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

Compatibilism: What's that About?

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
FDI what I would like to know is why you think it's any less a choice neurons choosing between neural artifacts as to which artifact will be fed to an action system.

These are all just objects doing mechanical things, one of which is a mechanism executing a compatibilist choice.
Neurons don't choose. Neurons react according to potentials gathered at their synapses.
Such hubris;

When one neuron reacts according to a potential gathered at it's synapse such that it's activation tips the weights of a wide array of neurons, selectively, towards the activation of a wide scale pattern, preferential to other such patterns presented to the selector, neurons do in fact together accomplish "choosing".
Since neurons are respondent mechanisms the correct action potential description is "responding."
And because of the way they respond they are responsible for that response...

And the response itself is a part of a much larger series of responses which together of their form satisfy the description of 'choice'.

Or in other words: your false dichotomy is showing.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
FDI what I would like to know is why you think it's any less a choice neurons choosing between neural artifacts as to which artifact will be fed to an action system.

These are all just objects doing mechanical things, one of which is a mechanism executing a compatibilist choice.
Neurons don't choose. Neurons react according to potentials gathered at their synapses.
Such hubris;

When one neuron reacts according to a potential gathered at it's synapse such that it's activation tips the weights of a wide array of neurons, selectively, towards the activation of a wide scale pattern, preferential to other such patterns presented to the selector, neurons do in fact together accomplish "choosing".
Since neurons are respondent mechanisms the correct action potential description is "responding."
And because of the way they respond they are responsible for that response...

And the response itself is a part of a much larger series of responses which together of their form satisfy the description of 'choice'.

Or in other words: your false dichotomy is showing.
I don't think your attribution of choice works in my respondent description of neural function.

The only falsehood here is your assertion of responsibility. Determinism doesn't switch horses in the middle of a push. For that you need push to come to shove. It doesn't.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
FDI what I would like to know is why you think it's any less a choice neurons choosing between neural artifacts as to which artifact will be fed to an action system.

These are all just objects doing mechanical things, one of which is a mechanism executing a compatibilist choice.
Neurons don't choose. Neurons react according to potentials gathered at their synapses.
Such hubris;

When one neuron reacts according to a potential gathered at it's synapse such that it's activation tips the weights of a wide array of neurons, selectively, towards the activation of a wide scale pattern, preferential to other such patterns presented to the selector, neurons do in fact together accomplish "choosing".
Since neurons are respondent mechanisms the correct action potential description is "responding."
And because of the way they respond they are responsible for that response...

And the response itself is a part of a much larger series of responses which together of their form satisfy the description of 'choice'.

Or in other words: your false dichotomy is showing.
I don't think your attribution of choice works in my respondent description of neural function.

The only falsehood here is your assertion.
So "you don't think" is now sufficient to falsify things.

Must be like certain declassification powers belonging to the president.

When did they issue this superpower to you exactly? The power to not think, and somehow know... Anything...

I have shown quite pointedly how all manner of choice are executed by computing machines, objects.

It would take about a month or two to fully and verifiably construct a choice process in neural media, but all it takes is a properly weighted neural graph. As it is, we have plenty of examples of hardware mechanisms that select connection to one of a series of presented and evaluated inputs on the basis of whatever it is these inputs are producing to the routing system.

The "response" generated can very well be the large scale choice of a switching system to "attend" to a specific input.

I have designed such things in transistor media before as satisfy the definition of choice, and neurons can accomplish emulation of any behavior available to a Turing machine or of transistors.

There is NOTHING about neurons which makes them somehow too "weak" in aggregate to form switching structures satisfying the definition of "choice function".
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
FDI what I would like to know is why you think it's any less a choice neurons choosing between neural artifacts as to which artifact will be fed to an action system.

These are all just objects doing mechanical things, one of which is a mechanism executing a compatibilist choice.
Neurons don't choose. Neurons react according to potentials gathered at their synapses.
Such hubris;

When one neuron reacts according to a potential gathered at it's synapse such that it's activation tips the weights of a wide array of neurons, selectively, towards the activation of a wide scale pattern, preferential to other such patterns presented to the selector, neurons do in fact together accomplish "choosing".
Since neurons are respondent mechanisms the correct action potential description is "responding."
And because of the way they respond they are responsible for that response...

And the response itself is a part of a much larger series of responses which together of their form satisfy the description of 'choice'.

Or in other words: your false dichotomy is showing.
I don't think your attribution of choice works in my respondent description of neural function.

The only falsehood here is your assertion.
So "you don't think" is now sufficient to falsify things.

Must be like certain declassification powers belonging to the president.

When did they issue this superpower to you exactly? The power to not think, and somehow know... Anything...

I have shown quite pointedly how all manner of choice are executed by computing machines, objects.

It would take about a month or two to fully and verifiably construct a choice process in neural media, but all it takes is a properly weighted neural graph. As it is, we have plenty of examples of hardware mechanisms that select connection to one of a series of presented and evaluated inputs on the basis of whatever it is these inputs are producing to the routing system.

The "response" generated can very well be the large scale choice of a switching system to "attend" to a specific input.

I have designed such things in transistor media before as satisfy the definition of choice, and neurons can accomplish emulation of any behavior available to a Turing machine or of transistors.

There is NOTHING about neurons which makes them somehow too "weak" in aggregate to form switching structures satisfying the definition of "choice function".
Wow. Gorging your self on don't think while empowering neurons with choice. Obviously you didn't think when you made the claim that neurons choose. That one from a cognitive view attribute choice to mindless reactive activity is proof enough you don't think.

Now the design of a neuron in isolation might imply to the naive that decisions via them are made but checks of energy flow suggest otherwise. Decisions are made through arbitration among many neurons after experience and much reorganization driven by information flow through them. Obviously neurons aren't deciders.

To actually understand this one would need to actually work with actual neurons and systems of neurons in living systems. One doesn't understand ion participation in neurons by working with some model developed by Hodgkin et. al. in the late fifties. By the seventies he and the team had made many amendments to the Hodgkin-Huxley model such as there are at least four metabolic processes ongoing within neurons for instance of which Hodgkin et. al. were aware by the seventies. I know this because W.A. H. Rushton was at FSU in the seventies when I was doing graduate work there and neurons are an important part in the study of sensation.

Form what I've read of your posts you make claims without connecting to what are the actual sources. You models you connect are switch models to which are associated to ancient biological sources. These biological functions have been consistently updated over time. So when you point fingers you are talking 70s-80s knowledge. Knowledge to which you have you have failed correctly or even remotely update.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,674
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
FDI what I would like to know is why you think it's any less a choice neurons choosing between neural artifacts as to which artifact will be fed to an action system.

These are all just objects doing mechanical things, one of which is a mechanism executing a compatibilist choice.
Neurons don't choose. Neurons react according to potentials gathered at their synapses.
Such hubris;

When one neuron reacts according to a potential gathered at it's synapse such that it's activation tips the weights of a wide array of neurons, selectively, towards the activation of a wide scale pattern, preferential to other such patterns presented to the selector, neurons do in fact together accomplish "choosing".

Neurons don't think or decide.

Information input in relation to neuron state determines output. There is no set of alternatives being presented and thought about where the neuron goes 'uuuhm, think I'll take this option over that option.....''

It can't happen.

Determinism: fixed, no randomness/no deviation equates to no alternative.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Neurons don't think or decide.

...

...

...

:hysterical: :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Neurons, together, do in fact accomplish an operation called "thought" and "decision"

I bet next you're going to say what? That transistors don't accomplish switching?

Oh, I know, that cars (plural, containing drivers) don't generate traffic.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Neurons don't think or decide.

...

...

...

:hysterical: :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Neurons, together, do in fact accomplish an operation called "thought" and "decision"

I bet next you're going to say what? That transistors don't accomplish switching?

Oh, I know, that cars (plural, containing drivers) don't generate traffic.
The proof of the pudding is whether neurons can get together to do something. No relevant research on collective neuronal processing yet. Seems the feedback loops are independently established without that thinking thing. Sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Neurons don't think or decide.

...

...

...

:hysterical: :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Neurons, together, do in fact accomplish an operation called "thought" and "decision"

I bet next you're going to say what? That transistors don't accomplish switching?

Oh, I know, that cars (plural, containing drivers) don't generate traffic.
The proof of the pudding is whether neurons can get together to do something.
You're kidding right?

Just Google "perception and gate". You'll find lots of examples of neurons doing something "together" that conforms logically to the behavior described by AND.

No relevant research on collective neuronal processing yet.
@Swammerdami where you at? School this "Cool Dude"

Seems the feedback loops are independently established without that thinking thing. Sorry.
... So first you claim "we don't have any research" which at best says "we don't know" and not "is not", and then you say "so is not."

You should be sorry for making a claim and then immediately standing on a position counter to that claim.

Though sadly, that's not what you are sorry for.

At any rate, this statement of yours reads much like DBT's "how can X Y something if X didn't Y itself".
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,674
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Neurons don't think or decide.

...

...

...

:hysterical: :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Neurons, together, do in fact accomplish an operation called "thought" and "decision"

I bet next you're going to say what? That transistors don't accomplish switching?

Oh, I know, that cars (plural, containing drivers) don't generate traffic.
The proof of the pudding is whether neurons can get together to do something.
You're kidding right?

Just Google "perception and gate". You'll find lots of examples of neurons doing something "together" that conforms logically to the behavior described by AND.

No relevant research on collective neuronal processing yet.
@Swammerdami where you at? School this "Cool Dude"

Seems the feedback loops are independently established without that thinking thing. Sorry.
... So first you claim "we don't have any research" which at best says "we don't know" and not "is not", and then you say "so is not."

You should be sorry for making a claim and then immediately standing on a position counter to that claim.

Though sadly, that's not what you are sorry for.

At any rate, this statement of yours reads much like DBT's "how can X Y something if X didn't Y itself".

You are jumping to conclusions, as usual.

Doing something 'together' does mean a neuronal roundtable discussion on what to do in any given circumstance. The brain is a modular system where not only neurons but structures and regions determine output, reflex actions overiding reasoning when there is a threat, each with their own input contributing to the whole, etc.

I was not suggesting that neurons are not connected or that they act in isolation.

You are making simplistic assumptions in your vain attempt to make a point.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
reflex actions overiding
Yes, so think about those reflex actions, and what they are "overriding", "constraining", "making unfree"...
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Neurons don't think or decide.
A neuron doesn't think or decide. But billions of them do.

A water molecule doesn't carve out spectacular canyons.

A nitrogen molecule doesn't blow houses down.

A termite can't build a six foot high mound.

A snowflake can't bury a village.

A bacterium can't break down a dead horse. But apparently a single person can flog one.

Emergent properties are a real phenomenon.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,674
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
reflex actions overiding
Yes, so think about those reflex actions, and what they are "overriding", "constraining", "making unfree"...
Reflex actions are an override that bypasses rational thought in an emergency. Neither rational thought or reflex action being a matter of free will, just evolved functions that enable adaption and survival.

You jumped to a false conclusion by failing to consider that neurons working together, brain structures, regions, is no less a deterministic process than the function of a single neuron as a mechanism for acquiring and processing information, which was my point.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,674
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Neurons don't think or decide.
A neuron doesn't think or decide. But billions of them do.

Deterministically. The issue is free will in relation to determinism. If the brain is deterministic, the issue is free will in relation to the brain.


Emergent properties are a real phenomenon.

They are, but if free will is an emergent property of a deterministic brain, it has not been shown. The compatibilist definition doesn't establish free will as an emergent property of a brain, it merely offers a definition of acting without force, coercion or undue influence....yet ignores inner necessity, which fixes all thoughts and actions.


”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.

''Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes. Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X.'' - Cold comfort in Compatibilism.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,388
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
... They are, but if free will is an emergent property of a deterministic brain, it has not been shown. ...

Deliberation and "choosing what we will do" are emergent functions. Free will describes the conditions present during that choosing. Were we free to make that choice for ourselves? Or, was that choice forced upon us against our will, by coercion or other forms of undue influence?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
... They are, but if free will is an emergent property of a deterministic brain, it has not been shown. ...

Deliberation and "choosing what we will do" are emergent functions. Free will describes the conditions present during that choosing. Were we free to make that choice for ourselves? Or, was that choice forced upon us against our will, by coercion or other forms of undue influence?
More, it describes whether the result satisfied "what we want" to the point that the will is satisfied.

One may ask "did the bear trap close?" In the same way as "was the will free" or even "did the will resolve to success" or even "did these neurons spit dopamine or did these other neurons spit serotonin?"

All of these are in their own way are asking "was the will free".

It just happens that the measure of "freedom" of a will is whether the dream of it's goal describes the inevitable future, and so whether we happen to delusional or deductive to that extent.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,674
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
... They are, but if free will is an emergent property of a deterministic brain, it has not been shown. ...

Deliberation and "choosing what we will do" are emergent functions. Free will describes the conditions present during that choosing. Were we free to make that choice for ourselves? Or, was that choice forced upon us against our will, by coercion or other forms of undue influence?
Deliberation has antecedents.

That conscious mind and thought is an emergent property of the activity of a brain doesn't make it any less deterministic.....as if emergent properties are somehow exempt from the physical properties of the system.

The emergent properties of conscious mind, thoughts, feelings, deliberations are subject to the state of the system that is generating it: drugs alter consciousness, electric stimulation of brain structures can generate feeling of love, hate anger, fear, actions that were not willed, etc: beginning with pioneers such as Delgado, et al,

A demonstration of inner necessity.

For instance, based on his Experiments.
''These have shown, he explained, that "functions traditionally related to the psyche, such as friendliness, pleasure or verbal expression, can be induced, modified and inhibited by direct electrical stimulation of the brain."

For example, he has been able to "play" monkeys and cats 'like little electronic toys" that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleep on command. And with humans under treatment for epilepsy, he has increased word output sixfold in one person, has produced severe anxiety in another, and in several others has induced feelings of profound friendliness—all by electrical stimulation of various specific regions of their brain.''
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Deliberation has antecedents
So? It's still deliberation.

3d printers are printed. They don't have to print themselves to print other things.

That conscious mind and thought is an emergent property of the activity of a brain doesn't make it any less deterministic.
Compatibilism is not indeterministic, so this statement is rather ill-informed.

drugs alter consciousness, electric stimulation of brain structures can generate feeling of love, hate anger, fear
The fact that our emotions are the result of a physical configuration of material objects is all this establishes.

actions that were not willed
If I'm the one holding the electrode and prodding myself in the brain there, can you really say it was not willed?*

Clearly these changes are the result of a will: the researcher's will.

You really should ask yourself, if a human researcher can play a monkey like a fiddle, why would you imagine that there is no monkey in the monkey playing the monkey like a fiddle when the researcher isn't the one doing it?

Then you should see that you can accurately and absolutely pick out which direction the will is coming from, whether it is the monkey or him, whether the monkey's will is free, or constrained by his will.

I can do the same thing with a "dwarf". I can also conveniently point to the will that the dwarf makes for themselves and as easily say whether it is free or not, to semantic completion.

*You should probably realize at this point that I don't need to crack my skull open and use an electrode to accomplish this most of the time. Rather than speaking via the nerves to my arm to an electrode then back to the nerves in my brain, I COULD just figure out how to prod those nerves with the "electrodes" that are "my other nerves", to be the "monkey in the monkey" as it were
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,388
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
A demonstration of inner necessity.

For instance, based on his Experiments.
''These have shown, he explained, that "functions traditionally related to the psyche, such as friendliness, pleasure or verbal expression, can be induced, modified and inhibited by direct electrical stimulation of the brain."

For example, he has been able to "play" monkeys and cats 'like little electronic toys" that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleep on command. And with humans under treatment for epilepsy, he has increased word output sixfold in one person, has produced severe anxiety in another, and in several others has induced feelings of profound friendliness—all by electrical stimulation of various specific regions of their brain.''

Actually no. That is a demonstration of external manipulation. It is an undue influence, and a rather extreme one at that. It is the very opposite of free will. But, then again, if we cannot make the distinction between an unfree will, versus a freely chosen will, then we are morally lost.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Woe, woe, woe. We are lost. Will is an artifact of brain activity, not a state of being. We believe what we do is volitional so we invent will. It's as obvious as cell preceding organism.

The only connection between will and being is the being invented it to set herself apart because she reasoned - another cart before the horse - it impossible that she was a product rather than a source. No change. We're still determined with a fluffy called will inside messing up our ability to distinguish real from imagined.

Woe. We are lost.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,674
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
A demonstration of inner necessity.

For instance, based on his Experiments.
''These have shown, he explained, that "functions traditionally related to the psyche, such as friendliness, pleasure or verbal expression, can be induced, modified and inhibited by direct electrical stimulation of the brain."

For example, he has been able to "play" monkeys and cats 'like little electronic toys" that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleep on command. And with humans under treatment for epilepsy, he has increased word output sixfold in one person, has produced severe anxiety in another, and in several others has induced feelings of profound friendliness—all by electrical stimulation of various specific regions of their brain.''

Actually no. That is a demonstration of external manipulation. It is an undue influence, and a rather extreme one at that. It is the very opposite of free will. But, then again, if we cannot make the distinction between an unfree will, versus a freely chosen will, then we are morally lost.

In this instance it is external manipulation of the mechanisms of the brain that produce these thoughts and feelings. Inputs also induce response, films, ads, propaganda, religion, ideology and marketers capitalize on conditioning, incessant advertising, to embed their products into the minds of consumers.....

The point being that it is not free will, but the non-chosen condition of a brain that produces output in the form of conscious feelings and thoughts, which is inner necessity.

That thoughts and actions are the deterministic product of inputs and neural architecture, information, form and function, not some simplistic, nebulous notion of free will.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
In this instance it is external manipulation of the mechanisms of the brain that produce these thoughts and feelings
The fact that you acknowledge both "external" and "internal" forces means you recognize the boundary we are pointing at. Full stop.

"In this instance" implies in many ways the other instances where it's not.

The point being that it is not free will, but the non-chosen condition of a brain that produces output in the form of conscious feelings and thoughts, which is inner necessity
BUt If tHE ThInG DiDnt ____ ItSelF HoW cAn iT _____ AnYtHing ElSE?

Of course someone can choose aspects of themselves the same way someone chooses any other thing, the same way you have demonstrated others are capable of controlling it: by being neurons capable of prodding those neurons from the inside.

That thoughts and actions are the deterministic product of inputs and neural architecture, information, form and function, not some simplistic, nebulous notion of free will.
There's nothing simplistic or nebulous about it except in perhaps in your own head. Perhaps quit trying to accuse the mirror.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
she was a product rather than a source.
And so goes the false dichotomy.
Sed the stimulus-click-one to the motivation-emotion teaching area one.

U sed it it. It's up to you to prove it.
More, the lowest hanging fruit on a tree that is already cut to the ground.

You are the one engaging in the claim of product/source dichotomy.

You have to justify what you said, when there is no justification for it. Will you? Almost certainly not.

But she can be both the product of other decisions and the source of her own decisions, in the same way that a 3d printer can be the product of another 3d printer, while also being capable of printing things itself.

IOW, it is false dichotomy.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
she was a product rather than a source.
And so goes the false dichotomy.
Sed the stimulus-click-one to the motivation-emotion teaching area one.

U sed it it. It's up to you to prove it.
More, the lowest hanging fruit on a tree that is already cut to the ground.

You are the one engaging in the claim of product/source dichotomy.

You have to justify what you said, when there is no justification for it. Will you? Almost certainly not.

But she can be both the product of other decisions and the source of her own decisions, in the same way that a 3d printer can be the product of another 3d printer, while also being capable of printing things itself.

IOW, it is false dichotomy.
Wow a false proposition to 'prove' a false claim. Both parts of your proof are flawed. The source of her program is a priori genetic and internally created by her from 'feeling' input, while printers both use the same material program to produce material printers.

Show me the source of will and I will concede. You can't so I won't.

Heck. I'll even give you this very long 'scientific' hand wave for you to find where will etc are located and elicited?


But even this has a trap door

Happiness is love. Period! (The fifty-year prospective follow-up empirical evidence for this extraordinary generalisation is in press)
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,388
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Woe, woe, woe. We are lost. Will is an artifact of brain activity, not a state of being. We believe what we do is volitional so we invent will. It's as obvious as cell preceding organism.

The only connection between will and being is the being invented it to set herself apart because she reasoned - another cart before the horse - it impossible that she was a product rather than a source. No change. We're still determined with a fluffy called will inside messing up our ability to distinguish real from imagined.

Woe. We are lost.

Yes, you are lost. Living organisms are biologically driven to survive, thrive, and reproduce. Intelligent species get to choose what they will do. In either case, there is a specific intention that motivates and directs their action. The lioness will instinctually pursue her prey to feed herself and her young. A young woman will decide to pursue a career in the space program.

A person's will is their specific intention that motivates and directs their behavior.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The source of
The source of a genetic fallacy, perhaps.

It doesn't matter what the source of the configuration is. What matters is the product, and the fact that it does, in fact produce wills.

Where something comes from does not in fact have any power to limit what it actually is in the moment.

You are in fact engaging in a parallel (and utterly dishonest) form of argumentation that I was introduced to (and subsequently encouraged to use, but did not, because it was utterly dishonest) of the form "were you there?"

This argument form is usually used by YECs and goes something like this:

"Our world is old and evolved"

"You say that, but were you there? I have a book by someone who claims to have been and the book says it is a young earth"

It is a demand for an inaccessible piece of evidence as an excuse to reject the facially apparent evidence that one does have.

I wasn't there but the rock was, and it says it's old, through it's structure. Rocks have a harder time lying than humans on account of the fact that rocks can't chaotically reconfigure themselves any which way, whereas humans can.

Which is the point. Where did the will come from? It came from the fact that an "image" is nothing more than an object which has physical properties which when presented to various other objects will act as a transform on some set of object relationships within the various other objects they are presented to.

The paper is a will acting upon the mechanical piano, and is such because it is a set of physical objects arrayed to instruct the behavior of other physical objects.

The array of bits in memory is a will acting upon the dwarf (which also happens to be an array of bits elsewhere in the memory), a set of physical objects arrayed to instruct the behavior of other physical objects.

Some wills merely act, they cannot be unfree (such as Bilby's will over how their dog acts). Other wills can be constrained from reaching certain instructions: the piano's will is free to the end, assuming that I don't stick a pin between the gears. I can constrain it's will, making it unfree, the unfreeness literally being the fact that the force of the spring has no path to transit to the roller.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,388
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
A demonstration of inner necessity.

For instance, based on his Experiments.
''These have shown, he explained, that "functions traditionally related to the psyche, such as friendliness, pleasure or verbal expression, can be induced, modified and inhibited by direct electrical stimulation of the brain."

For example, he has been able to "play" monkeys and cats 'like little electronic toys" that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleep on command. And with humans under treatment for epilepsy, he has increased word output sixfold in one person, has produced severe anxiety in another, and in several others has induced feelings of profound friendliness—all by electrical stimulation of various specific regions of their brain.''

Actually no. That is a demonstration of external manipulation. It is an undue influence, and a rather extreme one at that. It is the very opposite of free will. But, then again, if we cannot make the distinction between an unfree will, versus a freely chosen will, then we are morally lost.

In this instance it is external manipulation of the mechanisms of the brain that produce these thoughts and feelings. Inputs also induce response, films, ads, propaganda, religion, ideology and marketers capitalize on conditioning, incessant advertising, to embed their products into the minds of consumers.....

The point being that it is not free will, but the non-chosen condition of a brain that produces output in the form of conscious feelings and thoughts, which is inner necessity.

That thoughts and actions are the deterministic product of inputs and neural architecture, information, form and function, not some simplistic, nebulous notion of free will.

Deliberation and decision making are normal brain functions. Free will refers to decision making that is free from coercion and undue influence, nothing more and nothing less. Ordinary influences that we all experience do not compromise our ability to decide for ourselves what we will do. If television ads were coercive or undue, then we would all be buying every item that is shown on tv. If propaganda were coercive or undue, then we'd all be wearing Trump's MAGA hats.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Wow free will is determined by lack of:
".... coercion and undue influence ...." and "Ordinary influences that we all experience do not compromise our ability to decide for ourselves what we will do."
paired with
"You say that, but were you there? I have a book by someone who claims to have been and the book says it is a young earth"
are arguments for free will?

Whoooh. I'm so shattered I can't resist laughing.

Marvin Edwards Perhaps you can explain what you mean by coercion and influence in operational terms. You know the operations that give material meaning to the terms. You still haven't provided a suitable cause for there to be something in humans that requires before the fact knowledge to exist. That is to say for one to have will one must know what is coming before what one reacts for one to come to possess such ability. Think as an example for deterministic view stimulus response methodologies. I have no trust in response stimulus methods.


Jaryan I have access to fossils documented and verified to be taken from layers of material radioactively dated by validated operational methods to well before what your author's claims as the beginning of earth. Plus there is historical and evidentiary linkages between beings and earth age gathered from all over the earth and even from the moon. Now are you going all in believing your author's reading of religious texts or you going with the consensus, validated and replicated material evidence of a much old earth.

I mean you are entitled to your opinion if you choose what you just wrote or you can go with the overwhelming evidence contrary to scriptures written by individuals who may or may not be who or what they are described. BTB there are texts older than the scriptures you need to discount as well.

Now for the pudding. Absent knowledge of what is coming one cannot have mechanisms anticipating what is about to happen. Will demands knowledge of what's coming else one can't exercise it. One can respond to what has been sensed. One cannot have what isn't at the ready for what hasn't happened. Even assuming genetic and historical assemblies one cannot produce mechanisms for what one hasn't experienced. Besides humans are responsive by construction and the nature of the world in which they exist.

This thing we've been circling around, the mind is a responsive devise and tool. It builds a world from what is input and experienced. It configures itself as the mover rather than what it is, the responder where it builds a frame putting itself at the center even though it is dependent on what is arriving at it's senses.

Look to the start of a race. The gun goes off the athlete runs. The runner tries to beat others who are in the same situation as his reality.
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Jaryan I have access to fossils documented and verified to be taken from layers of material radioactively dated by validated operational methods to well before what your author's claims as the beginning of earth
Apparently you don't have access to full reading comprehension.

My point is you are engaging in the same fallacy as the author who tried to trick me into engaging in it all those years ago: you are the one here presenting a unreasonable request. I do not need to produce neurons doing it. I need to produce transistors doing it, under the knowledge that "so too can neurons", at best, which I have.

I'm not a YEC.

I have pointed at how to crack open the computer and write out exactly what gates and charge potentials are coming to get her to produce that particular emergent will of the dwarf to open the door. It is freely held, as most wills in that world are and it is also free such that it will be completed: these structures fully satisfy to semantic completion "choice", "freedom" and "will".

That you, FDI, are asking "were you there looking at it so as to describe it in neurons?" Is the invocation of "were you there"

I don't have to have been there in the human brain describing what the neurons are doing. That it happened among these slightly more exotic, but a lot less wet and unobservable objects was enough. You're just to blinded by your own fundamentalism to see it.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Jaryan I have access to fossils documented and verified to be taken from layers of material radioactively dated by validated operational methods to well before what your author's claims as the beginning of earth
Apparently you don't have access to full reading comprehension.

My point is you are engaging in the same fallacy as the author who tried to trick me into engaging in it all those years ago: you are the one here presenting a unreasonable request. I do not need to produce neurons doing it. I need to produce transistors doing it, under the knowledge that "so too can neurons", at best, which I have.

I'm not a YEC.

I have pointed at how to crack open the computer and write out exactly what gates and charge potentials are coming to get her to produce that particular emergent will of the dwarf to open the door. It is freely held, as most wills in that world are and it is also free such that it will be completed: these structures fully satisfy to semantic completion "choice", "freedom" and "will".

That you, FDI, are asking "were you there looking at it so as to describe it in neurons?" Is the invocation of "were you there"

I don't have to have been there in the human brain describing what the neurons are doing. That it happened among these slightly more exotic, but a lot less wet and unobservable objects was enough. You're just to blinded by your own fundamentalism to see it.
Sorry I was still posting at the time. Maybe you'll be kind enough to explain how will can exist in any world where it's actions are dependent on what comes in.

A computer is a machine that runs a program. The program, written following a design, specifies the conditions under which the transistors function. If the program knows what is coming it is not representative of a being. I didn't write guesses or uses past experience which still leaves it being similar to a being.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,388
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Perhaps you can explain what you mean by coercion and influence in operational terms. You know the operations that give material meaning to the terms.

Of course:

Coercion can be a literal “gun to the head”, or any other threat of harm sufficient to compel one person to subordinate their will to the will of another.

Undue influence is any extraordinary condition that effectively removes a person’s control of their choice. Certain mental illnesses can distort a person’s perception of reality by hallucinations or delusions. Other brain impairments can directly damage the ability to reason. Yet another form may subject them to an irresistible compulsion. Hypnosis would be an undue influence. Authoritative command, as exercised by a parent over a child, an officer over a soldier, or a doctor over a patient, is another. Any special circumstances that effectively remove a person’s control over their choice would be an undue influence.

You still haven't provided a suitable cause for there to be something in humans that requires before the fact knowledge to exist. That is to say for one to have will one must know what is coming before what one reacts for one to come to possess such ability.

We have "before the fact knowledge" by accumulating "after the fact knowledge" in long-term memory, and then applying that knowledge to similar situations in the future. Predicting experience and comparing experience to the prediction is how we drive a car without thinking about it. If something unexpected happens then conscious attention will come roaring in.

This thing we've been circling around, the mind is a responsive devise and tool. It builds a world from what is input and experienced. It configures itself as the mover rather than what it is, the responder where it builds a frame putting itself at the center even though it is dependent on what is arriving at it's senses.

The brain is the center of internal as well as external stimuli. It has to work out what to do with all that information. The information does not work itself out. So, really, the brain is physically at the center of it all.

Look to the start of a race. The gun goes off the athlete runs. The runner tries to beat others who are in the same situation as his reality.

Operationally, a race is a social event in which multiple participants attempt to get from the starting point to the ending point ahead of everyone else.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Maybe you'll be kind enough to explain how will can exist
Maybe take that question up with DBT who at least cops to the existence of "wills" even if they don't cop to the existence of "freedom".

I don't have to explain "how" they can exist past your failure of logic. I just have to point out that they do, in fact, exist, by producing an object that conforms to the definition.

I provided several, including the automatic piano paper reel.
A computer is a machine that runs a program
Synonyms: a computer is an object that executes on a will.

The program, written following a design,
The will, generated from predelictions,

specifies the conditions under which the transistors function
This is actually false. It does not specify the conditions under which transistors function. Transistors are like neurons, insofar as nothing but their physical object properties determine the conditions of their function.

The program merely presents them state potentials which determine not how they function, but which of their states happen to be active.
If the program knows what is coming it is not representative of a being.
And then you went into "not even wrong". You have some major woo about what it means to "be there a being".

You can be a being which knows fairly well what is coming, owing to that whole "simulating the future of the system within the system" thing. That has nothing to do with existing as a "being" whatever the fuck that is even supposed to mean.

Everything is in a state of "being", unless you are not actually a materialist.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,674
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
A demonstration of inner necessity.

For instance, based on his Experiments.
''These have shown, he explained, that "functions traditionally related to the psyche, such as friendliness, pleasure or verbal expression, can be induced, modified and inhibited by direct electrical stimulation of the brain."

For example, he has been able to "play" monkeys and cats 'like little electronic toys" that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleep on command. And with humans under treatment for epilepsy, he has increased word output sixfold in one person, has produced severe anxiety in another, and in several others has induced feelings of profound friendliness—all by electrical stimulation of various specific regions of their brain.''

Actually no. That is a demonstration of external manipulation. It is an undue influence, and a rather extreme one at that. It is the very opposite of free will. But, then again, if we cannot make the distinction between an unfree will, versus a freely chosen will, then we are morally lost.

In this instance it is external manipulation of the mechanisms of the brain that produce these thoughts and feelings. Inputs also induce response, films, ads, propaganda, religion, ideology and marketers capitalize on conditioning, incessant advertising, to embed their products into the minds of consumers.....

The point being that it is not free will, but the non-chosen condition of a brain that produces output in the form of conscious feelings and thoughts, which is inner necessity.

That thoughts and actions are the deterministic product of inputs and neural architecture, information, form and function, not some simplistic, nebulous notion of free will.

Deliberation and decision making are normal brain functions. Free will refers to decision making that is free from coercion and undue influence, nothing more and nothing less. Ordinary influences that we all experience do not compromise our ability to decide for ourselves what we will do. If television ads were coercive or undue, then we would all be buying every item that is shown on tv. If propaganda were coercive or undue, then we'd all be wearing Trump's MAGA hats.

If determinism is true, the deterministic process that we call 'decision making' - which must necessarily produce a single outcome or action in any given instance - it is this inevitability that does not meet the criteria of choice.

Choice

1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

Determinism

All events develop or evolve without randomness or deviation, there are no possible alternate actions, consequently determinism does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

As 'will' cannot make a difference to output, actions performed, labelling what we inevitably must do as 'free will' is false.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
which must necessarily produce a single outcome or action in any given instance - it is this inevitability that does not meet the criteria of choice
Poppycock.

The criterion of choice is that from multiple artifacts, a set subset of artifacts are selected. That's it.

Also, you are really caught up on this "single" thing.

I can order both the steak and the salad, assuming I also make sure to ask for a bucket, and don't let the waiter trick me into eating an after-dinner mint.

You want to pretend like "realizable" without "realized" means anything but "pretend, logically consistent, but not selected for attempted reification."

Let's try this, assuming the axioms of math and standard operations:

pretend but logically consistent (given the axioms and standard algebra):
1+1=2
1+2=3
2^2=4

Pretend but logically INCONSISTENT:
1+1=3
1+2=7
7/3=5
2+2=5

If you have two oranges and I have two oranges and we put them in the bag and decide on some units of measurement that make sense (like pointing to each orange and agreeing that we will call each individual orange a fungible "single orange"), I can use some logically consistent pretending to determine how many oranges are in the bag.

I can answer "four", and be correct within the terms of our agreed-on syntax, and thus syntax describes or represents some real information about the location and mass of real objects.

I have pretended there are four oranges, but my pretending describes actual reality.

Likewise you could pretend with logical inconsistency, saying "there are five oranges". Your guess is, in fact, false.

I could then ask "if I take only one of mine and two of yours and put them in the bag, how many would be in the bag?"

The answer is, of course, 3.

I don't need to put them in the bag and count to know, it's logically true without needing reification. Three oranges are realizable without this needing to be realized for that to be true.
 
Last edited:

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,388
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
If determinism is true, the deterministic process that we call 'decision making' - which must necessarily produce a single outcome or action in any given instance - it is this inevitability that does not meet the criteria of choice.

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

Determinism
All events develop or evolve without randomness or deviation, there are no possible alternate actions, consequently determinism does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

Ironically, compatibilists are accused of wanting to have our cake and eat it too. But here you are acknowledging decision making, which chooses between alternate possibilities, and then turning around and pretending it is not really happening.

As 'will' cannot make a difference to output, actions performed, labelling what we inevitably must do as 'free will' is false.

Let me see if I can unscramble that for you:

'Will' is the intent to do something specific, as in "I will fix pancakes for breakfast". Once the intent is fixed, it motivates and directs our subsequent thoughts and actions as we go about mixing the ingredients, heating the pan, cooking the pancakes, and eating them.

What we will do is often chosen from several alternate possibilities. Will I fix pancakes or will I fix eggs? Free will means that we were free to make this choice for ourselves (free of coercion and other undue influences).

When faced with multiple things that we 'can' do, we must necessarily decide the single thing that we 'will' do. Both the two realizable possibilities (eggs and pancakes) and the single choice (pancakes), were equally inevitable mental events. It was inevitable that we would have fixed pancakes and it was equally inevitable that we could have fixed eggs.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Perhaps you can explain what you mean by coercion and influence in operational terms. You know the operations that give material meaning to the terms.

Of course:

Coercion can be a literal “gun to the head”, or any other threat of harm sufficient to compel one person to subordinate their will to the will of another.

Undue influence is any extraordinary condition that effectively removes a person’s control of their choice. Certain mental illnesses can distort a person’s perception of reality by hallucinations or delusions. Other brain impairments can directly damage the ability to reason. Yet another form may subject them to an irresistible compulsion. Hypnosis would be an undue influence. Authoritative command, as exercised by a parent over a child, an officer over a soldier, or a doctor over a patient, is another. Any special circumstances that effectively remove a person’s control over their choice would be an undue influence.
What i read are handwaves rather than material operations. You presume something call choice without defining what it is. What I read is one empty term as reason for other empty terms, the last of which you present stands out: " remove(ing/al) a person's control of their choice would be an undue influence."

You still haven't provided a suitable cause for there to be something in humans that requires before the fact knowledge to exist. That is to say for one to have will one must know what is coming before what one reacts for one to come to possess such ability.

We have "before the fact knowledge" by accumulating "after the fact knowledge" in long-term memory, and then applying that knowledge to similar situations in the future. Predicting experience and comparing experience to the prediction is how we drive a car without thinking about it. If something unexpected happens then conscious attention will come roaring in.

One can't get from effect to cause by cataloguing effects. What one gets is a pattern of experienced effects by causes unknown which might improve one's fitness but not to replicating cause or even making cause known.
This thing we've been circling around, the mind is a responsive devise and tool. It builds a world from what is input and experienced. It configures itself as the mover rather than what it is, the responder where it builds a frame putting itself at the center even though it is dependent on what is arriving at it's senses.

The brain is the center of internal as well as external stimuli. It has to work out what to do with all that information. The information does not work itself out. So, really, the brain is physically at the center of it all.
The brain evolves to better use what one senses just as one's senses evolve to improve their capability to sense. In neither case does sense or processing sense become sense. Your argument is logical extension of Descartes debunked claim "I think there fore I am."
Look to the start of a race. The gun goes off the athlete runs. The runner tries to beat others who are in the same situation as his reality.

Operationally, a race is a social event in which multiple participants attempt to get from the starting point to the ending point ahead of everyone else.

No. Operationally the race is the gun going off and the runners thereafter running to a point in space. The social event is, within the minds of the individuals, competing in a race.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Maybe you'll be kind enough to explain how will can exist
Maybe take that question up with DBT who at least cops to the existence of "wills" even if they don't cop to the existence of "freedom".

I don't have to explain "how" they can exist past your failure of logic. I just have to point out that they do, in fact, exist, by producing an object that conforms to the definition.

I provided several, including the automatic piano paper reel.
A computer is a machine that runs a program
Synonyms: a computer is an object that executes on a will.

The program, written following a design,
The will, generated from predelictions,

specifies the conditions under which the transistors function
This is actually false. It does not specify the conditions under which transistors function. Transistors are like neurons, insofar as nothing but their physical object properties determine the conditions of their function.

The program merely presents them state potentials which determine not how they function, but which of their states happen to be active.
If the program knows what is coming it is not representative of a being.
And then you went into "not even wrong". You have some major woo about what it means to "be there a being".

You can be a being which knows fairly well what is coming, owing to that whole "simulating the future of the system within the system" thing. That has nothing to do with existing as a "being" whatever the fuck that is even supposed to mean.

Everything is in a state of "being", unless you are not actually a materialist.
Oh pardon me I didn't say a system of transistors. But I hold to the notion that models are always incomplete things being only models of what is observed and measured. They never actually reproduce reality. There are merely our best estimates based on what what we know. It this way they are replications of evolved beings dealing with a reality in which they believe they exist. Some seem to think they have the answers. They don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
You presume something call choice without defining what it is
Oh it's been defined many times, you just don't like that many things can in fact conform to that definition including things which are not in fact organic at all.


Maybe you'll be kind enough to explain how will can exist
Maybe take that question up with DBT who at least cops to the existence of "wills" even if they don't cop to the existence of "freedom".

I don't have to explain "how" they can exist past your failure of logic. I just have to point out that they do, in fact, exist, by producing an object that conforms to the definition.

I provided several, including the automatic piano paper reel.
A computer is a machine that runs a program
Synonyms: a computer is an object that executes on a will.

The program, written following a design,
The will, generated from predelictions,

specifies the conditions under which the transistors function
This is actually false. It does not specify the conditions under which transistors function. Transistors are like neurons, insofar as nothing but their physical object properties determine the conditions of their function.

The program merely presents them state potentials which determine not how they function, but which of their states happen to be active.
If the program knows what is coming it is not representative of a being.
And then you went into "not even wrong". You have some major woo about what it means to "be there a being".

You can be a being which knows fairly well what is coming, owing to that whole "simulating the future of the system within the system" thing. That has nothing to do with existing as a "being" whatever the fuck that is even supposed to mean.

Everything is in a state of "being", unless you are not actually a materialist.
Oh pardon me I didn't say a system of transistors. But I hold to the notion that models are always incomplete things being only models of what is observed and measured. They never actually reproduce reality. There are merely our best estimates based on what what we know. It this way they are replications of evolved beings dealing with a reality in which they believe they exist. Some seem to think they have the answers. They don't.
trapped.png


Again with your genetic fallacies and assuming evolution or the origin of some system makes any difference as to what it is NOW.

As it is, as long as the math of the behavior of the model approximates the future well enough to capture it's microstate in the macrostate generalizations of the future, we call the will "free" because this describes a different relationship than the one where the approximation fails.

It is exactly the Incompleteness of the model and the imperfections allowing failure which create the quality which is semantically associated with "constraint".

The model of the mechanical piano is flawed insofar as it cannot tolerate continuing when something is blocking the flow of energy from the spring to the reel.

"Choice" is descriptive of any of a wide variety of events which start with a set of artifacts, and ends up with a subset of them, just as "free" is descriptive of any of a large number of objects that would act as images which represent what the future will do in macrostate before it happens as a product of the choice resolutions that the images describe, both a cause, and a description of the effect which shall be satisfied by the configuration of reality shortly.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,674
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
If determinism is true, the deterministic process that we call 'decision making' - which must necessarily produce a single outcome or action in any given instance - it is this inevitability that does not meet the criteria of choice.

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

Determinism
All events develop or evolve without randomness or deviation, there are no possible alternate actions, consequently determinism does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

Ironically, compatibilists are accused of wanting to have our cake and eat it too. But here you are acknowledging decision making, which chooses between alternate possibilities, and then turning around and pretending it is not really happening.

I'm pointing out that decision making is a matter of entailment, not choice. That what we call decision making has no alternatives. That whatever is 'chosen' never had an alternative.

Is it a decision when there is no possibility of having done otherwise?

We have words and terms, but how do they relate to deterministic system where no actions have alternatives?




As 'will' cannot make a difference to output, actions performed, labelling what we inevitably must do as 'free will' is false.

Let me see if I can unscramble that for you:

Just consider the implications of determinism in relation to the concept of decision making and choice.
'Will' is the intent to do something specific, as in "I will fix pancakes for breakfast". Once the intent is fixed, it motivates and directs our subsequent thoughts and actions as we go about mixing the ingredients, heating the pan, cooking the pancakes, and eating them.

All fixed by the non-chosen state and condition of the system, including the brain, circumstances, antecedents, etc.....


What we will do is often chosen from several alternate possibilities. Will I fix pancakes or will I fix eggs? Free will means that we were free to make this choice for ourselves (free of coercion and other undue influences).

There are no alternatives during the course of any action,

Perceived alternatives are possible for others in any given instance, if determined. Not only 'possible' but necessarily performed, and of course something on the list of options may become possible for you at a later time, only if determined, but there can never be two or more realizable alternatives in any given instance......

''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.''

When faced with multiple things that we 'can' do, we must necessarily decide the single thing that we 'will' do. Both the two realizable possibilities (eggs and pancakes) and the single choice (pancakes), were equally inevitable mental events. It was inevitable that we would have fixed pancakes and it was equally inevitable that we could have fixed eggs.

Nope, if eggs were determined 7:30am, eggs it is, eggs it must be, and pancakes cannot happen.

Pancakes at 7:30am would be a deviation, and deviations cannot happen within a deterministic system.

Entailment is not choice. Fixed is not freely willed.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I'm pointing out that decision making is a matter of entailment, not choice.
Synonyms: "Im pointing out choice is a matter of entailment not choice"

As Marvin says: now you see it, now you don't.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,388
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Coercion can be a literal “gun to the head”, or any other threat of harm sufficient to compel one person to subordinate their will to the will of another.

Undue influence is any extraordinary condition that effectively removes a person’s control of their choice. Certain mental illnesses can distort a person’s perception of reality by hallucinations or delusions. Other brain impairments can directly damage the ability to reason. Yet another form may subject them to an irresistible compulsion. Hypnosis would be an undue influence. Authoritative command, as exercised by a parent over a child, an officer over a soldier, or a doctor over a patient, is another. Any special circumstances that effectively remove a person’s control over their choice would be an undue influence.

What i read are handwaves rather than material operations.

Hmm. I give you operational definitions and you call them "handwaves". Do you understand the operation of a "mugging", where one person pulls out a gun and says "Your money or your life!"? Do you understand the operation of a mind beset by hallucinations and delusions to the point where the mental illness, rather than the person, is held responsible for their actions?

You presume something call choice without defining what it is.

Always happy to provide an operational definition of any of the terms I'm using:

A "choice" is the output of a choosing operation. The choosing operation inputs multiple options, applies some criteria of comparison, and outputs a "choice". The choice is usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is the specific thing we have chosen to do. Having fixed our intent (also known as our "will") upon a specific task, that intention motivates and directs our subsequent thoughts and actions until the task is complete or interrupted by a different task or abandoned.

The "options" are possible choices. Things that we "can" choose to do, and that we "can" actually do if we so choose. The "criteria of comparison" is some appropriate set of characteristics that enable us to evaluate the likely outcome of a given course of action.

For example, in the restaurant, the menu provides a list of possible choices. We evaluate these choices based upon our own dietary goals and our own reasoning. We may find the juicy Steak tempting, but then recall that we had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. So, we may choose a Salad instead of the steak for dinner tonight.

The Salad becomes what we "will" order, and the Steak becomes one of the things that we "could have" ordered, but would not order tonight.

What I read is one empty term as reason for other empty terms, the last of which you present stands out: " remove(ing/al) a person's control of their choice would be an undue influence."

Well, I can only write. I can't read things for you. That's something that you're either willing to do or not to do. It's your choice.

The brain evolves to better use what one senses just as one's senses evolve to improve their capability to sense. In neither case does sense or processing sense become sense. Your argument is logical extension of Descartes debunked claim "I think there fore I am."

Well, Descartes claim that "I think therefore I am" seems more sensible than "I think I am not".

Operationally, a race is a social event in which multiple participants attempt to get from the starting point to the ending point ahead of everyone else.

No. Operationally the race is the gun going off and the runners thereafter running to a point in space. The social event is, within the minds of the individuals, competing in a race.

Both are equally operational descriptions. The fact that "the social event, within the minds of the individuals, is competing in a race" is richer and more meaningful, if one cares about meaning.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,388
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I'm pointing out that decision making is a matter of entailment, not choice.

And I'm pointing out that deterministic entailment includes choosing events. Choosing necessarily happens.

We cannot honestly say that choosing isn't happening "because of entailment" when it is entailed that choosing must necessarily happen at that time and place.

That what we call decision making has no alternatives. That whatever is 'chosen' never had an alternative.

Encountering multiple alternatives causally necessitates decision making. The alternatives are already there, in the natural unfolding of events, and they are the prior cause of our decision making event. For example, we are about to graduate high school, and we are planning to go to college, but we are faced with multiple colleges to choose from. No choosing, no college. Thus decision making is causally necessitated by the appearance of multiple alternatives.

Now, our rational thought will perform a comparison of the different colleges that we know for certain we "can" choose, on the way to deciding which specific college we "will" choose.

Is it a decision when there is no possibility of having done otherwise?

And that is the self-induced hoax, created by a false but believable suggestion. The suggestion? It is suggested that what can happen is limited to what will happen, and that what we can choose is limited to what we will choose. And that false but believable suggestion traps us in a paradox, because it requires us to know in advance what we will choose before we can know what we can choose.

The "possibility of having done otherwise" is guaranteed by logical necessity. Just like addition and subtraction, the choosing operation logically requires at least two inputs. Addition requires at least two "addends" to produce a sum. Subtraction requires both a minuend and a subtrahend to produce a difference. And choosing requires at least two "options" to produce a choice.

Both options are things that we "can" choose, regardless whether we "will" choose them or not. And anything of which it is true that we "can choose" now will later be referred to as something that we "could have chosen".

So, your question above is invalid. It presents a false scenario. It sows the seeds of a self-induced hoax, trapping the reader in a paradox, the same one in which you have been trapped.

I believe the rest of your comments have been answered above. If not, feel free to make them again, and I'll try to explain what I can.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
As it is, as long as the math of the behavior of the model approximates the future well enough to capture it's microstate in the macrostate generalizations of the future, we call the will "free" because this describes a different relationship than the one where the approximation fails.

"Choice" is descriptive of any of a wide variety of events which start with a set of artifacts, and ends up with a subset of them, just as "free" is descriptive of any of a large number of objects that would act as images which represent what the future will do in macrostate before it happens as a product of the choice resolutions that the images describe, both a cause, and a description of the effect which shall be satisfied by the configuration of reality shortly.
All of the above word salad is hand wave to justify a claim of reality from the salad presented as objective fact when it is no more than approximative speculation.

To wit: It cannot be known what is the future until the future becomes past. Additionally finding microstate from future macrostate is, uh, finding catfish after they are caught. The character of the catfish is known, therefore the macrostructure is known so microstructure, also known and preferred by the decider, is conveniently selected post hoc.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Coercion can be a literal “gun to the head”, or any other threat of harm sufficient to compel one person to subordinate their will to the will of another.

Undue influence is any extraordinary condition that effectively removes a person’s control of their choice.

What is operational about undue influence (not operationalized), extraordinarily (not operatinalized), effectively removes (not operationalized), control (not operationalized), choice (not operationalized)?
Certain mental illnesses (NO*) can distort (NO) a person’s perception of reality by hallucinations (NO) or delusions. (NO) Other brain impairments (NO) can directly damage the ability to reason. (NO) Yet another form may subject them to an irresistible compulsion. (NO) Hypnosis would be an undue influence. (NO) Authoritative command, (NO) as exercised by a parent over a child, an officer over a soldier, or a doctor over a patient, is another. Any special circumstances that effectively remove a person’s control over their choice would be an undue influence.
*not operationalized
What i read are handwaves rather than material operations.

Hmm. I give you operational definitions and you call them "handwaves". Do you understand the operation of a "mugging", where one person pulls out a gun and says "Your money or your life!"? Do you understand the operation of a mind beset by hallucinations and delusions to the point where the mental illness, rather than the person, is held responsible for their actions?
Eyup handwaves see above.
You presume something call choice without defining what it is.

Always happy to provide an operational definition of any of the terms I'm using:

A "choice" is the output of a choosing operation. (self reference is not operational anything).The choosing operation inputs multiple options, applies some criteria of comparison, and outputs a "choice". (structure not bad example is required though) The choice is usually in the form of an "I will X", (I think that is doing operation, not a choosing one) where X is the specific thing we have chosen to do. Having fixed our intent -also known as our "will" - upon a specific task, that intention motivates and directs our subsequent thoughts and actions until the task is complete or interrupted by a different task or abandoned. (I think you know by now that what you just wrote is word salad bereft of operations.)

The "options" are possible choices. (good for you) Things that we "can" choose to do, and that we "can" actually do if we so choose. The "criteria of comparison" is some appropriate set of characteristics that enable us to evaluate the likely outcome of a given course of action. (nice)

For example, in the restaurant, the menu provides a list of possible choices. We evaluate these choices based upon our own dietary goals and our own reasoning. We may find the juicy Steak tempting, but then recall that we had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. So, we may choose a Salad instead of the steak for dinner tonight. (gobble-de-gook again)

What I read is one empty term as reason for other empty terms, the last of which you present stands out: " remove(ing/al) a person's control of their choice would be an undue influence."

Well, I can only write. I can't read things for you. That's something that you're either willing to do or not to do. It's your choice. ( you need to write with more thought about actually making material points.)

 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It cannot be known what is the future until the future becomes past
More, it CAN be ascertained what the future will be on the basis of decisions that have already passed. Certainty isn't possible, but it doesn't need to be. It's exactly the uncertainty that yeilds constraint and thus the reality of both "freedom" and thus "the failure of freedom" which is "unfreeness".
Additionally finding microstate from future macrostate is, uh, finding catfish after they are caught
0/10 points.

It is finding a provisional (read "pretend") future macrostate on the basis of the current macrostate, such that that the provisional macrostate contains the real microstate.

The point is, we can't predict exact microstates and we don't need to, we just need to select a macrostate which at least captures the real microstate somewhere inside, and that one of the causal agents is in fact that the individual successfully parsed the logical sensibility of the "alternative", and chose it as an artifact from among a set because of the results implied of the outcome.

It's more like saying what kind of fish will be caught, and coming up right every time because you are the one who selected the bait.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
It cannot be known what is the future until the future becomes past
More, it CAN be ascertained what the future will be on the basis of decisions that have already passed. Certainty isn't possible, but it doesn't need to be. It's exactly the uncertainty that yeilds constraint and thus the reality of both "freedom" and thus "the failure of freedom" which is "unfreeness".
Additionally finding microstate from future macrostate is, uh, finding catfish after they are caught
0/10 points.

It is finding a provisional (read "pretend") future macrostate on the basis of the current macrostate, such that that the provisional macrostate contains the real microstate.

The point is, we can't predict exact microstates and we don't need to, we just need to select a macrostate which at least captures the real microstate somewhere inside, and that one of the causal agents is in fact that the individual successfully parsed the logical sensibility of the "alternative", and chose it as an artifact from among a set because of the results implied of the outcome.

It's more like saying what kind of fish will be caught, and coming up right every time because you are the one who selected the bait.
Like I said when I chose the bait, "You can't win."
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It cannot be known what is the future until the future becomes past
More, it CAN be ascertained what the future will be on the basis of decisions that have already passed. Certainty isn't possible, but it doesn't need to be. It's exactly the uncertainty that yeilds constraint and thus the reality of both "freedom" and thus "the failure of freedom" which is "unfreeness".
Additionally finding microstate from future macrostate is, uh, finding catfish after they are caught
0/10 points.

It is finding a provisional (read "pretend") future macrostate on the basis of the current macrostate, such that that the provisional macrostate contains the real microstate.

The point is, we can't predict exact microstates and we don't need to, we just need to select a macrostate which at least captures the real microstate somewhere inside, and that one of the causal agents is in fact that the individual successfully parsed the logical sensibility of the "alternative", and chose it as an artifact from among a set because of the results implied of the outcome.

It's more like saying what kind of fish will be caught, and coming up right every time because you are the one who selected the bait.
Like I said when I chose the bait, "You' can't win."
I think I "won" insofar as you are finally acknowledging here not just if you can choose, but that there are times you do.
 
Top Bottom