Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Kylie]

Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.

No it hasn't been demonstrated. It's been stated. Big difference.

And even your attempt to prove it again does nothing more than assert that the restaurant customers are choosing without actually demonstrating that they are choosing.

What do you call the operation that inputs multiple options, estimates the likely outcome of choosing each, and then selects the one that seems best? Most people call that "choosing".

You claim it is not "really" choosing because it was inevitable. Why can't it be inevitable that they would really be choosing?

Because you are claiming the OUTCOME of that so-called "choice" is also inevitable.

If it was set in stone ages in the past, how can it be the result of a choice made today?

 

[bilby]

Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.

No it hasn't been demonstrated. It's been stated. Big difference.

And even your attempt to prove it again does nothing more than assert that the restaurant customers are choosing without actually demonstrating that they are choosing.

What do you call the operation that inputs multiple options, estimates the likely outcome of choosing each, and then selects the one that seems best? Most people call that "choosing".

You claim it is not "really" choosing because it was inevitable. Why can't it be inevitable that they would really be choosing?

Because you are claiming the OUTCOME of that so-called "choice" is also inevitable.

If it was set in stone ages in the past, how can it be the result of a choice made today?

Because chains of causation have more than one step.

It's quite possible for it to be both.

If your great-great-great-grandparents are your ancestors, how can your parents be your ancestors? They weren't even alive at the same time.

 

[Kylie]

Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.

No it hasn't been demonstrated. It's been stated. Big difference.

And even your attempt to prove it again does nothing more than assert that the restaurant customers are choosing without actually demonstrating that they are choosing.

What do you call the operation that inputs multiple options, estimates the likely outcome of choosing each, and then selects the one that seems best? Most people call that "choosing".

You claim it is not "really" choosing because it was inevitable. Why can't it be inevitable that they would really be choosing?

Because you are claiming the OUTCOME of that so-called "choice" is also inevitable.

If it was set in stone ages in the past, how can it be the result of a choice made today?

Because chains of causation have more than one step.

It's quite possible for it to be both.

That's missing the point.

It's not a freely made choice if there was only one possible outcome.

 

[bilby]

Actions that are determined have no alternatives, meaning they are entailed, not chosen.

It has already been demonstrated that choosing can be logically viewed as deterministically entailed.

The argument that "deterministically entailed" logically implies "not chosen" fails. It is disproved by the simple, empirical fact of all the restaurant customers actually choosing for themselves what the will order for dinner.

No it hasn't been demonstrated. It's been stated. Big difference.

And even your attempt to prove it again does nothing more than assert that the restaurant customers are choosing without actually demonstrating that they are choosing.

What do you call the operation that inputs multiple options, estimates the likely outcome of choosing each, and then selects the one that seems best? Most people call that "choosing".

You claim it is not "really" choosing because it was inevitable. Why can't it be inevitable that they would really be choosing?

Because you are claiming the OUTCOME of that so-called "choice" is also inevitable.

If it was set in stone ages in the past, how can it be the result of a choice made today?

Because chains of causation have more than one step.

It's quite possible for it to be both.

That's missing the point.

It's not a freely made choice if there was only one possible outcome.

It is if one of the inevitable steps towards that outcome was the making of that particular choice.

 

[DBT]

Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.

 

[fromderinside]

No. Implications derive from context and argument. There is no context, nor argument, for 'choosing' embedded in determinism. That is a bell -whistle- attached by treating determinism as something other than determined.

When BS is couched in flowing text some would presume something is there when it's not there or anywhere.

The context for choosing embedded in determinism is called "reality". See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders. That is called "choosing". Ask them why they ordered what they did, and they will explain the reasons that caused their choice. That is called "determinism".

When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "free will".
When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "determinism".

When the exact same event has the characteristics required for both free will and determinism, we call that compatibility.

How does one define reality? I define reality as material state of affairs as potently demonstrated through science. You obviously do not.

Look at your exemplar.

"See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders."

This is reality? This 'seeing', 'reading', and 'placing' by humans is reality? How so?

What one sees is determined by eyes providing only information about certain aspects of what is physically there processed by a brain limited to interpreting only such limited data as can be processed by humans.

Reading makes sense only in the language(s) in which the brain is trained.

And choosing is a human defined transaction meaningful to, as far as we know, humans alone.

Reality exists for everything, else it's something other than reality. Back to processes enabling identification of universal states and transaction.

Your false 'exacts' not withstanding.

Objectivity ends at universally true. Subjectively begins with brain interpretations.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

No. Implications derive from context and argument. There is no context, nor argument, for 'choosing' embedded in determinism. That is a bell -whistle- attached by treating determinism as something other than determined.

When BS is couched in flowing text some would presume something is there when it's not there or anywhere.

The context for choosing embedded in determinism is called "reality". See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders. That is called "choosing". Ask them why they ordered what they did, and they will explain the reasons that caused their choice. That is called "determinism".

When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "free will".
When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "determinism".

When the exact same event has the characteristics required for both free will and determinism, we call that compatibility.

How does one define reality? I define reality as material state of affairs as potently demonstrated through science. You obviously do not.

Look at your exemplar.

"See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders."

This is reality? This 'seeing', 'reading', and 'placing' by humans is reality? How so?

What one sees is determined by eyes providing only information about certain aspects of what is physically there processed by a brain limited to interpreting only such limited data as can be processed by humans.

Reading makes sense only in the language(s) in which the brain is trained.

And choosing is a human defined transaction meaningful to, as far as we know, humans alone.

Reality exists for everything, else it's something other than reality. Back to processes enabling identification of universal states and transaction.

Your false 'exacts' not withstanding.

Objectivity ends at universally true. Subjectively begins with brain interpretations.

The notions of "objectivity", "universal", and "truth" are all matters of brain interpretation. So the fact of brain interpretation is insufficient to rule out anything, because if it were, then it would rule out everything.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.

Exactly. And choosing what we will have for dinner happens to be one of those inevitable steps. And it is itself a series of inevitable steps. It is a deterministic process within a deterministic universe. And it really happens, because it must necessarily happen exactly as it does happen.

Determinism does not change anything.

 

[fromderinside]

No. Implications derive from context and argument. There is no context, nor argument, for 'choosing' embedded in determinism. That is a bell -whistle- attached by treating determinism as something other than determined.

When BS is couched in flowing text some would presume something is there when it's not there or anywhere.

The context for choosing embedded in determinism is called "reality". See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders. That is called "choosing". Ask them why they ordered what they did, and they will explain the reasons that caused their choice. That is called "determinism".

When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "free will".
When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own goals and reasons, we call that "determinism".

When the exact same event has the characteristics required for both free will and determinism, we call that compatibility.

How does one define reality? I define reality as material state of affairs as potently demonstrated through science. You obviously do not.

Look at your exemplar.

"See the customers in the restaurant, reading the menu and placing orders."

This is reality? This 'seeing', 'reading', and 'placing' by humans is reality? How so?

What one sees is determined by eyes providing only information about certain aspects of what is physically there processed by a brain limited to interpreting only such limited data as can be processed by humans.

Reading makes sense only in the language(s) in which the brain is trained.

And choosing is a human defined transaction meaningful to, as far as we know, humans alone.

Reality exists for everything, else it's something other than reality. Back to processes enabling identification of universal states and transaction.

Your false 'exacts' not withstanding.

Objectivity ends at universally true. Subjectively begins with brain interpretations.

The notions of "objectivity", "universal", and "truth" are all matters of brain interpretation. So the fact of brain interpretation is insufficient to rule out anything, because if it were, then it would rule out everything.

Let me suggest that objectivity, universal, and reality are matters settled by humans through the use of experiment with matters independent from and beyond human perceptual (sensory) capabilities. We can't sense what we describe in equations based on what we 'know' beyond our sense capabilities. Yet we do things IAW that knowledge. In this view I have a certain kinship with Jarhyn.

 

[fromderinside]

Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.

Exactly. And choosing what we will have for dinner happens to be one of those inevitable steps. And it is itself a series of inevitable steps. It is a deterministic process within a deterministic universe. And it really happens, because it must necessarily happen exactly as it does happen.

Determinism does not change anything.

Except determinism does not apply to choice. Choice is purely subjective in nature. The subjective can exist in a deterministic world but the subjective is a dead end when considering determinism.

 

[bilby]

Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.

Including the making of choices.

 

[bilby]

Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.

Exactly. And choosing what we will have for dinner happens to be one of those inevitable steps. And it is itself a series of inevitable steps. It is a deterministic process within a deterministic universe. And it really happens, because it must necessarily happen exactly as it does happen.

Determinism does not change anything.

Except determinism does not apply to choice. Choice is purely subjective in nature. The subjective can exist in a deterministic world but the subjective is a dead end when considering determinism.

And your mind is made up about that, is it?

The whole discussion is just a pointless non-disagreement about the universe viewed from two different perspectives - the three dimensional perspective we have day-to-day, in which we don't know what the future holds, and must choose between alternate possibilities; And the four dimensional perspective from which the universe is an unchanging block of spacetime in which every 'choice' can be seen to be inevitable.

These are different descriptions of the same thing. The only problem is that some people refuse to accept the validity of the perspective we all actually experience. Which they reject in favour of the imaginary perspective that none of us can ever have. Which is weird, to say the least.

 

[fromderinside]

Except determinism does not apply to choice. Choice is purely subjective in nature. The subjective can exist in a deterministic world but the subjective is a dead end when considering determinism.

And your mind is made up about that, is it?

The whole discussion is just a pointless non-disagreement about the universe viewed from two different perspectives - the three dimensional perspective we have day-to-day, in which we don't know what the future holds, and must choose between alternate possibilities; And the four dimensional perspective from which the universe is an unchanging block of spacetime in which every 'choice' can be seen to be inevitable.

These are different descriptions of the same thing. The only problem is that some people refuse to accept the validity of the perspective we all actually experience. Which they reject in favour of the imaginary perspective that none of us can ever have. Which is weird, to say the least.

Yes. My mind is made up about this. If only the differences were three dimensions versus four dimensions I wouldn't be so pessimistic about your side.

It's much more than about perspective. It's about useful explanations. We all know we perceive a particular way. We try to provide realistic explanations about what we are and how we function from our particular perspective. These don't fit in either a three or four dimensional model.

The result, in my view is psychoanalysis and beliefs based on subjective impressions which are about as good as those Plato, Descartes, Freud, and more modern analysts drilling in the same subjective trench.

I shift the imaginary to the belief based impressions we hold so dear.

It's not sexy to speak of twitch and squirt. But hey, if that's what we are living with accept it and moveon.org.

You want to put choice, want, will in your model go for it. See your results in the trash bin of failed systems.

If we don't get past what feels right we'll never get it right.

 

[DBT]

When we have 'whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined' - which is the given definition of determinism - this is not exactly compatible with 'choosing' or 'freedom of will.'

Not even close.

 

[bilby]

When we have 'whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined' - which is the given definition of determinism - this is not exactly compatible with 'choosing' or 'freedom of will.'

Not even close.

It is if we are predestined to choose.

 

[DBT]

When we have 'whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined' - which is the given definition of determinism - this is not exactly compatible with 'choosing' or 'freedom of will.'

Not even close.

It is if we are predestined to choose.

We act as determined while calling it our choice.

 

[Jarhyn]

How does one define reality

That's the thing then isn't it? You think YOU get to define reality.

The fact is, reality defines itself, and you get no say I that.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Let me suggest that objectivity, universal, and reality are matters settled by humans through the use of experiment with matters independent from and beyond human perceptual (sensory) capabilities. We can't sense what we describe in equations based on what we 'know' beyond our sense capabilities. Yet we do things IAW that knowledge. In this view I have a certain kinship with Jarhyn.

Okay. But we still have to check our math against reality, just like we check our logic. Scientific experiments certainly attempt to do that checking. And some experiments are simple enough for anyone to do.

 

[DBT]

Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.

Exactly. And choosing what we will have for dinner happens to be one of those inevitable steps. And it is itself a series of inevitable steps. It is a deterministic process within a deterministic universe. And it really happens, because it must necessarily happen exactly as it does happen.

Determinism does not change anything.

No alternative negates choice. If you must necessarily turn left at an intersection (this being determined, fixed by antecedents, no deviation, (your own definition of determinism), your only option is to turn left. You cannot choose to turn right. Turning right is not a realizable option for, therefore not an option at all. You turn left. There is no other option.

That's how it works for every action in any and every instance in time. Each and every action is fixed, no deviation.

Call it what you will, but determinism does not allow choice.


”If the neurobiology level is causally sufficient to determine your behavior, then the fact that you had the experience of freedom at the higher level is really irrelevant.” - John Searle.

 

[Jarhyn]

When we have 'whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined' - which is the given definition of determinism - this is not exactly compatible with 'choosing' or 'freedom of will.'

Not even close.

It is if we are predestined to choose.

We act as determined, calling it our choice.

That's the thing though: the way things get determined is through choice processes.

Determination happens by process, by the stuff continuing to resolve against itself. Part of that process involves choice.

Every inevitable step is the making of every following inevitable step. There is no step that is not inevitable.

Exactly. And choosing what we will have for dinner happens to be one of those inevitable steps. And it is itself a series of inevitable steps. It is a deterministic process within a deterministic universe. And it really happens, because it must necessarily happen exactly as it does happen.

Determinism does not change anything.

Except determinism does not apply to choice. Choice is purely subjective in nature. The subjective can exist in a deterministic world but the subjective is a dead end when considering determinism.

There is nothing subjective about a coin going into a sorting machine, and the geometry of the coins forcing each coin that was placed into the same hole into a different piece of it.

There is nothing subjective about a set of neurons overcoming the activation bias to send something through where previously it was not.

Choice happens as a product of mechanical resolution. There's nothing subjective about that.

In the end, FDI, subjectivity is in fact one of those "illusions"... Though choice is not.

All images are objects. Think in the moment of the self-playing piano and a roll of paper containing an image of a song upon it. But the image of this song is written in such a way that it is also a mechanism, an object whose geometry shall, when it is placed in a particular way against the object of the piano's mechanism, generate a series of tones described by that image upon the paper.

The word that humans use for when this trick is done, to describe the object which one has power to cease treating it as an image and instead apply it's geometry as physical mechanism, is called a "script" or "program" or "instructions."