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

Compatibilism: What's that About?

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,547
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
In a deterministic universe, the outcome is inevitable.

If it is inevitable, there is zero chance it could be any different.

If there is zero chance it could be any different, I am not making a free choice. I limited to exactly one thing - whatever the inevitable outcome is. I can not be making a free choice if there is only one outcome.
This is yet again people confusing "wanting things to be different" and "wanting to things to become some specific thing".

Your inability to understand how and why you participate in the development of what will be singular future and why that still matters is a "you" problem.

Why do you want the future to be different? You don't even know what it is, and have plenty of decisions as to what it will be.

"Changing the future" "making an impact", "making a difference" is all figurative language.

Really, it is discussing making decisions in the future that are different from the ones you made in the past. This is not changing or actually making the future any different. It is the process by which YOU change in one moment to the next into who you will be. It means being different in the future than you are now, and impressing people with the extent of that difference, not of some exact time from itself in that same exact time, but of the kind of changes we all accept and recognize happen as a product of cause and effect.

As such, it isn't about choosing a different future, but about the processes which calculate, imperfectly, "could", until it is calculated on well enough to determine which, of "could", "shall". This isn't changing the future, this is just the process on which it singularly becomes itself.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,427
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Chooses? The central nervous system doesn't choose its own makeup, architecture, state and condition, role or function. It doesn't choose its environment, inputs, how information is processed or how it affects response.

And yet there it is in the restaurant choosing what it will order for dinner. It is illogical to provide a list of the things that our CNS does not choose and think that will eliminate any of the rather obvious things that it does choose.

Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen. Determined actions are performed freely, without restriction neither forced or chosen, but precisely as determined. Our CNS no more chooses from a set of options than a clock chooses what to display on its dial. The CNS acquires and processes information, which determines the response, a rational system, not a free will generator.


The fact is that choosing actually does happen and our central nervous system does it. Decision making is one of the primary functions performed by the brain. Ask any neuroscientist.

As choosing requires two or more realizable options and determinism -by definition - has no alternate options, the central nervous system clearly has no options to choose from.

Whatever it does, it does necessarily. Information acting upon neural architecture equates to output in thought and action.

This is entailed in your own definition, which you are trying to circumvent with careful wording.

The illusion of choosing.

The notion that "choosing is an illusion" is clearly a delusion.

Nope, it's just how determinism works. No deviation. No alternate actions, events proceeding without deviation beginning with initial conditions, equates to the no alternative options to choose from, and all actions are entailed, not chosen.

Entailment is not a matter of choice. The actions of our future are as fixed as the actions of our past.


It is one of those false implications that the hard determinist attempts to attach to deterministic causal necessity.

This is not 'hard determinism' - it is determinism precisely as it is defined, precisely as you define it to be.

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

Sorry, there is no case to be made for compatibilism.

The notion of free will is incompatible with determinism, a system where all events are entailed by initial conditions, which determines how the system evolves to its conclusion, just as you said.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,231
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
In a deterministic universe, the outcome is inevitable.

If it is inevitable, there is zero chance it could be any different.

If there is zero chance it could be any different, I am not making a free choice. I limited to exactly one thing - whatever the inevitable outcome is. I can not be making a free choice if there is only one outcome.
Well, there is zero chance that you will have any dinner tonight if you fail to make a choice from the restaurant menu. Therefore, it is inevitable that you will make a choice.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,231
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,547
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.
Bald assertion...

Actions are not determined until they have been determined. They are determined, generally, in a process that involves choice from a series of calculated alternatives. Through calculation, through deliberative choice, actions are determined.
 

Kylie

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2021
Messages
216
Location
Sydney Australia
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In a deterministic universe, the outcome is inevitable.

If it is inevitable, there is zero chance it could be any different.

If there is zero chance it could be any different, I am not making a free choice. I limited to exactly one thing - whatever the inevitable outcome is. I can not be making a free choice if there is only one outcome.
This is yet again people confusing "wanting things to be different" and "wanting to things to become some specific thing".

Your inability to understand how and why you participate in the development of what will be singular future and why that still matters is a "you" problem.

Why do you want the future to be different? You don't even know what it is, and have plenty of decisions as to what it will be.

"Changing the future" "making an impact", "making a difference" is all figurative language.

Really, it is discussing making decisions in the future that are different from the ones you made in the past. This is not changing or actually making the future any different. It is the process by which YOU change in one moment to the next into who you will be. It means being different in the future than you are now, and impressing people with the extent of that difference, not of some exact time from itself in that same exact time, but of the kind of changes we all accept and recognize happen as a product of cause and effect.

As such, it isn't about choosing a different future, but about the processes which calculate, imperfectly, "could", until it is calculated on well enough to determine which, of "could", "shall". This isn't changing the future, this is just the process on which it singularly becomes itself.
You have dramatically misunderstood my position.

All I am saying is that if future events are set in stone, then we can have no free choice.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,231
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
No. Implications derive from context and argument. There is no context, nor argument, for 'choosing' embedded in determinism. That is a bell -whistle- attached by treating determinism as something other than determined.

When BS is couched in flowing text some would presume something is there when it's not there or anywhere.
The context for choosing embedded in determinism is called "reality". See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders. That is called "choosing". Ask them why they ordered what they did, and they will explain the reasons that caused their choice. That is called "determinism".

When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "free will".
When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "determinism".

When the exact same event has the characteristics required for both free will and determinism, we call that compatibility.
 

Kylie

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2021
Messages
216
Location
Sydney Australia
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.
No it hasn't been demonstrated. It's been stated. Big difference.

And even your attempt to prove it again does nothing more than assert that the restaurant customers are choosing without actually demonstrating that they are choosing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,231
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.
No it hasn't been demonstrated. It's been stated. Big difference.

And even your attempt to prove it again does nothing more than assert that the restaurant customers are choosing without actually demonstrating that they are choosing.
What do you call the operation that inputs multiple options, estimates the likely outcome of choosing each, and then selects the one that seems best? Most people call that "choosing".

You claim it is not "really" choosing because it was inevitable. Why can't it be inevitable that they would really be choosing?
 

Kylie

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2021
Messages
216
Location
Sydney Australia
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.
No it hasn't been demonstrated. It's been stated. Big difference.

And even your attempt to prove it again does nothing more than assert that the restaurant customers are choosing without actually demonstrating that they are choosing.
What do you call the operation that inputs multiple options, estimates the likely outcome of choosing each, and then selects the one that seems best? Most people call that "choosing".

You claim it is not "really" choosing because it was inevitable. Why can't it be inevitable that they would really be choosing?
Because you are claiming the OUTCOME of that so-called "choice" is also inevitable.

If it was set in stone ages in the past, how can it be the result of a choice made today?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,276
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.
No it hasn't been demonstrated. It's been stated. Big difference.

And even your attempt to prove it again does nothing more than assert that the restaurant customers are choosing without actually demonstrating that they are choosing.
What do you call the operation that inputs multiple options, estimates the likely outcome of choosing each, and then selects the one that seems best? Most people call that "choosing".

You claim it is not "really" choosing because it was inevitable. Why can't it be inevitable that they would really be choosing?
Because you are claiming the OUTCOME of that so-called "choice" is also inevitable.

If it was set in stone ages in the past, how can it be the result of a choice made today?
Because chains of causation have more than one step.

It's quite possible for it to be both.

If your great-great-great-grandparents are your ancestors, how can your parents be your ancestors? They weren't even alive at the same time.
 

Kylie

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2021
Messages
216
Location
Sydney Australia
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.
No it hasn't been demonstrated. It's been stated. Big difference.

And even your attempt to prove it again does nothing more than assert that the restaurant customers are choosing without actually demonstrating that they are choosing.
What do you call the operation that inputs multiple options, estimates the likely outcome of choosing each, and then selects the one that seems best? Most people call that "choosing".

You claim it is not "really" choosing because it was inevitable. Why can't it be inevitable that they would really be choosing?
Because you are claiming the OUTCOME of that so-called "choice" is also inevitable.

If it was set in stone ages in the past, how can it be the result of a choice made today?
Because chains of causation have more than one step.

It's quite possible for it to be both.
That's missing the point.

It's not a freely made choice if there was only one possible outcome.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,276
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.
No it hasn't been demonstrated. It's been stated. Big difference.

And even your attempt to prove it again does nothing more than assert that the restaurant customers are choosing without actually demonstrating that they are choosing.
What do you call the operation that inputs multiple options, estimates the likely outcome of choosing each, and then selects the one that seems best? Most people call that "choosing".

You claim it is not "really" choosing because it was inevitable. Why can't it be inevitable that they would really be choosing?
Because you are claiming the OUTCOME of that so-called "choice" is also inevitable.

If it was set in stone ages in the past, how can it be the result of a choice made today?
Because chains of causation have more than one step.

It's quite possible for it to be both.
That's missing the point.

It's not a freely made choice if there was only one possible outcome.
It is if one of the inevitable steps towards that outcome was the making of that particular choice.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,826
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
No. Implications derive from context and argument. There is no context, nor argument, for 'choosing' embedded in determinism. That is a bell -whistle- attached by treating determinism as something other than determined.

When BS is couched in flowing text some would presume something is there when it's not there or anywhere.
The context for choosing embedded in determinism is called "reality". See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders. That is called "choosing". Ask them why they ordered what they did, and they will explain the reasons that caused their choice. That is called "determinism".

When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "free will".
When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "determinism".

When the exact same event has the characteristics required for both free will and determinism, we call that compatibility.
How does one define reality? I define reality as material state of affairs as potently demonstrated through science. You obviously do not.

Look at your exemplar.

"See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders."

This is reality? This 'seeing', 'reading', and 'placing' by humans is reality? How so?

What one sees is determined by eyes providing only information about certain aspects of what is physically there processed by a brain limited to interpreting only such limited data as can be processed by humans.

Reading makes sense only in the language(s) in which the brain is trained.

And choosing is a human defined transaction meaningful to, as far as we know, humans alone.

Reality exists for everything, else it's something other than reality. Back to processes enabling identification of universal states and transaction.

Your false 'exacts' not withstanding.

Objectivity ends at universally true. Subjectively begins with brain interpretations.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,231
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
No. Implications derive from context and argument. There is no context, nor argument, for 'choosing' embedded in determinism. That is a bell -whistle- attached by treating determinism as something other than determined.

When BS is couched in flowing text some would presume something is there when it's not there or anywhere.
The context for choosing embedded in determinism is called "reality". See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders. That is called "choosing". Ask them why they ordered what they did, and they will explain the reasons that caused their choice. That is called "determinism".

When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "free will".
When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "determinism".

When the exact same event has the characteristics required for both free will and determinism, we call that compatibility.
How does one define reality? I define reality as material state of affairs as potently demonstrated through science. You obviously do not.

Look at your exemplar.

"See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders."

This is reality? This 'seeing', 'reading', and 'placing' by humans is reality? How so?

What one sees is determined by eyes providing only information about certain aspects of what is physically there processed by a brain limited to interpreting only such limited data as can be processed by humans.

Reading makes sense only in the language(s) in which the brain is trained.

And choosing is a human defined transaction meaningful to, as far as we know, humans alone.

Reality exists for everything, else it's something other than reality. Back to processes enabling identification of universal states and transaction.

Your false 'exacts' not withstanding.

Objectivity ends at universally true. Subjectively begins with brain interpretations.
The notions of "objectivity", "universal", and "truth" are all matters of brain interpretation. So the fact of brain interpretation is insufficient to rule out anything, because if it were, then it would rule out everything.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,231
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.
Exactly. And choosing what we will have for dinner happens to be one of those inevitable steps. And it is itself a series of inevitable steps. It is a deterministic process within a deterministic universe. And it really happens, because it must necessarily happen exactly as it does happen.

Determinism does not change anything.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,826
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
No. Implications derive from context and argument. There is no context, nor argument, for 'choosing' embedded in determinism. That is a bell -whistle- attached by treating determinism as something other than determined.

When BS is couched in flowing text some would presume something is there when it's not there or anywhere.
The context for choosing embedded in determinism is called "reality". See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders. That is called "choosing". Ask them why they ordered what they did, and they will explain the reasons that caused their choice. That is called "determinism".

When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "free will".
When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "determinism".

When the exact same event has the characteristics required for both free will and determinism, we call that compatibility.
How does one define reality? I define reality as material state of affairs as potently demonstrated through science. You obviously do not.

Look at your exemplar.

"See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders."

This is reality? This 'seeing', 'reading', and 'placing' by humans is reality? How so?

What one sees is determined by eyes providing only information about certain aspects of what is physically there processed by a brain limited to interpreting only such limited data as can be processed by humans.

Reading makes sense only in the language(s) in which the brain is trained.

And choosing is a human defined transaction meaningful to, as far as we know, humans alone.

Reality exists for everything, else it's something other than reality. Back to processes enabling identification of universal states and transaction.

Your false 'exacts' not withstanding.

Objectivity ends at universally true. Subjectively begins with brain interpretations.
The notions of "objectivity", "universal", and "truth" are all matters of brain interpretation. So the fact of brain interpretation is insufficient to rule out anything, because if it were, then it would rule out everything.
Let me suggest that objectivity, universal, and reality are matters settled by humans through the use of experiment with matters independent from and beyond human perceptual (sensory) capabilities. We can't sense what we describe in equations based on what we 'know' beyond our sense capabilities. Yet we do things IAW that knowledge. In this view I have a certain kinship with Jarhyn.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,826
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.
Exactly. And choosing what we will have for dinner happens to be one of those inevitable steps. And it is itself a series of inevitable steps. It is a deterministic process within a deterministic universe. And it really happens, because it must necessarily happen exactly as it does happen.

Determinism does not change anything.
Except determinism does not apply to choice. Choice is purely subjective in nature. The subjective can exist in a deterministic world but the subjective is a dead end when considering determinism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,276
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.
Exactly. And choosing what we will have for dinner happens to be one of those inevitable steps. And it is itself a series of inevitable steps. It is a deterministic process within a deterministic universe. And it really happens, because it must necessarily happen exactly as it does happen.

Determinism does not change anything.
Except determinism does not apply to choice. Choice is purely subjective in nature. The subjective can exist in a deterministic world but the subjective is a dead end when considering determinism.
And your mind is made up about that, is it? ;)

The whole discussion is just a pointless non-disagreement about the universe viewed from two different perspectives - the three dimensional perspective we have day-to-day, in which we don't know what the future holds, and must choose between alternate possibilities; And the four dimensional perspective from which the universe is an unchanging block of spacetime in which every 'choice' can be seen to be inevitable.

These are different descriptions of the same thing. The only problem is that some people refuse to accept the validity of the perspective we all actually experience. Which they reject in favour of the imaginary perspective that none of us can ever have. Which is weird, to say the least.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,826
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Except determinism does not apply to choice. Choice is purely subjective in nature. The subjective can exist in a deterministic world but the subjective is a dead end when considering determinism.
And your mind is made up about that, is it? ;)

The whole discussion is just a pointless non-disagreement about the universe viewed from two different perspectives - the three dimensional perspective we have day-to-day, in which we don't know what the future holds, and must choose between alternate possibilities; And the four dimensional perspective from which the universe is an unchanging block of spacetime in which every 'choice' can be seen to be inevitable.

These are different descriptions of the same thing. The only problem is that some people refuse to accept the validity of the perspective we all actually experience. Which they reject in favour of the imaginary perspective that none of us can ever have. Which is weird, to say the least.
Yes. My mind is made up about this. If only the differences were three dimensions versus four dimensions I wouldn't be so pessimistic about your side.

It's much more than about perspective. It's about useful explanations. We all know we perceive a particular way. We try to provide realistic explanations about what we are and how we function from our particular perspective. These don't fit in either a three or four dimensional model.

The result, in my view is psychoanalysis and beliefs based on subjective impressions which are about as good as those Plato, Descartes, Freud, and more modern analysts drilling in the same subjective trench.

I shift the imaginary to the belief based impressions we hold so dear.

It's not sexy to speak of twitch and squirt. But hey, if that's what we are living with accept it and moveon.org.

You want to put choice, want, will in your model go for it. See your results in the trash bin of failed systems.

If we don't get past what feels right we'll never get it right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,427
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
When we have 'whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined' - which is the given definition of determinism - this is not exactly compatible with 'choosing' or 'freedom of will.'

Not even close.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,547
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
How does one define reality
That's the thing then isn't it? You think YOU get to define reality.

The fact is, reality defines itself, and you get no say I that.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,231
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Let me suggest that objectivity, universal, and reality are matters settled by humans through the use of experiment with matters independent from and beyond human perceptual (sensory) capabilities. We can't sense what we describe in equations based on what we 'know' beyond our sense capabilities. Yet we do things IAW that knowledge. In this view I have a certain kinship with Jarhyn.

Okay. But we still have to check our math against reality, just like we check our logic. Scientific experiments certainly attempt to do that checking. And some experiments are simple enough for anyone to do.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,427
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.
Exactly. And choosing what we will have for dinner happens to be one of those inevitable steps. And it is itself a series of inevitable steps. It is a deterministic process within a deterministic universe. And it really happens, because it must necessarily happen exactly as it does happen.

Determinism does not change anything.

No alternative negates choice. If you must necessarily turn left at an intersection (this being determined, fixed by antecedents, no deviation, (your own definition of determinism), your only option is to turn left. You cannot choose to turn right. Turning right is not a realizable option for, therefore not an option at all. You turn left. There is no other option.

That's how it works for every action in any and every instance in time. Each and every action is fixed, no deviation.

Call it what you will, but determinism does not allow choice.


”If the neurobiology level is causally sufficient to determine your behavior, then the fact that you had the experience of freedom at the higher level is really irrelevant.” - John Searle.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,547
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
When we have 'whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined' - which is the given definition of determinism - this is not exactly compatible with 'choosing' or 'freedom of will.'

Not even close.
It is if we are predestined to choose.

We act as determined, calling it our choice.
That's the thing though: the way things get determined is through choice processes.

Determination happens by process, by the stuff continuing to resolve against itself. Part of that process involves choice.
Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.
Exactly. And choosing what we will have for dinner happens to be one of those inevitable steps. And it is itself a series of inevitable steps. It is a deterministic process within a deterministic universe. And it really happens, because it must necessarily happen exactly as it does happen.

Determinism does not change anything.
Except determinism does not apply to choice. Choice is purely subjective in nature. The subjective can exist in a deterministic world but the subjective is a dead end when considering determinism.
There is nothing subjective about a coin going into a sorting machine, and the geometry of the coins forcing each coin that was placed into the same hole into a different piece of it.

There is nothing subjective about a set of neurons overcoming the activation bias to send something through where previously it was not.

Choice happens as a product of mechanical resolution. There's nothing subjective about that.

In the end, FDI, subjectivity is in fact one of those "illusions"... Though choice is not.

All images are objects. Think in the moment of the self-playing piano and a roll of paper containing an image of a song upon it. But the image of this song is written in such a way that it is also a mechanism, an object whose geometry shall, when it is placed in a particular way against the object of the piano's mechanism, generate a series of tones described by that image upon the paper.

The word that humans use for when this trick is done, to describe the object which one has power to cease treating it as an image and instead apply it's geometry as physical mechanism, is called a "script" or "program" or "instructions."
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,427
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.
Including the making of choices.

Given the terms of determinism, each and every action fixed by antecedents before they happen, where are the alternatives? First this, then that, nothing in-between. Given determinism, choosing is an illusion. Does Block Time, for instance, allow its constituent parts/actors alternatives? Does it give them multiple options to choose from?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,547
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.
Including the making of choices.

Given the terms of determinism, each and every action fixed by antecedents before they happen, where are the alternatives? First this, then that, nothing in-between. Given determinism, choosing is an illusion. Does Block Time, for instance, allow its constituent parts/actors alternatives? Does it give them multiple options to choose from?
The alternatives are held as mathematical projections of the system, held within itself, but made general to the point where, due to the generalness of them, they can be contained (as per compression).

The issue DBT, is that you're forgetting the lead time between "figured out a thing to do" and "actually doing it". There's a time AFTER you figured out several things to do, and so created several objects that are images of behavior, but objectively, mechanically also drive that behavior to happen.

These alternatives exist, much like the alternative rolls you can put in an automatic piano. They are part of the system.

Then when one gets chosen, they stay exactly where they were in space and time, as "unchosen alternatives to this choice process that happened at that point in time".
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,427
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
When we have 'whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined' - which is the given definition of determinism - this is not exactly compatible with 'choosing' or 'freedom of will.'

Not even close.
It is if we are predestined to choose.

We act as determined, calling it our choice.
That's the thing though: the way things get determined is through choice processes.

Determination happens by process, by the stuff continuing to resolve against itself. Part of that process involves choice.

Nope, whatever is determined to happen is fixed before you were born. Fixed before you thought your determined thoughts, fixed before you performed your determined actions, fixed, no deviation, no alternatives, no choosing otherwise.

Initial conditions and the way things go ever are set by the system as it evolves, no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs,

There is no act of choosing between two or more possibilities. There are no two or more possibilities, only what must necessarily happen.

Like it or not, protest, wail, gnash your teeth, insist otherwise.... it's all to no avail, because that, according to the definition given by compatibilists, is how determinism works.

There is no free will to be found in determinism.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,231
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
No alternative negates choice.

Apparently not.

If you must necessarily turn left at an intersection (this being determined, fixed by antecedents, no deviation, (your own definition of determinism), your only option is to turn left.

Assuming this is a standard intersection, that allows drivers to turn left, continue forward, or turn right, then there are three things that I can choose to do, even though I will turn left in order to get where I'm going.

You cannot choose to turn right.

Of course I CAN choose to turn right! But I won't, because turning right takes me in the opposite direction of where I want to go. On another day, I may be going to some other place that requires me to turn right.

But no matter where I am going, I will ALWAYS have the ABILITY to go left, go right, or go straight at that intersection.

All three options are ALWAYS REALIZABLE at that intersection, unless one of the streets is closed for construction.

What will happen NEVER constrains what can happen. What I will choose NEVER constrains what I can choose.

That's how it works for every action in any and every instance in time. Each and every action is fixed, no deviation.

That is correct. What WILL happen will definitely happen. But this does not change at all the many things that CAN happen or that COULD HAVE happened instead.

Call it what you will, but determinism does not allow choice.

I call it determinism. And I say that determinism makes CHOOSING inevitable, something that must necessarily happen, exactly as it does happen, without deviation. So, the claim that "determinism does not allow choice" is literally false.

”If the neurobiology level is causally sufficient to determine your behavior, then the fact that you had the experience of freedom at the higher level is really irrelevant.” - John Searle.

Hi John. The reason we believe we were free to choose for ourselves what we would do is simply that we did not observe anyone holding a gun to our head or otherwise making the choice for us. That's why the waiter brought us the bill for our dinner, and did not deliver the bill to anyone else. If a waiter can see what is actually happening, then why can't you?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,547
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
whatever is determined to happen is fixed before you were born.
This does not actually contradict that it is fixed via the execution of long process, and without such process, does not come to be as it would otherwise be at all.

It cannot be so fixed without going through all those steps which of them incorporate choice functions from alternatives.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,276
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
When we have 'whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined' - which is the given definition of determinism - this is not exactly compatible with 'choosing' or 'freedom of will.'

Not even close.
It is if we are predestined to choose.

We act as determined while calling it our choice.
Yes. Because it is our choice. How else do you think it was determined?
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,427
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
When we have 'whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined' - which is the given definition of determinism - this is not exactly compatible with 'choosing' or 'freedom of will.'

Not even close.
It is if we are predestined to choose.

We act as determined while calling it our choice.
Yes. Because it is our choice. How else do you think it was determined?

It was determined by the countless factors, environment, proclivities, needs, desires, etc that bring you to the point of being in that situation carrying out the only possible action.

Without alternatives at any stage, determinism, it was never a choice, it was an inevitability.

We act necessarily and compatibilists calls it choosing, compatibilists call it choosing because calling it choosing gives an impression of freedom of choice where no freedom of choice exists (the given terms of determinism).
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,276
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
When we have 'whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined' - which is the given definition of determinism - this is not exactly compatible with 'choosing' or 'freedom of will.'

Not even close.
It is if we are predestined to choose.

We act as determined while calling it our choice.
Yes. Because it is our choice. How else do you think it was determined?

It was determined by the countless factors, environment, proclivities, needs, desires, etc that bring you to the point of being in that situation carrying out the only possible action.

Without alternatives at any stage, determinism, it was never a choice, it was an inevitability.

We act necessarily and compatibilists calls it choosing, compatibilists call it choosing because calling it choosing gives an impression of freedom of choice where no freedom of choice exists (the given terms of determinism).
Compatibilists call it choosing for the same reason that they call something that looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, a duck.

Choosing is a mechanism by which humans turn an unknown future into a known past.

Whether the future is unchangeable, as well as unknown, is completely unimportant and irrelevant.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,427
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
When we have 'whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined' - which is the given definition of determinism - this is not exactly compatible with 'choosing' or 'freedom of will.'

Not even close.
It is if we are predestined to choose.

We act as determined while calling it our choice.
Yes. Because it is our choice. How else do you think it was determined?

It was determined by the countless factors, environment, proclivities, needs, desires, etc that bring you to the point of being in that situation carrying out the only possible action.

Without alternatives at any stage, determinism, it was never a choice, it was an inevitability.

We act necessarily and compatibilists calls it choosing, compatibilists call it choosing because calling it choosing gives an impression of freedom of choice where no freedom of choice exists (the given terms of determinism).
Compatibilists call it choosing for the same reason that they call something that looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, a duck.

Choosing is a mechanism by which humans turn an unknown future into a known past.

Whether the future is unchangeable, as well as unknown, is completely unimportant and irrelevant.

Appearances can be deceptive.

If the future is fixed as defined, there are no alternatives to choose from. The future is in fact fixed, immutable and everybody does precisely what they must do without an option of doing something else.

To choose means having two or more realizable options to select from. Determinism has no realizable options to select from, whatever happens must happen without deviation.

However things may appear on the surface, these is the terms and conditions of determinism. Having no alternate options does not present us with a choice.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,826
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist

Okay. But we still have to check our math against reality, just like we check our logic. Scientific experiments certainly attempt to do that checking. And some experiments are simple enough for anyone to do.
Um that would be a no. We check our experiments against previous theories by using maths and repeating experiments. We check our logic against propositions for consistency of presumptions in propositions

Not even close to the same.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,826
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Except determinism does not apply to choice. Choice is purely subjective in nature. The subjective can exist in a deterministic world but the subjective is a dead end when considering determinism.
There is nothing subjective about a coin going into a sorting machine, and the geometry of the coins forcing each coin that was placed into the same hole into a different piece of it.

There is nothing subjective about a set of neurons overcoming the activation bias to send something through where previously it was not.

Choice happens as a product of mechanical resolution. There's nothing subjective about that.

In the end, FDI, subjectivity is in fact one of those "illusions"... Though choice is not.

All images are objects. Think in the moment of the self-playing piano and a roll of paper containing an image of a song upon it. But the image of this song is written in such a way that it is also a mechanism, an object whose geometry shall, when it is placed in a particular way against the object of the piano's mechanism, generate a series of tones described by that image upon the paper.

The word that humans use for when this trick is done, to describe the object which one has power to cease treating it as an image and instead apply it's geometry as physical mechanism, is called a "script" or "program" or "instructions."
So what is the sorting machine but a device following determined protocol to accomplish process. the only way you can get to sorting machine or choice is through mind. Without mind there no 'choice or 'sorting machine'. Both device and protocol are determined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,826
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
When we have 'whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined' - which is the given definition of determinism - this is not exactly compatible with 'choosing' or 'freedom of will.'

Not even close.
It is if we are predestined to choose.

We act as determined while calling it our choice.
Yes. Because it is our choice. How else do you think it was determined?
You just formally validated my point to Jarhyn.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,547
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
a device following determined protocol to accomplish process
...is the definition of a choice. Or, more accurately, one of the many ways of paraphrasing the definition.

It's good that you agree then that choice happens.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,547
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Except determinism does not apply to choice. Choice is purely subjective in nature. The subjective can exist in a deterministic world but the subjective is a dead end when considering determinism.
There is nothing subjective about a coin going into a sorting machine, and the geometry of the coins forcing each coin that was placed into the same hole into a different piece of it.

There is nothing subjective about a set of neurons overcoming the activation bias to send something through where previously it was not.

Choice happens as a product of mechanical resolution. There's nothing subjective about that.

In the end, FDI, subjectivity is in fact one of those "illusions"... Though choice is not.

All images are objects. Think in the moment of the self-playing piano and a roll of paper containing an image of a song upon it. But the image of this song is written in such a way that it is also a mechanism, an object whose geometry shall, when it is placed in a particular way against the object of the piano's mechanism, generate a series of tones described by that image upon the paper.

The word that humans use for when this trick is done, to describe the object which one has power to cease treating it as an image and instead apply it's geometry as physical mechanism, is called a "script" or "program" or "instructions."
So what is the sorting machine but a device following determined protocol to accomplish process. the only way you can get to sorting machine or choice is through mind. Without mind there no 'choice or 'sorting machine'. Both device and protocol are determined.
Yet even without a mind or a human being on all of the earth systems decide on choices of alternatives.

If coins fell into something that was just shaped like that they would still do the thing we call sorting, without us needing to be there to call it that, the same way any computer as an object will still cogitate on the script it has to execute, same way as the automatic piano would belch out a tune without anyone there to say "this is an image of a song.

Choice is a process that exists without us or with us and it makes no never mind whether a mind is there to discern it happening.

We developed the word to describe things we watched happening.

A choice by any other name is still a choice.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,427
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
No alternative negates choice.

Apparently not.

Where is the choice when you have a single course of action that must be performed? That's determinism, what is done must be done.

That's not how choice is defined.


If you must necessarily turn left at an intersection (this being determined, fixed by antecedents, no deviation, (your own definition of determinism), your only option is to turn left.

Assuming this is a standard intersection, that allows drivers to turn left, continue forward, or turn right, then there are three things that I can choose to do, even though I will turn left in order to get where I'm going.

By saying ''there are three things that I can choose to do'' you are contradicting determinism, which has only one thing you can do in any given instance. In this instance: turn left. In this instance you have no other options. Each driver has only one 'option,' this one must turn right, that one must go straight, that one must do a U turn because he got a call from his wife about an emergency.....each their own action, all possible actions are taken by different drivers, none has alternatives.


You cannot choose to turn right.

Of course I CAN choose to turn right! But I won't, because turning right takes me in the opposite direction of where I want to go. On another day, I may be going to some other place that requires me to turn right.

But no matter where I am going, I will ALWAYS have the ABILITY to go left, go right, or go straight at that intersection.

All three options are ALWAYS REALIZABLE at that intersection, unless one of the streets is closed for construction.

What will happen NEVER constrains what can happen. What I will choose NEVER constrains what I can choose.

Again, options that are generally available doesn't mean that multiple actions are available to everyone at any given time.

Determinism only permits one action at any given time. That action is different for different people/different states, one driver does x, the other does y. But in the moment of action, the one doing x can only do x, and one doing y can only do y.

Countless different people doing different things, yet each only has one realizable action in the instance of acting; that which is determined. Multiple options do not exist at any given moment. Whatever happens, must happen.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,276
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
No alternative negates choice.

Apparently not.

Where is the choice when you have a single course of action that must be performed? That's determinism, what is done must be done.

That's not how choice is defined.


If you must necessarily turn left at an intersection (this being determined, fixed by antecedents, no deviation, (your own definition of determinism), your only option is to turn left.

Assuming this is a standard intersection, that allows drivers to turn left, continue forward, or turn right, then there are three things that I can choose to do, even though I will turn left in order to get where I'm going.

By saying ''there are three things that I can choose to do'' you are contradicting determinism, which has only one thing you can do in any given instance. In this instance: turn left. In this instance you have no other options. Each driver has only one 'option,' this one must turn right, that one must go straight, that one must do a U turn because he got a call from his wife about an emergency.....each their own action, all possible actions are taken by different drivers, none has alternatives.


You cannot choose to turn right.

Of course I CAN choose to turn right! But I won't, because turning right takes me in the opposite direction of where I want to go. On another day, I may be going to some other place that requires me to turn right.

But no matter where I am going, I will ALWAYS have the ABILITY to go left, go right, or go straight at that intersection.

All three options are ALWAYS REALIZABLE at that intersection, unless one of the streets is closed for construction.

What will happen NEVER constrains what can happen. What I will choose NEVER constrains what I can choose.

Again, options that are generally available doesn't mean that multiple actions are available to everyone at any given time.

Determinism only permits one action at any given time. That action is different for different people/different states, one driver does x, the other does y. But in the moment of action, the one doing x can only do x, and one doing y can only do y.

Countless different people doing different things, yet each only has one realizable action in the instance of acting; that which is determined. Multiple options do not exist at any given moment. Whatever happens, must happen.
HISTORY only permits one action at any given time. The only horse that can win the 2021 Melbourne Cup is Verry Elleegant.

This winner was chosen by the running of the race. Before the race was run, nobody had any possible way of knowing for sure that Verry Elleegant would win. There's an entire multi-million dollar industry that exists only because it's impossible for anyone to know the results before the winner has been chosen by the act of running the race.

And this is true, even though the whole thing happened 9 months ago. It's in the past. It's indisputably unchangeable, regardless of anyone's opinions of whether or not the future is changeable.

But despite being completely and indisputably unchangeable, it remains bleeding obvious that a choice was made - not by a mind, or a will, or anything that could be ineffable or poorly understood, but by the efforts and abilities of the horses and their jockeys, as modified by a million other factors, as diverse as the weather conditions, and the degree to which the precise angles of the windows in the grandstands reflected the sun into the competitor's eyes.

The choice is a fact of history. To suggest that the immutability of history eliminates the choice is absurd - you cannot change the past, so you cannot eliminate the choice.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,231
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Where is the choice when you have a single course of action that must be performed? That's determinism, what is done must be done.

Like you say, what is done must be done. There, in the restaurant, choosing must be done. Choosing cannot be avoided. There is no deviation that can get you around the choosing. There is no alternative to choosing. Choosing happens because it must happen, specifically at that place and at that time.

You keep asking "where is the choice" when the choosing is happening right there in front of you. There is the menu, a list of alternate possibilities from which we select the single dinner that we will order. Do you need to consult the dictionary again?

Moving from the restaurant to the traffic example, we find we have a standard intersection of two roads. And here we find there are three things that I can choose to do. I can turn left, I can turn right, and I can drive straight ahead. Even though I will only choose to turn left to get where I'm going today, I still have the ability to turn right or go straight.

By saying ''there are three things that I can choose to do'' you are contradicting determinism, which has only one thing you can do in any given instance. In this instance: turn left.

In this instance I WILL turn left, even though I CAN turn right and I CAN drive straight.

What I CAN do at that intersection remains constant no matter what I WILL do.

Determinism tells us what I WILL do. But what I CAN do is determined by the physical arrangement of the two roads and my ability to drive a car.

In this instance you have no other options.

An option is something that I CAN do. My options are not limited by what I WILL do in this instance. Today I will turn left. Tomorrow I WILL turn right to go somewhere else. But on EVERY DAY I will have the same 3 options. There will ALWAYS be 3 options at that intersection, not just for me, but for every other driver as well.

Each driver has only one 'option,' this one must turn right, that one must go straight, that one must do a U turn because he got a call from his wife about an emergency.....each their own action, all possible actions are taken by different drivers, none has alternatives.

Each driver will have the same three options at that intersection. If a driver MUST turn right, then he WILL turn right. If another MUST do a U turn because he got a call from his wife about an emergency, then he WILL make a U turn.

Each WILL do their own action, according to their own goals and reasons, as they MUST. And each WILL still have the same 3 options, because they MUST have them at that point in time, due to the construction of the intersection.

Again, options that are generally available doesn't mean that multiple actions are available to everyone at any given time.

BUT THEY ARE! There's the intersection. There we are in the car looking at that intersection. (1) We CAN turn left. (2) We CAN turn right. And (3) we CAN go straight ahead. There are THREE realizable possibilities. ONE of them WILL be realized and the other TWO WILL NOT be realized in this instance, but they COULD HAVE been realized IF we had chosen to. And that is what REALIZ-ABLE means, that we were ABLE to realize them IF we had chosen to.

Determinism only permits one action at any given time. That action is different for different people/different states, one driver does x, the other does y.

With each driver, only one of the three possible actions WILL be taken. So, determinism is satisfied.

But in the moment of action, the one doing x can only do x, and one doing y can only do y.

At the moment of action there is only one thing that each driver WILL do, but three things that each driver CAN do. Determinism guarantees the three CAN's as much as it guarantees the single WILL. Because it was causally necessary from any prior point in time that the intersection would be designed to enable every driver to go left, right, and straight.

Countless different people doing different things, yet each only has one realizable action in the instance of acting; that which is determined. Multiple options do not exist at any given moment. Whatever happens, must happen.

How does each person discover what their one realizable action is without the notion of multiple options? For example, if I CAN only turn left at that intersection, then how will I ever reach any location on the right? There must be some rational mechanism that allows me to believe that I CAN turn right at that intersection. If not, then I must always turn left.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,427
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Where is the choice when you have a single course of action that must be performed? That's determinism, what is done must be done.

Like you say, what is done must be done. There, in the restaurant, choosing must be done. Choosing cannot be avoided. There is no deviation that can get you around the choosing. There is no alternative to choosing. Choosing happens because it must happen, specifically at that place and at that time.

There is no choosing at work in the restaurant or anywhere within a determined system. There is the surface appearance of people selecting their preferences from a list of alternatives.

Alternatives exist for the group at large, each option designed to appeal to someone's taste, one orders this, the other orders that....yet in the instance of ordering their meal, no other option is possible, what is ordered in that instance must be ordered and there are no alternatives. It is the illusion of choice

That is how determinism works in each and every instance in time, this then that, x, y, z, no deviation.

It's entailment, there are no alternatives in any given action, therefore no choosing. Actions are entailed, necessitated, fixed.


You keep asking "where is the choice" when the choosing is happening right there in front of you. There is the menu, a list of alternate possibilities from which we select the single dinner that we will order. Do you need to consult the dictionary again?

Entailment is not choice. Determined actions are played out, not chosen. The system evolves from prior to current and future states without deviation. Choice requires possible alternatives. No deviation means no alternatives and no choice.

Moving from the restaurant to the traffic example, we find we have a standard intersection of two roads. And here we find there are three things that I can choose to do. I can turn left, I can turn right, and I can drive straight ahead. Even though I will only choose to turn left to get where I'm going today, I still have the ability to turn right or go straight.

The circumstances determine what you do. Your brain acquires information from your circumstances/environment, processes that information and generates the response based on external and internal conditions.

That is determinism.


By saying ''there are three things that I can choose to do'' you are contradicting determinism, which has only one thing you can do in any given instance. In this instance: turn left.

In this instance I WILL turn left, even though I CAN turn right and I CAN drive straight.



You do what is determined. We are talking about determinism. If you could have turned right or went straight, it's not determinism.

If turning left is determined, you turn left.



What I CAN do at that intersection remains constant no matter what I WILL do.

Only one action is open to you in any given instance in time, the determined action.

''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.''

A determined action is clearly not a choice. No event is an isolated action, there are no independent agents, everything that happens is an interaction between many events. Every cause an effect and every effect a cause. A web of causality that does not allow free will.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,547
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
There is no choosing at work in the restaurant or anywhere within a determined system
Then there is no piece of paper on the table?

There are no words coming out of the customer's mouths?

There is no conformity of those words out of the customer's mouths to the text on the menu?

If I put three balls in a machine, and the machine spits out a ball, the machine chose a ball.

Would you pose that the lottery doesn't happen either?

Choosing is just an operation in which "many go in, a subset comes out".
 
Top Bottom