Compatibilism: What's that About?

[DBT]

The very essence of determinism entails 'could not have done otherwise.'

That is what many people have traditionally claimed to be the essence of determinism. But it is a false claim, as we've demonstrated.

Demonstrated? Hardly. It has been claimed and asserted, and falsified with the given terms and conditions of 'fixed' and 'no deviation.'

The "very essence" of determinism is actually causal necessity. Causal necessity is logically derived from simple cause and effect. If A causes B, and B causes C, then, if A happens both B and C will necessarily happen.

Right, only what is done, what must happen - which excludes 'could have done' as an element of the system.

So, did A "cause" C? No, not directly. B is the direct cause of C. This distinction is necessary if the notion of causation is to be intelligible. For example, did the Big Bang "cause" me to choose the salad instead of the steak for dinner? Of course not. It was the bacon and eggs I had for breakfast, and the double cheeseburger I had for lunch, and my desire to eat more fruits and vegetables that caused me to choose the salad instead of the steak for dinner. These concerns that caused my choice, were my own concerns.

There is no separation between A, B or C. As the system evolves from prior to current and future states, they are absolutely related.

Not only is C entailed in A, so is D, E, F, G, right through till the whole shebang runs down.

''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.

Where the big bang is A -time t - the evolution of the system is entailed in the initial conditions and the way things go ever after fixed by 'natural law.'

The Big Bang had no interest in what I would order for dinner. To suggest it "caused" me to order the salad instead of the steak is nonsense.

Initial conditions and the way things evolve ever after;

''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.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

I could have chosen the steak, but I wouldn't have chosen it under those circumstances. The fact that I would not order the steak never implies that I could not order the steak.

It's pointless saying 'I could have' when the circumstance can never be different to what they must necessarily be.

It serves no purpose to say it. It cannot change anything. It can't be used as an argument for free will.

In fact, if I had cantaloupe for breakfast and a salad for lunch, then I definitely would have ordered the steak for dinner.

You see, no matter what I actually ordered, I always had the ability to order the steak, thus it was truly something that I could have done.

Not possible. If it was, it would be a deviation, an action that was not determined. We are talking about determinism, not 'could have' or might have' or ''if things had been different.'

Fixed by antecedents entails 'could not have done otherwise.'

I'm afraid not. Fixed by antecedents entails only that we "would not have done otherwise, even though we could".

Just a softer way of saying 'could not have done otherwise' - which changes nothing, serves no purpose and does not help in the argument for compatibilism.

Determinism and not determinism is a contradiction.

Exactly. So stop drawing false implications and let determinism simply be determinism, the reasonable belief that all events are reliably caused by preceding events. And stop pretending that we are not among the events that reliably cause future events.

The remark 'could have' gives the impression of a possibility of an alternate choice where none exists. It is a false impression.

I was physically and mentally able to order the steak. So, "I could have order the steak" was literally true.

If the events of the world are determined, you were not only physically and mentally able to order the steak, you inevitably ordered the steak. You could not have done anything other than order the steak. Your action of ordering the steak proceeded as it must, freely and without restriction, precisely as determined.

''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.

“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

''Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.'' - Schopenhauer

 

[The AntiChris]

It bears repeating that no one here is suggesting any kind of contra-causal, non-deterministic free will.

That shows that you have yet to grasp incompatibilism, the implications of determinism, the nature of the brain, cognition, decision making or the notion of free will.

Your response makes no sense.

Are you suggesting that what I've said is wrong/mistaken? Do you genuinely believe the compatibilists on this thread are arguing (either intentionally or unwittingly) for contra-causal/non-deterministic free will?

 

[Jarhyn]

You give a definition of determinism, yet you are unable or unwilling to grasp its implications

No, I'm unwilling to step in a logical fallacy you are still apparently blind to.

Would not does not imply could not, because would not does not say anything about the results of the math that conforms perfectly to our physics operating on a momentary condition that does not necessarily conform to the current stat

I am unwilling to permit changing an explicit definition using manufactured supposed extensions in the name of any logic.

Determinism is defined as the inevitability of causation. Everything that happens is singular. The chains and networks of causes are so powerful and inexorable that every outcome is inevitable.

Either you work with what is explicitly there or you move on. 'Would' is not in the definition of determinism.

Let's not go overboard. The "chains and networks" of causes do not operate as a single causal entity with a mind of its own. That would fall into the class of "superstitious nonsense". A more realistic and useful view is that the general notion of causation is used to describe the interaction of individual physical objects upon each other. For example, it is not the universe that causes the earth to revolve around the sun each year, but rather the gravity between the mass of the earth and the mass of the sun plus the earth's trajectory that causes this specific effect. And it is not the universe that cares whether I order the salad or the steak for dinner. That's all me.

The power to cause effects is located in the objects themselves. And any interest in the consequences of these effects is located solely within the living organisms. And the ability to exercise control over what effects we cause resides solely in members of intelligent species.

That's how things actually work.

Ah minds are required else there is no world. I suggest you close your eyes and consider what you wrote.

Ah, what a fantastic straw-man. And I see DBT likes it too.

And in our reality, reality has many minds. I'm one of them. So are you.

It isn't necessary, and neither Marvin nor any of us claimed minds were, but it is inevitable in any mathematically isolated infinitely spatial system that features cellular automata capable of automatic Turing completeness, among a number of other situations.

I suggest you open your eyes and look in a mirror.

 

[Jarhyn]

The very essence of determinism entails 'could not have done

What Marvin said contradicts his own definition of determinism.

No, it only contradicts your inability to parse the difference between "would" and "could"

Would discusses "these rules, this stuff".

Could discusses "these rules, intersection of stuff + assumed state".

"This stuff" not being "intersection of stuff + assumed state" does not ever invalidate a calculation through "these rules".

For instance, "an arrangement of quarks and gluons which is called "a bug" could "be smashed" by a mass of iron with at least an ounce of mass accelerating at 32m/s/s towards a flat immobile surface with flat surfaces parallel, assuming the mass was dropped from a sufficient distance.

This will be true even if the universe were a barren place with no iron or bugs or things producing gravity, and just some black hole kicking around somewhere to keep "nothing" from existing again and spawning everything.

In the same way, if I want to ask "how could a dwarf survive a battle with a titan" I don't need to go into an active normal universe, but rather I spawn a dwarf in the simplified test simulator, and then I spawn a Titan, and then I make changes to these initial conditions until the dwarf survives.

This answers a question.

Then, in the future, I know what "could" allow dwarves in general to survive a run-in with a titan, which really tends to help when you are steering around a dwarf and run into a titan. Without knowing this vital fact of what "could" allow a dwarf to survive this, knowledge gained from such LT explorations in a simplified test simulation, my dwarf could die.

But note, this is not that world. In this world the dwarf Shall Not die. Instead I DID do the things that COULD save the dwarf and thus the dwarf was, in fact, kept whole and hale.

Because COULD is powerful and our approaches to could, while less perfect and complete than the one I can exert on a universe I'm literally the god of, are still sensible exercises even in Incompleteness.

We don't have to be able to be perfectly correct or be able to be gods creating perfect simulations when we can absolutely be "correct enough". The fact that what we do is a pale facsimile of what a god can do makes it no less useful for the extent we can do it, nor less sensible in it's execution, and it doesn't invalidate the logic of "same rules, different stuff".

It just means that WE are limited to generalizations on sets rather than specific answers of singular instances.

Leave it to DBT to... Wait for the first post to happen in this thread and then post a couple minutes later.

Wait for responses in the thread that answer his bullshit to... Repost his bullshit that this answers

The BS lies in your denial of the implications of your own definition of determinism.

You don't have a clue. Stick to your computers are conscious BS, at least that can give the readers a laugh.

You whine about repetition, yet you yourself - unable to grasp the nature of determinism - engage with mindless repetition and displays of childish petulance.

Oh wow, are you seriously moving to "listen to your betters"?

If you would like to show how or why "would not", in this definition implies "could not", then be my guest. Pood, AntiChris, Marvin and I, Bilby, and I'm sure a number of others all recognize what we are discussing here. We've pointed out the fallacies each of us in your foot stamping.

I'm going to judge from the regular servings of salad to the wrong tables that the management at Hard Determinism Cafe is insufficient to the task.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

It has been claimed and asserted, and falsified with the given terms and conditions of 'fixed' and 'no deviation.'

As I've pointed out to you many times, 'fixed' and 'no deviation', guarantee that all events will occur exactly as they do occur and in no other way. Everything always happens exactly as it happens.

This means that in the restaurant I would consider the steak, then recall the low carb/high fat breakfast and lunch, then decide not to order the steak and then choose to order the salad. That was exactly what happened. It was 'fixed' that it would happen exactly that way, with 'no deviation'.

Now, if it had been 'fixed' that "I could not order the steak", then I would not have considered it. That would be a deviation. But that was not what actually happened. It was 'fixed' that the steak would be on the menu, and thus 'fixed' that I could order the steak, so it was 'fixed' that I would consider the steak, and 'fixed' that I would recall the bacon and eggs breakfast and 'fixed' that I would next recall the double cheeseburger lunch, and 'fixed' that I would choose to order the salad even though I could have ordered the steak. That is what was actually 'fixed' and that was what actually proceeded with 'no deviation'.

But you continue to blow off the simple facts of the matter and make the claim that being 'fixed' and with 'no deviation' implies that things happened otherwise than they actually did. That's not determinism.

There is no separation between A, B or C. As the system evolves from prior to current and future states, they are absolutely related.
Not only is C entailed in A, so is D, E, F, G, right through till the whole shebang runs down.

But that's not the point. Which is more truthful:
A. To say that the Big Bang "caused" me to order the salad instead of the steak?
or
B. To say that my own goals and my own reasoning caused me to choose the salad instead of the steak?

Which "cause" is the meaningful cause? A cause is meaningful if it efficiently explains why an event happened.
Which "cause" is the relevant cause? A cause is relevant if we can do something about it.

It's pointless saying 'I could have' when the circumstance can never be different to what they must necessarily be. It serves no purpose to say it. It cannot change anything.

It carries meaningful information. For example, "I could have had steak instead" tells us that steak was on the menu, and that we thought about ordering the steak, but decided to have something else instead. So, it's not pointless.

Circumstances in fact "can" be different! In the future I may have cantaloupe for breakfast and a salad for lunch, and then look forward to ordering that juicy steak which I denied myself tonight. Possibilities carry useful information. So there is a valid "purpose" to consider what we could have done because it tells us what we can do in the future.

And, considering what I could have done may motivate me to eat a healthier breakfast and lunch next time before going out to a restaurant for dinner. So, it can actually "change things".

''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.

“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

''Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.'' - Schopenhauer

Three interesting quotes which confirm that determinism never causes me to do anything that I didn't already want to do and choose to do on my own. - Warm comfort in compatibilism.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is no separation between A, B or C. As the system evolves from prior to current and future states, they are absolutely related.

Absolute relation between A and B and C does not imply no separation. The relation is still containing a separation across steps.

Even if there is an absolute relationship between the 3, to the 1, to the 4, to the 1, to the 5, you still can't calculate 9 without the 3.1415

There is a separation even across the digits (magnitudes of significance, really) of pi, even though they are part of the same sequence.

You can't just know the end without going through the middle so the end is separated from the beginning by the middle.

Ergo absolute relationship between "later" and "earlier" is in all situations separated. At least of any system which is momentarily dependent on previous moments, causal rather than chaotic.

 

[DBT]

It bears repeating that no one here is suggesting any kind of contra-causal, non-deterministic free will.

That shows that you have yet to grasp incompatibilism, the implications of determinism, the nature of the brain, cognition, decision making or the notion of free will.

Your response makes no sense.

Are you suggesting that what I've said is wrong/mistaken? Do you genuinely believe the compatibilists on this thread are arguing (either intentionally or unwittingly) for contra-causal/non-deterministic free will?

My response makes perfect sense. It's not hard to grasp. It's been explained to the point of ad nauseum. You failed to grasp the basics of incompatibilism the first time and that failure continues to the present moment and beyond. I expected nothing else.

I could try again, but if you haven't understood by now, you never will. Are you reading what the compatibilists are saying? Or do yo only see one side, and fail to grasp what is being said?

 

[DBT]

There is no separation between A, B or C. As the system evolves from prior to current and future states, they are absolutely related.

Absolute relation between A and B and C does not imply no separation. The relation is still containing a separation across steps.

Even if there is an absolute relationship between the 3, to the 1, to the 4, to the 1, to the 5, you still can't calculate 9 without the 3.1415

There is a separation even across the digits (magnitudes of significance, really) of pi, even though they are part of the same sequence.

You can't just know the end without going through the middle so the end is separated from the beginning by the middle.

Ergo absolute relationship between "later" and "earlier" is in all situations separated. At least of any system which is momentarily dependent on previous moments, causal rather than chaotic.

There are no separate events within a deterministic system, no probabilistic events, no random events. Events in the so called middle - the system always in the state it must be in - are entailed, fixed, set, determined by the immediate prior state of the system, which was entailed, set, fixed, determined by immediate prior state, etc, back to the beginning, time t - which determines how things go ever after.

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

No randomness negates deviation, alternate actions, could have, might have, should have, if only things were different.....all irrelevant to the system as it evolves as it must.

 

[DBT]

It has been claimed and asserted, and falsified with the given terms and conditions of 'fixed' and 'no deviation.'

As I've pointed out to you many times, 'fixed' and 'no deviation', guarantee that all events will occur exactly as they do occur and in no other way. Everything always happens exactly as it happens.

That is my point. The consequences of this being as described in numerous posts.

This means that in the restaurant I would consider the steak, then recall the low carb/high fat breakfast and lunch, then decide not to order the steak and then choose to order the salad. That was exactly what happened. It was 'fixed' that it would happen exactly that way, with 'no deviation'.

That's where you go wrong. Every step of the deliberation process is fixed, if one, not the other, until the series of steps play out.

Changing your mind is a step in the process, you must necessarily go through the thought process as it plays out, precisely as the brain is acquiring and processing information.

Nothing can deviate. You may swing between ordering salad or steak, but that does not mean you could have chosen salad if steak is determined.

Given the defined terms, it can only go one way at any given moment, the way it was determined before the actions are played out.

Now, if it had been 'fixed' that "I could not order the steak", then I would not have considered it.

It doesn't work like that, time and events act upon the brain, and as they act, the brain goes through its activity as it must.

The uncertainty lies in our incomplete access to information about the system. The system itself has no uncertainty. It simply proceeds as determined, no variations, no 'could have done,' 'might have done, or 'if things had been different.

That's all I have time for tonight. Out for the evening.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

'Fixed' and 'no deviation', guarantee that all events will occur exactly as they do occur and in no other way. Everything always happens exactly as it happens.

This means that in the restaurant I would consider the steak, then recall the low carb/high fat breakfast and lunch, then decide not to order the steak and then choose to order the salad. That was exactly what happened. It was 'fixed' that it would happen exactly that way, with 'no deviation'.

That's where you go wrong. Every step of the deliberation process is fixed, if one, not the other, until the series of steps play out.

So far so good.

Changing your mind is a step in the process, you must necessarily go through the thought process as it plays out, precisely as the brain is acquiring and processing information.
Nothing can deviate. You may swing between ordering salad or steak, but that does not mean you could have chosen salad if steak is determined.

How would I "swing between" choosing the salad or the steak if I had started out with the belief that ordering the steak was impossible?

That's the problem. If the facts are that I "cannot" choose the steak, then why would I be considering the steak in the first place? If the steak were not on the menu, then I would never have thought of it at all. It would not be a real possibility, something that "can" happen.

This is why I am insisting that it must be true that I "can" do something before the chain of thoughts can proceed to actually consider doing that thing.

You see, I have no knowledge as to what is determined at the beginning. If I already possessed that knowledge then I would simply exercise the determined option without thinking of any other option. There would be no logical need for choosing if I already knew what my choice would be!

Without that pre-knowledge as to what I "will" choose, it is logically necessary to consider the things that I "can" choose. And there will always be more than one thing that I "can" choose. If there were only a single thing that I "could" choose then I would have no need to perform a choosing operation.

And this is the path that proceeds without deviation: (1) What "will" I choose? (2) I don't know. (3) What "can" I choose? (4) I "can" choose the steak. (5) What are the consequences if I choose the steak? (6) Well, I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, so the consequences of choosing the steak is that I fail to meet my dietary goal of eating more fruits and vegetables. (7) What other things "can" I choose? (8) Well, there's the Chef Salad. And it would meet my dietary goal. Therefore, (9) I "will" order the salad, (10) even though I "could" have ordered the steak.

That is the path, more or less, that is 'fixed' and 'proceeds without deviation'. And within that inevitable path we find that "I can" and "I could have" ordered the steak were necessarily true.

Given the defined terms, it can only go one way at any given moment, the way it was determined before the actions are played out.

And that is exactly what happened. All of the events, (1) - (10), were exactly the way it was determined to play out.

It would not have played out that way if the steak were not a real possibility, something that we "could" choose instead of the salad.

... time and events act upon the brain, and as they act, the brain goes through its activity as it must.

And one of those activities that the brain must go through is the belief that ordering the steak was a real possibility, something that "could" happen, something that it "could" choose to do. Without that belief, we would not have considered the steak to be a real possibility, and would have wasted no effort on considering it as a real option.

The uncertainty lies in our incomplete access to information about the system.

Exactly!

The system itself has no uncertainty.

Which "system", the universe, or, the person's own central nervous system? If you're speaking of the universe, then it never experiences any notions because it lacks a brain. The universe has no uncertainties because it has no brain in which to entertain them.

So, I'm presuming we are speaking of the central nervous system, our own brain, and the thoughts it experiences as "mind", that it has as it reasons out a choice.

It simply proceeds as determined, no variations, no 'could have done,' 'might have done, or 'if things had been different.

We cannot exclude any of the thoughts that the brain experienced on the way to its choice of the salad. Each thought was causally necessary from any prior point in the past. Every event is equally an event that must necessarily occur within a world of perfectly reliable causation. And among these events we do find the notions of things that we "can do" and things that we "could have done" even if we never do them. These "can do's" are just as inevitable as the "will do".

Thus, at the end of every choosing operation that ever happens, there will always be at least one thing that we "could have done" in addition to the single thing that we "would do".

Therefore, determinism cannot logically assert that we "could not have done otherwise", but only that we "would not have done otherwise.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are no separate events within a deterministic system

And so you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that you do not understand deterministic systems.

You have to go on the journey before you reach the destination, and you must have reached the in-between destination you did separately from your final destination.

 

[The AntiChris]

It bears repeating that no one here is suggesting any kind of contra-causal, non-deterministic free will.

That shows that you have yet to grasp incompatibilism, the implications of determinism, the nature of the brain, cognition, decision making or the notion of free will.

Your response makes no sense.

Are you suggesting that what I've said is wrong/mistaken? Do you genuinely believe the compatibilists on this thread are arguing (either intentionally or unwittingly) for contra-causal/non-deterministic free will?

My response makes perfect sense. It's not hard to grasp. It's been explained to the point of ad nauseum. You failed to grasp the basics of incompatibilism the first time and that failure continues to the present moment and beyond. I expected nothing else.

I could try again, but if you haven't understood by now, you never will. Are you reading what the compatibilists are saying? Or do yo only see one side, and fail to grasp what is being said?

I should be used to it by now, but it still frustrates me no end that what you write so often bears absolutely no relationship to what you're supposedly responding to.

 

[DBT]

It bears repeating that no one here is suggesting any kind of contra-causal, non-deterministic free will.

That shows that you have yet to grasp incompatibilism, the implications of determinism, the nature of the brain, cognition, decision making or the notion of free will.

Your response makes no sense.

Are you suggesting that what I've said is wrong/mistaken? Do you genuinely believe the compatibilists on this thread are arguing (either intentionally or unwittingly) for contra-causal/non-deterministic free will?

My response makes perfect sense. It's not hard to grasp. It's been explained to the point of ad nauseum. You failed to grasp the basics of incompatibilism the first time and that failure continues to the present moment and beyond. I expected nothing else.

I could try again, but if you haven't understood by now, you never will. Are you reading what the compatibilists are saying? Or do yo only see one side, and fail to grasp what is being said?

I should be used to it by now, but it still frustrates me no end that what you write so often bears absolutely no relationship to what you're supposedly responding to.

The thing is, it's not as if it is my personal argument for incompatibilism, and given the numerous quoted arguments, references, research into cognition, that I have posted, you have failed - by default - to grasp the basics of anything that has been provided.

What has it been, nine months on this occasion and ten years of free will debates on and off, countless explanations given, cited, quoted, yet you are still puzzled by it all? You just can't understand?

I'd say give it up. It's not for you.


"One might as well claim that being in jail doesn't really limit one's freedom on the grounds that if one were not in jail, he'd be free to come and go as he pleased". - Alvin Plantinga

 

[DBT]

There are no separate events within a deterministic system

And so you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that you do not understand deterministic systems.

You have to go on the journey before you reach the destination, and you must have reached the in-between destination you did separately from your final destination.

That gave me a good laugh. Thanks.

 

[DBT]

'Fixed' and 'no deviation', guarantee that all events will occur exactly as they do occur and in no other way. Everything always happens exactly as it happens.

Not only does it guarantee things can't happen any other way, it eliminates any claim for free will. Given the terms, nothing is willed. Everything, all events are entailed by the system as it evolves. No free will involved.

This means that in the restaurant I would consider the steak, then recall the low carb/high fat breakfast and lunch, then decide not to order the steak and then choose to order the salad. That was exactly what happened. It was 'fixed' that it would happen exactly that way, with 'no deviation'.

What you consider is not external or to, or independent from the process as it unfolds. Your considerations are also determined. At 8:25 pm you are presented with a menu, you like steak and you like Lasagna, which will it be tonight, steak or lasagna.....steak is more appealing, *8:35pm, steak it is.

That is the deterministic process at work as it evolves from prior to current and future states, every thought and deliberation proceeding as it must. No realizable alternatives in any given instance, therefore nothing was freely chosen.

That's determinism. Free will is not compatible with Determinism.

The system itself has no uncertainty.

Which "system", the universe, or, the person's own central nervous system? If you're speaking of the universe, then it never experiences any notions because it lacks a brain. The universe has no uncertainties because it has no brain in which to entertain them.

The system in which the organism lives, functions and negotiates. The individual/person/brain/mind is imbedded in their environment, a part of it, brain, mind body composed of the same physical stuff, its laws and properties....and not an independent agent acting from outside of the system, which is the environment, the world, etc....

''Determinism cannot exclude the effects of deliberate choices, like when the chef prepared the salad that I chose for lunch.'' - Marvin Edwards.

''Deliberate choices'' are subject to determinism, fixed by prior states, entailed to happen as determined, neither chosen or willed.

So, I'm presuming we are speaking of the central nervous system, our own brain, and the thoughts it experiences as "mind", that it has as it reasons out a choice.

As it must. There being no freedom or alternatives to be found in ''must,'' there is no choice to be found in ''must.''

It simply proceeds as determined, no variations, no 'could have done,' 'might have done, or 'if things had been different.

We cannot exclude any of the thoughts that the brain experienced on the way to its choice of the salad. Each thought was causally necessary from any prior point in the past. Every event is equally an event that must necessarily occur within a world of perfectly reliable causation. And among these events we do find the notions of things that we "can do" and things that we "could have done" even if we never do them. These "can do's" are just as inevitable as the "will do".

It's irrelevant to claim ''could have done'' when there is no possibility of it happening. It's meaningless.

Thus, at the end of every choosing operation that ever happens, there will always be at least one thing that we "could have done" in addition to the single thing that we "would do".

Therefore, determinism cannot logically assert that we "could not have done otherwise", but only that we "would not have done otherwise.

"One might as well claim that being in jail doesn't really limit one's freedom on the grounds that if one were not in jail, he'd be free to come and go as he pleased".- Alvin Plantinga

 

[The AntiChris]

"One might as well claim that being in jail doesn't really limit one's freedom on the grounds that if one were not in jail, he'd be free to come and go as he pleased". - Alvin Plantinga

It's reassuring to know Alvin's not on my team.

 

[pood]

"One might as well claim that being in jail doesn't really limit one's freedom on the grounds that if one were not in jail, he'd be free to come and go as he pleased". - Alvin Plantinga

It's reassuring to know Alvin's not on my team.

Plantinga does believe in free will, however. He calls it “transworld depravity.”

 

[Marvin Edwards]

'Fixed' and 'no deviation', guarantee that all events will occur exactly as they do occur and in no other way. Everything always happens exactly as it happens.

Not only does it guarantee things can't happen any other way, it eliminates any claim for free will. Given the terms, nothing is willed. Everything, all events are entailed by the system as it evolves. No free will involved.

None of those conclusions are supported by the facts. Determinism means that everything must happen precisely as it does happen. All of the choices you make for yourself will inevitably be made by you. They will not be made by any of the events that occurred prior to you, but will only be made specifically by you at that specific time and in that specific place. Why? Because that is exactly how things were 'fixed' to play out, with 'no deviation'.

Your thoughts will be exactly as they actually were. The pros and cons of your different options will be exactly the same. And all the mental events involved in causing the choice will be taking place inside your own brain, and nowhere else in the entire physical universe.

And, because no one forced you to make that choice against your will, it was inevitable that you would be free to make that choice for yourself. This is exactly what is known as "free will". And this choosing of your own free will was inevitable from any prior point in eternity!

This is what determinism is about. Every event that happens is reliably caused by prior events, and must happen precisely as it does happen, without deviation. This includes events where we are coerced into doing something against our will. This includes events where we are free to decide for ourselves what we will do.

ALL of the events are ALWAYS included. Attempting to exclude those events where we are free of coercion falsifies determinism.

What you consider is not external or to, or independent from the process as it unfolds. Your considerations are also determined. At 8:25 pm you are presented with a menu, you like steak and you like Lasagna, which will it be tonight, steak or lasagna.....steak is more appealing, *8:35pm, steak it is. That is the deterministic process at work as it evolves from prior to current and future states, every thought and deliberation proceeding as it must.

Exactly! Every thought that we experience as to whether the lasagna or the steak is more appealing is determined. The net result is that we are actually doing precisely what we observe ourselves to be doing: considering our options and making our choice. It is not an "illusion", but is actually happening in physical reality.

No realizable alternatives in any given instance, therefore nothing was freely chosen.

INCORRECT! The lasagna WAS realiz-able even though it was not realized. The fact that something is not realized does not contradict the fact that we are able to realize it if we choose to do so. The steak was realizable and the lasagna was also realizable, but only the steak was realized.

And no one forced us to choose the steak, so the steak WAS freely chosen by us (free of coercion, but not free of causation, since nothing is ever free of causation).

That's determinism and it is also free will.

The system in which the organism lives, functions and negotiates. The individual/person/brain/mind is imbedded in their environment, a part of it, brain, mind body composed of the same physical stuff, its laws and properties....and not an independent agent acting from outside of the system, which is the environment, the world, etc....

We do not act from "outside" our environment. But our actions are definitely "separate" from the actions of the other objects and forces that make up the environment. For example, there is the hill. And here I am walking up that hill. There is the gravity pulling me downhill. And here am I exerting force against that gravity in order to get to the top of the hill, where I have decided that I would like to go.

''Deliberate choices'' are subject to determinism ...

Nothing is "subject" to determinism. Determinism is neither an entity that issues commands, nor a force that causes things to happen. Determinism is simply an assertion that the objects and forces that make up the physical universe will behave in a reliable fashion. In fact, so reliable that we could, at least in theory, predict every event in advance with 100% accuracy. But of course our practical ability to predict is much more limited than that.

A entity with omniscience (whether God, or Laplace's Daemon, or the guy's wife) could predict in advance whether the man would order the lasagna or the steak for dinner. However, it is still the man himself that will be doing the choosing of his own free will. And the man will not know in advance which one he will pick until finishes deciding.

As it must. There being no freedom or alternatives to be found in ''must,'' there is no choice to be found in ''must.''

Still incorrect. Here is the restaurant menu. If you wish to have dinner tonight, you "must" make a "choice". There's the "must" and there's the "choice". And we have the "freedom" to choose from the "alternatives" on the menu what we will have for dinner. And there is your "freedom" and your "alternatives". All of which are contained within the same "must".

It's irrelevant to claim ''could have done'' when there is no possibility of it happening. It's meaningless.

The notion of possibility still escapes you. A possibility is not something that must happen. A possibility may happen, but then again it may never happen. The fact that it never happens does not imply that it was ever impossible, but only that it never would happen.

The notion of "could have done" is built upon the notion of possibility. It is something that did not happen, but which might have happened under different circumstances.

The notion of possibility is very meaningful. It is at the root of every invention humans have created. It is the source of our houses, our computers, our airplanes, our cars, and everything else that was invented by people.

At the end of every choosing operation that ever happens, there will always be at least one thing that we "could have done" in addition to the single thing that we "would do". Therefore, determinism cannot logically assert that we "could not have done otherwise", but only that we "would not have done otherwise".

 

[Jarhyn]

The thing is, it's not as if it is my personal argument for incompatibilism, and given the numerous quoted arguments, references, research into cognition, that I have posted, you have failed - by default - to grasp the basics of anything that has been provided.

This makes about as much sense as JC arguing that they were arguing the position of "scholars".

Your claims on cognition have all been answered: choice, will, and freedom have been observed of completely mathematically isolated, understood, and simple things. As such, from the perspective of it's possibility within the frame of cognition, you are wrong. Further this does not support arguments from a position of determinism. It does not argue "can't"; it merely weakly argues "doesn't".

As has been pointed out by AntiChris and Pood, all of the arguments that have been posed against choice, freedom, and will on the basis of "can't" rather than on the basis of "doesn't", actual arguments of hard determinism have all been picked apart and every time it is observed that it is either a failure to understand the difference between "can't" and "won't".

Possible (even if within the context of LTism) just says "If I were to arrange an entire 300ly cross section of particles in the universe such that they would be shaped that way and then calculate on them would it lead to this outcome by this frame?"

Of course if DBT could find some way to falsify the proposition of LTism, he might be on to something.

The issue is that it is impossible to falsify LTism, and this impossibility of falsification of LTism is exactly the proof that we need to establish that considering imaginary instantaneously different universes is a sensible exercise. Because non-falsifiability is exactly proof that, while an idea may not be useful for generating understanding of history when applied to beliefs about the immediate universe, that the idea is sensible.

Of course, your claim that folks here have failed to grasp this is laughable. Unless you were looking in a mirror...

 

[ramoss]

Yes, of course, he could have bought out the whole store. Better to say this: Jim can either order pistachos, or not order pistachios. He cannot BOTH order pistachios, and NOT order pistachios, at the same time. That would be a violation of the Law of Non-contradiction. The relevant bit is that because it is within his power to either order or not order pistachios, Jim has free will in a deterministic universe.

Can you prove that law of non-contradiction is valid?

Let's look at the statement

"This statement is false"


Is that statement true or false? It has to be true, or it has to be false, according to the law of non contradiction. Which is it?