Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Jarhyn]

Puleez...

YOU we're the one who went about with the audacity to claim first and foremost that "the universe is deterministic". This takes a concept of math, not something that is of the material elements but something much, much wider, and then took a specific principle discussed in that framework, and described the universe with it.

You could say "the universe is deterministic AND we do not have free will" but you cannot say "the universe is deterministic SO we do not have free will" because this is not a necessary property of deterministic systems.

 

[fromderinside]

As shown in the two quotes below you're wrong.

The  Scientific method ...

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries). It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[a][4] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[5]

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations[A][a]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-alhacenCharacterizes-8 agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from a hypothesis.[6]: Book I, [6.54] pp.372, 408 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-alhacenCharacterizes-8 Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[7] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.[8][9]

... is based upon  Determinism and we do not have free will.

Certain philosophers of science argue that, while causal determinism (in which everything including the brain/mind is subject to the laws of causality) is compatible with minds capable of science, fatalism and predestination is not. These philosophers make the distinction that causal determinism means that each step is determined by the step before and therefore allows sensory input from observational data to determine what conclusions the brain reaches, while fatalism in which the steps between do not connect an initial cause to the results would make it impossible for observational data to correct false hypotheses. This is often combined with the argument that if the brain had fixed views and the arguments were mere after-constructs with no causal effect on the conclusions, science would have been impossible and the use of arguments would have been a meaningless waste of energy with no persuasive effect on brains with fixed views.[62]

My boat. Just got to love it.

 

[The AntiChris]

It [the rock] has the free will...

This is a misuse of the term 'free will'.

Compatibilist free will is concerned with the attribution of moral responsibility to moral agents.

Rocks aren't moral agents.

 

[DBT]

Being fixed means that your actions are an inevitable part of the system. You can't do otherwise, you can't will otherwise.

This is plainly an assertion fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. Not in the least. It is the very definition of determinism. Check the definition for yourself.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

If you are able to perform alternate actions, ie, make a difference instead of being a necessary part of the system, this freedom to do otherwise contravenes the given definition of determinism, therefore you are not talking about determinism

It is non sequitur. It does not follow from "you cannot do otherwise" to "you cannot will otherwise". I can absolutely "will otherwise." I just won't get it. Whether I "will otherwise" is in fact the measure of whether my will is free.

Given the nature of determinism, you can neither will otherwise or act otherwise, you think, feel and act as determined.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's a determined system, yet you can freely will whatever you please.


“It might be true that you would have done otherwise if you had wanted, though it is determined that you did not, in fact, want otherwise.” - Robert Kane

 

[Marvin Edwards]

What I'm trying to point out is that, we are governed by four forces, and how those four forces interact.

The way those four forces interact is called physics. Everything is a physical assembly of those forces, and the principles by which they interact regularly. If we are to model choice in the most general way, to understand choice within the context of math and determinism and game theory, and use that to understand something within the physics those things describe, it is something that is going to have to scale.

I am a compatibilist not because once several years ago a very good friend muttered some words about compatibilism. Rather, I am a compatibilist because I had for years felt the need to reconcile the meaningfulness and study of decision against determinism and I just acquired a more commonly used word for it at that point.

I came at this from the direction of the machine, not the meat. It can be easy coming at it from the meat to not see how deep it goes and if you don't understand how deep the concept embeds, it's easy to have folks play games at the boundaries of your understanding.

I'm down here at the foundations of choice.

I find if you simplify your problems, solutions become easier to locate.

Matter behaves differently when it is organized differently. That's why we microwave our breakfast and drive a car to work, rather than the other way around. When you move from inanimate objects to living organisms you get a new set of rules to explain behavior, because living organisms behave purposefully. The physical sciences cannot describe or predict purposeful behavior. Then, when intelligent species evolve, we get another set of rules to cover deliberate behavior, because now the universe has objects that can imagine, evaluate, and choose what they will do.

Using just physics and the four forces we cannot explain why a car stops at a red light. Between the physics of the red light and the pressure on the brake pedal, we have a living organism with the desire to survive and an intelligent brain calculating that the best way to do that is to stop at the red light.

Physics can explain why a cup of water poured on the ground will flow downhill. But it cannot explain why a similar cup of water, heated, and mixed with a little coffee, hops in a car and goes grocery shopping.

I suspect that quantum events are just as deterministic as any other events. But they are following a different rule book, one that applies only to their level of organization.

 

[DBT]

P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

That's still a matter of careful wording designed to give an impression of freedom where none exists. Rather than 'reliable causation' - as if that is under our control - determinism means fixed events, therefore no possible deviation. Both will and action are fixed by initial conditions (not chosen) and the way things go fixed as a matter of natural law.

Fixed, rather than 'reliably caused' events being the essential element of determinism.

The critical part is the means and mechanisms of decision making. Wording the process of motor as 'deliberate motor actions' gives the impression that conscious will runs the show.

It is necessary to distinguish between autonomic actions, like a heart beat, reflexive actions, like a hand jerks away from hot surface, and deliberate actions, like choosing to raise our hand to ask a question in class.

Neither are exempt from deterministic necessitation.

I have provided several studies that show that action initiation precedes conscious awareness of the action by milliseconds.

Information processing is unconscious, yet is the foundation of our being and experience of the world and self.

For instance;

''When it comes to the human brain, even the simplest of acts can be counter-intuitive and deceptively complicated. For example, try stretching your arm.

Nerves in the limb send messages back to your brain, but the subjective experience you have of stretching isn't due to these signals. The feeling that you willed your arm into motion, and the realization that you moved it at all, are both the result of an area at the back of your brain called the posterior parietal cortex. This region helped to produce the intention to move, and predicted what the movement would feel like, all before you twitched a single muscle.

Michel Desmurget and a team of French neuroscientists arrived at this conclusion by stimulating the brains of seven people with electrodes, while they underwent brain surgery under local anesthetic. When Desmurget stimulated the parietal cortex, the patients felt a strong desire to move their arms, hands, feet or lips, although they never actually did. Stronger currents cast a powerful illusion, convincing the patients that they had actually moved, even though recordings of electrical activity in their muscles said otherwise. ''

A motor action, while you can say that it deliberate in the sense that it's a response to stimuli, has not been consciously deliberated, regulated or willed into being.

That would be a reflex. For example, the doctor taps under your patella producing a knee-jerk response. It is not something that you choose to do.

Neurons respond to their inputs. Nerve loops in the limbs, the central nervous system, the brain....it is a responsive system.

There are different mechanisms and means of response, the brain itself is modular, etc, etc....the point being: it is not a free will mechanism or a 'free will' response.

The motor response is determined by unconscious neural activity prior to conscious awareness. Rather than being willed, it is necessitated and fixed by information exchange between the brain and environment.

Well, no. The only "information" is the signal from the nerves under the patella to the spinal cord and back to the muscle. It never reaches the brain. Reflexes have nothing to do with free will.

I wasn't talking about nerve loops.

Free will is a decision we make for ourselves while free coercion and undue influence. It will involved the brain, thinking about options, and choosing between them. You will know when you have made a deliberate decision.

The brain is an information processor. Rather than it being a matter of consciousness or will, it is neural architecture, state and condition determines output.

We have will, but it is not 'free will.' We can act, but we act according to the state and condition of the brain, which determines its output.

The distinction between being forced by external agent and routine information processing does not establish the latter as freely willed activity.

The distinction being.
1 - You being forced against your will.
2 - You act according to your will, but your will is fixed by determinants beyond your control.

The "determinants beyond my control" happen to be "me" deciding what I will have for dinner. You are still resting your argument upon a delusion that these determinants are somehow not me. But they are uniquely located within me, and within each person sitting with me in the restaurant. They are an integral part of who and what we are. They have no control at all except by their being part of an intelligent species that is capable of choosing what it will have for dinner and communicating that choice to the waiter.

And, if I choose to make a ruckus in the restaurant, such that the owner throws me out, those "determinants beyond my control" will also go out the door. So, I had best learn some self-control, which would again be those "determinants beyond my control" controlling themselves better.

I am they and they are me. There is no dualism to be found here. That would be a delusion.

Nope, the determinants beyond your control is everything that makes you what you are (genetics), where you were born, the culture and time you were born into, your family circumstances, education, language, culture, life experiences, illnesses, strengths, weaknesses, etc, etc.

In other words: pretty much everything.

''This is shown here: if the absence of constraints is all that is needed for us to make free choices then surely this should apply to inanimate objects such as rocks, boulders or clouds. ..."

Are you kidding me? Inanimate objects do not have brains. They do not make choices as to what they will or will not do. They respond passively to physical forces. We, on the other hand, do have brains. We can choose what we will or will not do. If something bumps into us, we can bump back.

I would like to think that we were above that rather silly level of argument.

The author is referring to absence of restraint. All activity in the world, if determined, must necessarily proceed without restraint. That means everything.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

As shown in the two quotes below you're wrong.

The  Scientific method ...

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries). It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[a][4] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[5]

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations[A][a]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-alhacenCharacterizes-8 agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from a hypothesis.[6]: Book I, [6.54] pp.372, 408 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-alhacenCharacterizes-8 Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[7] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.[8][9]

... is based upon  Determinism and we do not have free will.

Certain philosophers of science argue that, while causal determinism (in which everything including the brain/mind is subject to the laws of causality) is compatible with minds capable of science, fatalism and predestination is not. These philosophers make the distinction that causal determinism means that each step is determined by the step before and therefore allows sensory input from observational data to determine what conclusions the brain reaches, while fatalism in which the steps between do not connect an initial cause to the results would make it impossible for observational data to correct false hypotheses. This is often combined with the argument that if the brain had fixed views and the arguments were mere after-constructs with no causal effect on the conclusions, science would have been impossible and the use of arguments would have been a meaningless waste of energy with no persuasive effect on brains with fixed views.[62]

My boat. Just got to love it.

Free will is when a person decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and undue influence. It is a deterministic event, and science does not contradict this fact. The contradiction is an imaginary construct of philosophy, not science.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

That's still a matter of careful wording designed to give an impression of freedom where none exists. Rather than 'reliable causation' - as if that is under our control - determinism means fixed events, therefore no possible deviation. Both will and action are fixed by initial conditions (not chosen) and the way things go fixed as a matter of natural law. Fixed, rather than 'reliably caused' events being the essential element of determinism.

The only essential element of determinism is that every event is reliably caused by prior events. This is logically derived from the notion of a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. Each state of the universe and its events are the necessary result of its prior state and prior events. ("Events" change the state of things.)

Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation").

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

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

Are we in agreement yet as to what determinism actually means?

As you can see, my choosing to have the salad for lunch, from the menu of possible lunches, is just another deterministic event in the causal chain. But if determinism is to be true, then it cannot exclude me and my choosing from the infinite number of events that brought about the next state of the universe.

Neither are exempt from deterministic necessitation.

And I've made no claim to any exemption from deterministic necessitation. My claim is simply that we have meaningful distinctions that cannot be hidden or ignored by a sweeping generality. It is necessary to distinguish between autonomic actions, like a heart beat, reflexive actions, like a hand that jerks away from hot surfaces, and deliberate actions, like choosing to raise our hand to ask a question in class.

I have provided several studies that show that action initiation precedes conscious awareness of the action by milliseconds.

I have no arguments with the facts of neuroscience. But I've pointed out that Libet-styled experiments do not address the compatibilist definition of free will (a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and undue influence).

It has always been known (well, at least since Hippocrates) that the brain is the source of our decisions, our character, and our personality, and that injuries to the brain can alter a person's behavior.

There is no need to quibble over the respective roles of conscious processing and unconscious processing. The fact that I ordered the salad, and that the waiter will bring me the salad and the bill, remains indisputable, even by neuroscience.

Information processing is unconscious, yet is the foundation of our being and experience of the world and self.

Well, no. Information processing cannot be entirely unconscious, because it requires awareness to read a menu, and it requires awareness to communicate information to someone else. So, at the very least, information must be input and output consciously. As to the middle, well, anything you've communicated to yourself, that you can remember and explain to someone else, will always involve awareness.

Neuroscience has not excluded consciousness from the control process. As Michael Graziano puts it:

"We frequently act without any conscious knowledge why, and then make up false reasons to explain it. Consciousness is hardly the sole controller of behavior. But in the current theory, consciousness is at least one part of the control process."

Graziano, Michael S. A.. Consciousness and the Social Brain (p. 202). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

... the determinants beyond your control is everything that makes you what you are (genetics), where you were born, the culture and time you were born into, your family circumstances, education, language, culture, life experiences, illnesses, strengths, weaknesses, etc, etc.
In other words: pretty much everything.

It is not necessary for me to have chosen my genes, or my birthplace, or my culture, or my family, etc. in order for me to choose the salad for lunch. The suggestion that I must create myself from scratch before it is truly me that is choosing the salad is absurd and, of course, false.

Free will is when a person decides for themselves what they will have for lunch, while free of coercion and undue influence. There is no requirement that I be free from prior causes. So, there is no conflict between determinism and free will.

The author is referring to absence of restraint. All activity in the world, if determined, must necessarily proceed without restraint. That means everything.

And that's exactly what happened in the restaurant when I examined the menu, and found several things that I liked. I chose to have the salad for lunch. I made this choice while free of coercion and undue influence, which means it was of my own free will, by definition.

 

[pood]

Being fixed means that your actions are an inevitable part of the system. You can't do otherwise, you can't will otherwise.

This is plainly an assertion fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. Not in the least. It is the very definition of determinism. Check the definition for yourself.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

You keep quoting this definition of determinism, and it is wrong in every clause. Determinism just means that effects reliably follow causes. That’s it.

 

[pood]

Your description is of the fallacy of hard determinism, and it’s still wrong on its own terms. As Marvin and I have repeatedly pointed out, the world is neither “governed by” nor “under the sway of” determinism, nor is anything fixed “as a matter of natural law.” The reason, as we have explained, is that the so-called laws of nature are not laws. They are descriptions of what happens in the world.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your description is of the fallacy of hard determinism, and it’s still wrong on its own terms. As Marvin and I have repeatedly pointed out, the world is neither “governed by” nor “under the sway of” determinism, nor is anything fixed “as a matter of natural law.” The reason, as we have explained, is that the so-called laws of nature are not laws. They are descriptions of what happens in the world.

And I have repeatedly pointed out that determinism, even if it described reality (it does, except to the extent it doesn't, re: probabilistics; at ) does not require an absence of local choice, and the abrogation of will via conflicting quality of model is still an identifiable property of subsets, a weight on their graphs.

This is a demand of math, and in fact a description of rigorous understandings of determinism and "indeterminism" which is actually "probabilistics".

 

[fromderinside]

As shown in the two quotes below you're wrong.

The  Scientific method ...

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries). It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[a][4] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[5]

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations[A][a]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-alhacenCharacterizes-8 agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from a hypothesis.[6]: Book I, [6.54] pp.372, 408 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-alhacenCharacterizes-8 Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[7] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.[8][9]

... is based upon  Determinism and we do not have free will.

Certain philosophers of science argue that, while causal determinism (in which everything including the brain/mind is subject to the laws of causality) is compatible with minds capable of science, fatalism and predestination is not. These philosophers make the distinction that causal determinism means that each step is determined by the step before and therefore allows sensory input from observational data to determine what conclusions the brain reaches, while fatalism in which the steps between do not connect an initial cause to the results would make it impossible for observational data to correct false hypotheses. This is often combined with the argument that if the brain had fixed views and the arguments were mere after-constructs with no causal effect on the conclusions, science would have been impossible and the use of arguments would have been a meaningless waste of energy with no persuasive effect on brains with fixed views.[62]

My boat. Just got to love it.

Free will is when a person decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and undue influence. It is a deterministic event, and science does not contradict this fact. The contradiction is an imaginary construct of philosophy, not science.

Free will is about human commerce, communication, living. It is wat humans think they are doing which has very little to to with how the world is at time = 0 or determinism, reality.

 

[DBT]

Being fixed means that your actions are an inevitable part of the system. You can't do otherwise, you can't will otherwise.

This is plainly an assertion fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. Not in the least. It is the very definition of determinism. Check the definition for yourself.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

You keep quoting this definition of determinism, and it is wrong in every clause. Determinism just means that effects reliably follow causes. That’s it.

It's the standard definition of causal determinism taken from the Stanford article on causal determinism. It's not my definition, or something that I modified.

It has nothing to do with me past the fact that I quoted it from the Stanford Page.

If something is determined, there is no alternate action possible. If alternate actions are possible, it is neither determinism or 'reliably caused.'

You don't appear to understand the implications of determinism.

 

[DBT]

Your description is of the fallacy of hard determinism, and it’s still wrong on its own terms. As Marvin and I have repeatedly pointed out, the world is neither “governed by” nor “under the sway of” determinism, nor is anything fixed “as a matter of natural law.” The reason, as we have explained, is that the so-called laws of nature are not laws. They are descriptions of what happens in the world.

Once again, determinism is determinism. 'Hard' and 'Soft' determinism simply refers to free will arguments, ie, incompatibility or compatibility. Events are determined in either case.

 

[DBT]

P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

That's still a matter of careful wording designed to give an impression of freedom where none exists. Rather than 'reliable causation' - as if that is under our control - determinism means fixed events, therefore no possible deviation. Both will and action are fixed by initial conditions (not chosen) and the way things go fixed as a matter of natural law. Fixed, rather than 'reliably caused' events being the essential element of determinism.

The only essential element of determinism is that every event is reliably caused by prior events. This is logically derived from the notion of a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. Each state of the universe and its events are the necessary result of its prior state and prior events. ("Events" change the state of things.)

''Reliably caused'' appears to be a softer way of saying ''fixed.''

If alternate actions are possible, events are neither 'reliably caused' or 'fixed' - and we are not talking about determinism.

Maybe 'reliably caused' tacitly means 'Libertarian Free Will?'

Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation").

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

Exactly. All events are included, which means that every signal sent between neurons is determined, with no alternate action possible.

Which clearly excludes any notion of free will. As I said, it is function rather than will that determines behaviour. Rather than 'free will, it would make more sense to call it a 'free function.' Still silly, but more accurate.

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.

Are we in agreement yet as to what determinism actually means?

As you put it here, yes, we do agree on the nature of determinism

As you can see, my choosing to have the salad for lunch, from the menu of possible lunches, is just another deterministic event in the causal chain. But if determinism is to be true, then it cannot exclude me and my choosing from the infinite number of events that brought about the next state of the universe.

Possible lunches exist for different people. Only one lunch is realizable for any given person in any given moment in time.

If it is determined that you have Lobster for lunch (brain/environment interactions), there is no possibility of you having anything but Lobster for lunch. Other items on the menu are realizable by other diners, each according to their own determinants (brain/environment interactions) in that instance in time.

Decision-Making
''Decision-making is such a seamless brain process that we’re usually unaware of it — until our choice results in unexpected consequences. Then we may look back and wonder, “Why did I choose that option?” In recent years, neuroscientists have begun to decode the decision-making process. What they’re learning is shedding light not only on how the healthy brain performs complex mental functions, but also on how disorders, such as stroke or drug abuse, affect the process.''

''Researchers can study decision-making in animals. As monkeys decide which direction a moving target is headed, researchers record the activity in brain cells called neurons. These studies have helped to reveal the basis for how animals and humans make everyday decisions.''

Neither are exempt from deterministic necessitation.

And I've made no claim to any exemption from deterministic necessitation. My claim is simply that we have meaningful distinctions that cannot be hidden or ignored by a sweeping generality. It is necessary to distinguish between autonomic actions, like a heart beat, reflexive actions, like a hand that jerks away from hot surfaces, and deliberate actions, like choosing to raise our hand to ask a question in class.

Exemption appears to be implied in the wording. 'Reliably caused' instead of 'fixed' for instance.

I have provided several studies that show that action initiation precedes conscious awareness of the action by milliseconds.

I have no arguments with the facts of neuroscience. But I've pointed out that Libet-styled experiments do not address the compatibilist definition of free will (a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and undue influence).

It has always been known (well, at least since Hippocrates) that the brain is the source of our decisions, our character, and our personality, and that injuries to the brain can alter a person's behavior.

There is no need to quibble over the respective roles of conscious processing and unconscious processing. The fact that I ordered the salad, and that the waiter will bring me the salad and the bill, remains indisputable, even by neuroscience.

Acting according to our character and proclivities is inevitable. Determined actions necessarily follow determined inputs, processing and will. It cannot be otherwise. It applies to all creatures, each according to their brain makeup and environment.

Form and function.

Information processing is unconscious, yet is the foundation of our being and experience of the world and self.

Well, no. Information processing cannot be entirely unconscious, because it requires awareness to read a menu, and it requires awareness to communicate information to someone else. So, at the very least, information must be input and output consciously. As to the middle, well, anything you've communicated to yourself, that you can remember and explain to someone else, will always involve awareness.

Inputs must precede processing and processing must precede conscious experience as a matter of physics. Memory must be integrated with sensory information to enable recognition, etc.

Neuroscience has not excluded consciousness from the control process. As Michael Graziano puts it:

"We frequently act without any conscious knowledge why, and then make up false reasons to explain it. Consciousness is hardly the sole controller of behavior. But in the current theory, consciousness is at least one part of the control process."

Consciousness is a part of the process, but for the reasons given, it is neither the controller, or the enabler of alternate actions.

It is not necessary for me to have chosen my genes, or my birthplace, or my culture, or my family, etc. in order for me to choose the salad for lunch. The suggestion that I must create myself from scratch before it is truly me that is choosing the salad is absurd and, of course, false.

Free will is when a person decides for themselves what they will have for lunch, while free of coercion and undue influence. There is no requirement that I be free from prior causes. So, there is no conflict between determinism and free will.

Your makeup and past makes you what you are, which in turn determines your actions. Conscious self is oblivious of the underlying process of decision making. Hallett, Gazzaniga/narrator function, etc.


''Our brain is not a unified structure; instead it is composed of several modules that work out their computations separately, in what are called neural networks. These networks can carry out activities largely on their own. The visual network, for example, responds to visual stimulation and is also active during visualimagery—that is, seeing something with your mind’s eye; the motor network can produce movement and is active during imagined movements. Yet even though our brain carries out all these functions in a modular system, we do not feel like a million little robots carrying out their disjointed activities. We feel like one, coherent self with intentions and reasons for what we feel are our unified actions.''

The author is referring to absence of restraint. All activity in the world, if determined, must necessarily proceed without restraint. That means everything.

And that's exactly what happened in the restaurant when I examined the menu, and found several things that I liked. I chose to have the salad for lunch. I made this choice while free of coercion and undue influence, which means it was of my own free will, by definition.

Sure, actions - if determined - cannot be restricted or restrained. A determined action must proceed as determined.

 

[Jarhyn]

Free will is about human commerce, communication, living. It is wat humans think they are doing which has very little to to with how the world is at time = 0 or determinism, reality.

No, free will is about graph properties in deterministic (and stochastic) systems.

It has nothing to do with humans specifically, humans merely have the highest quality models, generally, so they generally have the freest wills.

 

[Jarhyn]

Being fixed means that your actions are an inevitable part of the system. You can't do otherwise, you can't will otherwise.

This is plainly an assertion fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. Not in the least. It is the very definition of determinism. Check the definition for yourself.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

You keep quoting this definition of determinism, and it is wrong in every clause. Determinism just means that effects reliably follow causes. That’s it.

It's the standard definition of causal determinism taken from the Stanford article on causal determinism. It's not my definition, or something that I modified.

It has nothing to do with me past the fact that I quoted it from the Stanford Page.

If something is determined, there is no alternate action possible. If alternate actions are possible, it is neither determinism or 'reliably caused.'

You don't appear to understand the implications of determinism.

Oh, my bad, you didn't even actually define "determinism".

I mean, you have a logical test, but you don't actually define the root word. You use something that is claimed to satisfy the definition, but I mean shit, you have people at Stanford believing in that junk (the universe has very well described indeterministic behaviors).

Here's the Google definition:
A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A stochastic system has a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

At any rate our universe is not, in fact, purely deterministic. It's "stochastic"

But most importantly you are mistaken as to what this implies. You wish to say "the system resolved with no randomness; re-execution of the priors yields the same result!" And then say "therefore no choice happened".

This is not a requirement of deterministic systems!

Deterministic systems are merely a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

The universe is not exactly that. There are many apparently probabilistic events (stochastic events).

So can we get back to discussing what determinism does and does not imply to causal geometries?

Because I can, as stated, open up a fully deterministic system and see that the frame input is not (int system_seed, int frame_number). The input is (system_state_t system_state) entire.

thats what we're doing here.

ANd most importantly, even if the universe were deterministic, which it isn't entirely (just "deterministic enough for choice to exist), you would have to explain still why this determinism forbids choice.

you have to dig into the necessary properties of deterministic systems to understand that and there is only one such property:

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


So if you wish to argue whether determinism abrogates the reality of choice and free will, go ahead and find me a state transition log of a deterministic system with the context revealed, and I will in fact outline and graph where choices happen and where extant wills are either constrained or free within it!

reallu what it comes down to is a hellishly complicated weighted graph, and comparing graph properties between subsets.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

''Reliably caused'' appears to be a softer way of saying ''fixed.''

The problem with the terms "determined" and "fixed" is that they imply that causation is finished. It gives the impression that everything has already happened (similar to Einstein's Block Universe) . This gives the false impression that there is nothing we can do about anything since it is as if it had "already happened".

The empirical truth is that things are not "fixed", because events continue to happen, forever. And, no event will ever happen until its final prior causes have played themselves out. This understanding reminds us that our choices and our actions still play a significant role in how things will eventually turn out.

When I choose to order the lobster for dinner, I am the most meaningful and relevant cause of that event. The Big Bang is never the meaningful or relevant cause of any human event.

In fact, within the domain of human influence (things we can choose to do), the single inevitable future will be chosen by us from among the many possible futures that we will imagine.

While there will be only a single actual future, many possible futures will occur to us via our imagination, one of those functions of the brain.

If alternate actions are possible, events are neither 'reliably caused' or 'fixed' - and we are not talking about determinism.

That's incorrect. Alternate actions are considered "possible" if we are physically able to carry them out. We never need to actually carry out those alternate actions in order for them to be "possible". If we never perform those actions we never call them "impossible", they simply are referred to as things we could have done, but which we did not do.

So, hard determinists are making errors in the logic of language. Errors in the logic lead to incorrect conclusions and false beliefs.

Maybe 'reliably caused' tacitly means 'Libertarian Free Will?'

Only if Libertarian free will is deterministic. But that's not something I wish to deal with here. One incompatibilist at a time, please.

Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation").

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

Exactly. All events are included, which means that every signal sent between neurons is determined, with no alternate action possible.

The notion of possibilities is irrelevant to individual neurons. But the notion of possibilities is essential to the brain itself as it performs its decision making function. Without alternate possibilities the brain cannot make a decision. The menu in the restaurant is a list of alternate possibilities. The brain must narrow this list down to a single option, in order to tell the waiter what dinner to bring. If it fails to choose, it will fail to eat.

All the neurons involved in the choosing operation are being driven by the brain's need to order a dinner, AND, the experience of this need itself is a deterministic event that was causally necessary from any prior point in time. When you can realize that both of those statements are true, you'll understand compatibilism.

Different functional areas of the brain are interacting in a reliable fashion with each other, performing the choosing and placing the order for dinner. And all of these events were causally necessary from any prior point in eternity.

Which clearly excludes any notion of free will.

Quite the opposite. The choice need only be free of coercion and undue influence to include the notion of free will. There is no requirement that the choice be free from causal necessity.

If you wish to argue that there is some reason why the choice must be free of causal necessity, please do so. But causal necessity means that it was inevitable that I would be making this choice for myself while free of coercion and undue influence. So, my view is that causal necessity insures that the choice would be of my own free will.

As I said, it is function rather than will that determines behaviour.

The function of choosing is what determines the will that determines the deliberate behavior. The brain performs this function.

Rather than 'free will, it would make more sense to call it a 'free function.'

Which raises the question, "Free from what?". Is the function of choosing free from coercion and undue influence? Then it is a freely chosen will. The function does not need to be free of the brain in order to be free will. The function does not need to be free from causal necessity or prior causes in order to be free will.

Free will only requires that the choice be free from coercion and other forms of undue influence.

Possible lunches exist for different people.

It's the same menu. We all have exactly the same possibilities for lunch.

Only one lunch is realizable for any given person in any given moment in time.

All of the items on the menu are equally realizable. But only one lunch per person will be realized. The word "realizable" contains the notion of "ability" and "possibility". Realizable is something that "can" happen. The word "realized" refers to something that "did" happen. The fact that only one meal each was realized does not logically imply that any of the other options were "unrealizable".

If it is determined that you have Lobster for lunch (brain/environment interactions), there is no possibility of you having anything but Lobster for lunch.

If you look under the hood, you will find every possibility on the menu within the "brain/environment interactions". The fact that it was inevitable that I would order the lobster does not change any of those possibilities into impossibilities. It only makes them possibilities that I did not choose to order.

Decision-Making

Nice article. But nothing to change the fact that our brains actually do the choosing, which is what I've been saying all along. As I've said before, I have no problem with any of the facts uncovered by neuroscience.

Your makeup and past makes you what you are, which in turn determines your actions.

Yes, which means it is really me that is choosing what I do. That genetic makeup and those past experiences exist solely within me, and whatever it is you think they are doing, I am doing.

''Our brain is not a unified structure; instead it is composed of several modules that work out their computations separately, in what are called neural networks. These networks can carry out activities largely on their own. The visual network, for example, responds to visual stimulation and is also active during visual imagery—that is, seeing something with your mind’s eye; the motor network can produce movement and is active during imagined movements. Yet even though our brain carries out all these functions in a modular system, we do not feel like a million little robots carrying out their disjointed activities. We feel like one, coherent self with intentions and reasons for what we feel are our unified actions.''

Cool! Give it up for my guy Gazzaniga. But you only quoted the part that leaves us with the question. The part that provides the answer to that question comes later, here:

"Our best candidate for this brain area is the “left-hemisphere interpreter.” Beyond the finding, described in the last chapter, that the left hemisphere makes strange input logical, it includes a special region that interprets the inputs we receive every moment and weaves them into stories to form the ongoing narrative of our self-image and our beliefs."

When the "interpreter" has accurate information, then it can provide an accurate description of what is happening and why. But when its information is inaccurate or incomplete, it will still attempt to explain things using confabulation to fill in the blanks. For example, if a hypnotist gives you a post-hypnotic suggestion that when you hear the word "elephant" you will take off your shoes, and then wakes you and triggers you to take off your shoes, you will come up with a story to explain why you did so.

He goes on to show how people use this feature to accommodate ideas that may at first conflict with their religious beliefs. Nice article, worth the read.

 

[fromderinside]

Free will is about human commerce, communication, living. It is wat humans think they are doing which has very little to to with how the world is at time = 0 or determinism, reality.

No, free will is about graph properties in deterministic (and stochastic) systems.

It has nothing to do with humans specifically, humans merely have the highest quality models, generally, so they generally have the freest wills.

The way I worked was by using x alternative forced choice procedures. The observer was given mandatory category selection, all determined. The facts of the stimuli were present or not present. Kind of the way nature sets things out for one. What you may want to call choice are irrelevant since the options are yeah, naw.

 

[DBT]

Being fixed means that your actions are an inevitable part of the system. You can't do otherwise, you can't will otherwise.

This is plainly an assertion fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. Not in the least. It is the very definition of determinism. Check the definition for yourself.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

You keep quoting this definition of determinism, and it is wrong in every clause. Determinism just means that effects reliably follow causes. That’s it.

It's the standard definition of causal determinism taken from the Stanford article on causal determinism. It's not my definition, or something that I modified.

It has nothing to do with me past the fact that I quoted it from the Stanford Page.

If something is determined, there is no alternate action possible. If alternate actions are possible, it is neither determinism or 'reliably caused.'

You don't appear to understand the implications of determinism.

Oh, my bad, you didn't even actually define "determinism".

I've lost count of the number of times I have given the standard definition of determinism, quoted and cited from Stanford's causal determinism page;

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

I mean, you have a logical test, but you don't actually define the root word. You use something that is claimed to satisfy the definition, but I mean shit, you have people at Stanford believing in that junk (the universe has very well described indeterministic behaviors).

Here's the Google definition:
A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

That's right; no randomness involved in the future states of the system. No randomness means fixed outcomes.

A stochastic system has a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

At any rate our universe is not, in fact, purely deterministic. It's "stochastic"

The debate here is the compatibility of free will in relation to determinism: Compatibilism.

So if you wish to argue whether determinism abrogates the reality of choice and free will, go ahead and find me a state transition log of a deterministic system with the context revealed, and I will in fact outline and graph where choices happen and where extant wills are either constrained or free within it!

reallu what it comes down to is a hellishly complicated weighted graph, and comparing graph properties between subsets.

Go ahead, give your graph showing where free choice happens within a deterministic system.

What you are claiming, by your given definition of determinism, is that 'choice' is not determined in spite of being determined within a determined system. It can't be both ways. It can't be both a free choice and a determined choice. This isn't a case of quantum superposition on a macro scale.