Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Marvin Edwards]

... Rather, the thing that lays an activation pattern against a set of neurons ("a hand") on their set of neurons indicating what concept to direct at Wernicke's area while activating the affirmative channel to direct this not at the shadow neurons but at the mouth and finger to actually move ("on their finger") and does indeed force them to say no matter what they want to shove out that interface "I'll have the steak".

I would say that there is a set of neurons that want the salad and another set of neurons that want the steak, and a third set of neurons weighing the signals from the other two sets and choosing the salad. All of these neurons are integral parts of who and what I am. Thus, it is still me, and no one else, weighing my options and making my choice.

 

[Jarhyn]

... Rather, the thing that lays an activation pattern against a set of neurons ("a hand") on their set of neurons indicating what concept to direct at Wernicke's area while activating the affirmative channel to direct this not at the shadow neurons but at the mouth and finger to actually move ("on their finger") and does indeed force them to say no matter what they want to shove out that interface "I'll have the steak".

I would say that there is a set of neurons that want the salad and another set of neurons that want the steak, and a third set of neurons weighing the signals from the other two sets and choosing the salad. All of these neurons are integral parts of who and what I am. Thus, it is still me, and no one else, weighing my options and making my choice.

I wouldn't entirely consider such "integral". I would still be "me" if I swapped them out, dissipated, generated, or otherwise changed them.

Still, they are my options and I can make up my own script, too, aside from those things. I can pick up a dice, roll it, and let THAT operate my choice function, too.

My point here is that there's a function that sometimes does, occasionally, do this thing of pulling the finger away.

I very much did not want to be given a concussion from physical abuse endured while hiding in my safe place.... By blows from my own fist.

There is no world where I wanted that. I knew the decision was made, that there was some democratic override of... Me... And that resulted in me being punched repeatedly in the head.

I couldn't be on that couch for a week, right up until I resorted to chemical measures.

I didn't want that.

My point is that this can happen to others almost certainly, to more or less of an extent, that they don't really have free will.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

... Rather, the thing that lays an activation pattern against a set of neurons ("a hand") on their set of neurons indicating what concept to direct at Wernicke's area while activating the affirmative channel to direct this not at the shadow neurons but at the mouth and finger to actually move ("on their finger") and does indeed force them to say no matter what they want to shove out that interface "I'll have the steak".

I would say that there is a set of neurons that want the salad and another set of neurons that want the steak, and a third set of neurons weighing the signals from the other two sets and choosing the salad. All of these neurons are integral parts of who and what I am. Thus, it is still me, and no one else, weighing my options and making my choice.

I wouldn't entirely consider such "integral". I would still be "me" if I swapped them out, dissipated, generated, or otherwise changed them.

Still, they are my options and I can make up my own script, too, aside from those things. I can pick up a dice, roll it, and let THAT operate my choice function, too.

My point here is that there's a function that sometimes does, occasionally, do this thing of pulling the finger away.

I very much did not want to be given a concussion from physical abuse endured while hiding in my safe place.... By blows from my own fist.

There is no world where I wanted that. I knew the decision was made, that there was some democratic override of... Me... And that resulted in me being punched repeatedly in the head.

I couldn't be on that couch for a week, right up until I resorted to chemical measures.

I didn't want that.

My point is that this can happen to others almost certainly, to more or less of an extent, that they don't really have free will.

Of course. But they may still exercise control in most other matters of their life. And there are helpers out there, psychologists and therapists, that can provide meaningful assistance to minimize if not eliminate specific problems.

 

[Jarhyn]

... Rather, the thing that lays an activation pattern against a set of neurons ("a hand") on their set of neurons indicating what concept to direct at Wernicke's area while activating the affirmative channel to direct this not at the shadow neurons but at the mouth and finger to actually move ("on their finger") and does indeed force them to say no matter what they want to shove out that interface "I'll have the steak".

I would say that there is a set of neurons that want the salad and another set of neurons that want the steak, and a third set of neurons weighing the signals from the other two sets and choosing the salad. All of these neurons are integral parts of who and what I am. Thus, it is still me, and no one else, weighing my options and making my choice.

I wouldn't entirely consider such "integral". I would still be "me" if I swapped them out, dissipated, generated, or otherwise changed them.

Still, they are my options and I can make up my own script, too, aside from those things. I can pick up a dice, roll it, and let THAT operate my choice function, too.

My point here is that there's a function that sometimes does, occasionally, do this thing of pulling the finger away.

I very much did not want to be given a concussion from physical abuse endured while hiding in my safe place.... By blows from my own fist.

There is no world where I wanted that. I knew the decision was made, that there was some democratic override of... Me... And that resulted in me being punched repeatedly in the head.

I couldn't be on that couch for a week, right up until I resorted to chemical measures.

I didn't want that.

My point is that this can happen to others almost certainly, to more or less of an extent, that they don't really have free will.

Of course. But they may still exercise control in most other matters of their life. And there are helpers out there, psychologists and therapists, that can provide meaningful assistance to minimize if not eliminate specific problems.

Yes, they "may"... Unless they may not.

Some people are abuse victims of their own mind, and really have so little free will that it's more useful to them to just pretend there is not any rather than accept that there is. Or worse something demented and evil in them treats it like Lucy's Football and tortures them with it.

Indeed getting help would probably be edit almost every such person, quieting the evil and freeing them from the cage it puts them in either through chemical or mindful assistance.

Hard Determinism seems to be such an extreme coping mechanism that I just don't expect to see it forming in healthy minds. As you point out it leads directly to a loss of function, and I don't think most minds gravitate towards abdication of function unless something serious is happening that still, paradoxically, protects overall function.

 

[DBT]

Sure, but it appears that some tend to give the impression that 'reliable' suggests the possibility of regulation, determinism merely being 'reliable,' we may bend it to our will and purpose.

(A) I don't know where you get that impression. If a specific cause, or a specific combination of causes, reliably brings about a specific effect, then the behavior is deterministic. We can employ those causes to bring about a specific effect.

'Reliably' is not quite the same as 'inevitably.' You don't 'employ' the inevitable, the inevitable employs you. 'Employ' suggests autonomous agency, someone who can employ the reliability of deterministic events and use them for their puroposes.

That's not how determinism works.

(B) What we do and how we do it will, of course, also be reliably caused, mostly through internal mechanisms, but all of these mechanisms will also have histories of reliable cause and effect, such that there is a more general, all encompassing sense of causal necessity that we also assume to the be case.

However the sense in B does not eliminate the sense in A. And we naturally employ the sense in A routinely every day. But we have no practical use of the sense in B.

Not just reliably caused, but fixed, as are all events within a deterministic system, each action and response, thought, will or purpose entailed by the evolving state of the system, neither freely chosen or willed.

If Joe occasionally overlooks a promise, then he is, by definition, unreliable. We cannot predict whether Joe will do what he promised or whether he will fail to do what he promised. His behavior cannot be predicted by his promise. In this sense, his behavior is indeterministic.

I was referring to the use of the word ''reliable'' - which does not exclude unreliability. Something may be considered to reliable or unreliable.

Of course, in either case, whether he keeps or fails to keep his promise, it will be deterministic, in that it will be reliably caused. If he keeps his promise then that will be reliably caused. If he fails to keep his promise, then that too will be reliably caused. We may not know the specific cause of his erratic (indeterministic in the sense of unpredictable) behavior, but we still presume there is a reliable cause in each case. We just don't know what it is.

Sure, that being an example of how we perceive events in terms of reliability or unreliability, in contrast to how the world, if deterministic, actually works. Whatever Joe does is entailed regardless of our perception of reliability or unreliability (limited information).

Reliable and unreliable being relative terms, while 'determined' is fixed, entailed, no negotiation, no regulation, no wriggle room, no deviation.

 

[DBT]

If prior states of the system entail current and future states of the system, choosing doesn't come into it.

States of the System:
1. We're hungry, and we've just sat down at a table in the restaurant.
2. We've picked up the menu (in order to satisfy our hunger, we must choose something from the menu).
3. We are considering that juicy Steak.
4. But then we recall that we had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch.
5. We go back to the menu to look for some vegetables.
6. We find several salads, and the Chef Salad looks good.
7. We have decided to order the Chef Salad.
8. We tell the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

All of this is entailed by the state of the system as it evolves from prior state to current and future state, each state entailing the next.

What you do, you must necessarily do. No alternatives, no multiple or alternate possibilities, everything proceeds as determined, not chosen.

A choice implies the possibility of doing something different.

Determinism - by definition - does not permit deviation, consequently, there is no choice.

As you can see, (a) each state of the system entails the next state of the system and (b) choosing was right there in the middle of it.

What is entailed by the system is not a matter of choosing. Actions unfold as they must.

Once again, the claim that "if prior states of the system entail current and future states of the system, choosing doesn't come into it", is simply and very obviously false.

Not at all. Choosing is defined by the possibility of doing something else, which is something that cannot happen when it comes to determinism.

Choosing not only happens, but it necessarily happens. It was causally necessary/inevitable, from any prior point in eternity, that choosing would happen right then and right there in the restaurant.

There is no alternative. A river doesn't choose its course. The moon doesn't choose its orbit, the brain doesn't choose its own makeup or response.

And it's not just us, but everybody in the restaurant, obviously choosing what they will have for dinner.

No alternatives; 'All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

Entailment doesn't involve choice.

Apparently it does. In fact, entailment involves every single event prior to that choice, the events within that choosing, and all events following that choice.

Nothing is chosen, the system evolves without deviation, fixed from condition at time t and how events unfold ever after.

How is it choosing when you order steak at 8:35pm on Saturday night, as determined, if is just as inevitable as raindrops falling from the sky?

It simply is what it is. Choosing is inevitable. Raining is inevitable. We cannot claim that raining is not happening due to inevitability. We cannot claim that choosing is not happening due to inevitability. Both claims are equally false.

Rain doesn't choose to fall. The earth doesn't choose to orbit the sun...

Complexity doesn't transform inevitability into freedom.

There is no such thing as "freedom from causal necessity/inevitability".

That's the point of incompatibilism, and the reason for the failure of compatibilism.

Every freedom that we have, to do anything at all, is inevitably us, inevitably deciding for ourselves, according to our own inevitable goals and our own inevitable reasons, what we will inevitably do. Got that?

Sure, that being the reason why freedom of will is incompatible with determinism.

1)If all future events are perfectly knowable, they are determined events, a fixed future.
2)The future being fixed, there is no possibility of an alternative action.
3)There being no possibility of an alternative action, a person literally cannot choose to do anything other than what has been determined to happen.
4)With no realizable alternative possibility, no decision or action is truly chosen or freely willed.

There is no need to be free from causal inevitability in order to be free to do what we want.

If the action is determined, we must necessarily do what we want.

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

Like Robert Kane said, “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.”

If my wants are inevitable, and my choosing from these wants what I will do is also inevitable, then causal inevitability is neither a meaningful nor a relevant constraint upon my doing what I want.

Being inevitable, we don't choose, we think as determined and we act.

But a guy with a gun, telling me to do what HE wants me to do, rather than what I want, is a meaningful and relevant constraint upon my freedom to do what I want.

It is a meaningful distinction, but still doesn't involve free will on the part of any of the participants of the event.

We are talking about determinism, not freedom to do other than what is entailed to happen in that instance in time and place.

We've gone over what is entailed to happen in the restaurant above, and have done so repeatedly in our prior comments. And we find that choosing is entailed. And that it was also entailed that we would not be subject to coercion or undue influence, therefore it was our own decision, our own freely chosen "I will" ("I will have the Chef Salad, please").

Again, 'choosing' implies the idea regulation and the ability to have taken a different option. No such thing can happen within a deterministic system.

You keep insisting that we use "freedom from causal necessity/inevitability" as the definition of free will. But there simply is no such thing. It is a bit of silly nonsense. There is no freedom at all without reliable cause and effect.

I am arguing that free will is incompatible with determinism for all the reasons outlined above.

And what we will inevitably do, due to causal necessity, is exactly identical to us just being us,

Not enough. Everything that exists is the same boat.

choosing to do what we choose to do. This is neither a meaningful nor a relevant constraint upon our freedom.

We cannot 'choose what we choose to do.' The system evolves, and events proceed as they must.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Hard Determinism seems to be such an extreme coping mechanism that I just don't expect to see it forming in healthy minds. As you point out it leads directly to a loss of function, and I don't think most minds gravitate towards abdication of function unless something serious is happening that still, paradoxically, protects overall function.

The human mind is suggestible. I suppose this is a genetic adaptation that aids learning, in a species like ours that enters the world lacking many of the instincts that help lesser animals survive from birth. In any case we are given to beliefs, some true and some false, and not always knowing which is which.

Hard determinism, I believe, is a paradox created by a series of false, but believable suggestions. We have the simple notion of cause and effect, which we use every day in everything we do. Then we have the notion of historical chains of causes. Then it occurs to us that everything that we think and do is part of this infinite chain. And then we lose the details of ourselves in the generality of cause and effect, and become hooked on the false belief that we are being controlled by something bigger than ourselves. Some people then use this to escape the burden of those responsibilities we experience as another part of our daily lives.

In Christianity this is summed up in the bumper-sticker slogan, "Let Go and Let God". The release of turning our will over to God and trusting that He will be responsible for our behavior if we follow His commands, is tempting. It brings a feeling of peace.

But we all have different mechanisms we use to handle stress. I've never felt the need to pummel myself, but I used to have significant bouts of OCD. I remember driving at night, and looking in the rear-view mirror, and then having this obsession that, while I was looking backward, I may have accidentally hit someone, so I end up going around the block again, paying extra attention to what is in front of me to confirm that I hit no one. But it doesn't bother me today.

 

[Jarhyn]

Hard Determinism seems to be such an extreme coping mechanism that I just don't expect to see it forming in healthy minds. As you point out it leads directly to a loss of function, and I don't think most minds gravitate towards abdication of function unless something serious is happening that still, paradoxically, protects overall function.

The human mind is suggestible. I suppose this is a genetic adaptation that aids learning, in a species like ours that enters the world lacking many of the instincts that help lesser animals survive from birth. In any case we are given to beliefs, some true and some false, and not always knowing which is which.

Hard determinism, I believe, is a paradox created by a series of false, but believable suggestions. We have the simple notion of cause and effect, which we use every day in everything we do. Then we have the notion of historical chains of causes. Then it occurs to us that everything that we think and do is part of this infinite chain. And then we lose the details of ourselves in the generality of cause and effect, and become hooked on the false belief that we are being controlled by something bigger than ourselves. Some people then use this to escape the burden of those responsibilities we experience as another part of our daily lives.

In Christianity this is summed up in the bumper-sticker slogan, "Let Go and Let God". The release of turning our will over to God and trusting that He will be responsible for our behavior if we follow His commands, is tempting. It brings a feeling of peace.

But we all have different mechanisms we use to handle stress. I've never felt the need to pummel myself, but I used to have significant bouts of OCD. I remember driving at night, and looking in the rear-view mirror, and then having this obsession that, while I was looking backward, I may have accidentally hit someone, so I end up going around the block again, paying extra attention to what is in front of me to confirm that I hit no one. But it doesn't bother me today.

To be fair, I never felt or saw the need to pummel myself either. It just... Happened. The worst part was that I knew it was going to happen, not in this dreadful "there he goes again" kind of feeling I empathetically understand from thinking about others being abused but in this "oh God, I can read it's mind, I can see what it's telling my body and I can't stop it."

The most bizarre part is that my awareness of it's intent was not the same kind of signal I get when I implement intent of my own. It was much harder to 'read'.

I just think it pays to observe why some, in the presence of so many competing suggestions, some gravitate to hard determinism, examine it, and judge it to be useful to them.

Some I accept do so as Candide did: they were taught that the world was deterministic by an idiot and then this allowed them to slough off the guilt of not considering the disgusting path they carved through space and time in their lack of consideration.

This of course catches up several times in the form of consequences, often ones that could easily be avoided by starting to recognize this capability to defer action unto some thought about whether they ought, so that they might make better decisions.

Others I expect seek it out, or even come into it themselves, owing to a need to cope with some deep aspect of their lives that is out of their control, perhaps something deeper than a neural mutiny that leads to an automatic blanket party.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The system evolves, and events proceed as they must.

And this happens to be exactly how they must proceed, because it is how they did proceed:
1. We're hungry, and we've just sat down at a table in the restaurant.
2. We've picked up the menu (in order to satisfy our hunger, we must choose something from the menu).
3. We are considering that juicy Steak.
4. But then we recall that we had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch.
5. We go back to the menu to look for some vegetables.
6. We find several salads, and the Chef Salad looks good.
7. We have decided to order the Chef Salad.
8. We tell the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

What you do, you must necessarily do.

Exactly. And there it is in front of you, precisely, what it was necessary that I would do, with no deviation.

I did not get to choose whether the choosing would happen or not. It would inevitably happen, exactly as it did happen, with me deciding to order the salad instead of the steak.

A choice implies the possibility of doing something different.

And it was possible for me to order the steak, even though it was inevitable that I would choose the salad. Try not to get confused about the distinction between a possibility and a necessity.

Determinism - by definition - does not permit deviation, consequently, there is no choice.

Determinism - by definition - does not permit deviation, consequently, there necessarily was a choice. It was inevitable that there would be a choice and it was inevitable that I would be making that choice. This is the true consequence of determinism.

Just look at the facts. Everything that happens inevitably happens. If choosing happened, then it was inevitable that it would happen. Every step listed above in the restaurant example was inevitable, including the choosing.

This is the correct understanding of deterministic causal necessity.

 

[DBT]

The system evolves, and events proceed as they must.

And this happens to be exactly how they must proceed, because it is how they did proceed:
1. We're hungry, and we've just sat down at a table in the restaurant.
2. We've picked up the menu (in order to satisfy our hunger, we must choose something from the menu).
3. We are considering that juicy Steak.
4. But then we recall that we had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch.
5. We go back to the menu to look for some vegetables.
6. We find several salads, and the Chef Salad looks good.
7. We have decided to order the Chef Salad.
8. We tell the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

It is ''must proceed'' that falsifies free will.

What must proceed has no alternatives. As events ''must proceed' as determined before the actions are played out, nothing was chosen, nothing was freely willed, everything that happens is inevitable.

Inevitability is not a foundation for freedom.

Definition of freedom
1: the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action - Merriam Webster

Inevitability is the ultimate constraint on choice and alternate action, ie, it cannot happen.

What you do, you must necessarily do.

Exactly. And there it is in front of you, precisely, what it was necessary that I would do, with no deviation.

I did not get to choose whether the choosing would happen or not. It would inevitably happen, exactly as it did happen, with me deciding to order the salad instead of the steak.

To ''choose'' means to select an action between a realizable set of realizable options...what you said does not involve deciding or choosing because no realizable options are available, only what is inevitable: the determined action.


Choose
A1
to decide what you want from two or more things or possibilities.

A choice implies the possibility of doing something different.

And it was possible for me to order the steak, even though it was inevitable that I would choose the salad. Try not to get confused about the distinction between a possibility and a necessity.

If it is inevitable, fixed by prior states of the system, there is never the possibility of choosing steak when salad is determined.

Determinism - by definition - does not permit deviation, consequently, there is no choice.

Determinism - by definition - does not permit deviation, consequently, there necessarily was a choice. It was inevitable that there would be a choice and it was inevitable that I would be making that choice. This is the true consequence of determinism.

The system entails everything that happens. If the events of the world are determined, you are not an autonomous agent making independent decisions, you act contrary to events entailed by system. According to your own definition, it cannot happen.

As no deviation is the principal element of determinism, all actions are entailed by the system, not chosen by you.

Just look at the facts. Everything that happens inevitably happens. If choosing happened, then it was inevitable that it would happen. Every step listed above in the restaurant example was inevitable, including the choosing.

This is the correct understanding of deterministic causal necessity.

It's not a matter of 'choosing.' There are no alternatives.


Choose
A1
to decide what you want from two or more things or possibilities.

1)If all future events are perfectly knowable, they are determined events, a fixed future.
2)The future being fixed, there is no possibility of an alternative action.
3)There being no possibility of an alternative action, a person literally cannot choose to do anything other than what has been determined to happen.
4)With no realizable alternative possibility, no decision or action is truly chosen or freely willed.

Which comes down to: Determinism makes it impossible for us to “cause and control our actions in the right kind of way'' to qualify as free will.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

It is ''must proceed'' that falsifies free will.

It falsifies only the paradoxical definition of free will. But the ordinary definition of free will, as a choice we make while free of coercion and undue influence, is untouched by causal necessity. Ordinary free will fully expects a world of reliable cause and effect, where I can choose to cause certain effects, like writing this comment.

What must proceed has no alternatives.

We've repeatedly demonstrated that the ways things "must proceed" happens to include events where we choose from a literal menu of alternate possibilities what we will order for dinner in the restaurant.

The way things must proceed is that we must order something from that menu if we wish to have dinner.
The way things must proceed is that we will consider the juicy steak.
The way things must proceed is that we will recall the breakfast of bacon and eggs and the double cheeseburger we had for lunch.
The way things must proceed is that we will reject the steak option and turn instead to the salad option.
The way things must proceed is that we will tell the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please."

The alternatives are all right there, in the way that things must proceed.

I don't see how you can repeatedly ignore this simple empirical fact.

As events ''must proceed' as determined before the actions are played out, nothing was chosen, nothing was freely willed, everything that happens is inevitable.

Each event, as we've gone over many time, was inevitable. The consideration of our options was inevitable. The choosing was inevitable. The fact that we would neither be coerced nor unduly influenced was inevitable.

Yes. Everything that happens is always inevitable. But the fact of inevitability does not contradict the fact of alternate possibilities. Nor does the fact of inevitability contradict the fact of choosing. Nor does the fact of inevitability contradict the fact that it would be us doing the choosing. Nor does the fact of inevitability contradict the fact that it would be our own goals and reasons that determined what we would order for dinner. Nor does the fact of inevitability contradict the fact that we would make our choice while free of coercion and undue influence, you know, "of our own free will".

The premise of inevitability does not lead to any of your conclusions.

 

[DBT]

It is ''must proceed'' that falsifies free will.

It falsifies only the paradoxical definition of free will. But the ordinary definition of free will, as a choice we make while free of coercion and undue influence, is untouched by causal necessity. Ordinary free will fully expects a world of reliable cause and effect, where I can choose to cause certain effects, like writing this comment.

That being the compatibilist definition. Which still does not involve choice. Actions are entailed by prior states of the system, not chosen, and must proceed as determined.

The ultimate in 'coercion' and 'undue influence' to the point where you cannot do otherwise, your actions are fixed by a system
which you have no control over.

What must proceed has no alternatives.

We've repeatedly demonstrated that the ways things "must proceed" happens to include events where we choose from a literal menu of alternate possibilities what we will order for dinner in the restaurant.

But we don't choose. Actions, according to your own definition, are fixed by prior states of the system, which is not freely chosen.

What is ordered, must necessarily be ordered. What all the customer's in the restaurant order, they must necessarily order, each according to their own state and condition, proclivities, etc.

The way things must proceed is that we must order something from that menu if we wish to have dinner.
The way things must proceed is that we will consider the juicy steak.
The way things must proceed is that we will recall the breakfast of bacon and eggs and the double cheeseburger we had for lunch.
The way things must proceed is that we will reject the steak option and turn instead to the salad option.
The way things must proceed is that we will tell the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please."

The alternatives are all right there, in the way that things must proceed.

I don't see how you can repeatedly ignore this simple empirical fact.

I don't ignore it. I point out the significance of these actions in relation to determinism and the claim of free will.

As events ''must proceed' as determined before the actions are played out, nothing was chosen, nothing was freely willed, everything that happens is inevitable.

Each event, as we've gone over many time, was inevitable. The consideration of our options was inevitable. The choosing was inevitable. The fact that we would neither be coerced nor unduly influenced was inevitable.

The state of the system determines, sets, fixes, all actions. There is no choosing. Not by anyone. The progression of deterministic events determines all actions. There are no alternatives.

If there were realizable alternatives, it would not be determinism. If there were realizable alternatives, you could claim choice.

But, unfortunately for free will and choice, the given definition of determinism allows no deviation, no realizable alternatives, and consequently, no choice.

Yes. Everything that happens is always inevitable. But the fact of inevitability does not contradict the fact of alternate possibilities.

The former contradicts the latter. It's an undeniable contradiction.

If events are inevitable, determined by the system as it evolves without deviation, all events must necessarily play out as determined, there can be no alternate possibilities.
Eti
You can't have it both ways. Events cannot be determined, yet have the possibility of something else happening. It's either determinism or indeterminism.

The issue here is the compatibility of the notion of free will in relation to determinism, not alternate possibilities or choosing to do something that is not determined by the system....as if the actor can manipulate a course of events to their favour.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You can't have it both ways.

Apparently we can. If choosing will inevitably happen, then choosing will inevitably happen. The fact of inevitability does not contradict the fact of choosing. You are posing a false dichotomy, which is easily demonstrated to be false.

Events cannot be determined, yet have the possibility of something else happening.

Again, a possibility need not happen in order to be a real possibility. The fact that I ordered the salad for dinner did not make ordering the steak impossible. It was a real possibility that simply was not chosen. And, we can demonstrate it is really possible, at any time, by simply ordering the steak. Watch closely now, as the waiter brings me the steak. You see?

 

[Jarhyn]

You can't have it both ways.

Apparently we can. If choosing will inevitably happen, then choosing will inevitably happen. The fact of inevitability does not contradict the fact of choosing. You are posing a false dichotomy, which is easily demonstrated to be false.

Events cannot be determined, yet have the possibility of something else happening.

Again, a possibility need not happen in order to be a real possibility. The fact that I ordered the salad for dinner did not make ordering the steak impossible. It was a real possibility that simply was not chosen. And, we can demonstrate it is really possible, at any time, by simply ordering the steak. Watch closely now, as the waiter brings me the steak. You see?

It reminds me of that JC chap asking "if it's not random and it's not intelligent, what is it? Randomness cannot do this!"

 

[DBT]

You can't have it both ways.

Apparently we can. If choosing will inevitably happen, then choosing will inevitably happen. The fact of inevitability does not contradict the fact of choosing. You are posing a false dichotomy, which is easily demonstrated to be false.

Events cannot be determined, yet have the possibility of something else happening.

Again, a possibility need not happen in order to be a real possibility. The fact that I ordered the salad for dinner did not make ordering the steak impossible. It was a real possibility that simply was not chosen. And, we can demonstrate it is really possible, at any time, by simply ordering the steak. Watch closely now, as the waiter brings me the steak. You see?

It reminds me of that JC chap asking "if it's not random and it's not intelligent, what is it? Randomness cannot do this!"

That doesn't relate to anything I said. What you need to do is actually consider the implications of your own definition of determinism in relation to the notion of free will.

 

[DBT]

You can't have it both ways.

Apparently we can. If choosing will inevitably happen, then choosing will inevitably happen. The fact of inevitability does not contradict the fact of choosing. You are posing a false dichotomy, which is easily demonstrated to be false.

Except that you can't have it both ways. The given definition of determinism doesn't allow the possibility of 'both ways' or taking a selected option. A progression of events that cannot deviate does not select from a range of options. With no alternate options to choose or to take, there is no choosing, hence no 'fact of choosing.'

Choosing, by definition, requires being presented with two or more realizable options where you free to take any one of them.

Determinism entails that every action must proceed without deviation, which means that there are no two or more options to choose from, and all actions proceed, not as chosen, but as they must.

Choice
1 an act or instance of choosing; selection: Her choice of a computer was made after months of research. His parents were not happy with his choice of friends.

2 the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option:The child had no choice about going to school.
the person or thing chosen or eligible to be chosen:This book is my choice. He is one of many choices for the award.

3 an alternative: There is another choice.

Events cannot be determined, yet have the possibility of something else happening.

Again, a possibility need not happen in order to be a real possibility. The fact that I ordered the salad for dinner did not make ordering the steak impossible. It was a real possibility that simply was not chosen. And, we can demonstrate it is really possible, at any time, by simply ordering the steak. Watch closely now, as the waiter brings me the steak. You see?

But there is no possibility of an alternate action. Given the terms of the definition of determinism, no alternate possibilities exist as the system evolves from prior state to current state and future state without deviation.

Your example is the system evolving as it must. Given the stipulation of 'no deviation,'' you must necessarily order salad for dinner in that instance in time and place, and that ordering steak must necessarily be impossible.

Claiming that it is possible to take an alternate action, 'steak instead of salad' when ordering salad is the determined action, is breaking the terms and conditions of determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

You can't have it both ways.

Apparently we can. If choosing will inevitably happen, then choosing will inevitably happen. The fact of inevitability does not contradict the fact of choosing. You are posing a false dichotomy, which is easily demonstrated to be false.

Events cannot be determined, yet have the possibility of something else happening.

Again, a possibility need not happen in order to be a real possibility. The fact that I ordered the salad for dinner did not make ordering the steak impossible. It was a real possibility that simply was not chosen. And, we can demonstrate it is really possible, at any time, by simply ordering the steak. Watch closely now, as the waiter brings me the steak. You see?

It reminds me of that JC chap asking "if it's not random and it's not intelligent, what is it? Randomness cannot do this!"

That doesn't relate to anything I said. What you need to do is actually consider the implications of your own definition of determinism in relation to the notion of free will.

If you can't understand how it relates, that goes to my point all the more.

It's been answered a thousand times that you present a false dichotomy between choice and inevitability.

It can be inevitable that I would make the choice.

You are, essentially, demanding to have done something different than you did, for to declare "choice", a nonsensical proposition.

some things going into a function and one of those forms shitting out the other end is choice. The ones that didn't get shit change nothing about the fact they went in, or perhaps the fact that they were always where they ended up.

if you want to declare that not-a-choice because something nonsensical failed to happen (the thing shit out both A and B in the same way at the same time at the same place doing two contradictory and mutually exclusive things), then you simply do not understand what choice is.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The given definition of determinism doesn't allow the possibility of 'both ways' or taking a selected option. A progression of events that cannot deviate does not select from a range of options. With no alternate options to choose or to take, there is no choosing, hence no 'fact of choosing.'

The given definition of determinism is that every event will be the reliable result of prior events, such that everything that happens will have been causally necessary from any prior point in time, such that everything that happens inevitably must happen, without deviation.

We observe the people in the restaurant, choosing, from a menu of possibilities, what they will order for dinner. The people, the restaurant, the menu, the possibilities, the single chosen will ("I will have the Chef Salad, please"), were ALL causally necessary from any prior point in time and inevitably must happen.

There is no honest way to say that these objects and events did not happen or were simply an "illusion".

Choosing, by definition, requires being presented with two or more realizable options where you free to take any one of them.

Each customer was presented with a menu of realizable options, and, they were free to order the one that they deliberately chose.

Determinism entails that ...

Determinism entails exactly what I said it entails: every event will be the reliable result of prior events, such that everything that happens will have been causally necessary from any prior point in time, such that everything that happens inevitably must happen, without deviation.

Choosing is one of those events that happens. Determinism entails that choosing inevitably must happen.

Your example is the system evolving as it must.

Damn straight.

Given the stipulation of 'no deviation,'' you must necessarily order salad for dinner in that instance in time and place, and that ordering steak must necessarily be impossible.

Given the circumstances (bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch), I would not order the steak at that point in time, even though I certainly could have ordered it.

Ordering the steak was never impossible. I've ordered the steak before and I'll likely order the steak again, if I have more fruit and vegetables at breakfast and lunch. If the steak were not on the menu, or if the restaurant ran out of steak, then ordering the steak would be impossible. But none of those conditions were present on the evening when I ordered the salad instead.

Claiming that it is possible to take an alternate action, 'steak instead of salad' when ordering salad is the determined action, is breaking the terms and conditions of determinism.

The terms and conditions of determinism apply to what we will do, but not to what we can do. You are falsely conflating what we can do with what we will do. And this is a consistent error within the incompatibilist understanding of determinism.

 

[DBT]

You can't have it both ways.

Apparently we can. If choosing will inevitably happen, then choosing will inevitably happen. The fact of inevitability does not contradict the fact of choosing. You are posing a false dichotomy, which is easily demonstrated to be false.

Events cannot be determined, yet have the possibility of something else happening.

Again, a possibility need not happen in order to be a real possibility. The fact that I ordered the salad for dinner did not make ordering the steak impossible. It was a real possibility that simply was not chosen. And, we can demonstrate it is really possible, at any time, by simply ordering the steak. Watch closely now, as the waiter brings me the steak. You see?

It reminds me of that JC chap asking "if it's not random and it's not intelligent, what is it? Randomness cannot do this!"

That doesn't relate to anything I said. What you need to do is actually consider the implications of your own definition of determinism in relation to the notion of free will.

If you can't understand how it relates, that goes to my point all the more.

It doesn't relate to your own definition of determinism. You ignore the implications of your definition. That is the point.

It's been answered a thousand times that you present a false dichotomy between choice and inevitability.

It can be inevitable that I would make the choice.

You are, essentially, demanding to have done something different than you did, for to declare "choice", a nonsensical proposition.

I'm not demanding anything. I am pointing to your definition and the implications of it.

There is no 'doing differently' in your definition, that is the point: no possible alternate actions.

 

[Jarhyn]

You can't have it both ways.

Apparently we can. If choosing will inevitably happen, then choosing will inevitably happen. The fact of inevitability does not contradict the fact of choosing. You are posing a false dichotomy, which is easily demonstrated to be false.

Events cannot be determined, yet have the possibility of something else happening.

Again, a possibility need not happen in order to be a real possibility. The fact that I ordered the salad for dinner did not make ordering the steak impossible. It was a real possibility that simply was not chosen. And, we can demonstrate it is really possible, at any time, by simply ordering the steak. Watch closely now, as the waiter brings me the steak. You see?

It reminds me of that JC chap asking "if it's not random and it's not intelligent, what is it? Randomness cannot do this!"

That doesn't relate to anything I said. What you need to do is actually consider the implications of your own definition of determinism in relation to the notion of free will.

If you can't understand how it relates, that goes to my point all the more.

It doesn't relate to your own definition of determinism. You ignore the implications of your definition. That is the point.

It's been answered a thousand times that you present a false dichotomy between choice and inevitability.

It can be inevitable that I would make the choice.

You are, essentially, demanding to have done something different than you did, for to declare "choice", a nonsensical proposition.

I'm not demanding anything. I am pointing to your definition and the implications of it.

There is no 'doing differently' in your definition, that is the point: no possible alternate actions.

No it doesn't acknowledge your question-begging. That's the only thing it fails to acknowledge, as if begged questions needed acknowledgement in the first place.

A choice function takes many in, spits one out.

A pile of marbles go into a hopper and one pops out? That was a choice.

So you are clearly missing something, specifically the meaning of the word choice.

It doesn't matter that many could not go in. Choice functions can be both choice functions and deterministic. Deal with it or continue making yourself look like our most recent temporary guest.