#### DBT

##### Contributor
Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

That is figuratively correct, but literally false. To make it literally correct, replace the "can" with "will", as in "there is only one way it will be at the next moment".

But it is literally correct. That it is literally correct is supported by the terms and conditions of determinism.

As all events proceed without deviation, fixed by antecedents, this condition negates the possibility of alternate actions. Where there are no alternate actions, nothing other than what has been determined to happen can happen.

There is no getting around this.

There is no need to get around it. Causal determinism has not meaningfully changed anything.

Everything that happens is fixed. There is no change in the sense that something else could have happened.

The system is of course in constant change.

Each and every state of the system as it evolves is as it must be. Including the brain and the thoughts and actions it produces. Not through free will, but entailment.

Defining free will as an action performed without force or coercion is not adequate because all determined actions proceed as determined without restriction.

Apparently, what is "adequate" for the compatibilist is "inadequate" for the incompatibilist. But only the compatibilist gives an adequate description of reality. The incompatibilists want us to get lost in their delusion that one must be free of causal necessity in order to be free at all.

What is or isn't adequate to qualify as free will is determined by the given description of the nature of determinism, and not by a definition that ignores or neglects a key element in the formulation of that definition.

Could have, would have, might have
''The compatibilist readily admits that if determinism is true, then we clearly do not have physical alternatives open to us. But this does not matter, he says, for what really matters is that we have the right sort of alternatives open to us, and these are not physical alternatives.''

Not being physical alternatives, 'could have, would have, might have' is totally irrelevant to the argument and the given definition of determinism.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Where in the causal chain of inputs does the human flip from responding to causing
"Response" is a variety of cause. It is an effect in fact, as well, caused by stimulus to the matter of the brain.
OK. So the human doesn't flip from responding to causing. We agree.
No, we don't agree. Present here is that your post was not-even-wrong. You presented a false dichotomy to try to invalidate a hierarchy.

There is no "flip" because both are the same, every time: humans respond, and when humans respond by choosing, humans cause, because the human response is to make a choice and to cause an effect.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
But it is literally correct. That it is literally correct is supported by the terms and conditions of determinism.

As all events proceed without deviation, fixed by antecedents, this condition negates the possibility of alternate actions. Where there are no alternate actions, nothing other than what has been determined to happen can happen.
All this is is a butchering and misunderstanding of compatibilist alternatives.

As has been pointed out again and again, all these alternatives need is to exist is to be hypothetical and simulated, and all they need so as to be effective and actionable is to be simulated faster and with less error than a disorganized system, and have the simulated outcome be rendered before such a time as the simulated initial moment.

It is to assume a near future, simulate the results of it, and calculate that to a far future, and then use the calculated assumed near future that leads to the best far future.

But without calculating a menu and simulating the results and ascertaining which they like most, the only thing the organism would have to it is the first set ideas it ginned up.

Clearly there is more utility to thinking of five things to try than to halt after the first idea and just do that. The first idea is rarely the best one.

#### Marvin Edwards

##### Veteran Member
Where in the causal chain of inputs does the human flip from responding to causing?

That's the old riddle that paradoxically claims that we cannot be "real" causes because we have prior causes, thus only the prior cause can be a "real" cause. The problem is that none of my prior causes can pass that test, because they all have prior causes as well. Requiring such a test would unravel the causal chain, because no "real" causes could be found. So, the test is logically invalid.

Every event in the causal chain must be both effect and cause. And I, being a real event in that causal chain, am also a "real" cause of anything that I choose to make happen.

Rocks are passive and humans aren't because you say they have language caused by the brain which you think changes how things behave. Is that it?

Correct. As Michael Gazzaniga describes it:
“Sure, we are vastly more complicated than a bee. Although we both have automatic responses, we humans have cognition and beliefs of all kinds, and the possession of a belief trumps all the automatic biological process and hardware, honed by evolution, that got us to this place. Possession of a belief, though a false one, drove Othello to kill his beloved wife, and Sidney Carton to declare, as he voluntarily took his friend’s place at the guillotine, that it was a far, far better thing he did than he had ever done.”

Gazzaniga, Michael S. “Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain” (pp. 2-3). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Clearly you don't understand that humans, language and mental models aside, are just as reactive as rocks.

Gee, I guess if you removed the brain with its mental models and language, then we would indeed be just as reactive as rocks. So, let's not do that.

What are those causal mechanisms men have on the real universe? Nowhere, other than in after the fact interpreting reality as caused by men rather than being responded to by men.

It has been rumored, in scientific circles, that mankind's activities have raised the temperature of our planet. And we recently tested our ability to hit a meteor with a rocket to change its trajectory.

But aside from that, we don't have that much influence upon the rest of the universe. Our "domain of influence" is mostly limited to our immediate surroundings. We chop down trees and build houses. We imagine and create things such as computers and the internet and nations, etc. And these things causally determine our future.

Within the domain of human influence, the single inevitable future will be chosen by us from among the many possible futures that we will imagine. For example, in the restaurant, there are two possible futures, one in which I have Steak for dinner, and another in which I have the Salad instead. My choice will causally determine which possible future becomes the actual future, the one that was always causally necessary from any prior point in time, but would not happen but for my choosing it.

I've been through your flipping cause before because we have causal mechanisms. Those are post stimulus causal activities, not reaction-to-cause flipping mental activities. The runner still hears the gunshot then leaves the starting line after the shot. The mind doesn't get the runner to the finish line until it has propelled the man there after he has reacted and run the race. Having language changes nothing.

If we take one step back, we can see that the runner chose to enter the race, which caused him to be there in the first place. And he chose to compete, which motivated and directed his thoughts and actions as he prepared through daily training and motivates and directs his body to run for the finish line when he hears the gunshot, rather than running for cover. And all these events were deterministically caused by a choice he made that set his intent (his will) upon running in a race. Assuming no one held a gun to his head or unduly influenced him in this choice, it was a choice of his own free will (literally a freely chosen "I will").

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
That's the old riddle that paradoxically claims that we cannot be "real" causes because we have prior causes, thus only the prior cause can be a "real" cause. The problem is that none of my prior causes can pass that test, because they all have prior causes as well. Requiring such a test would unravel the causal chain, because no "real" causes could be found. So, the test is logically invalid
It's Kalam, the KCA in different clothes.

#### Marvin Edwards

##### Veteran Member
Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

That is figuratively correct, but literally false. To make it literally correct, replace the "can" with "will", as in "there is only one way it will be at the next moment".

But it is literally correct.

It cannot be literally correct because that would create the paradox of "having to choose between a single possibility".

When speaking of the single actuality, use "will", but whenever speaking of multiple possibilities, use "can".

What "can" happen is never constrained by what "will" happen, because only one thing will happen but many things can happen.

The only way that "can" gets to be constrained by "will" is by figurative thinking: "If only one thing will happen, it is AS IF only one thing can happen."

The figurative statement is literally false because the relationship between "can" and "will" is many to one.

As all events proceed without deviation, fixed by antecedents, this condition negates the possibility of alternate actions.

Obviously it doesn't. All of the events in the restaurant are fixed by antecedents, including the literal menu of literal alternate actions.

There is no getting around this.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
Where in the causal chain of inputs does the human flip from responding to causing?

That's the old riddle that paradoxically claims that we cannot be "real" causes because we have prior causes, thus only the prior cause can be a "real" cause. The problem is that none of my prior causes can pass that test, because they all have prior causes as well. Requiring such a test would unravel the causal chain, because no "real" causes could be found. So, the test is logically invalid.

Every event in the causal chain must be both effect and cause. And I, being a real event in that causal chain, am also a "real" cause of anything that I choose to make happen.

Rocks are passive and humans aren't because you say they have language caused by the brain which you think changes how things behave. Is that it?

Correct. As Michael Gazzaniga describes it:
“Sure, we are vastly more complicated than a bee. Although we both have automatic responses, we humans have cognition and beliefs of all kinds, and the possession of a belief trumps all the automatic biological process and hardware, honed by evolution, that got us to this place. Possession of a belief, though a false one, drove Othello to kill his beloved wife, and Sidney Carton to declare, as he voluntarily took his friend’s place at the guillotine, that it was a far, far better thing he did than he had ever done.”

Gazzaniga, Michael S. “Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain” (pp. 2-3). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Clearly you don't understand that humans, language and mental models aside, are just as reactive as rocks.

Gee, I guess if you removed the brain with its mental models and language, then we would indeed be just as reactive as rocks. So, let's not do that.

What are those causal mechanisms men have on the real universe? Nowhere, other than in after the fact interpreting reality as caused by men rather than being responded to by men.

It has been rumored, in scientific circles, that mankind's activities have raised the temperature of our planet. And we recently tested our ability to hit a meteor with a rocket to change its trajectory.

But aside from that, we don't have that much influence upon the rest of the universe. Our "domain of influence" is mostly limited to our immediate surroundings. We chop down trees and build houses. We imagine and create things such as computers and the internet and nations, etc. And these things causally determine our future.

Within the domain of human influence, the single inevitable future will be chosen by us from among the many possible futures that we will imagine. For example, in the restaurant, there are two possible futures, one in which I have Steak for dinner, and another in which I have the Salad instead. My choice will causally determine which possible future becomes the actual future, the one that was always causally necessary from any prior point in time, but would not happen but for my choosing it.

I've been through your flipping cause before because we have causal mechanisms. Those are post stimulus causal activities, not reaction-to-cause flipping mental activities. The runner still hears the gunshot then leaves the starting line after the shot. The mind doesn't get the runner to the finish line until it has propelled the man there after he has reacted and run the race. Having language changes nothing.

If we take one step back, we can see that the runner chose to enter the race, which caused him to be there in the first place. And he chose to compete, which motivated and directed his thoughts and actions as he prepared through daily training and motivates and directs his body to run for the finish line when he hears the gunshot, rather than running for cover. And all these events were deterministically caused by a choice he made that set his intent (his will) upon running in a race. Assuming no one held a gun to his head or unduly influenced him in this choice, it was a choice of his own free will (literally a freely chosen "I will").
Normally It's some one in place to encourages fast runners notices that a running individual ran pretty fast. What the runner did was choose to accept the advice and run with a team or as a sponsored individual. Most of the time races implicitly choose runners who qualify or meet criteria and agree to participate. Sometimes runners choose to run.

Not only did I become a specialist I also participated in track in school and college.

We choose and think a lot less than you seem to advocate. Mostly it's bump in to this then bump in to that.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
Where in the causal chain of inputs does the human flip from responding to causing
"Response" is a variety of cause. It is an effect in fact, as well, caused by stimulus to the matter of the brain.
OK. So the human doesn't flip from responding to causing. We agree.
No, we don't agree. Present here is that your post was not-even-wrong. You presented a false dichotomy to try to invalidate a hierarchy.

There is no "flip" because both are the same, every time: humans respond, and when humans respond by choosing, humans cause, because the human response is to make a choice and to cause an effect.
No. Its cause and consequence most of what humans do is consequence. We mentally reconstruct making ourselves the center of the play. Our main brain function is producing rationales.

DBT

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Where in the causal chain of inputs does the human flip from responding to causing
"Response" is a variety of cause. It is an effect in fact, as well, caused by stimulus to the matter of the brain.
OK. So the human doesn't flip from responding to causing. We agree.
No, we don't agree. Present here is that your post was not-even-wrong. You presented a false dichotomy to try to invalidate a hierarchy.

There is no "flip" because both are the same, every time: humans respond, and when humans respond by choosing, humans cause, because the human response is to make a choice and to cause an effect.
No. Its cause and consequence most of what humans do is consequence. We mentally reconstruct making ourselves the center of the play. Our main brain function is producing rationales.
No, no me gusta.

No pedí la ensalada, tráeme el bistec, por favor.

It's cause and effect. Saying "consequences" doesn't change the meaning of the language, as if effect is not synonymous with consequences in the usage. Stamp your feet and run from language you don't like but that will only shine a bad light on this character of the stage.

This is a play where many act upon the stage, but the rules are made up and the points don't matter, and because of what we are, we can make predictions, though not foretellings.

Foretellings are religious nonsense.

Our world makes its own future one moment at a time. No future as been designed to it, save for the provisional and not entirely accurate futures designed by subsystems such as us using simulations approximating the system's emergent statistical truth.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
Where in the causal chain of inputs does the human flip from responding to causing
"Response" is a variety of cause. It is an effect in fact, as well, caused by stimulus to the matter of the brain.
OK. So the human doesn't flip from responding to causing. We agree.
No, we don't agree. Present here is that your post was not-even-wrong. You presented a false dichotomy to try to invalidate a hierarchy.

There is no "flip" because both are the same, every time: humans respond, and when humans respond by choosing, humans cause, because the human response is to make a choice and to cause an effect.
No. Its cause and consequence most of what humans do is consequence. We mentally reconstruct making ourselves the center of the play. Our main brain function is producing rationales.
No, no me gusta.

No pedí la ensalada, tráeme el bistec, por favor.

It's cause and effect. Saying "consequences" doesn't change the meaning of the language, as if effect is not synonymous with consequences in the usage. Stamp your feet and run from language you don't like but that will only shine a bad light on this character of the stage.

This is a play where many act upon the stage, but the rules are made up and the points don't matter, and because of what we are, we can make predictions, though not foretellings.

Foretellings are religious nonsense.

Our world makes its own future one moment at a time. No future as been designed to it, save for the provisional and not entirely accurate futures designed by subsystems such as us using simulations approximating the system's emergent statistical truth
But, me (I can't write this because it reads sexist in current context) ..etty, we fallen over that piece of language with 'response'. So quit complaining with long dead pigs drawn across logical pathways.

... and we don't make predictions we guess and express. Funny though we guess about what to do in the past with information from the more distant past. IOW our 'predictions' (guesses) are yesterday's news.

Clarification needed. Are your 'predictions' about present reality or our impressions of reality based on our reacting to past sensed events? I know we behave in the now, but our behavior isn't based on past reality, rather it's based on our survivalist sensing of the recent past.

That is it is more about how behavior is designed to respond in accordance with generationally survived outcomes. We aren't sensing reality we are sensing as how we survived and within the constraints to which we can evolve. Take hearing as an example. Mammal hearing is limited by design constraints. Small mammals have higher frequency tuning than do larger mammals, constraining how they sense sound and in tune with how they emit sound.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Where in the causal chain of inputs does the human flip from responding to causing
"Response" is a variety of cause. It is an effect in fact, as well, caused by stimulus to the matter of the brain.
OK. So the human doesn't flip from responding to causing. We agree.
No, we don't agree. Present here is that your post was not-even-wrong. You presented a false dichotomy to try to invalidate a hierarchy.

There is no "flip" because both are the same, every time: humans respond, and when humans respond by choosing, humans cause, because the human response is to make a choice and to cause an effect.
No. Its cause and consequence most of what humans do is consequence. We mentally reconstruct making ourselves the center of the play. Our main brain function is producing rationales.

Yep, the brains narrator function. The storyteller.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

That is figuratively correct, but literally false. To make it literally correct, replace the "can" with "will", as in "there is only one way it will be at the next moment".

But it is literally correct.

It cannot be literally correct because that would create the paradox of "having to choose between a single possibility".

The point being, given determinism, there is no choice, the outcome of what we call the decision making process is entailed, not chosen. Determinism is a process of entailment with fixed outcomes. Multiple apparent options can only ever result in one outcome: the determined action.

When speaking of the single actuality, use "will", but whenever speaking of multiple possibilities, use "can".

Given determinism, multiple possibilities are an illusion. Our perspective is too limited. There are too many elements at work.

What is Determinism?
''How much say do you really have over your actions? Have you ever had that feeling that no matter what you do, the situation was always gonna end up the way it did?

Determinism is the idea that everything that happens in the world is determined completely by previously existing causes. We all know that the world runs on cause-and-effect. Imagine a shot in snooker (or “pool” for you Americans). You hit the cue ball which then strikes another, and the movement of the balls is determined by the laws of physics.

But once you’ve hit the ball, neither you or the balls have any say in which way things turn out! Once the initial cause (you hitting the cue ball) is set in place, everything just follows along through the laws of physics.''

And as in this example, us hitting the ball is also determined by the prior events that brought us to the point of playing pool and hitting the ball. A system where all events are subject to entailment.

What "can" happen is never constrained by what "will" happen, because only one thing will happen but many things can happen.

The only way that "can" gets to be constrained by "will" is by figurative thinking: "If only one thing will happen, it is AS IF only one thing can happen."

The figurative statement is literally false because the relationship between "can" and "will" is many to one.

There is only what must necessarily happen. The rest is illusion. What we think 'might have been' if only conditions were different is a work of imagination, the stuff of impossible daydreams.

As all events proceed without deviation, fixed by antecedents, this condition negates the possibility of alternate actions.

Obviously it doesn't. All of the events in the restaurant are fixed by antecedents, including the literal menu of literal alternate actions.

There is no getting around this.

That's equivocation. That there are a number of options on the menu doesn't mean that any customer can take any option at any time. If that's what you are suggesting, you are contradicting the terms of your own definition of determinism.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
But, me (I can't write this because it reads sexist in current context) ..etty, we fallen over that piece of language with 'response'. So quit complaining with long dead pigs drawn across logical pathways
No pedí la ensalada, tráeme el bistec, por favor

and we don't make predictions we guess and express
"And we don't make informed guesses, we make guesses"

Nice contradiction there, as if information about the system cannot be known despite you making discussions about knowing things about the system through science.

Clarification needed. Are your 'predictions' about present reality or our impressions of reality based on our reacting to past sensed events
... I've explained this a few times. All predictions are about making the logical inference that information about the past implies relationships of cause and effect, and simulating the output of a decision with various different inputs to find the best input, and then when the best hypothetical input is known, selecting that input in particular.

behavior is designed

We aren't sensing reality
Ah, so if the sensor in my eye is not really generating output proportional to the energy level of photons?

Is my ear not generating output proportional to the time/frequency transform of patterned deflections in the air?

Ooh, I guess my tongue is not really detecting the precise binding and unbinding energies of nearby ions and sugars and so on being expressed against their structure?

Indirect detection in the presence of reliable cause and effect is valid.

#### Marvin Edwards

##### Veteran Member
Normally It's some one in place to encourages fast runners notices that a running individual ran pretty fast. What the runner did was choose to accept the advice and run with a team or as a sponsored individual. Most of the time races implicitly choose runners who qualify or meet criteria and agree to participate. Sometimes runners choose to run.

Not only did I become a specialist I also participated in track in school and college.

We choose and think a lot less than you seem to advocate. Mostly it's bump in to this then bump in to that.

Sure. It can be that way as well.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
That there are a number of options on the menu doesn't mean that any customer can take any option at any time.
They can take any option at any time if they chose that option at that time.

To wit, they consider the option, simulate the future as if they did choose it, see the outcome of that process being unfortunate, and then freely decide to let that opportunity pass.

Or they cease predicting the outcomes of such trivialities altogether because after the first few times they discovered paying attention to such options literally makes them nauseous (as an evolved mechanism to prevent worse regret).

Normally It's some one in place to encourages fast runners notices that a running individual ran pretty fast. What the runner did was choose to accept the advice and run with a team or as a sponsored individual. Most of the time races implicitly choose runners who qualify or meet criteria and agree to participate. Sometimes runners choose to run.

Not only did I become a specialist I also participated in track in school and college.

We choose and think a lot less than you seem to advocate. Mostly it's bump in to this then bump in to that.

Sure. It can be that way as well.
In all cases except the one where the runner has no choice but "to run or to be killed" the runner chooses to run.

In the (perhaps not so rare) decision to run to save ones life, the decision is not to run but to live, and have more decisions ahead of oneself. The body, after deciding "live", something few people have personal control over, makes that decision without allowing the forebrain any leverage in the transaction.

Thus "we" generally are not the ones doing that choosing (to live through an encounter), and so "we" are not the ones held responsible for making the choice.

We even have, as a result of the pursuit of psychology, various models for both imposed and automatic behavior modification.

#### Marvin Edwards

##### Veteran Member
The point being, given determinism, there is no choice, the outcome of what we call the decision making process is entailed, not chosen.

Given determinism, it is entailed that choosing will happen! How do we know this? We see ourselves and others making choices every day.

To claim that the people in the restaurant are not choosing what they will order, when we see them doing exactly that, is false, if not delusional.

Determinism is a process of entailment with fixed outcomes. Multiple apparent options can only ever result in one outcome: the determined action.

The deterministic process by which the multiple options on the menu become a single dinner order is called "choosing". It is useless to pretend that choosing is not happening.

Given determinism, multiple possibilities are an illusion.

Everyone in the restaurant can see the multiple possibilities on the menu. They are not having an illusion. The menu and all of its options are quite real.

Our perspective is too limited. There are too many elements at work.

Well, if you cannot make up your mind, then perhaps you shouldn't be going to a restaurant. If you don't choose something from the menu, the waiter is going to ask us to leave. Try just focusing your perspective on the menu and what you might like to eat for dinner, and make a choice already.

What is Determinism?
''How much say do you really have over your actions? Have you ever had that feeling that no matter what you do, the situation was always gonna end up the way it did?

Determinism is the idea that everything that happens in the world is determined completely by previously existing causes. We all know that the world runs on cause-and-effect. Imagine a shot in snooker (or “pool” for you Americans). You hit the cue ball which then strikes another, and the movement of the balls is determined by the laws of physics.

But once you’ve hit the ball, neither you or the balls have any say in which way things turn out! Once the initial cause (you hitting the cue ball) is set in place, everything just follows along through the laws of physics.''

And as in this example, us hitting the ball is also determined by the prior events that brought us to the point of playing pool and hitting the ball. A system where all events are subject to entailment.

In America, the straight game of pool involves "calling the shot" (e.g., "The 3 ball in the side pocket"). You are faced with the current positions of the cue ball and all of the other balls still on the table. And it is deterministically entailed that you must choose which ball you are going attempt to hit into which pocket of the table, and state your intention for all to hear.

You have a figurative "menu" of options, and you must make a choice before the game can proceed. If you're really good at pool, you may not choose the easiest shot, but may take into account where the cue ball is likely to end up after your shot, and whether it will result in an easy or hard shot for your opponent.

That's how deterministic entailment works. Prior causes (choosing to play pool instead of poker) result in you standing at the pool table, chalking the tip of your cue stick, and trying to choose the shot that will best improve your odds of winning.

And now you, and your choosing, have become the prior cause of saying, "The 3 ball in the side pocket", and you act upon that chosen intent.

Those who would suggest that choosing doesn't happen in a deterministically entailed series of events are having some kind of an illusion.

There is only what must necessarily happen. The rest is illusion. ...

Oh crap! The 3 ball bounced off the corner of the pocket. I should have tried the easier 5 ball in the corner. I could have easily made that shot, but instead decided to try the harder shot.

Hey! What do you mean by saying I "could not" have tried the easier 5 ball in the corner shot?! It was right there on the table and I could have chosen it, if I didn't choose the 3 ball instead. Given my overconfidence about the 3 ball, I "would not" choose the easier shot. But I certainly "could have" chosen it.

That's not an "illusion", dude, it is the English language.

That there are a number of options on the menu doesn't mean that any customer can take any option at any time.

That's exactly what many options on the menu means. It means that any customer can take any option at any time. However, it definitely does not mean that any customer will take any specific option. What the customer will do is up to the customer, and no one else. And that is what was deterministically entailed.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
The point being, given determinism, there is no choice, the outcome of what we call the decision making process is entailed, not chosen.
On the contrary, it's both, because they're the same thing.

The question that determines whether an action is freely willed isn't "Was it entailed or chosen?"; It's "Was it mainly caused by internal or external influences?"

If the influences that led to the action were external - a gun to your head, a wife giving you a hard stare, a locked door preventing you from access - then your actions aren't free, and your will cannot be exercised.

If the influences were internal - thoughts, memories, emotions - then as these "inner necessities" are the only things that constrained your choice, and as they are YOU, your will is being exercised, free of external threats or constraints.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
The point being, given determinism, there is no choice, the outcome of what we call the decision making process is entailed, not chosen.
On the contrary, it's both, because they're the same thing.

No, not the same... choice requires two or more realizable options, that you could have equally chosen any of the options being presented.

Yet as we know, according to the definition of determinism given by compatibilists, no such thing is possible.

Which is why compatibilists define free will as acting without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced.

Which of course is flawed because it ignores an element that is just as restrictive: inner necessitation.

The question that determines whether an action is freely willed isn't "Was it entailed or chosen?"; It's "Was it mainly caused by internal or external influences?"

If the influences that led to the action were external - a gun to your head, a wife giving you a hard stare, a locked door preventing you from access - then your actions aren't free, and your will cannot be exercised.

If the influences were internal - thoughts, memories, emotions - then as these "inner necessities" are the only things that constrained your choice, and as they are YOU, your will is being exercised, free of external threats or constraints.

Doesn't make any difference to the issue of free will to say 'this is all you.' You have no access to the underlying mechanisms and means of your existence, how you think, what you think or how you act. The state of the system is the state of you, there is no choice in that.

It isn't a matter of free will. The agency is neural networks acquiring and processing information and responding to it according to architecture and memory function.

Free will plays no part, yet it is being invoked like some sort of deity.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
There is only what must necessarily happen. The rest is illusion. ...

Oh crap! The 3 ball bounced off the corner of the pocket. I should have tried the easier 5 ball in the corner. I could have easily made that shot, but instead decided to try the harder shot.

Hey! What do you mean by saying I "could not" have tried the easier 5 ball in the corner shot?! It was right there on the table and I could have chosen it, if I didn't choose the 3 ball instead. Given my overconfidence about the 3 ball, I "would not" choose the easier shot. But I certainly "could have" chosen it.

That's not an "illusion", dude, it is the English language.

There is no possibility of having taken the alternative shot, not because the action is impossible per se, but because your mental state in that moment in time did not permit the action to happen. X then Y.

Your own definition of determinism tells you that actions are fixed, that no alternate actions may happen. If your brain state had been different, you could have taken the shot....but of course, given determinism, your brain was not different, it cannot be different, hence what you imagine you 'could have done' had things been different is merely a construct of imagination.

“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

The state of the system, including your brain/mind, determines what does and doesn't happen in any given instance.

And of course, being a fixed progression of events.

It didn't happen because the state of the system did not permit it to happen in the instance you imagine you could have done otherwise.

There is no 'could have done otherwise' in determinism.

''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.''

That's the gist of it.

That there are a number of options on the menu doesn't mean that any customer can take any option at any time.

That's exactly what many options on the menu means. It means that any customer can take any option at any time. However, it definitely does not mean that any customer will take any specific option. What the customer will do is up to the customer, and no one else. And that is what was deterministically entailed.

No single customer can take any option at a single point in time. Each customer represents a unique set of proclivities, so each customer orders accordingly. Hence a list of options to cater to different proclivities and tastes.

John 'will place his order for roast Duck for dinner at eight' in determinism equates to John 'must necessary' place his order for roast Duck for dinner at eight. No alternate order will happen because there is no possibility of it happening.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
realizable options
Realizable is always "realizable IF".

I really urge you to write a simple hello world program, just a console program that takes an argument, switches on it, and outputs text according to the argument. We can discuss it after you have done something that SHOULD take less time than the 20-30 minutes I spent responding to your bullshit this morning.

In fact:

C:
void main (int argc, char args[])
{
if (argc >= 2)
{
switch(args[1][0])
{
case 'a':
printf("arg started with \"a\""); break;
default:
printf("arg started with something else"); break;
}
} else {
printf("not enough arguments supplied");
}
}

This is most of the way there. You just need to declare the header for printf, which is far less work than the above. The above was 8 minutes of typing. Looking up what to include to make printf work is trivial, especially when I just gave you the search terms in bolded italics.

When is the eighth line free to execute, in general?

#### Marvin Edwards

##### Veteran Member
There is no possibility of having taken the alternative shot, not because the action is impossible per se, but because your mental state in that moment in time did not permit the action to happen. X then Y.

What happens in the restaurant also holds true in the pool room. Instead of reading a "menu", I will be "reading the table". Given the current position of the balls on the table, I see several shots that are physically possible. Impossible shots are excluded from consideration, because we don't want to waste time or energy considering the impossible. So, before we spend any time considering our options, it must be the case that we believe these options to be possible to choose and possible to carry out.

I see that the 5 ball in the corner pocket as not only possible, but very easy. Unfortunately, it leaves the cue ball in a position that gives my opponent an equally easy shot. So, I consider the 3 ball in the side pocket. This shot is harder, but it is not impossible. And, even if I miss, the cue ball will be in a bad position for my opponent, leaving her without any easy shots.

I could have chosen the 5 ball in the corner pocket. But I chose the 3 ball in the side pocket. Both were real possibilities.

The series of mental events were X then Y, all the way through. And each mental event was "fixed" by the prior events. And this included reading the table, to find the several shots that I could take, then considering the consequences of each shot, and deciding that the 3 ball in the side pocket would be the shot I would take, even though I could take the 5 ball in the corner pocket.

All of these events, that took place solely within my imagination, constitute the inner necessity that made my choice inevitable.

Your own definition of determinism tells you that actions are fixed, that no alternate actions may happen.

No alternate actions will happen. I will perceive, by simply reading the table, that the 5 ball in the corner is a real possibility. And I will also see that the 3 ball in the side pocket is a real possibility too. Both can be chosen, and both are physically possible to carry out. Each is a realizable alternative. Once I have established two or more real possibilities, I will consider the likely consequences of each choice, and I decide to attempt the 3 ball in the side pocket.

If there were only one shot that was physically possible, then I would have no choice but to take that shot. But there were two possibilities, not just one. There were two shots that I might choose, even though there was only one shot that I would choose.

All of that is X then Y, with no deviation or alternative to that specific series of events. Within those "fixed" events we have two possibilities that were seriously considered, two pool shots that I could take. One of them, the 5 ball in the corner pocket, became the thing that I would not choose, even though I could have. The other, the 3 ball in the side pocket, became the thing that I inevitably would choose.

It's just the English language.

If your brain state had been different, you could have taken the shot....but of course, given determinism, your brain was not different, it cannot be different, hence what you imagine you 'could have done' had things been different is merely a construct of imagination.

The imagination is the "room where it happens". It is where choosing happens and it is where all possibilities reside and are explored. My opponent will not allow me to take practice shots on the pool table during the game. I have to imagine the likely outcome of my shots and then select the shot most likely to produce the best outcome.

It is the key component of that inner necessity that you keep referencing, while you continue to deny its causal role in the chain of events.

“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

I love that quote. It pithily explains why causal determinism is never experienced as a meaningful or relevant constraint. You are never being forced to do anything that you don't want to do. Thus, it is neither coercion nor an undue influence. It presents no challenge to free will. It is just you being you, doing what you wanted to do. It is basically "what you would have done anyway".

Or, as I like to say, determinism doesn't actually change anything.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
I wonder if Marvin has trouble figuring out what to eat at a restaurant

One can always flip a coin or roll a die. Chinese menus with multiple choices in multiple columns are particularly problematic.

Mustard or ketchup on a hot dog always gives me trouble.

#### Marvin Edwards

##### Veteran Member
I wonder if Marvin has trouble figuring out what to eat at a restaurant

One can always flip a coin or roll a die. Chinese menus with multiple choices in multiple columns are particularly problematic.

Mustard or ketchup on a hot dog always gives me trouble.
Geez, you decide to pick on me, and all of a sudden you can spell!

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
I wonder if Marvin has trouble figuring out what to eat at a restaurant

One can always flip a coin or roll a die. Chinese menus with multiple choices in multiple columns are particularly problematic.

Mustard or ketchup on a hot dog always gives me trouble.
Geez, you decide to pick on me, and all of a sudden you can spell!
Ouch.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Doesn't make any difference to the issue of free will to say 'this is all you.' You have no access to the underlying mechanisms and means of your existence, how you think, what you think or how you act. The state of the system is the state of you, there is no choice in that.
Indeed. The underlying mechanisms are inaccessible, so it's impossible to determine from outside what the system (the inner necessity, the person, YOU) will do.

An outside observer can determine what you could do; What you can do, given the circumstances. The menu lists steak and salad, but not lobster. You can order steak, or salad; You cannot order lobster.

But nobody, not even you yourself, can work out what you will do, until you do it.

That's the only freedom that's available - freedom from predictability.

Nobody here is arguing for freedom from deterministic necessity. There is only one possible action you will take; That's trivially true, and completely irrelevant to anything.

But which you will take, out of the many that an observer would predict that you can take, is unknown until you choose one. Even if that observer is you.

And responsibility for that choice falls on you, as the most relevant agent. Of course you didn't have a choice about the things that made you who you are; But those things are diffuse and numerous, and it's impossible to tell which ones were the cause of your actions. What, or who, else should we blame if your choices lead to bad outcomes?

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
But, me (I can't write this because it reads sexist in current context) ..etty, we fallen over that piece of language with 'response'. So quit complaining with long dead pigs drawn across logical pathways
No pedí la ensalada, tráeme el bistec, por favor

and we don't make predictions we guess and express
"And we don't make informed guesses, we make guesses"

Nice contradiction there, as if information about the system cannot be known despite you making discussions about knowing things about the system through science.

Clarification needed. Are your 'predictions' about present reality or our impressions of reality based on our reacting to past sensed events
... I've explained this a few times. All predictions are about making the logical inference that information about the past implies relationships of cause and effect, and simulating the output of a decision with various different inputs to find the best input, and then when the best hypothetical input is known, selecting that input in particular.

behavior is designed

We aren't sensing reality
Ah, so if the sensor in my eye is not really generating output proportional to the energy level of photons?

Is my ear not generating output proportional to the time/frequency transform of patterned deflections in the air?

Ooh, I guess my tongue is not really detecting the precise binding and unbinding energies of nearby ions and sugars and so on being expressed against their structure?

Indirect detection in the presence of reliable cause and effect is valid.
My 'behavior is designed' is the part evolution plays in resulting sensory systems that is driven by survival rather than objectivity. Its more about which photons and what frequencies. But it is also about physics which is limited by what evolution can provide and whether what evolution provides is copacetic with reality.

...and no your tongue and analytic substrates can't really verify their outputs with object structure. It's a dance limited by the relation between what drives evolution and what is reality.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
That there are a number of options on the menu doesn't mean that any customer can take any option at any time.
They can take any option at any time if they chose that option at that time.

To wit, they consider the option, simulate the future as if they did choose it, see the outcome of that process being unfortunate, and then freely decide to let that opportunity pass.

Or they cease predicting the outcomes of such trivialities altogether because after the first few times they discovered paying attention to such options literally makes them nauseous (as an evolved mechanism to prevent worse regret).

Normally It's some one in place to encourages fast runners notices that a running individual ran pretty fast. What the runner did was choose to accept the advice and run with a team or as a sponsored individual. Most of the time races implicitly choose runners who qualify or meet criteria and agree to participate. Sometimes runners choose to run.

Not only did I become a specialist I also participated in track in school and college.

We choose and think a lot less than you seem to advocate. Mostly it's bump in to this then bump in to that.

Sure. It can be that way as well.
In all cases except the one where the runner has no choice but "to run or to be killed" the runner chooses to run.

In the (perhaps not so rare) decision to run to save ones life, the decision is not to run but to live, and have more decisions ahead of oneself. The body, after deciding "live", something few people have personal control over, makes that decision without allowing the forebrain any leverage in the transaction.

Thus "we" generally are not the ones doing that choosing (to live through an encounter), and so "we" are not the ones held responsible for making the choice.

We even have, as a result of the pursuit of psychology, various models for both imposed and automatic behavior modification.
Everything you specify is in reference to the individual rather than in reference to reality.

DBT

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
But, me (I can't write this because it reads sexist in current context) ..etty, we fallen over that piece of language with 'response'. So quit complaining with long dead pigs drawn across logical pathways
No pedí la ensalada, tráeme el bistec, por favor

and we don't make predictions we guess and express
"And we don't make informed guesses, we make guesses"

Nice contradiction there, as if information about the system cannot be known despite you making discussions about knowing things about the system through science.

Clarification needed. Are your 'predictions' about present reality or our impressions of reality based on our reacting to past sensed events
... I've explained this a few times. All predictions are about making the logical inference that information about the past implies relationships of cause and effect, and simulating the output of a decision with various different inputs to find the best input, and then when the best hypothetical input is known, selecting that input in particular.

behavior is designed

We aren't sensing reality
Ah, so if the sensor in my eye is not really generating output proportional to the energy level of photons?

Is my ear not generating output proportional to the time/frequency transform of patterned deflections in the air?

Ooh, I guess my tongue is not really detecting the precise binding and unbinding energies of nearby ions and sugars and so on being expressed against their structure?

Indirect detection in the presence of reliable cause and effect is valid.
Last first. Indirect detection can never be valid. It can only be relatively valid if one specifies to what or whom it is objectively relatively valid. All I can say is I know Bayes. Bayes is a friend of mine Bayes it the primary one to whom I refer whenever there are relative statements made. Guess what. A probability statement results.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Doesn't make any difference to the issue of free will to say 'this is all you.' You have no access to the underlying mechanisms and means of your existence, how you think, what you think or how you act. The state of the system is the state of you, there is no choice in that.
Indeed. The underlying mechanisms are inaccessible, so it's impossible to determine from outside what the system (the inner necessity, the person, YOU) will do.

Neither can we as conscious beings who are inside the system, being shaped, formed and generated by the brain's information processing activity. Information processing is not a matter of free will. How we think, feel and act is a matter of brain information condition from moment to moment, Given a breakdown in function, memory, connectivity, lesions, etc, we disintegrate as rational conscious beings.

Functionality does not equate to free will

An outside observer can determine what you could do; What you can do, given the circumstances. The menu lists steak and salad, but not lobster. You can order steak, or salad; You cannot order lobster.

Only because human behaviour is to some predictable. The better you know a person, the more accurately you can predict what they are thinking in any given circumstances. In some circumstances, how people react is quite predictable.

Again, nothing to do with free will.

But nobody, not even you yourself, can work out what you will do, until you do it.

That is an essential point against the notion of free will . That response is determined by an interaction of circumstances/environment and brain state in each moment as the system evolves (we are talking determinism).

That's the only freedom that's available - freedom from predictability.

Which does not equate to free will.

Plus, unpredictability within a deterministic system is a matter of not having access to the necessary information to make accurate predictions, and not that determinism is not predictable.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

''To a determinist, all choice is illusory. The literal meaning of choice is that there are multiple options, and the person selects one of them. Thus, choice requires multiple possible outcomes, which is a no-no to determinism. To the determinist, the march of causality will make one outcome inevitable, and so it is wrong to believe that anything else was possible. The chooser does not yet know which option he or she is going to choose, hence the subjective experience of choice. Thus, the subjective choosing is simply a matter of one's own ignorance - ignorance that those other outcomes are not really possibilities at all.''

And of course, compatibilists are determinists who define free will in relation to determinism as ''acting in accordance with one's will, without external force, coercion or undue influence.'

#### DBT

##### Contributor
There is no possibility of having taken the alternative shot, not because the action is impossible per se, but because your mental state in that moment in time did not permit the action to happen. X then Y.

What happens in the restaurant also holds true in the pool room. Instead of reading a "menu", I will be "reading the table". Given the current position of the balls on the table, I see several shots that are physically possible. Impossible shots are excluded from consideration, because we don't want to waste time or energy considering the impossible. So, before we spend any time considering our options, it must be the case that we believe these options to be possible to choose and possible to carry out.

Sure, the brain acquires information from its environment, processes it and generates a response. You learn to play pool and the brain sees the positions and relationships between balls and recognizes opportunities to score.

Brain function and information processing at work. A rational intelligent system (if healthy and functional).

“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

I love that quote. It pithily explains why causal determinism is never experienced as a meaningful or relevant constraint. You are never being forced to do anything that you don't want to do. Thus, it is neither coercion nor an undue influence. It presents no challenge to free will. It is just you being you, doing what you wanted to do. It is basically "what you would have done anyway".

Or, as I like to say, determinism doesn't actually change anything.

It is the ultimate constraint for choice and free will. Choice is defined as the possibility of taking any one of a number of options, whereas determinism only permits one possible outcome.

Hence it is not possible that you could have wanted otherwise.

Your want is just as fixed as the inevitable action that follows.

That is the point of Kane's remark.
.

#### Marvin Edwards

##### Veteran Member
Everything you specify is in reference to the individual rather than in reference to reality.

I think that would be another false dichotomy. I'm pretty sure that individuals exist in reality.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
survival rather than objectivity
Survival is an objective measure. Either the relationship between matter that creates the engine remains as a functional engine or it does not. It is either arranged as an object or it is not.

Survival is an objective goal, and goals are objects within "wills" which are objects whose particular properties will interact with other objects, behavioral engines and which will inevitably drive them towards output.

Both the engine and the script are objects. Both the proteins/enzymes (an engine) in your cells and the DNA (a script) that they read are objects.

Its more about which photons and what frequencies
Photons are objects. Frequencies of their motion are properties those objects have owing to their energy level, additional properties of objects.
But it is also about physics which is limited by what evolution can provide
Physics is not limited by evolution, Evolution is limited by physics...

and no your tongue and analytic substrates can't really verify their outputs with object structure
They create the outputs with their objective structure. Your attempt to inject verification as if double-checking and verification was necessary for collection...

...dance betweenwhat drives evolution and what is reality...

So what drives evolution is not reality?

Indirect detection can never be valid
All detection of everything is indirect. So you are really implying that no detection is valid of anything ever.

Yet again it's a No-True-Scotsman coming from FDI...

All I can say is I know Bayes. Bayes is a friend of mine
Sure he is. Point him my way and maybe we can have a chat. But making a name drop and a hand wave does not establish anything close to an "argument". While we as humans generally don't bother with quantifying error in our sensory input, it does not change the fact that the error in that input is still bounded in predictable ways and capable of being measured, and even validated against other indirect forms of measuring.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
Everything you specify is in reference to the individual rather than in reference to reality.

I think that would be another false dichotomy. I'm pretty sure that individuals exist in reality.
There you go.... again. Humans are real therefore they exist in reality. I'm thunderstruck. Humans are evolved therefore they exist evolutionarily. Reality and evolution are two different causes. Resolve that and you'll find where humans live. Oh, wait. Reality and evolution impose different requirements on humans. Evolution takes advantage of humans not knowing the nature of reality so they evolve based on the principle of survival, a demand that one uses what remains rather than one uses least energy.

It may appear they are the same. But situations driving evolution change based on conditions at hand. That is very different than objective conditions of material reduction which drive the real world. Yet reality provides space for evolution referring to a particular being. One has to do some pretty fancy reduction to get from evolution to reality. Only when one has done so will one understand the difference between evolution drivers and reality drivers.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Reality and evolution are two different causes

I guess the one thing that I can accept is that the reality of your evolution, has caused you to lose touch with reality.

Maybe give Bayes my number and maybe he and I can have coffee some time.

Or my email? It's not hard to figure out. I'm on Gmail, after all.

WAB

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
survival rather than objectivity
Survival is an objective measure. Either the relationship between matter that creates the engine remains as a functional engine or it does not. It is either arranged as an object or it is not.

Survival is an objective goal, and goals are objects within "wills" which are objects whose particular properties will interact with other objects, behavioral engines and which will inevitably drive them towards output.

Both the engine and the script are objects. Both the proteins/enzymes (an engine) in your cells and the DNA (a script) that they read are objects.

Its more about which photons and what frequencies
Photons are objects. Frequencies of their motion are properties those objects have owing to their energy level, additional properties of objects.
But it is also about physics which is limited by what evolution can provide
Physics is not limited by evolution, Evolution is limited by physics...

and no your tongue and analytic substrates can't really verify their outputs with object structure
They create the outputs with their objective structure. Your attempt to inject verification as if double-checking and verification was necessary for collection...

...dance betweenwhat drives evolution and what is reality...

So what drives evolution is not reality?

Indirect detection can never be valid
All detection of everything is indirect. So you are really implying that no detection is valid of anything ever.

Yet again it's a No-True-Scotsman coming from FDI...

All I can say is I know Bayes. Bayes is a friend of mine
Sure he is. Point him my way and maybe we can have a chat. But making a name drop and a hand wave does not establish anything close to an "argument". While we as humans generally don't bother with quantifying error in our sensory input, it does not change the fact that the error in that input is still bounded in predictable ways and capable of being measured, and even validated against other indirect forms of measuring.
Amazing how you jump to false conclusions based on your logic, rather than realty based analysis. That one 'can' predict does not fall to one 'does' predict. Let me 'splain. Logic demands one does predict whilst reality determines the prediction of which one 'can' is relative to one, not universal.

DBT

#### Marvin Edwards

##### Veteran Member
What happens in the restaurant also holds true in the pool room. Instead of reading a "menu", I will be "reading the table". I will hopefully see several shots that are (a) physically possible and (b) that I am able to make. The next step is choosing which shot to take, because I must state which shot I will attempt before actually taking it.

In the restaurant I must tell the waiter what I will have for dinner. In the pool room I must tell my opponent what shot I will take.

In the pool room, as in the restaurant, (a) there must be at least two things to choose from, and (b) it must be possible to choose either one. Both conditions must be met, before I can even begin weighing my options.

If the menu lists only one item, then choosing doesn't happen. But if we find ourselves considering two or more real possibilities, then choosing is happening.

Choosing happens by causal necessity. We find it happening all the time, and we've provided examples in the restaurant as we choose our dinner and in the pool room as we choose our shot. Apparently it is fixed by deterministic necessity that choosing will happen a lot.

Sure, the brain acquires information from its environment, processes it and generates a response. You learn to play pool and the brain sees the positions and relationships between balls and recognizes opportunities to score.

Brain function and information processing at work. A rational intelligent system (if healthy and functional).

Both in the restaurant and in the pool room, the controlling information process is called choosing, whether it is choosing what I will order for dinner or choosing which shot to take on the pool table.

“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

I love that quote. It pithily explains why causal determinism is never experienced as a meaningful or relevant constraint. You are never being forced to do anything that you don't want to do. Thus, it is neither coercion nor an undue influence. It presents no challenge to free will. It is just you being you, doing what you wanted to do. It is basically "what you would have done anyway".

Or, as I like to say, determinism doesn't actually change anything.

It is the ultimate constraint for choice and free will.

Apparently not.

Choice is defined as the possibility of taking any one of a number of options, whereas determinism only permits one possible outcome.

Determinism only permits one actual outcome. When choosing, the number of possible outcomes is only limited by our imagination, which of course is a deterministic process, which obviously produces multiple possibilities from which WE will choose the actual outcome.

You see, determinism doesn't actually change anything. It simply points out the fact that everything that happens was always going to happen, exactly as it did happen. We would choose our dinner in the restaurant, and we would choose our shot on the pool table, from several real possibilities. It was always going to happen exactly like it did happen. Our having multiple options and choosing between them was inevitable. Determinism doesn't actually change anything.

Hence it is not possible that you could have wanted otherwise.

Figuratively true, but literally false due to the literal meaning of the words "possible" and "could". The literal truth is that "it was not actual that we would have wanted otherwise".

Your want is just as fixed as the inevitable action that follows. That is the point of Kane's remark.

Exactly. Thus determinism has not changed anything, because I am always choosing to do what I decide for myself that I want most to do. To view this condition as a meaningful or relevant "constraint" would be a delusion.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
That one 'can' predict does not fall to one 'does' predict
Predictions are not absolute declarations of the future. They are predictions not prophecies, after all.
Let me 'splain
Sure...

Logic demands one does predict whilst reality determines the prediction of which one 'can' is relative to one, not universal.
This is not an explanation though, it's a bare assertion.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
Reality and evolution are two different causes

I guess the one thing that I can accept is that the reality of your evolution, has caused you to lose touch with reality.

Maybe give Bayes my number and maybe he and I can have coffee some time.

Or my email? It's not hard to figure out. I'm on Gmail, after all.
Since I'm evolved rather than directly driven by physics I have to understand the relation between the two. One exists in reality. That's physics. What and how one operates is determined by what reality evolution left for us. A spiny lobster's brain permits reaction to inputs whereas humans have evolved brains which permit one to do otherwise.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Since I'm evolved rather than directly driven by physics
Duality, at it's finest, folks.

No, to be evolved IS to be directly driven by physics.

That is what is meant by "deterministic".

I am driven by physics, the computer is driven by physics, every damn thing in the whole fucking universe is driven by physics.

That is what you say when you say "the universe is deterministic, or at least that's how literally everyone else defines the word "Deterministic".

You are so far into the ocean of not-even-wrong, you swim in the same depths as the leviathans in the bathtub*.

*This is a reference to the #1 fstdt quote, where a fundamentalist went on about a delusion about slaying leviathan in a hotel bathtub.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
Evolution is reality relative to you in the world which is driven by where you are and what are your genetics. I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing but you are hiding behind the guise of 'physics of realty' which requires translation from particular to some general notion of reality. Not playing.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Evolution is reality relative to you in the world which is driven by where you are and what are your genetics. I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing but you are hiding behind the guise of 'reality'.

Evolution is not even determined solely by genetics. There are multiple different models of evolution, there is nothing subjective about it.

Yet again you are trying to wave your hands and pretend that the processes by which the logical and mathematical principles of universal function are isolated.

The very existence of evolution is a revealer of the fact that the universe has laws of behavior, truth, which is consistent in it's own way, revealing general laws of function.

But moreover it is a red herring. Genetic evolution is not the only kind of knowledge seeking system.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
RE: "not even" NS Red Rider. No one intimated it is.

The difference between the reality of an evolved being and simple physical reality is organization which you actually pointed to in your post. As for laws of function those would be similar to laws of logic which come from the mind of Meniscus, a presumptive fellow, who 'knows' things through reflex.

BTW is your knowledge seeking system anything like a 'self' organizing system. One that by structure replicates something embedded in it's structure? Yes something emerges. It's not seeking. It is designed to produce, replicate. Nothing new here. As for evolution it's 'creation' output is by random situational act - most call such happenstance - not seeking.

Last edited:

#### DBT

##### Contributor
What happens in the restaurant also holds true in the pool room. Instead of reading a "menu", I will be "reading the table". I will hopefully see several shots that are (a) physically possible and (b) that I am able to make. The next step is choosing which shot to take, because I must state which shot I will attempt before actually taking it.

In the restaurant I must tell the waiter what I will have for dinner. In the pool room I must tell my opponent what shot I will take.

In the pool room, as in the restaurant, (a) there must be at least two things to choose from, and (b) it must be possible to choose either one. Both conditions must be met, before I can even begin weighing my options.

If the menu lists only one item, then choosing doesn't happen. But if we find ourselves considering two or more real possibilities, then choosing is happening.

Choosing happens by causal necessity. We find it happening all the time, and we've provided examples in the restaurant as we choose our dinner and in the pool room as we choose our shot. Apparently it is fixed by deterministic necessity that choosing will happen a lot.

Determinism is, by the terms of your own definition, a process of entailment and necessity, not choice. The actions that are performed must be performed as determined, no deviation, no alternatives, no selecting perhaps this, perhaps that....everything that happens are performed necessarily and without deviation.

Your use of 'choosing' is therefore false. Choosing does not exist in determinism. The decision making process is one of entailment, not choice.

The system unfolds, evolves or develops as it must, not according to how something is chosen.

Choice requires realizable alternatives.

Determinism has none.

Sure, the brain acquires information from its environment, processes it and generates a response. You learn to play pool and the brain sees the positions and relationships between balls and recognizes opportunities to score.

Brain function and information processing at work. A rational intelligent system (if healthy and functional).

Both in the restaurant and in the pool room, the controlling information process is called choosing, whether it is choosing what I will order for dinner or choosing which shot to take on the pool table.

Controlling? Choosing? There are deviations, no alternatives and picking or choosing what to do. Every action is entailed, not chosen. That includes each and every incremental step in brain activity as inputs interact with neural networks and memory function.

“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

I love that quote. It pithily explains why causal determinism is never experienced as a meaningful or relevant constraint. You are never being forced to do anything that you don't want to do. Thus, it is neither coercion nor an undue influence. It presents no challenge to free will. It is just you being you, doing what you wanted to do. It is basically "what you would have done anyway".

Or, as I like to say, determinism doesn't actually change anything.

Nothing can deviate. There are no alternatives.

It is the ultimate constraint for choice and free will.

Apparently not.

Only in one's imagination, if the crucial terms and conditions are ignored. What is imagined doesn't necessarily relate to the physical world.

Choice is defined as the possibility of taking any one of a number of options, whereas determinism only permits one possible outcome.

Determinism only permits one actual outcome. When choosing, the number of possible outcomes is only limited by our imagination, which of course is a deterministic process, which obviously produces multiple possibilities from which WE will choose the actual outcome.

What you do was fixed long before you come to the point of performing the actions. What you do is entailed, not chosen.

''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.''

You see, determinism doesn't actually change anything. It simply points out the fact that everything that happens was always going to happen, exactly as it did happen. We would choose our dinner in the restaurant, and we would choose our shot on the pool table, from several real possibilities. It was always going to happen exactly like it did happen. Our having multiple options and choosing between them was inevitable. Determinism doesn't actually change anything.

Nobody has said that determinism 'changes something' contrary to the how the system must necessarily progress.

That is the point, that determinism is a system where outcomes are entailed by antecedents, and entailment is not a matter of choice.

Hence it is not possible that you could have wanted otherwise.

Figuratively true, but literally false due to the literal meaning of the words "possible" and "could". The literal truth is that "it was not actual that we would have wanted otherwise".

Irrelevant. The system simply evolves as it must.

Your want is just as fixed as the inevitable action that follows. That is the point of Kane's remark.

Exactly. Thus determinism has not changed anything, because I am always choosing to do what I decide for myself that I want most to do. To view this condition as a meaningful or relevant "constraint" would be a delusion.

The point is not about determinism changing anything.

#### Marvin Edwards

##### Veteran Member
Determinism is, by the terms of your own definition, a process of entailment and necessity, not choice.

I've shown you choosing, in the restaurant and at the pool table. Determinism says that if it actually happens, then it necessarily must have happened, that it was entailed that it would happen, exactly as it did.

To claim that something, which we've both seen happening, never actually happened, is delusional.

The actions that are performed must be performed as determined, no deviation, no alternatives, no selecting perhaps this, perhaps that....everything that happens are performed necessarily and without deviation.

You're still drawing a false dichotomy between determined actions and the action of selecting. Determinism means that selecting must necessarily happen, and it must happen exactly as it does happen, without deviation.

Choosing does not exist in determinism.

Delusional.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
BTW is your knowledge seeking system anything like a 'self' organizing system
In your worldview is there no concept of a thing whose properties lead to the thing itself being changed?

But then again if you dispose of the idea of "self", you dispose of the idea of "thing" and even "quantity", and "location", because these are all different contextualization a of the same thing: addresses. I expect this is an unwanted side effect, but also unavoidable.

The very concepts of momentum, energy, and entropy were derived from these ideas of relative difference in positions of things.

If there are local phenomena limited by some speed of information, then the fundamental basis of "self" is satisfied in "here" and "there".

You are trying to pretend there are no trees in the forest.