pistachios, Jim has free will in a deterministic universe.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Yes, of course, he could have bought out the whole store. Better to say this: Jim can either order pistachos, or not order pistachios. He cannot BOTH order pistachios, and NOT order pistachios, at the same time. That would be a violation of the Law of Non-contradiction. The relevant bit is that because it is within his power to either order or not order pistachios, Jim has free will in a deterministic universe.
110%.
A+.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
This exercise with Jim, the Pistachios, and 'God' is very much like the exercise with Urist, the Door, and 'God'.

It is an actual experiment that you can do at home. In fact in a game of Dwarf Fortress you can stand in a shop and watch someone else do exactly this exercise, read their mind, forcibly change their mind, and see what happens.

You can observe that the only thing preventing Urist from slaughtering a room full of people is the existence of a locked door, and so also observe that his will is NOT free.

This is what leads me to this line of thought. Who knew God could be so fucking useful?
 

ramoss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
139
Location
Northeast USA
Basic Beliefs
Secular Jewish
At this point I'm still trying to figure out who's a chatbot, and who isn't.
I have met DBT IRL, so if he’s a chatbot, he’s an extraordinarily advanced model that drinks beer.

It’s funny, though, because under DBT’s hard determinism, we really are all extraordinarily advanced models of chatbots, aren’t we? We have no “choice” over what we say. It was all pre-scripted at the big bang.

Yet it’s this “extraordinarily advanced model” bit that is so puzzling. I’m going to assume chatbots are not conscious, and yet we are. What for? What possible selective advantage does consciousness, particularly higher-order consciousness, have in a pre-scripted world?

It seems clear to me what the advantage of consciousness is — it maximizes choices. It moves organisms away from blind instinct and enables them to evaluate, weigh, measure, and choose, to better their chances of survival and reproductive success.

Yet it is just this thing called choice that hard determinism denies, rendering the evolution of consciousness in such a world wholly inexplicable.
You have no choice but to make that claim. However,we have the illusion of choice.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
At this point I'm still trying to figure out who's a chatbot, and who isn't.
I have met DBT IRL, so if he’s a chatbot, he’s an extraordinarily advanced model that drinks beer.

It’s funny, though, because under DBT’s hard determinism, we really are all extraordinarily advanced models of chatbots, aren’t we? We have no “choice” over what we say. It was all pre-scripted at the big bang.

Yet it’s this “extraordinarily advanced model” bit that is so puzzling. I’m going to assume chatbots are not conscious, and yet we are. What for? What possible selective advantage does consciousness, particularly higher-order consciousness, have in a pre-scripted world?

It seems clear to me what the advantage of consciousness is — it maximizes choices. It moves organisms away from blind instinct and enables them to evaluate, weigh, measure, and choose, to better their chances of survival and reproductive success.

Yet it is just this thing called choice that hard determinism denies, rendering the evolution of consciousness in such a world wholly inexplicable.
You have no choice but to make that claim. However,we have the illusion of choice.
Ay, yet another person arguing a straw man.

You define choice differently than we do. If you wish to tell one of us "you have no choice of the form you propose" you have to actually speak to that definition of choice, not your own.

You can't substitute what we keep pointing out is your nonsensical definition, you have to actually reach a nonsense from OUR definition.

To say he has no choice is to say that there are ZERO logical universes in which the result he seeks followed from ANY premise of immediate conditions, or to say that the series of actions which took in a number of initial objects and returned exactly one never actually happened.

Neither of those things are true, so you are just farting in your own mouth.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
At this point I'm still trying to figure out who's a chatbot, and who isn't.
I have met DBT IRL, so if he’s a chatbot, he’s an extraordinarily advanced model that drinks beer.

It’s funny, though, because under DBT’s hard determinism, we really are all extraordinarily advanced models of chatbots, aren’t we? We have no “choice” over what we say. It was all pre-scripted at the big bang.

Yet it’s this “extraordinarily advanced model” bit that is so puzzling. I’m going to assume chatbots are not conscious, and yet we are. What for? What possible selective advantage does consciousness, particularly higher-order consciousness, have in a pre-scripted world?

It seems clear to me what the advantage of consciousness is — it maximizes choices. It moves organisms away from blind instinct and enables them to evaluate, weigh, measure, and choose, to better their chances of survival and reproductive success.

Yet it is just this thing called choice that hard determinism denies, rendering the evolution of consciousness in such a world wholly inexplicable.

The really funny thing is the insistence that it's ''DBT's hard determinism,' when the definition I use is precisely the same as given by the compatibilists on this forum....which I quote time and time again.

The only difference being is the question of whether free will is compatible with that very same definition of determinism.

The answer, for the given reasons, being: no, it is not.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
At this point I'm still trying to figure out who's a chatbot, and who isn't.
I have met DBT IRL, so if he’s a chatbot, he’s an extraordinarily advanced model that drinks beer.

It’s funny, though, because under DBT’s hard determinism, we really are all extraordinarily advanced models of chatbots, aren’t we? We have no “choice” over what we say. It was all pre-scripted at the big bang.

Yet it’s this “extraordinarily advanced model” bit that is so puzzling. I’m going to assume chatbots are not conscious, and yet we are. What for? What possible selective advantage does consciousness, particularly higher-order consciousness, have in a pre-scripted world?

It seems clear to me what the advantage of consciousness is — it maximizes choices. It moves organisms away from blind instinct and enables them to evaluate, weigh, measure, and choose, to better their chances of survival and reproductive success.

Yet it is just this thing called choice that hard determinism denies, rendering the evolution of consciousness in such a world wholly inexplicable.

The really funny thing is the insistence that it's ''DBT's hard determinism,' when the definition I use is precisely the same as given by the compatibilists on this forum....which I quote time and time again.

The only difference being is the question of whether free will is compatible with that very same definition of determinism.

The answer, for the given reasons, being: no, it is not.
No, it's not. You keep asserting this but when you redefine choice as nonsensically pants-on-fire dishonestly as you do, then you are not actually using the same definition.

It's the same series of letters, but not the same fundamental words.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'
This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

Jarhyn - A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.
No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Wrong.

Choice, by definition, entails selecting between two or more realizable options.

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

Determinism, according to the given definition - all events proceeding without deviation, no alternate actions - does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

Without realizable alternate options, where lies the choice?

Nowhere.

No alternative equates to no choice.

Freedom - the ability to choose or do otherwise - does not exist within a deterministic system, which makes the notion of free will incompatible with determinism.

Straightforward, undeniable, no way around it. Carefully worded definitions commonly used by compatibilists do not prove the proposition.
And again you fail to read that word "possibilities" and then fill it in with the compatibilist definition, and so FAIL to speak anything meaningful at all about it.

Anad again you fail to understand the implications that determinism has for freedom of choice and freedom of will;

1) Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternative action or choice.

2) No alternative action or choice, negates freedom of choice.

3) Absence of choice (no possible alternate actions) negates freedom of will

4) Will does not, and cannot, make a difference to what are determined outcomes.

5) Free will is incompatible with determinism.

You have no counter argument.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Without possibility of deviation, therefore alternate actions, the system deterministically transitioning from prior to current state, ordering the steak is not possible if salad is determined.

Without deviation, the possibility of ordering the steak was inevitable.

Only if ordering steak is determined. Impossible if the system evolves from its prior state to the moment where salad is necessarily ordered. No deviation, no possible alternatives.

Given the terms, it cannot happen.

The terms of determinism are that things will happen in precisely one inevitable way, without deviation. The one inevitable way will include the possibility of ordering the steak as well as the actuality of ordering the salad. The possibility of ordering the steak is a mental event that was guaranteed to happen from the Big Bang forward.

If things must happen ''precisely one inevitable way, without deviation,'' this excludes all possibility of thing going differently.

In other words there is no possibility of ordering the steak if salad if ordering to the salad is determined.

This is entailed in the stipulation; 'precisely one inevitable way, without deviation.''


Steak was never a possibility.

Steak was always going to be a possibility at that time and place.

''Precisely one inevitable way, without deviation'' emphatically excludes it.

If two or more possibilities are realizable, it is not a deterministic system.

You're still not getting it. The steak was possible and it was realizable. The -ible and the -able have precisely the same meaning: something that may or may not happen, depending upon the circumstances. Neither the -ible nor the -able requires anything to actually happen in reality.

I get it only too well. I understand the implications of ''precisely one inevitable way, without deviation.''

It is a probabilistic system.

Oh please. I thought we were talking about determinism. Within a deterministic system, some events cannot be reliably predicted. That's why we have the notions of "random" and "chaotic", and a tool called statistical probability to help us get a general estimate of what is most likely to happen. But we may reasonably presume that even these events are reliably caused though not reliably predicted. So, determinism holds despite our inability to reliably predict events.

I am talking about determinism....it is remarks such as ''the steak was possible and it was realizable. The -ible and the -able have precisely the same meaning: something that may or may not happen, depending upon the circumstances'' - that imply probability, not determinism.

''Depending on the circumstances'' is another.

Determinism entails that the circumstances must be precisely as determined - ''precisely one inevitable way, without deviation.''

And if it was possible to choose between two or more probabilities, we would be arguing over Libertarian free will, not compatibilism.

Stop, before I puke!

That's just the implication of remarks such as ''the steak was possible and it was realizable. The -ible and the -able have precisely the same meaning: something that may or may not happen, depending upon the circumstances''

Again, the circumstances are fixed by antecedents, no deviation, meaning that nothing else is possible.



Look, the simple fact is that determinism logically implies that all events will be reliably caused by prior events, due to our reasonable assumption that every event must be caused by something, and that something must also be caused by something, etc.

Each cause an effect and each effect a cause as the system evolves without deviation or the possibility of freely selecting an alternate option, which means the possibility of doing something different.

Which contradicts ''precisely one inevitable way, without deviation.''

The causal chain is infinitely long, so no one has time for that. Our legitimate interest is in the most meaningful and relevant causes of a given event. A meaningful cause efficiently explains why the event happened. A relevant cause is something that we might do something about, either to make a desirable event happen more often, or to make an undesirable event happen less often.

So, when a thief robs a liquor store, we do not blame it on the Big Bang, because there is nothing we can do about the Big Bang to make things better. But there are many things we can do about the thief to discourage him from robbing stores and, if he cannot be discouraged, we can secure him in a cell where there are no stores to rob. But any talk about the Big Bang would be useless babbling.

Fortunately, determinism doesn't actually change anything, so any talk about determinism is usually useless babbling as well.

We don't blame it on the Big Bang, however, determinism is defined as the conditions at time t and how things go ever after being fixed by natural law - ''precisely one inevitable way, without deviation,'' with all its implications.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
946
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
At this point I'm still trying to figure out who's a chatbot, and who isn't.
I have met DBT IRL, so if he’s a chatbot, he’s an extraordinarily advanced model that drinks beer.

It’s funny, though, because under DBT’s hard determinism, we really are all extraordinarily advanced models of chatbots, aren’t we? We have no “choice” over what we say. It was all pre-scripted at the big bang.

Yet it’s this “extraordinarily advanced model” bit that is so puzzling. I’m going to assume chatbots are not conscious, and yet we are. What for? What possible selective advantage does consciousness, particularly higher-order consciousness, have in a pre-scripted world?

It seems clear to me what the advantage of consciousness is — it maximizes choices. It moves organisms away from blind instinct and enables them to evaluate, weigh, measure, and choose, to better their chances of survival and reproductive success.

Yet it is just this thing called choice that hard determinism denies, rendering the evolution of consciousness in such a world wholly inexplicable.

The really funny thing is the insistence that it's ''DBT's hard determinism,' when the definition I use is precisely the same as given by the compatibilists on this forum....which I quote time and time again.

The only difference being is the question of whether free will is compatible with that very same definition of determinism.

The answer, for the given reasons, being: no, it is not.

And yet, you didn’t address the point I made in the bit from me that you quoted. I’ve posed this question in the past, too, and I don’t think I’ve ever really received an answer.

The diference between standard causal determinism and your hard determinism is that causal determinism takes no stand on free will, while hard determninism argues it is incompitible with free will. So you are a hard determinist, QED.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'
This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

Jarhyn - A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.
No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Wrong.

Choice, by definition, entails selecting between two or more realizable options.

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

Determinism, according to the given definition - all events proceeding without deviation, no alternate actions - does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

Without realizable alternate options, where lies the choice?

Nowhere.

No alternative equates to no choice.

Freedom - the ability to choose or do otherwise - does not exist within a deterministic system, which makes the notion of free will incompatible with determinism.

Straightforward, undeniable, no way around it. Carefully worded definitions commonly used by compatibilists do not prove the proposition.
And again you fail to read that word "possibilities" and then fill it in with the compatibilist definition, and so FAIL to speak anything meaningful at all about it.

Anad again you fail to understand the implications that determinism has for freedom of choice and freedom of will;

1) (Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternative action or choice) BEGGED QUESTION, DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF CHOICE.

2) No alternative action or choice, negates freedom of choice.

3) Absence of choice (no possible alternate actions) negates freedom of will

4) Will does not, and cannot, make a difference to what are determined outcomes.

5) Free will is incompatible with determinism.

You have no counter argument
.
And again you fail to read that word "possibilities" and then fill it in with the compatibilist definition, and so FAIL to speak anything meaningful at all about it.

You didn't even make an argument in the first place. To something for which no argument is given, no counterargument is warranted.

I've pointed again and again to a definition of choice which is clearly observable and satisfied within determinism, and it does not require "indeterminism".
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
946
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'
This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

Jarhyn - A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.
No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Wrong.

Choice, by definition, entails selecting between two or more realizable options.

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

Determinism, according to the given definition - all events proceeding without deviation, no alternate actions - does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

Without realizable alternate options, where lies the choice?

Nowhere.

No alternative equates to no choice.

Freedom - the ability to choose or do otherwise - does not exist within a deterministic system, which makes the notion of free will incompatible with determinism.

Straightforward, undeniable, no way around it. Carefully worded definitions commonly used by compatibilists do not prove the proposition.
And again you fail to read that word "possibilities" and then fill it in with the compatibilist definition, and so FAIL to speak anything meaningful at all about it.

Anad again you fail to understand the implications that determinism has for freedom of choice and freedom of will;

1) Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternative action or choice.

2) No alternative action or choice, negates freedom of choice.

3) Absence of choice (no possible alternate actions) negates freedom of will

4) Will does not, and cannot, make a difference to what are determined outcomes.

5) Free will is incompatible with determinism.

You have no counter argument.

You assert we have no counterargument, and yet we have refuted again and again what you state above.

Your argument immediately goes off the rails at premise 1. Determinism does not permit, or for that matter, compel, anything. Your P1 is a reification fallacy, as has been repeatedly pointed out. Determinism describes what happens in the world, it does not prescribe anything at all, because determinism is not some sort of entitty. Among the things it describes is my ordering a steak for dinner, which reliably causes the waiter to bring me a steak (assuming the waiter is competent).

Since P1 is false, the rest of your argument is moot. It’s unsound.

You make the same mistake over and over when you write about stuff being “fixed by natural law.” Again and again I have challenged you on this point, and I do not believe you have ever given a straight response. I say again: Natural law DESCRIBES, and never PRESCRIBES, what happens in the world. There is no law that makes it be the case that celestial bodies follow geodesics in spacetime. Rather, they do that thing, and the general theory of relativity describes and predicts these relationships. In exactly the same way, causal determinism DESCRIBES temporal relations in the classical (though not quantum) world. And, as a matter of fact, since the whole world is actually quantum, it follows that what we call causal determinism in the so-called classical world is a statistical phenomenon, much like the second “law” of thermodynamics. The Information Philosopher (whom you yourself have quoted and who in fact is a compatibilist) calls this form of determinism “adequate determinism.”
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
We don't blame it on the Big Bang, however, determinism is defined as the conditions at time t and how things go ever after being fixed by natural law - ''precisely one inevitable way, without deviation,'' with all its implications.

It is a specific implication that you have failed to prove. You have not proved that if things "would" not have gone another way, that they also "could" not have gone another way. "Would not" does not logically imply "could not". It may "sound" like it does, but it does not.

I've explained many times why such an implication is false. For example, when making a simple choice between ordering the salad versus ordering the steak, I have the "ability" to order either one. I "can" order the steak, and, I "can" order the salad.

No matter which one I choose, my ability to choose the other one remains constant. If "I can order the steak" was ever true at a given time, then "I could have ordered the steak" will be forever true when referring to that same moment in time.

So, when we say, "I ordered the salad" and "I could have ordered the steak", both statements true. The statement "I ordered the salad" never implies that "I could not have ordered the steak".

Although I "would" not order the steak, I "could" have ordered the steak. So, what I would do does not imply what I could do.

What I "can" do implies the limits of what I "will" do, because if I cannot do it then I will not do it.

But what I "will" do never implies what I "can" do. What I "can" do is only limited by my ability to carry out the option if I choose to do so.

Finally, whenever choosing happens, there will always be multiple things that I "can" choose, even though there will be only one thing that I "will" choose.

So, the notion that "what I would do implies what I could do" is simply false.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
At this point I'm still trying to figure out who's a chatbot, and who isn't.
I have met DBT IRL, so if he’s a chatbot, he’s an extraordinarily advanced model that drinks beer.

It’s funny, though, because under DBT’s hard determinism, we really are all extraordinarily advanced models of chatbots, aren’t we? We have no “choice” over what we say. It was all pre-scripted at the big bang.

Yet it’s this “extraordinarily advanced model” bit that is so puzzling. I’m going to assume chatbots are not conscious, and yet we are. What for? What possible selective advantage does consciousness, particularly higher-order consciousness, have in a pre-scripted world?

It seems clear to me what the advantage of consciousness is — it maximizes choices. It moves organisms away from blind instinct and enables them to evaluate, weigh, measure, and choose, to better their chances of survival and reproductive success.

Yet it is just this thing called choice that hard determinism denies, rendering the evolution of consciousness in such a world wholly inexplicable.

The really funny thing is the insistence that it's ''DBT's hard determinism,' when the definition I use is precisely the same as given by the compatibilists on this forum....which I quote time and time again.

The only difference being is the question of whether free will is compatible with that very same definition of determinism.

The answer, for the given reasons, being: no, it is not.

And yet, you didn’t address the point I made in the bit from me that you quoted. I’ve posed this question in the past, too, and I don’t think I’ve ever really received an answer.

The diference between standard causal determinism and your hard determinism is that causal determinism takes no stand on free will, while hard determninism argues it is incompitible with free will. So you are a hard determinist, QED.

Again, the point of contention is the compatibility of the notion of free will in relation to the given definition of determinism.

Both sides have agreed on a definition of determinism.

The definition is neither 'hard' or 'soft'....it is determinism, as it is agreed to be.

Which just makes it a question of: is free will compatible with determinism?

And it has been pointed out why the notion of free will is incompatible with determinism (as defined).

Basically:

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

1) Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternative action or choice.

2) No alternative action or choice negates freedom of choice.

3) Absence of choice (no possible alternate actions) negates freedom of will

4) Will cannot make a difference to determined outcomes.

5) Free will is incompatible with determinism.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Choice; an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.

1) Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternative action or choice
And yet again, an unsupported assertion.

Marvin has shown you a thing.

That thing is the clear action of people making choices.

Your No-True-Scotsman is tiresome, but you can't seem to get past it.

Neither could JC get past his fallacious thinking.

Maybe you would do better talking it through with a shrink WHY you keep wanting so badly for there to be no choice.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'
This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

Jarhyn - A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.
No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Wrong.

Choice, by definition, entails selecting between two or more realizable options.

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

Determinism, according to the given definition - all events proceeding without deviation, no alternate actions - does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

Without realizable alternate options, where lies the choice?

Nowhere.

No alternative equates to no choice.

Freedom - the ability to choose or do otherwise - does not exist within a deterministic system, which makes the notion of free will incompatible with determinism.

Straightforward, undeniable, no way around it. Carefully worded definitions commonly used by compatibilists do not prove the proposition.
And again you fail to read that word "possibilities" and then fill it in with the compatibilist definition, and so FAIL to speak anything meaningful at all about it.

Anad again you fail to understand the implications that determinism has for freedom of choice and freedom of will;

1) (Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternative action or choice) BEGGED QUESTION, DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF CHOICE.

2) No alternative action or choice, negates freedom of choice.

3) Absence of choice (no possible alternate actions) negates freedom of will

4) Will does not, and cannot, make a difference to what are determined outcomes.

5) Free will is incompatible with determinism.

You have no counter argument
.
And again you fail to read that word "possibilities" and then fill it in with the compatibilist definition, and so FAIL to speak anything meaningful at all about it.

You didn't even make an argument in the first place. To something for which no argument is given, no counterargument is warranted.

I've pointed again and again to a definition of choice which is clearly observable and satisfied within determinism, and it does not require "indeterminism".


You haven't pointed anything out. You have yet to grasp the implications of your own definition of determinism.

Given the track record, there is not much hope of that happening.

Do you understand that events that are fixed by antecedents entails no choice?

Are you able to grasp that with all actions being entailed by the system as it evolves, acting without external coercion or force is not an example of free will? That entailment does not equate to free will? That nothing within a deterministic system is freely willed? Apparently not.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
You haven't pointed anything out. You have yet to grasp the implications of your own definition of determinism
Yes, I did, I very clearly pointed out a choice happening, as per our definition of the word, in a deterministic system. See my first post on the choice function ListA.pop()

Choices don't have to be more than that.

Possibilities don't HAVE to discuss anything more than imaginary extensions of the universe.

You have yet to grasp the implications of physics and the fact that YOU are abandoning the definitions we are presenting to argue against a straw man and your posts make you out to not actually be smart enough to understand that.

I could go through the very important difference, the difference yet again but I won't. You have demonstrated that there is one thing in this universe that is most certainly not a possibility: you growing the ability to understand more than two abstractions at the same time.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
We don't blame it on the Big Bang, however, determinism is defined as the conditions at time t and how things go ever after being fixed by natural law - ''precisely one inevitable way, without deviation,'' with all its implications.

It is a specific implication that you have failed to prove. You have not proved that if things "would" not have gone another way, that they also "could" not have gone another way. "Would not" does not logically imply "could not". It may "sound" like it does, but it does not.

It's entailed in the given definition. Your own definition. As defined, 'fixed' and 'no deviation' entails it.

I've explained many times why such an implication is false. For example, when making a simple choice between ordering the salad versus ordering the steak, I have the "ability" to order either one. I "can" order the steak, and, I "can" order the salad.

That contradicts your own definition of determinism:

''Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("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''


No matter which one I choose, my ability to choose the other one remains constant. If "I can order the steak" was ever true at a given time, then "I could have ordered the steak" will be forever true when referring to that same moment in time.

Then it is not determinism.

So, when we say, "I ordered the salad" and "I could have ordered the steak", both statements true. The statement "I ordered the salad" never implies that "I could not have ordered the steak".

You feel that you could have, but if events determined, each action is fixed and your perception of could have done otherwise had I wanted to is an illusion.

Think of errors....a moment after something bad happens, you think, I shouldn't have done, or said that. Had it been possible to do otherwise, you would not have made the error in the first place.

We may look at the past and wish we knew then what we know now, but of course that was impossible, you were what your were at the time, things were not different, and cannot have been different, consequently events happen as they must.

We don't choose our own condition or the events of the world that shape our thoughts and actions.

Although I "would" not order the steak, I "could" have ordered the steak. So, what I would do does not imply what I could do.

No deviation entails no choice.

What I "can" do implies the limits of what I "will" do, because if I cannot do it then I will not do it.

Not only will not do it, but literally cannot do it. Fixed means it can't happen.

But what I "will" do never implies what I "can" do. What I "can" do is only limited by my ability to carry out the option if I choose to do so.

Finally, whenever choosing happens, there will always be multiple things that I "can" choose, even though there will be only one thing that I "will" choose.

So, the notion that "what I would do implies what I could do" is simply false.

What you do, you must necessarily do. That is what determinism means;


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

''Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It's entailed in the given definition. Your own definition. As defined, 'fixed' and 'no deviation' entails it.
"Possibility" does not require "deviation".

Your unargued assertion is that possibility requires deviation.

We have explained multitude times now possibility does not require deviation of the actual universe.

Possibility merely requires logical sensibility of applying some given (imaginary) state against the rules of physics, and seeing what physics makes of that imaginary state.

As such possibilities are always "possibilities (IF the universe were [imaginary state])". Since that state is imaginary, it does not matter whether the actual universe conforms to that image.

Even so, we have a set of language that describes when it is, in fact, conformant: actuality.

When possibilities are actualities, and a will is targeting that possibility for actualization, we call that will "free".
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
946
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
At this point I'm still trying to figure out who's a chatbot, and who isn't.
I have met DBT IRL, so if he’s a chatbot, he’s an extraordinarily advanced model that drinks beer.

It’s funny, though, because under DBT’s hard determinism, we really are all extraordinarily advanced models of chatbots, aren’t we? We have no “choice” over what we say. It was all pre-scripted at the big bang.

Yet it’s this “extraordinarily advanced model” bit that is so puzzling. I’m going to assume chatbots are not conscious, and yet we are. What for? What possible selective advantage does consciousness, particularly higher-order consciousness, have in a pre-scripted world?

It seems clear to me what the advantage of consciousness is — it maximizes choices. It moves organisms away from blind instinct and enables them to evaluate, weigh, measure, and choose, to better their chances of survival and reproductive success.

Yet it is just this thing called choice that hard determinism denies, rendering the evolution of consciousness in such a world wholly inexplicable.

The really funny thing is the insistence that it's ''DBT's hard determinism,' when the definition I use is precisely the same as given by the compatibilists on this forum....which I quote time and time again.

The only difference being is the question of whether free will is compatible with that very same definition of determinism.

The answer, for the given reasons, being: no, it is not.

And yet, you didn’t address the point I made in the bit from me that you quoted. I’ve posed this question in the past, too, and I don’t think I’ve ever really received an answer.

The diference between standard causal determinism and your hard determinism is that causal determinism takes no stand on free will, while hard determninism argues it is incompitible with free will. So you are a hard determinist, QED.

Again, the point of contention is the compatibility of the notion of free will in relation to the given definition of determinism.

Both sides have agreed on a definition of determinism.

The definition is neither 'hard' or 'soft'....it is determinism, as it is agreed to be.

Which just makes it a question of: is free will compatible with determinism?

And it has been pointed out why the notion of free will is incompatible with determinism (as defined).

Basically:

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

1) Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternative action or choice.

2) No alternative action or choice negates freedom of choice.

3) Absence of choice (no possible alternate actions) negates freedom of will

4) Will cannot make a difference to determined outcomes.

5) Free will is incompatible with determinism.

As I’ve noted several times now, it’s as if your responses are on a save-get key. You keep repeating yourself over and over without addressing what is actually being said to you. This is no way to hold a discussion.

You write, “both sides have agreed on a definition of determinism.” Yet I have repeatedly told you that I agree to no definition of determinism outside of “effects reliably follow causes,” i.e., Hume’s constant conjunction. And I have told you that I do not accept any modal category called “causal necessity.” If you don’t wish to address what I am saying, then I suggest you at least stop writing as if I agree to things that I do not agree to. It’s rather tiresome.

I note once again that you STILL do not address my question of why complex, higher-level consciousness would evolve, a cognitive apparatus that clearly makes it easer to remember, foresee, evaluate, and choose, if in fact we have no choice about anything!

And then again you just blithely go off and repeat yourself:

1) Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternative action or choice.

2) No alternative action or choice negates freedom of choice.

3) Absence of choice (no possible alternate actions) negates freedom of will

4) Will cannot make a difference to determined outcomes.

5) Free will is incompatible with determinism.

But I explicitly CHALLENGED this a few posts up, showing why P1 fails. Are you unable or unwilling to deal with that challenge?

You ignore my point that determinism DESCRIBES but does not PRESCRIBE what happens in the world, and my point, repeatedly made, that “natural” law also DESCRIBES but does not PRESCRIBE what happens in the world. You ignore all this and just go on repeating yourself. At this point I have to conclude you are unable to deal with these points and so you just ignore them.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
It is a specific implication that you have failed to prove. You have not proved that if things "would" not have gone another way, that they also "could" not have gone another way. "Would not" does not logically imply "could not". It may "sound" like it does, but it does not.

It's entailed in the given definition. Your own definition. As defined, 'fixed' and 'no deviation' entails it.

Nope. As I keep pointing out, what was fixed and entailed, with no deviation, was that I "could have" ordered the steak would necessarily be true under those precise circumstances, despite the fact that I never "would have" ordered the steak under those same circumstances.

It is a simple matter of English grammar, the logic of the language, that if "I can order the steak" was ever true at any point in the past, then "I could have ordered the steak" will be forever true when referencing that same point in time from the future. It is a simple matter of the tense of the verb, present tense and past tense.

Now, was "I can order the steak" ever true? Yes. When choosing between the salad and the steak, it was required that there be two things that "I can do". By logical necessity, "I can order the salad" and "I can order the steak" were both true. We know this because if one of them were false, then the choosing would immediately stop. There would be only one option, and we would simply proceed with that option without further thought.

But that was not the case. We had two options, the salad and the steak, and it was possible to choose either one. Choosing the salad was "possible". Choosing the steak was also "possible". Both were things that I was "able" to do at that time and place. Both were things that I "could" do, even though I only "would" do one of them. So, the choosing operation continued to the evaluation step. While considering the steak option, I recalled having bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. And I recalled that my dietary goal was to eat more fruits and vegetables. So I chose the salad for dinner instead of the steak.

Due to those prior causes (the bacon and eggs and cheeseburger) it was always inevitable that I would choose the salad for dinner. But I did not know that until I recalled from memory my breakfast and lunch. That is how choosing works. It inputs two or more things that we "can" do, evaluates them, and outputs the single inevitable thing that we "will" do.

At the end of every choosing operation, there will always be both the single thing that we "will" do, plus the other things that we "could" have done, but decided not to do.

Now, you seem to think that determinism magically makes the sentence, "I could have ordered the steak" false. But it doesn't.

If we were to run this through a replay, it would always be the same. At the beginning there will always be at least two different things that I can choose. At the end, there will always be the single inevitable thing that I will choose as well as the other thing(s) that I would not choose, but could have chosen.

It is how the words work. The single inevitable thing that we "will" do is chosen from among the many things we "can" do.

But if you illogically conflate "can" with "will", you end up with false conclusions.

Determinism does not change what these words mean. Determinism can only assert that the notions of "can" and "will" will appear as mental events that are reliably caused by prior mental events. Both our "could have" and our "would have" are equally causally necessary and inevitably will appear, exactly when they do.

In short, the "could have" is just as inevitable as the "would have".

You feel that you could have, but if events determined, each action is fixed and your perception of could have done otherwise had I wanted to is an illusion.

That's still incorrect. The notion that I "would" have done otherwise, given my same goals and reasons, would be an illusion. But the notion that I "could" have done otherwise, given different goals and reasons, would be a matter of fact. Keep in mind that "could have" always implies different circumstances.

Think of errors....a moment after something bad happens, you think, I shouldn't have done, or said that. Had it been possible to do otherwise, you would not have made the error in the first place.

The possibility to do otherwise is logically required to correct the error. If there is no possibility to do otherwise, then there is nothing we can call an "error".

We may look at the past and wish we knew then what we know now, but of course that was impossible, you were what your were at the time, things were not different, and cannot have been different, consequently events happen as they must.

One cannot look at the past and wish it were different without the notion of "possibility". Learning from past mistakes involves imagining what we "could" have done differently. If there are no other possibilities then we cannot plan a different future. The future would simply repeat the same mistakes over and over.

That's the cost of conflating "can" with "will". If only a single thing "can" happen, then only that single thing "will" ever happen. But the logic of our language allows for multiple things that "can" happen, multiple "possibilities", while restricting us to a single thing that "will" happen and a single "actuality".

We don't choose our own condition or the events of the world that shape our thoughts and actions.

You keep saying these weird things that contradict the facts on the ground. Our choices cause our actions. Our actions cause changes in our own condition as well as producing events in the world. So, we are actually part of what creates our own condition and the events of the world that shape our thoughts and actions.

You cannot have determinism if you keep erasing us from the causal chain. Our chosen actions cause events. Any version of determinism that ignores or excludes us is incomplete, and therefore false.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Keep in mind that "could have" always implies different circumstances.
Not always.

First the different circumstances are imaginary. You shouldn't leave that out with someone who can't abstract well.

Second, Sometimes "could have..." is also capable of terminating linguistically with "...and so I did, because I decided to in that moment...", in which case the imaginary circumstance is not in fact a different circumstance and the phrase "...thus my will to do so was free" also applies, assuming truth of the predicate
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Keep in mind that "could have" always implies different circumstances.
Not always.

First the different circumstances are imaginary. You shouldn't leave that out with someone who can't abstract well.

Second, Sometimes "could have..." is also capable of terminating linguistically with "...and so I did, because I decided to in that moment...", in which case the imaginary circumstance is not in fact a different circumstance and the phrase "...thus my will to do so was free" also applies, assuming truth of the predicate
Right. When speaking in the past tense, "Last night, in the restaurant, I could have ordered the salad and I could have ordered the steak, and I actually did order the salad, but not the steak".

And, yes, different circumstances are being imagined. All possibilities exist solely within the imagination. When actualized, they are immediately renamed "actualities".

But, while being imagined, they are not "imaginary" in the sense of being "unreal" possibilities. A "real" possibility is something that we can actually do, if we choose to, and we're imagining that possibility to decide whether to choose to do it or not.

We cannot drive a car across the possibility of a bridge. But we cannot build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge. So, a possibility is real in the sense that it has real effects in the real world (it is part of how an actual bridge comes about).
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Keep in mind that "could have" always implies different circumstances.
Not always.

First the different circumstances are imaginary. You shouldn't leave that out with someone who can't abstract well.

Second, Sometimes "could have..." is also capable of terminating linguistically with "...and so I did, because I decided to in that moment...", in which case the imaginary circumstance is not in fact a different circumstance and the phrase "...thus my will to do so was free" also applies, assuming truth of the predicate
Right. When speaking in the past tense, "Last night, in the restaurant, I could have ordered the salad and I could have ordered the steak, and I actually did order the salad, but not the steak".

And, yes, different circumstances are being imagined. All possibilities exist solely within the imagination. When actualized, they are immediately renamed "actualities".

But, while being imagined, they are not "imaginary" in the sense of being "unreal" possibilities. A "real" possibility is something that we can actually do, if we choose to, and we're imagining that possibility to decide whether to choose to do it or not.

We cannot drive a car across the possibility of a bridge. But we cannot build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge. So, a possibility is real in the sense that it has real effects in the real world (it is part of how an actual bridge comes about).
Well yes, not everything in the hierarchy of "imaginary" is "possible", and both "possible" and "impossible" are infinitely large sets.

You can absolutely drive across what was five years ago the possibility of a bridge. It's just that the possibility was also an "eventuality", the past tense of an actuality, and of the future tensed "inevitability".
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,708
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
As they rattle on and on and on without ever stopping to consider the implications of their words.

To get to choice and free one must insert self thereby adding a variable which isn't implied in determinism.

Get rid of your Descartes silliness. There is no "I am" in determinism. It is not part of the material construction of what is determined, Its never "being determined" it's just determined. "You" plays no part. With no part to play "choice", "self", "will" aren't there.

DBT has nailed it. You guys just want to play a game where somehow "you" is relevant. Determinism as a mechanism stands for everything material. "You" is something else, certainly not part of determinism. Again, "you" is incompatible with determinism.

Let me be clear. Science is incompatible with "you". "You" is never part of the scientific method. Sure, someone conducts experiments but the experiments don't include that one as part of the procedure. The designer is purposely excluded from the calculations by protocol. That was settled about 140 years ago. Looking inward for cause contaminates the method.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
It's entailed in the given definition. Your own definition. As defined, 'fixed' and 'no deviation' entails it.
"Possibility" does not require "deviation".

If ''possibility'' implies realizable alternate options, that something else can happen, that is deviation.

That is the point.

Your unargued assertion is that possibility requires deviation.

'Possibility' means that something can in fact happen. Determinism means that only that which is determined by antecedents can happen.

That what happens must necessarily happen.

If something must necessarily happen, it's not a 'possibility' that it will happen, it is an inevitability that it happens.

Inevitability eliminates the possibility of alternate actions.



We have explained multitude times now possibility does not require deviation of the actual universe.

As explained above, you have yet to grasp the basics of determinism and its implications for choice and free will.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
If ''possibility'' implies realizable alternate options, that something else can happen, that is deviation
And again you keep inserting your own belief rather than reading what we wrote.

The deviation doesn't happen in reality. It happens in the imagination.

What makes the "possibility" "realizable" in the context includes language you don't seem to understand as existing between the lines.

"Realizable" operates in the same context of CAN: that the only thing constraining the will is not an external requirement to the person but an internal one, that the only thing constraining them from doing it is merely their decision not to.

It does not mean that they will deviate from what the math says they will do. It means "they can, if the state of the universe solely with respect to their brain state conforms to some assumption".

There is even a special word, a set of words really, we have been trying to teach you that is used to describe when this is a true assumption: "freeness".

Whether that assumption is true and whether such an impossible deviation would be required for some thing to happen is exactly "freeness" of the will.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן

As I’ve noted several times now, it’s as if your responses are on a save-get key. You keep repeating yourself over and over without addressing what is actually being said to you. This is no way to hold a discussion.

Yet you feel the need to participate regardless?

It's repetitive on both sides. Compatibilists make assertions in regard to the notion of free will, acting without force or undue influence, etc, and incompatibilists point out the errors with the claim.

Who's right? It's clear that freedom is incompatible with determinism for all the given reasons.

Acting without coercion or force is still an action determined by antecedents, fixed by prior states of the system, neither freely willed or chosen.

Yet free will is asserted.

You write, “both sides have agreed on a definition of determinism.” Yet I have repeatedly told you that I agree to no definition of determinism outside of “effects reliably follow causes,” i.e., Hume’s constant conjunction. And I have told you that I do not accept any modal category called “causal necessity.” If you don’t wish to address what I am saying, then I suggest you at least stop writing as if I agree to things that I do not agree to. It’s rather tiresome.

I don't think you understand the implications of ''effects reliably follow causes,' how it works, or what makes 'reliability' possible.

If you think using the word 'reliable' permits the ability to regulate the system and bend it to our will, that our minds are exempt from the process of determinism, you are a Libertarian, not a compatibilist.





I note once again that you STILL do not address my question of why complex, higher-level consciousness would evolve, a cognitive apparatus that clearly makes it easer to remember, foresee, evaluate, and choose, if in fact we have no choice about anything!

Your question is flawed, and it has been addressed, described, articles on evolutionary biology, psychology quoted, cited, etc, ad nauseum.

The brain/organism has evolved to navigate it's complex environment, to respond to its challenges as a parellel information processor, not as a free will agent.

Ring any bells?

Do I have to repeat this again, only to have it ignored and get the lament; you repeat?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Who's right? It's clear that freedom is incompatible with determinism for all the given reasons
And it's clear to JC that the world is created for all the "given" reasons which amount to the same quantity of reasons you have given: because some people have an infinite capability to ignore what other people write.

Again, look at what we mean by "can".
If ''possibility'' implies realizable alternate options, that something else can happen, that is deviation
And again you keep inserting your own belief rather than reading what we wrote.

The deviation doesn't happen in reality. It happens in the imagination.

What makes the "possibility" "realizable" in the context includes language you don't seem to understand as existing between the lines.

"Realizable" operates in the same context of CAN: that the only thing constraining the will is not an external requirement to the person but an internal one, that the only thing constraining them from doing it is merely their decision not to.

It does not mean that they will deviate from what the math says they will do. It means "they can, if the state of the universe solely with respect to their brain state conforms to some assumption".

There is even a special word, a set of words really, we have been trying to teach you that is used to describe when this is a true assumption: "freeness".

Whether that assumption is true and whether such an impossible deviation would be required for some thing to happen is exactly "freeness" of the will.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
It is a specific implication that you have failed to prove. You have not proved that if things "would" not have gone another way, that they also "could" not have gone another way. "Would not" does not logically imply "could not". It may "sound" like it does, but it does not.

It's entailed in the given definition. Your own definition. As defined, 'fixed' and 'no deviation' entails it.

Nope. As I keep pointing out, what was fixed and entailed, with no deviation, was that I "could have" ordered the steak would necessarily be true under those precise circumstances, despite the fact that I never "would have" ordered the steak under those same circumstances.

''Could have'' is false. What you do is fixed by prior states of the system. How it evolves is not your choice.

The circumstance are always precisely as they must be, not as they 'could be.' Word games such as ''could have'' are suggestive of a freedom that cannot exist within determinism as it is defined.

It is a simple matter of English grammar, the logic of the language, that if "I can order the steak" was ever true at any point in the past, then "I could have ordered the steak" will be forever true when referencing that same point in time from the future. It is a simple matter of the tense of the verb, present tense and past tense.


Grammar does not alter the definition of determinism and all its implications.

Grammar is being used as a tool to give an impression of a sort of freedom that is not compatible with determinism.


Now, was "I can order the steak" ever true? Yes. When choosing between the salad and the steak, it was required that there be two things that "I can do". By logical necessity, "I can order the salad" and "I can order the steak" were both true. We know this because if one of them were false, then the choosing would immediately stop. There would be only one option, and we would simply proceed with that option without further thought.

There are never two or more possible actions within a deterministic system. Each incremental instance of action is fixed by antecedents.

If salad, salad it must necessarily be. If steak, steak it must necessarily be.

If the first impulse is salad, then on second thoughts, steak...that is how event of ordering the meal must necessarily proceed.

We are talking about determinism, not 'we can cook up anything regardless,' Libertarian free will.


We don't choose our own condition or the events of the world that shape our thoughts and actions.

You keep saying these weird things that contradict the facts on the ground. Our choices cause our actions. Our actions cause changes in our own condition as well as producing events in the world. So, we are actually part of what creates our own condition and the events of the world that shape our thoughts and actions.

It's not weird at all. It's entailed in your own definition. If determinism is true, the brain is embedded in the system, an aspect of the system, being inseparable from it, the brain is deterministic, acting deterministically in response to the information from the world at large that acts upon it.

What is strange is wanting it both ways, both determinism and freedom.

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


You cannot have determinism if you keep erasing us from the causal chain. Our chosen actions cause events. Any version of determinism that ignores or excludes us is incomplete, and therefore false.


I don't do that. Never have, never will, quite the opposite.

What I say is related to determinism as it is defined. You are doing the very thing you accuse me of when you say ''our chosen action cause events,' as if we chose our action in the absence of antecedents, implying that 'our chosen action' is free from causality, a first cause, time t.

That is a bad error.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
946
Basic Beliefs
agnostic

As I’ve noted several times now, it’s as if your responses are on a save-get key. You keep repeating yourself over and over without addressing what is actually being said to you. This is no way to hold a discussion.

Yet you feel the need to participate regardless?

It's repetitive on both sides. Compatibilists make assertions in regard to the notion of free will, acting without force or undue influence, etc, and incompatibilists point out the errors with the claim.

Who's right? It's clear that freedom is incompatible with determinism for all the given reasons.

Acting without coercion or force is still an action determined by antecedents, fixed by prior states of the system, neither freely willed or chosen.

Yet free will is asserted.

You write, “both sides have agreed on a definition of determinism.” Yet I have repeatedly told you that I agree to no definition of determinism outside of “effects reliably follow causes,” i.e., Hume’s constant conjunction. And I have told you that I do not accept any modal category called “causal necessity.” If you don’t wish to address what I am saying, then I suggest you at least stop writing as if I agree to things that I do not agree to. It’s rather tiresome.

I don't think you understand the implications of ''effects reliably follow causes,' how it works, or what makes 'reliability' possible.

If you think using the word 'reliable' permits the ability to regulate the system and bend it to our will, that our minds are exempt from the process of determinism, you are a Libertarian, not a compatibilist.





I note once again that you STILL do not address my question of why complex, higher-level consciousness would evolve, a cognitive apparatus that clearly makes it easer to remember, foresee, evaluate, and choose, if in fact we have no choice about anything!

Your question is flawed, and it has been addressed, described, articles on evolutionary biology, psychology quoted, cited, etc, ad nauseum.

The brain/organism has evolved to navigate it's complex environment, to respond to its challenges as a parellel information processor, not as a free will agent.

Ring any bells?

Do I have to repeat this again, only to have it ignored and get the lament; you repeat?

Actually I’ve pretty much dropped out of participation, but from time to time I like to weigh in when you say something particularly egregious, like:

If you think using the word 'reliable' permits the ability to regulate the system and bend it to our will, that our minds are exempt from the process of determinism, you are a Libertarian, not a compatibilist.

It’s obvious I’m not a libertarian. I don’t think you really read other people’s posts.

And:

The brain/organism has evolved to navigate it's complex environment, to respond to its challenges as a parellel information processor, not as a free will agent.

First, as has been explained, the brain is not a parallel processing computer. Second, you answer misses the point, as usual. Navigate the environment? According to you, the big bang navigates it for them! No brain is needed, just a big explosion some 13 billion years ago! So, no, you haven’t answered the question; in fact you contradict yourself.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
946
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Indeed, we need our brains to navigate the environment. This proves the point. The brain takes in inputs and calculates choices based on its own wants and needs and predilictions. A brain is part of the deterministic stream, determining what happens next as it ventures in the world. As long as it does so free of external coercion, that is compatibilist free will.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
As they rattle on and on and on without ever stopping to consider the implications of their words.

And you rattle on with your nihilistic fantasies.

To get to choice and free one must insert self thereby adding a variable which isn't implied in determinism.

Yes. We insert "self" into objective reality. And "chairs", and "tables", and "computers", and "text", and all those other objects that you evidently must trip over or bump into before admitting something objectively real exists.

Get rid of your Descartes silliness. There is no "I am" in determinism. It is not part of the material construction of what is determined, Its never "being determined" it's just determined. "You" plays no part. With no part to play "choice", "self", "will" aren't there. DBT has nailed it.

DBT is the one claiming that everything is "being determined", rather than resulting from simple events of cause and effect. And you've just nailed him for it.

You guys just want to play a game where somehow "you" is relevant. Determinism as a mechanism stands for everything material. "You" is something else, certainly not part of determinism. Again, "you" is incompatible with determinism.

Hmm. So now "we" exist as some kind of ghosts or spirits? That's odd. I could have sworn that my material fingers were typing on this material keyboard the thoughts occurring in my material brain.

Let me be clear. Science is incompatible with "you". "You" is never part of the scientific method. Sure, someone conducts experiments but the experiments don't include that one as part of the procedure. The designer is purposely excluded from the calculations by protocol. That was settled about 140 years ago. Looking inward for cause contaminates the method.

And that is precisely why I use the restaurant example, where we can objectively observe people browsing a menu of alternate possibilities and reducing it to a single "I will have the Chef Salad, please". Choosing happens. People do it. See it happening for yourself.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
'Could have'' is false.
Could have is true, because you are not actually talking to the compatibilist definition. You are straw-manning

"Could have IF he had decided" is true. We can test this logic in a simulator.

You can ask "could Urist, if Urist held the will to FIGHT, end up killing a dwarf."

To answer that, I hit "pause". I manually call the allocator to allocate a structure to hold a will. I indicate enumeration = FIGHT as the fundamental goal of the will. I push this through the logic that, for Urist, generates wills. Then I put the pointer to this crafted will in Urist's buffer.

I unpause the simulator.

Oh, there he goes killing... Oof... He just took out the entire fortress military that time. 30 dwarves.


Ok, stop it, save that corrupted image, and rewind it to the point at which I paused originally.

What does this prove? That "IF Urist held the will to fight he would slaughter 30 dwarves" is a mathematically, logically predictable result from the perspective of a deterministic universe that starts at exactly the "Last Thursday" where the system cuts is identical to this one except for the assumption that his will is "FIGHT".

Now I can ask a question.

Let's look at what Urist has as a will, in the uncorrupted state...

"FIGHT".

Let's ask a question: is Urist's will to fight "free"?

Is "what could have happened IF his will had been to fight" "what will happen"?

Think carefully here.

Note: no actual choice is being made here either. Choice is not necessary to discuss in this context, as isolated as it is specifically to "will" and "freeness", "can" and "could".
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
''Could have'' is false. What you do is fixed by prior states of the system. How it evolves is not your choice.

The notion of possibility, of future things that "can" happen, or past things that "could have" happened, are part of the causal mechanism that determines what inevitably "will" happen.

The human being causes events to happen in the real world, normally by choosing what it will do and then doing it. The person's own brain makes these choices by imagining the likely outcomes of multiple options. These are called things that it "can" do. Any option that is identified as something physically impossible is excluded as something that "cannot" be done, leaving only those options that "can" be done.

In order for choosing to happen, there must, by logical necessity, be at least two things that "can" be done. And this is where the "ability to do otherwise" appears. It must be true that we have at least two things to choose from. And it must be true that we are able to choose either one. Once these conditions are met, choosing can proceed to compare these options and produce the single inevitable choice.

This is similar to another logical process: addition. There must be at least two numbers that we can add together to produce the single sum. If there is only one number, then addition cannot happen.

The circumstance are always precisely as they must be, not as they 'could be.' Word games such as ''could have'' are suggestive of a freedom that cannot exist within determinism as it is defined.

Things as they "can" be are part of the logical causal mechanism that will determine the way that things inevitably "will" be. That is just the way things "are". This is not a "word game", but a simple statement of the truth.

Grammar does not alter the definition of determinism and all its implications.

Logic has eliminated the implication that we "could" not have done otherwise, and leaves us with the correct implication that we "would" not have done otherwise in a perfectly deterministic world.

Grammar is being used as a tool to give an impression of a sort of freedom that is not compatible with determinism.

Both logic and grammar have given us the truth of the matter: Whenever choosing happens there will always be exactly one single, inevitable, thing that we "will" do, and, at least one other inevitable thing that we "could have" done instead.

There are never two or more possible actions within a deterministic system. Each incremental instance of action is fixed by antecedents.

There are always two or more "possible" actions whenever a choosing event occurs within a deterministic system, just like there are always two or more numbers whenever an addition event occurs within a deterministic system.

If salad, salad it must necessarily be. If steak, steak it must necessarily be.

If choosing, then two or more possible actions are logically necessary.
If adding, subtracting, multiplying, or dividing, then two or more numbers are logically necessarily.

What is strange is wanting it both ways, both determinism and freedom.

There is no "freedom from causal necessity", because the notion is paradoxical. However, there are innumerable freedoms from meaningful and relevant constraints (you know, censorship, handcuffs, slavery, etc.).

It is delusional to think of causal necessity as a meaningful or relevant constraint. What we will inevitably do is exactly identical to us just being us, and choosing to do what we choose to do. And that is not a meaningful constraint.

''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. ...

Mr. Slattery has undermined his own argument by reminding us of the obvious differences between a normal brain state versus a brain subject to coercion, an implanted microchip, or a tumor.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, one interesting idea is that while "deterministic", of a system not implying self does not make for deterministic systems implying not-self.

This is because of the fundamental nature of "implication".

Deterministic System does not imply self
A does not imply B.

This means, in any sensible logic, that A maybe true in both the state where B is true and where B is false, this knowledge of A does not imply any knowledge of B.

So, determinism doesn't weigh in on self, by FDI's own admission.

But secondly, one must assess this claim in a real sense.

Is it true that determinism, perhaps as FDI may have wished to say but didn't, implies not-self?

What does this word "self" actually mean? We first have to answer that before we can discuss that to the point where we either see it makes sense or it doesn't.

If one wishes to be a compatibilist, one must admit that this idea of "self" arises from something material, observable, or otherwise quite apparently true of the universe.

The thing about self that I will readily observe is that I am here doubting. I have an experience. There's a stream of words passing through some buffer, those words are ending up in this window, and something is happening.

The word that we use to describe the "something that is happening" is "thinking".

Then one must answer "is there something which is not this specific something happening".

And one comes to the conclusion that yes, there is something that is not exactly this something that is happening:

The world doesn't go away when that thing that is happening ceases to happen. Other things keep happening.

This is the first hint.


The word used to describe the thing that is happening by the thing that is happening is generally "I". The term for this in general is "self" when referring to either that thing or another thing that happens in the third person.

This satisfies self mostly from the broad side: there is a phenomena happening, and we call each of these distinct local phenomena "selves".

In fact this concept extends to a vast array of different cellular automata, of various scales.

We can ask ourselves even whether there is a physical basis for the separation of cellular automata, and indeed there is the concept of Locality.*

So one may say that there is some object only being influenced by it's immediate surroundings such that the degree of influence of external forces are chaotic and influential with relation to the internal forces influencing it. The boundary point at which the degree of influence on the state of the system becomes critically constrained defines a boundary of locality and thus of "self".

Or, "something is happening and it isn't exactly everything that is happening."

Or, "self".

To deny it exists as a concept is to deny one of the most significant principles of physics.

But moreover, this principle of locality is one of the mechanisms of that very determinism. So it may imply that our particular form of causal determinism does in fact imply self.

So FDI is double-wrong.

*Triple wrong in fact, as FDI is a superdeterminist, and superdeterminism is the one loophole that remains in the 2015 Bell experiment that actually would allow locality to remain. Either he has to despense with superdeterminism or accept locality and thus self. Oh, the irony.
 
Last edited:

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,708
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
As they rattle on and on and on without ever stopping to consider the implications of their words.

And you rattle on with your nihilistic fantasies.

To get to choice and free one must insert self thereby adding a variable which isn't implied in determinism.

Yes. We insert "self" into objective reality. And "chairs", and "tables", and "computers", and "text", and all those other objects that you evidently must trip over or bump into before admitting something objectively real exists.

Get rid of your Descartes silliness. There is no "I am" in determinism. It is not part of the material construction of what is determined, Its never "being determined" it's just determined. "You" plays no part. With no part to play "choice", "self", "will" aren't there. DBT has nailed it.

DBT is the one claiming that everything is "being determined", rather than resulting from simple events of cause and effect. And you've just nailed him for it.

You guys just want to play a game where somehow "you" is relevant. Determinism as a mechanism stands for everything material. "You" is something else, certainly not part of determinism. Again, "you" is incompatible with determinism.

Hmm. So now "we" exist as some kind of ghosts or spirits? That's odd. I could have sworn that my material fingers were typing on this material keyboard the thoughts occurring in my material brain.

Let me be clear. Science is incompatible with "you". "You" is never part of the scientific method. Sure, someone conducts experiments but the experiments don't include that one as part of the procedure. The designer is purposely excluded from the calculations by protocol. That was settled about 140 years ago. Looking inward for cause contaminates the method.

And that is precisely why I use the restaurant example, where we can objectively observe people browsing a menu of alternate possibilities and reducing it to a single "I will have the Chef Salad, please". Choosing happens. People do it. See it happening for yourself.
Even using your notion of Objective observation: it is defined as seeing something and being exact about what you see; in terms that are operationally and materially defined like if you saw someone walk across the street, you'd record that they walked across a particular street, what time, what observed, named, persons were wearing etc... exact things...

Then if you were to add your own subjective interpretation you might say what you think they were walking across the street, maybe it was because they were heading to the store two streets over, maybe it was because their car was parked across the street or they were exhibiting free will or making choices. These are all things that might or might not be true, they are just your interpretation of the event.

When reporting an objective observation one records exactly what is being observed taking place. My criteria for Objective Observation is a bit more strict. One cannot use one's sense input as the means for recording. In Scientific Observation one gets rid of self involvement in the observation by protocol, experimental procedure, designed to remove oneself from the actual observation.

I leave no room for one to insert what one has sensed or brain processed of what is scientifically observed. By so doing I remove the possibility that one looks inward when experimenting. It also gets rid of a lot of sharp salesman words and hand waves about what is or is not objective and material and it gets around a lot of low hanging political fruit about what is or is not determined. And it makes the meaning of objective and subjective very clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
FDI, to be an object, does not require anyone being exact. It does not require recording. It does not require FDI or any person anywhere looking at it. It just needs to be some piece of real material that will have always been what it was.

To be objective about what it is, to some extent of objectivity, one must merely observe the object to the extent that one may validate that the properties seen are in fact consistent with being some real object.

Objectivity then always has error.

Now, it is absolutely ridiculously asinine to make such a contradictive statement as that

I leave no room for one to insert what one has sensed or brain processed of what is scientifically observed
After saying:
When reporting an objective observation one records exactly what observed taking place


Of course in this statement there is tacit acceptance of the concept of self (indicating the one doing the recording), but moreover when one records what one observes of what is taking place one is necessarily inserting on the record before them what one has sensed with their senses and had their brain subsequently process.

But moreover we are not just mysterious mindless recorders of data. Or at least most of us are not, though I shouldn't try to speak for FDI.

It is entirely acceptable to judge what one senses. It just helps making those senses less ambiguous over the error range by adding more precise ranging on them: adding a ruler against the eye. Making a new eye that records more reliably every frame so that the biological eye may hold the evidence for longer. Making a system with uniform gradations on the deflection of a lever balanced by opposed masses distributed across a lever arm rather than the rather imprecise judgement of how much an arm is moving.

It is not about "removing self" as if that was ever an important or sane thing to do as much as it is removing ambiguity because human biology is sloppy and imprecise without augmentation.

Really, objectivity just requires that whatever properties you have identified are actually descriptive of the thing, and that someone, anyone, could with that description and whatever same set of tools validate and say "yes that thing has those qualities" when so viewed.

Some people may ask for more, but then they might find themselves declaring a No-True-ScotsmanObject, and setting a burden that is designed for rejecting literally anything arbitrarily.

It does not matter what magic dance FDI does as to what the computer is. It is, objectively, an object.

Just like FDI is an object.

Measurement is not what makes something material.

Putting something on a balance does not make it an object.

It might make someone look intelligent in a mirror when they convince themselves they have a handle on objectivity because they know how to use a micrometer and a camera to write down observations, but the fact is, all it does is make them miss the point: that objectiveness is about validating the observable qualities of material phenomena, by the best means available.

What is ironic is that a computer offers simultaneous parallel observation points which all validate it's observable qualities in various ways, and it is exactly the computer with it's multiply validated observable qualities, including as ironic as it may seem the "locked door" and the dwarf whose will, lacking freedom, is to "open" that "locked door", that FDI wishes desperately weren't an object for some reason.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,708
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
So, one interesting idea is that while "deterministic", of a system not implying self does not make for deterministic systems implying not-self.

This is because of the fundamental nature of "implication".

Deterministic System does not imply self
A does not imply B.

This means, in any sensible logic, that A maybe true in both the state where B is true and where B is false, this knowledge of A does not imply any knowledge of B.

So, determinism doesn't weigh in on self, by FDI's own admission.

But secondly, one must assess this claim in a real sense.

Is it true that determinism, perhaps as FDI may have wished to say but didn't, implies not-self?

What does this word "self" actually mean? We first have to answer that before we can discuss that to the point where we either see it makes sense or it doesn't.

If one wishes to be a compatibilist, one must admit that this idea of "self" arises from something material, observable, or otherwise quite apparently true of the universe.

The thing about self that I will readily observe is that I am here doubting. I have an experience. There's a stream of words passing through some buffer, those words are ending up in this window, and something is happening.

The word that we use to describe the "something that is happening" is "thinking".

Then one must answer "is there something which is not this specific something happening".

And one comes to the conclusion that yes, there is something that is not exactly this something that is happening:

The world doesn't go away when that thing that is happening ceases to happen. Other things keep happening.

This is the first hint.


The word used to describe the thing that is happening by the thing that is happening is generally "I". The term for this in general is "self" when referring to either that thing or another thing that happens in the third person.

This satisfies self mostly from the broad side: there is a phenomena happening, and we call each of these distinct local phenomena "selves".

In fact this concept extends to a vast array of different cellular automata, of various scales.

We can ask ourselves even whether there is a physical basis for the separation of cellular automata, and indeed there is the concept of Locality.*

So one may say that there is some object only being influenced by it's immediate surroundings such that the degree of influence of external forces are chaotic and influential with relation to the internal forces influencing it. The boundary point at which the degree of influence on the state of the system becomes critically constrained defines a boundary of locality and thus of "self".

Or, "something is happening and it isn't exactly everything that is happening."

Or, "self".

To deny it exists as a concept is to deny one of the most significant principles of physics.

But moreover, this principle of locality is one of the mechanisms of that very determinism. So it may imply that our particular form of causal determinism does in fact imply self.

So FDI is double-wrong.

*Triple wrong in fact, as FDI is a superdeterminist, and superdeterminism is the one loophole that remains in the 2015 Bell experiment that actually would allow locality to remain. Either he has to despense with superdeterminism or accept locality and thus self. Oh, the irony.
Determinism is independent of self. Self is something peculiar to sentient beings who are aware of themselves. When a sentient being is part of a determined system it's awareness is subjective, about/of oneself. As such that awareness is subject to constraints of sensing and processing what is sensed.

Ergo sensed inputs cannot be considered objective since what is processed by the sentient being arises from inputs not proven to to be onto with the reality sensed.

There is no way except by learning and approximation that one can improve upon the limitations of sensing apparatus. And research has shown us that we are very limited in actually observing what is out there.

In fact the discovery of the principles of science showed us just how limited we are in appreciating what is sensed by permitting us to actually exploit some of the realities of the world.

So anyone who with quick speech tells you you can know things by trusting your senses, just using your mind, or that by looking inward is a scientific tool is dealing in objective fools gold.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Self is something peculiar to sentient beings who are aware of themselves
LOL, contradicting yourself you are!

In this sentence and pay close attention here folks. Look at the clauses applied as a requirement for being a self, referenced independently of that "self" at the end.

He acknowledges syntactically, lexically, tacitly, that the self exists independent of that awareness, as the object of the awareness.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,708
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Objectivity then always has error.



.



It is not about "removing self" as if that was ever an important or sane thing to do as much as it is removing ambiguity because human biology is sloppy and imprecise without augmentation.


What is ironic is that a computer offers simultaneous parallel observation points which all validate it's observable qualities in various ways, and it is exactly the computer with it's multiply validated observable qualities, including as ironic as it may seem the "locked door" and the dwarf whose will, lacking freedom, is to "open" that "locked door", that FDI wishes desperately weren't an object for some reason.
First off one developing an experiment that uses a device to measure something is not one recording something. The individual setting approved protocols and assigning devices in an experiment is employing method that removes the individual from being part of the experiment.

I fully appreciate the value of computers as devices useful to experimentation. However it is humans who program computers, who design program languages, who make errors that require others to continuously investigate and correct such problems. Placebos they are not.

I trust more the review and critique process of scientific endeavor over the profit motive of those who have the next great idea.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,708
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Self is something peculiar to sentient beings who are aware of themselves
LOL, contradicting yourself you are!

In this sentence and pay close attention here folks. Look at the clauses applied as a requirement for being a self, referenced independently of that "self" at the end.

He acknowledges syntactically, lexically, tacitly, that the self exists independent of that awareness, as the object of the awareness.
Not all sentient beings are aware of themselves. Feeling like another is not recognizing oneself.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
First, as has been explained, the brain is not a parallel processing computer. Second, you answer misses the point, as usual. Navigate the environment? According to you, the big bang navigates it for them! No brain is needed, just a big explosion some 13 billion years ago! So, no, you haven’t answered the question; in fact you contradict yourself.

Explained? It appears that you have no understood what I have said.

I made no mention of ''computer'' - I said ''information processor.''

The brain is an information processor, acquiring information via the senses, integrating with memory, etc.

That evolved function of a brain is to acquire and process information and respond according to experience, which is the function of memory.


How the Brain Processes Information to Make Decisions:

The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: a reflective system and a reactive (or reflexive) system.

''In a computer, information is entered by means of input devices like a keyboard or scanner. In the human mind, the input device is called the Sensory Register, composed of sensory organs like the eyes and the ears through which we receive information about our surroundings. As information is received by a computer, it is processed in the Central Processing Unit, which is equivalent to the Working Memory or Short-Term Memory. In the human mind, this is where information is temporarily held so that it may be used, discarded, or transferred into Long-Term Memory. In a computer, information is stored in a hard disk, which is equivalent to Long-Term Memory. This is where we keep information that is not currently being used. Information stored in the Long-Term Memory may be kept for an indefinite period of time.''
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
'Could have'' is false.
Could have is true, because you are not actually talking to the compatibilist definition. You are straw-manning

"Could have IF he had decided" is true. We can test this logic in a simulator.

You can ask "could Urist, if Urist held the will to FIGHT, end up killing a dwarf."

To answer that, I hit "pause". I manually call the allocator to allocate a structure to hold a will. I indicate enumeration = FIGHT as the fundamental goal of the will. I push this through the logic that, for Urist, generates wills. Then I put the pointer to this crafted will in Urist's buffer.

I unpause the simulator.

Oh, there he goes killing... Oof... He just took out the entire fortress military that time. 30 dwarves.


Ok, stop it, save that corrupted image, and rewind it to the point at which I paused originally.

What does this prove? That "IF Urist held the will to fight he would slaughter 30 dwarves" is a mathematically, logically predictable result from the perspective of a deterministic universe that starts at exactly the "Last Thursday" where the system cuts is identical to this one except for the assumption that his will is "FIGHT".

Now I can ask a question.

Let's look at what Urist has as a will, in the uncorrupted state...

"FIGHT".

Let's ask a question: is Urist's will to fight "free"?

Is "what could have happened IF his will had been to fight" "what will happen"?

Think carefully here.

Note: no actual choice is being made here either. Choice is not necessary to discuss in this context, as isolated as it is specifically to "will" and "freeness", "can" and "could".


You have no idea.

It's not difficult.

The claim that free will is compatible with determinism fails to establish its contention because it does not take inner necessitation into account: that decisions are not freely chosen, they are necessitated by elements beyond the regulative control of the system (antecedents).... therefore, determined actions are not freely willed, they are performed as determined.

A determined action must necessarily proceed as determined which means determined actions are unrestricted, unimpeded, yet fixed as determined. Given that decisions are necessitated/determined and actions necessarily follow (motor action), freedom of action does not equate to freedom of will.

Consequently, the claim that 'it is our brain that is performing decision making and action, therefore free will' is not a reasonable conclusion.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
We don't blame it on the Big Bang, however, determinism is defined as the conditions at time t and how things go ever after being fixed by natural law - ''precisely one inevitable way, without deviation,'' with all its implications.

It is a specific implication that you have failed to prove. You have not proved that if things "would" not have gone another way, that they also "could" not have gone another way. "Would not" does not logically imply "could not". It may "sound" like it does, but it does not.

'Could not have gone another way' is the essence of determinism.


''In an attempt to deflect such undesirable entailments of compatibilism, a compatibilist may say that had a person desired to act differently, he could have chosen to act differently. This argument is based on merely a hypothetical otherwise choice rather than an actual otherwise choice. The hypothetical otherwise choice is more formally known as a hypothetical analytical otherwise choice vs. an actual otherwise choice. Regarding the compatibilist’s use of the hypothetical or conditional ‘could have done otherwise,’ Bernard Berofsky says, “The first prominent philosopher of the twentieth century to advance a compatibilist solution to the free will problem based on a conditional or hypothetical analysis was G.E. Moore (1912).”[3]

While it is trivially true that if the compatibly free person had desired to act differently, he could have, that response does not truly answer the specific question. The real question is, could a compatibly free being have chosen differently in the moral moment of decision given the same past? The answer is no. Because, given one’s past, he could not have had a different greatest desire from which freely to choose differently in the moral moment of decision.’




I've explained many times why such an implication is false. For example, when making a simple choice between ordering the salad versus ordering the steak, I have the "ability" to order either one. I "can" order the steak, and, I "can" order the salad.

The explanation was flawed for the given reasons.


No matter which one I choose, my ability to choose the other one remains constant. If "I can order the steak" was ever true at a given time, then "I could have ordered the steak" will be forever true when referring to that same moment in time.

You are contradicting your own definition of determinism.

'No deviation' entails 'no alternatives.'

Fixed as a matter of natural law entails no possible alternative actions.

So, when we say, "I ordered the salad" and "I could have ordered the steak", both statements true. The statement "I ordered the salad" never implies that "I could not have ordered the steak".

The statements are made, but they do not relate to determinism. It's common language, that's how people perceive the world.

People commonly assume that they could have chosen any of the options in any given instance in time.

But if the world is deterministic, just as you have defined, the possibility of choosing any option in any instance in time is an illusion.

You can only take one option, which is the determined option as the system evolves from prior state to current and future states.

There are no multiple options for any given person in any given instance, each person has their own state and own action, Bob orders steak, his wife Betty orders salad, later Bob has whisky and Betty sips wine.....

Although I "would" not order the steak, I "could" have ordered the steak. So, what I would do does not imply what I could do.

If you could have, it's not determinism. Determinism means that you could not have ordered steak if something is determined in that instance in time, the state of you, how the brain processes information, how you feel (all not chosen), the environment, etc....
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Self is something peculiar to sentient beings who are aware of themselves
LOL, contradicting yourself you are!

In this sentence and pay close attention here folks. Look at the clauses applied as a requirement for being a self, referenced independently of that "self" at the end.

He acknowledges syntactically, lexically, tacitly, that the self exists independent of that awareness, as the object of the awareness.
Not all sentient beings are aware of themselves. Feeling like another is not recognizing oneself.
And yet they are still "themSELVES" and thus have selves, even if they are not aware of it.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Objectivity then always has error.

It is not about "removing self" as if that was ever an important or sane thing to do as much as it is removing ambiguity because human biology is sloppy and imprecise without augmentation.


What is ironic is that a computer offers simultaneous parallel observation points which all validate it's observable qualities in various ways, and it is exactly the computer with it's multiply validated observable qualities, including as ironic as it may seem the "locked door" and the dwarf whose will, lacking freedom, is to "open" that "locked door", that FDI wishes desperately weren't an object for some reason.
First off one developing an experiment that uses a device to measure something is not one recording something. The individual setting approved protocols and assigning devices in an experiment is employing method that removes the individual from being part of the experiment.

I fully appreciate the value of computers as devices useful to experimentation. However it is humans who program computers, who design program languages, who make errors that require others to continuously investigate and correct such problems. Placebos they are not.

I trust more the review and critique process of scientific endeavor over the profit motive of those who have the next great idea.
You are again falling into the genetic fallacy. It does not matter where an object came from.

Or rather, what grounds do you have for saying that something that was manufactured objectively tested, assembled, objectively tested, turned on, objectively tested, laid down with a program, objectively tested, turned off, objectively tested, taken apart, objectively inspected, put together again, objectively inspected...

I know more about the microstate of that computer than you know about the inside of a human brain, to the point where I can, because all of it is so well known and objectively described (in fact it is objectively described down to the location of numbers of molecules, give or take, in places), make inferences about the state of electron shells of some of it's atoms by looking at other atoms somewhere else, that are in fact reporting on the state of those electron shells.

The fact is, though, observation does not determine that it is an object, the fact that it is there, made of material, is what makes it thus. How the observations are taken nor recorded are not germaine either. What is germaine is that someone using the same technique gets the same answer.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Even using your notion of Objective observation: it is defined as seeing something and being exact about what you see; in terms that are operationally and materially defined like if you saw someone walk across the street, you'd record that they walked across a particular street, what time, what observed, named, persons were wearing etc... exact things...

Then if you were to add your own subjective interpretation you might say what you think they were walking across the street, maybe it was because they were heading to the store two streets over, maybe it was because their car was parked across the street or they were exhibiting free will or making choices. These are all things that might or might not be true, they are just your interpretation of the event.

I agree. But in the restaurant example, I use an operational definition of choosing: Choosing inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice. In the restaurant, the only part of this that is subjective is the criteria of evaluation.

We cannot read the customers' minds. But we can ask them what thoughts they had while making their choice. The fact that they had any thoughts at all that played a role in their choice satisfies the operational definition of choosing.

When reporting an objective observation one records exactly what is being observed taking place. My criteria for Objective Observation is a bit more strict. One cannot use one's sense input as the means for recording. In Scientific Observation one gets rid of self involvement in the observation by protocol, experimental procedure, designed to remove oneself from the actual observation.

I leave no room for one to insert what one has sensed or brain processed of what is scientifically observed. By so doing I remove the possibility that one looks inward when experimenting. It also gets rid of a lot of sharp salesman words and hand waves about what is or is not objective and material and it gets around a lot of low hanging political fruit about what is or is not determined. And it makes the meaning of objective and subjective very clear.

Objectivity is an ideal that science attempts to get us closer to through scientific methods. But, as you repeatedly suggest, achieving true objectivity is likely to be beyond us. We are, by nature, subjective beings with a concern that is limited in many respects by our own self-interests. Even our intention to be more objective than subjective is basically subjective, motivated by our desire to arrive at the truth of things.

I guess my point is that we must settle upon an operational notion of objectivity, something we can work with to make useful distinctions between operationally objective and operationally subjective "facts".
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
946
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
First, as has been explained, the brain is not a parallel processing computer. Second, you answer misses the point, as usual. Navigate the environment? According to you, the big bang navigates it for them! No brain is needed, just a big explosion some 13 billion years ago! So, no, you haven’t answered the question; in fact you contradict yourself.

Explained? It appears that you have no understood what I have said.

I made no mention of ''computer'' - I said ''information processor.''

The brain is an information processor, acquiring information via the senses, integrating with memory, etc.

That evolved function of a brain is to acquire and process information and respond according to experience, which is the function of memory.


How the Brain Processes Information to Make Decisions:

The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: a reflective system and a reactive (or reflexive) system.

''In a computer, information is entered by means of input devices like a keyboard or scanner. In the human mind, the input device is called the Sensory Register, composed of sensory organs like the eyes and the ears through which we receive information about our surroundings. As information is received by a computer, it is processed in the Central Processing Unit, which is equivalent to the Working Memory or Short-Term Memory. In the human mind, this is where information is temporarily held so that it may be used, discarded, or transferred into Long-Term Memory. In a computer, information is stored in a hard disk, which is equivalent to Long-Term Memory. This is where we keep information that is not currently being used. Information stored in the Long-Term Memory may be kept for an indefinite period of time.''

Well, no, I did not ask you how you think the brain works. I asked you an entirely different question and once again you ignored that question.

You also ignored this:

And then again you just blithely go off and repeat yourself:

1) Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternative action or choice.

2) No alternative action or choice negates freedom of choice.

3) Absence of choice (no possible alternate actions) negates freedom of will

4) Will cannot make a difference to determined outcomes.

5) Free will is incompatible with determinism.

But I explicitly CHALLENGED this a few posts up, showing why P1 fails. Are you unable or unwilling to deal with that challenge?

You ignore my point that determinism DESCRIBES but does not PRESCRIBE what happens in the world, and my point, repeatedly made, that “natural” law also DESCRIBES but does not PRESCRIBE what happens in the world. You ignore all this and just go on repeating yourself. At this point I have to conclude you are unable to deal with these points and so you just ignore them.

No big surprise, you’ve been ignoring this stuff from the start.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
'Could not have gone another way' is the essence of determinism.

The essence of determinism is "would not have gone another way" and "would not have done otherwise". That is sufficient for determinism. And it is the only coherent assertion that a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect can logically imply.

To say to someone, "I have two ice cream cones. One is chocolate. The other is vanilla. You can choose either one, and I will have the other." And then, when they choose the chocolate, tell them "You could not have chosen the vanilla", creates a cognitive dissonance.

First you tell them that they can choose the vanilla, then you tell them that they could not have chosen the vanilla. Because "could have" is simply the past tense of "can", those two statements are direct contradictions. One of them must be a lie.

That is why determinism cannot truly mean "could not have done otherwise". The assertion makes determinism a lie.

The cognitive dissonance creates an unnecessary and interminable dispute. Fix the language, and the problem disappears.

For example, suppose we ask them, "Why did you choose the chocolate?", and they answer "I like chocolate best", and we say, "So, you would have always chosen the chocolate today?". They will say "Yes. I would have." No cognitive dissonance, because there is no lying.
 
Top Bottom