Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Jarhyn]

Jaryan I have access to fossils documented and verified to be taken from layers of material radioactively dated by validated operational methods to well before what your author's claims as the beginning of earth

Apparently you don't have access to full reading comprehension.

My point is you are engaging in the same fallacy as the author who tried to trick me into engaging in it all those years ago: you are the one here presenting a unreasonable request. I do not need to produce neurons doing it. I need to produce transistors doing it, under the knowledge that "so too can neurons", at best, which I have.

I'm not a YEC.

I have pointed at how to crack open the computer and write out exactly what gates and charge potentials are coming to get her to produce that particular emergent will of the dwarf to open the door. It is freely held, as most wills in that world are and it is also free such that it will be completed: these structures fully satisfy to semantic completion "choice", "freedom" and "will".

That you, FDI, are asking "were you there looking at it so as to describe it in neurons?" Is the invocation of "were you there"

I don't have to have been there in the human brain describing what the neurons are doing. That it happened among these slightly more exotic, but a lot less wet and unobservable objects was enough. You're just to blinded by your own fundamentalism to see it.

 

[fromderinside]

Jaryan I have access to fossils documented and verified to be taken from layers of material radioactively dated by validated operational methods to well before what your author's claims as the beginning of earth

Apparently you don't have access to full reading comprehension.

My point is you are engaging in the same fallacy as the author who tried to trick me into engaging in it all those years ago: you are the one here presenting a unreasonable request. I do not need to produce neurons doing it. I need to produce transistors doing it, under the knowledge that "so too can neurons", at best, which I have.

I'm not a YEC.

I have pointed at how to crack open the computer and write out exactly what gates and charge potentials are coming to get her to produce that particular emergent will of the dwarf to open the door. It is freely held, as most wills in that world are and it is also free such that it will be completed: these structures fully satisfy to semantic completion "choice", "freedom" and "will".

That you, FDI, are asking "were you there looking at it so as to describe it in neurons?" Is the invocation of "were you there"

I don't have to have been there in the human brain describing what the neurons are doing. That it happened among these slightly more exotic, but a lot less wet and unobservable objects was enough. You're just to blinded by your own fundamentalism to see it.

Sorry I was still posting at the time. Maybe you'll be kind enough to explain how will can exist in any world where it's actions are dependent on what comes in.

A computer is a machine that runs a program. The program, written following a design, specifies the conditions under which the transistors function. If the program knows what is coming it is not representative of a being. I didn't write guesses or uses past experience which still leaves it being similar to a being.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by coercion and influence in operational terms. You know the operations that give material meaning to the terms.

Of course:

Coercion can be a literal “gun to the head”, or any other threat of harm sufficient to compel one person to subordinate their will to the will of another.

Undue influence is any extraordinary condition that effectively removes a person’s control of their choice. Certain mental illnesses can distort a person’s perception of reality by hallucinations or delusions. Other brain impairments can directly damage the ability to reason. Yet another form may subject them to an irresistible compulsion. Hypnosis would be an undue influence. Authoritative command, as exercised by a parent over a child, an officer over a soldier, or a doctor over a patient, is another. Any special circumstances that effectively remove a person’s control over their choice would be an undue influence.

You still haven't provided a suitable cause for there to be something in humans that requires before the fact knowledge to exist. That is to say for one to have will one must know what is coming before what one reacts for one to come to possess such ability.

We have "before the fact knowledge" by accumulating "after the fact knowledge" in long-term memory, and then applying that knowledge to similar situations in the future. Predicting experience and comparing experience to the prediction is how we drive a car without thinking about it. If something unexpected happens then conscious attention will come roaring in.

This thing we've been circling around, the mind is a responsive devise and tool. It builds a world from what is input and experienced. It configures itself as the mover rather than what it is, the responder where it builds a frame putting itself at the center even though it is dependent on what is arriving at it's senses.

The brain is the center of internal as well as external stimuli. It has to work out what to do with all that information. The information does not work itself out. So, really, the brain is physically at the center of it all.

Look to the start of a race. The gun goes off the athlete runs. The runner tries to beat others who are in the same situation as his reality.

Operationally, a race is a social event in which multiple participants attempt to get from the starting point to the ending point ahead of everyone else.

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe you'll be kind enough to explain how will can exist

Maybe take that question up with DBT who at least cops to the existence of "wills" even if they don't cop to the existence of "freedom".

I don't have to explain "how" they can exist past your failure of logic. I just have to point out that they do, in fact, exist, by producing an object that conforms to the definition.

I provided several, including the automatic piano paper reel.

A computer is a machine that runs a program

Synonyms: a computer is an object that executes on a will.

The program, written following a design,

The will, generated from predelictions,

specifies the conditions under which the transistors function

This is actually false. It does not specify the conditions under which transistors function. Transistors are like neurons, insofar as nothing but their physical object properties determine the conditions of their function.

The program merely presents them state potentials which determine not how they function, but which of their states happen to be active.

If the program knows what is coming it is not representative of a being.

And then you went into "not even wrong". You have some major woo about what it means to "be there a being".

You can be a being which knows fairly well what is coming, owing to that whole "simulating the future of the system within the system" thing. That has nothing to do with existing as a "being" whatever the fuck that is even supposed to mean.

Everything is in a state of "being", unless you are not actually a materialist.

 

[DBT]

A demonstration of inner necessity.

For instance, based on his Experiments.
''These have shown, he explained, that "functions traditionally related to the psyche, such as friendliness, pleasure or verbal expression, can be induced, modified and inhibited by direct electrical stimulation of the brain."

For example, he has been able to "play" monkeys and cats 'like little electronic toys" that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleep on command. And with humans under treatment for epilepsy, he has increased word output sixfold in one person, has produced severe anxiety in another, and in several others has induced feelings of profound friendliness—all by electrical stimulation of various specific regions of their brain.''

Actually no. That is a demonstration of external manipulation. It is an undue influence, and a rather extreme one at that. It is the very opposite of free will. But, then again, if we cannot make the distinction between an unfree will, versus a freely chosen will, then we are morally lost.

In this instance it is external manipulation of the mechanisms of the brain that produce these thoughts and feelings. Inputs also induce response, films, ads, propaganda, religion, ideology and marketers capitalize on conditioning, incessant advertising, to embed their products into the minds of consumers.....

The point being that it is not free will, but the non-chosen condition of a brain that produces output in the form of conscious feelings and thoughts, which is inner necessity.

That thoughts and actions are the deterministic product of inputs and neural architecture, information, form and function, not some simplistic, nebulous notion of free will.

Deliberation and decision making are normal brain functions. Free will refers to decision making that is free from coercion and undue influence, nothing more and nothing less. Ordinary influences that we all experience do not compromise our ability to decide for ourselves what we will do. If television ads were coercive or undue, then we would all be buying every item that is shown on tv. If propaganda were coercive or undue, then we'd all be wearing Trump's MAGA hats.

If determinism is true, the deterministic process that we call 'decision making' - which must necessarily produce a single outcome or action in any given instance - it is this inevitability that does not meet the criteria of choice.

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

Determinism
All events develop or evolve without randomness or deviation, there are no possible alternate actions, consequently determinism does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

As 'will' cannot make a difference to output, actions performed, labelling what we inevitably must do as 'free will' is false.

 

[Jarhyn]

which must necessarily produce a single outcome or action in any given instance - it is this inevitability that does not meet the criteria of choice

Poppycock.

The criterion of choice is that from multiple artifacts, a set subset of artifacts are selected. That's it.

Also, you are really caught up on this "single" thing.

I can order both the steak and the salad, assuming I also make sure to ask for a bucket, and don't let the waiter trick me into eating an after-dinner mint.

You want to pretend like "realizable" without "realized" means anything but "pretend, logically consistent, but not selected for attempted reification."

Let's try this, assuming the axioms of math and standard operations:

pretend but logically consistent (given the axioms and standard algebra):
1+1=2
1+2=3
2^2=4

Pretend but logically INCONSISTENT:
1+1=3
1+2=7
7/3=5
2+2=5

If you have two oranges and I have two oranges and we put them in the bag and decide on some units of measurement that make sense (like pointing to each orange and agreeing that we will call each individual orange a fungible "single orange"), I can use some logically consistent pretending to determine how many oranges are in the bag.

I can answer "four", and be correct within the terms of our agreed-on syntax, and thus syntax describes or represents some real information about the location and mass of real objects.

I have pretended there are four oranges, but my pretending describes actual reality.

Likewise you could pretend with logical inconsistency, saying "there are five oranges". Your guess is, in fact, false.

I could then ask "if I take only one of mine and two of yours and put them in the bag, how many would be in the bag?"

The answer is, of course, 3.

I don't need to put them in the bag and count to know, it's logically true without needing reification. Three oranges are realizable without this needing to be realized for that to be true.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If determinism is true, the deterministic process that we call 'decision making' - which must necessarily produce a single outcome or action in any given instance - it is this inevitability that does not meet the criteria of choice.

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

Determinism
All events develop or evolve without randomness or deviation, there are no possible alternate actions, consequently determinism does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

Ironically, compatibilists are accused of wanting to have our cake and eat it too. But here you are acknowledging decision making, which chooses between alternate possibilities, and then turning around and pretending it is not really happening.

As 'will' cannot make a difference to output, actions performed, labelling what we inevitably must do as 'free will' is false.

Let me see if I can unscramble that for you:

'Will' is the intent to do something specific, as in "I will fix pancakes for breakfast". Once the intent is fixed, it motivates and directs our subsequent thoughts and actions as we go about mixing the ingredients, heating the pan, cooking the pancakes, and eating them.

What we will do is often chosen from several alternate possibilities. Will I fix pancakes or will I fix eggs? Free will means that we were free to make this choice for ourselves (free of coercion and other undue influences).

When faced with multiple things that we 'can' do, we must necessarily decide the single thing that we 'will' do. Both the two realizable possibilities (eggs and pancakes) and the single choice (pancakes), were equally inevitable mental events. It was inevitable that we would have fixed pancakes and it was equally inevitable that we could have fixed eggs.

 

[fromderinside]

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by coercion and influence in operational terms. You know the operations that give material meaning to the terms.

Of course:

Coercion can be a literal “gun to the head”, or any other threat of harm sufficient to compel one person to subordinate their will to the will of another.

Undue influence is any extraordinary condition that effectively removes a person’s control of their choice. Certain mental illnesses can distort a person’s perception of reality by hallucinations or delusions. Other brain impairments can directly damage the ability to reason. Yet another form may subject them to an irresistible compulsion. Hypnosis would be an undue influence. Authoritative command, as exercised by a parent over a child, an officer over a soldier, or a doctor over a patient, is another. Any special circumstances that effectively remove a person’s control over their choice would be an undue influence.

What i read are handwaves rather than material operations. You presume something call choice without defining what it is. What I read is one empty term as reason for other empty terms, the last of which you present stands out: " remove(ing/al) a person's control of their choice would be an undue influence."

You still haven't provided a suitable cause for there to be something in humans that requires before the fact knowledge to exist. That is to say for one to have will one must know what is coming before what one reacts for one to come to possess such ability.

We have "before the fact knowledge" by accumulating "after the fact knowledge" in long-term memory, and then applying that knowledge to similar situations in the future. Predicting experience and comparing experience to the prediction is how we drive a car without thinking about it. If something unexpected happens then conscious attention will come roaring in.

One can't get from effect to cause by cataloguing effects. What one gets is a pattern of experienced effects by causes unknown which might improve one's fitness but not to replicating cause or even making cause known.

This thing we've been circling around, the mind is a responsive devise and tool. It builds a world from what is input and experienced. It configures itself as the mover rather than what it is, the responder where it builds a frame putting itself at the center even though it is dependent on what is arriving at it's senses.

The brain is the center of internal as well as external stimuli. It has to work out what to do with all that information. The information does not work itself out. So, really, the brain is physically at the center of it all.

The brain evolves to better use what one senses just as one's senses evolve to improve their capability to sense. In neither case does sense or processing sense become sense. Your argument is logical extension of Descartes debunked claim "I think there fore I am."

Look to the start of a race. The gun goes off the athlete runs. The runner tries to beat others who are in the same situation as his reality.

Operationally, a race is a social event in which multiple participants attempt to get from the starting point to the ending point ahead of everyone else.

No. Operationally the race is the gun going off and the runners thereafter running to a point in space. The social event is, within the minds of the individuals, competing in a race.

 

[fromderinside]

Maybe you'll be kind enough to explain how will can exist

Maybe take that question up with DBT who at least cops to the existence of "wills" even if they don't cop to the existence of "freedom".

I don't have to explain "how" they can exist past your failure of logic. I just have to point out that they do, in fact, exist, by producing an object that conforms to the definition.

I provided several, including the automatic piano paper reel.

A computer is a machine that runs a program

Synonyms: a computer is an object that executes on a will.

The program, written following a design,

The will, generated from predelictions,

specifies the conditions under which the transistors function

This is actually false. It does not specify the conditions under which transistors function. Transistors are like neurons, insofar as nothing but their physical object properties determine the conditions of their function.

The program merely presents them state potentials which determine not how they function, but which of their states happen to be active.

If the program knows what is coming it is not representative of a being.

And then you went into "not even wrong". You have some major woo about what it means to "be there a being".

You can be a being which knows fairly well what is coming, owing to that whole "simulating the future of the system within the system" thing. That has nothing to do with existing as a "being" whatever the fuck that is even supposed to mean.

Everything is in a state of "being", unless you are not actually a materialist.

Oh pardon me I didn't say a system of transistors. But I hold to the notion that models are always incomplete things being only models of what is observed and measured. They never actually reproduce reality. There are merely our best estimates based on what what we know. It this way they are replications of evolved beings dealing with a reality in which they believe they exist. Some seem to think they have the answers. They don't.

 

[Jarhyn]

You presume something call choice without defining what it is

Oh it's been defined many times, you just don't like that many things can in fact conform to that definition including things which are not in fact organic at all.

Maybe you'll be kind enough to explain how will can exist

Maybe take that question up with DBT who at least cops to the existence of "wills" even if they don't cop to the existence of "freedom".

I don't have to explain "how" they can exist past your failure of logic. I just have to point out that they do, in fact, exist, by producing an object that conforms to the definition.

I provided several, including the automatic piano paper reel.

A computer is a machine that runs a program

Synonyms: a computer is an object that executes on a will.

The program, written following a design,

The will, generated from predelictions,

specifies the conditions under which the transistors function

This is actually false. It does not specify the conditions under which transistors function. Transistors are like neurons, insofar as nothing but their physical object properties determine the conditions of their function.

The program merely presents them state potentials which determine not how they function, but which of their states happen to be active.

If the program knows what is coming it is not representative of a being.

And then you went into "not even wrong". You have some major woo about what it means to "be there a being".

You can be a being which knows fairly well what is coming, owing to that whole "simulating the future of the system within the system" thing. That has nothing to do with existing as a "being" whatever the fuck that is even supposed to mean.

Everything is in a state of "being", unless you are not actually a materialist.

Oh pardon me I didn't say a system of transistors. But I hold to the notion that models are always incomplete things being only models of what is observed and measured. They never actually reproduce reality. There are merely our best estimates based on what what we know. It this way they are replications of evolved beings dealing with a reality in which they believe they exist. Some seem to think they have the answers. They don't.

Again with your genetic fallacies and assuming evolution or the origin of some system makes any difference as to what it is NOW.

As it is, as long as the math of the behavior of the model approximates the future well enough to capture it's microstate in the macrostate generalizations of the future, we call the will "free" because this describes a different relationship than the one where the approximation fails.

It is exactly the Incompleteness of the model and the imperfections allowing failure which create the quality which is semantically associated with "constraint".

The model of the mechanical piano is flawed insofar as it cannot tolerate continuing when something is blocking the flow of energy from the spring to the reel.

"Choice" is descriptive of any of a wide variety of events which start with a set of artifacts, and ends up with a subset of them, just as "free" is descriptive of any of a large number of objects that would act as images which represent what the future will do in macrostate before it happens as a product of the choice resolutions that the images describe, both a cause, and a description of the effect which shall be satisfied by the configuration of reality shortly.

 

[DBT]

If determinism is true, the deterministic process that we call 'decision making' - which must necessarily produce a single outcome or action in any given instance - it is this inevitability that does not meet the criteria of choice.

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

Determinism
All events develop or evolve without randomness or deviation, there are no possible alternate actions, consequently determinism does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

Ironically, compatibilists are accused of wanting to have our cake and eat it too. But here you are acknowledging decision making, which chooses between alternate possibilities, and then turning around and pretending it is not really happening.

I'm pointing out that decision making is a matter of entailment, not choice. That what we call decision making has no alternatives. That whatever is 'chosen' never had an alternative.

Is it a decision when there is no possibility of having done otherwise?

We have words and terms, but how do they relate to deterministic system where no actions have alternatives?

As 'will' cannot make a difference to output, actions performed, labelling what we inevitably must do as 'free will' is false.

Let me see if I can unscramble that for you:

Just consider the implications of determinism in relation to the concept of decision making and choice.

'Will' is the intent to do something specific, as in "I will fix pancakes for breakfast". Once the intent is fixed, it motivates and directs our subsequent thoughts and actions as we go about mixing the ingredients, heating the pan, cooking the pancakes, and eating them.

All fixed by the non-chosen state and condition of the system, including the brain, circumstances, antecedents, etc.....

What we will do is often chosen from several alternate possibilities. Will I fix pancakes or will I fix eggs? Free will means that we were free to make this choice for ourselves (free of coercion and other undue influences).

There are no alternatives during the course of any action,

Perceived alternatives are possible for others in any given instance, if determined. Not only 'possible' but necessarily performed, and of course something on the list of options may become possible for you at a later time, only if determined, but there can never be two or more realizable alternatives in any given instance......

''Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

When faced with multiple things that we 'can' do, we must necessarily decide the single thing that we 'will' do. Both the two realizable possibilities (eggs and pancakes) and the single choice (pancakes), were equally inevitable mental events. It was inevitable that we would have fixed pancakes and it was equally inevitable that we could have fixed eggs.

Nope, if eggs were determined 7:30am, eggs it is, eggs it must be, and pancakes cannot happen.

Pancakes at 7:30am would be a deviation, and deviations cannot happen within a deterministic system.

Entailment is not choice. Fixed is not freely willed.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm pointing out that decision making is a matter of entailment, not choice.

Synonyms: "Im pointing out choice is a matter of entailment not choice"

As Marvin says: now you see it, now you don't.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Coercion can be a literal “gun to the head”, or any other threat of harm sufficient to compel one person to subordinate their will to the will of another.

Undue influence is any extraordinary condition that effectively removes a person’s control of their choice. Certain mental illnesses can distort a person’s perception of reality by hallucinations or delusions. Other brain impairments can directly damage the ability to reason. Yet another form may subject them to an irresistible compulsion. Hypnosis would be an undue influence. Authoritative command, as exercised by a parent over a child, an officer over a soldier, or a doctor over a patient, is another. Any special circumstances that effectively remove a person’s control over their choice would be an undue influence.

What i read are handwaves rather than material operations.

Hmm. I give you operational definitions and you call them "handwaves". Do you understand the operation of a "mugging", where one person pulls out a gun and says "Your money or your life!"? Do you understand the operation of a mind beset by hallucinations and delusions to the point where the mental illness, rather than the person, is held responsible for their actions?

You presume something call choice without defining what it is.

Always happy to provide an operational definition of any of the terms I'm using:

A "choice" is the output of a choosing operation. The choosing operation inputs multiple options, applies some criteria of comparison, and outputs a "choice". The choice is usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is the specific thing we have chosen to do. Having fixed our intent (also known as our "will") upon a specific task, that intention motivates and directs our subsequent thoughts and actions until the task is complete or interrupted by a different task or abandoned.

The "options" are possible choices. Things that we "can" choose to do, and that we "can" actually do if we so choose. The "criteria of comparison" is some appropriate set of characteristics that enable us to evaluate the likely outcome of a given course of action.

For example, in the restaurant, the menu provides a list of possible choices. We evaluate these choices based upon our own dietary goals and our own reasoning. We may find the juicy Steak tempting, but then recall that we had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. So, we may choose a Salad instead of the steak for dinner tonight.

The Salad becomes what we "will" order, and the Steak becomes one of the things that we "could have" ordered, but would not order tonight.

What I read is one empty term as reason for other empty terms, the last of which you present stands out: " remove(ing/al) a person's control of their choice would be an undue influence."

Well, I can only write. I can't read things for you. That's something that you're either willing to do or not to do. It's your choice.

The brain evolves to better use what one senses just as one's senses evolve to improve their capability to sense. In neither case does sense or processing sense become sense. Your argument is logical extension of Descartes debunked claim "I think there fore I am."

Well, Descartes claim that "I think therefore I am" seems more sensible than "I think I am not".

Operationally, a race is a social event in which multiple participants attempt to get from the starting point to the ending point ahead of everyone else.

No. Operationally the race is the gun going off and the runners thereafter running to a point in space. The social event is, within the minds of the individuals, competing in a race.

Both are equally operational descriptions. The fact that "the social event, within the minds of the individuals, is competing in a race" is richer and more meaningful, if one cares about meaning.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I'm pointing out that decision making is a matter of entailment, not choice.

And I'm pointing out that deterministic entailment includes choosing events. Choosing necessarily happens.

We cannot honestly say that choosing isn't happening "because of entailment" when it is entailed that choosing must necessarily happen at that time and place.

That what we call decision making has no alternatives. That whatever is 'chosen' never had an alternative.

Encountering multiple alternatives causally necessitates decision making. The alternatives are already there, in the natural unfolding of events, and they are the prior cause of our decision making event. For example, we are about to graduate high school, and we are planning to go to college, but we are faced with multiple colleges to choose from. No choosing, no college. Thus decision making is causally necessitated by the appearance of multiple alternatives.

Now, our rational thought will perform a comparison of the different colleges that we know for certain we "can" choose, on the way to deciding which specific college we "will" choose.

Is it a decision when there is no possibility of having done otherwise?

And that is the self-induced hoax, created by a false but believable suggestion. The suggestion? It is suggested that what can happen is limited to what will happen, and that what we can choose is limited to what we will choose. And that false but believable suggestion traps us in a paradox, because it requires us to know in advance what we will choose before we can know what we can choose.

The "possibility of having done otherwise" is guaranteed by logical necessity. Just like addition and subtraction, the choosing operation logically requires at least two inputs. Addition requires at least two "addends" to produce a sum. Subtraction requires both a minuend and a subtrahend to produce a difference. And choosing requires at least two "options" to produce a choice.

Both options are things that we "can" choose, regardless whether we "will" choose them or not. And anything of which it is true that we "can choose" now will later be referred to as something that we "could have chosen".

So, your question above is invalid. It presents a false scenario. It sows the seeds of a self-induced hoax, trapping the reader in a paradox, the same one in which you have been trapped.

I believe the rest of your comments have been answered above. If not, feel free to make them again, and I'll try to explain what I can.

 

[steve_bank]

Que sera. sera.

 

[fromderinside]

As it is, as long as the math of the behavior of the model approximates the future well enough to capture it's microstate in the macrostate generalizations of the future, we call the will "free" because this describes a different relationship than the one where the approximation fails.

"Choice" is descriptive of any of a wide variety of events which start with a set of artifacts, and ends up with a subset of them, just as "free" is descriptive of any of a large number of objects that would act as images which represent what the future will do in macrostate before it happens as a product of the choice resolutions that the images describe, both a cause, and a description of the effect which shall be satisfied by the configuration of reality shortly.

All of the above word salad is hand wave to justify a claim of reality from the salad presented as objective fact when it is no more than approximative speculation.

To wit: It cannot be known what is the future until the future becomes past. Additionally finding microstate from future macrostate is, uh, finding catfish after they are caught. The character of the catfish is known, therefore the macrostructure is known so microstructure, also known and preferred by the decider, is conveniently selected post hoc.

 

[fromderinside]

Coercion can be a literal “gun to the head”, or any other threat of harm sufficient to compel one person to subordinate their will to the will of another.

Undue influence is any extraordinary condition that effectively removes a person’s control of their choice.

What is operational about undue influence (not operationalized), extraordinarily (not operatinalized), effectively removes (not operationalized), control (not operationalized), choice (not operationalized)?

Certain mental illnesses (NO*) can distort (NO) a person’s perception of reality by hallucinations (NO) or delusions. (NO) Other brain impairments (NO) can directly damage the ability to reason. (NO) Yet another form may subject them to an irresistible compulsion. (NO) Hypnosis would be an undue influence. (NO) Authoritative command, (NO) as exercised by a parent over a child, an officer over a soldier, or a doctor over a patient, is another. Any special circumstances that effectively remove a person’s control over their choice would be an undue influence.
*not operationalized

What i read are handwaves rather than material operations.

Hmm. I give you operational definitions and you call them "handwaves". Do you understand the operation of a "mugging", where one person pulls out a gun and says "Your money or your life!"? Do you understand the operation of a mind beset by hallucinations and delusions to the point where the mental illness, rather than the person, is held responsible for their actions?

Eyup handwaves see above.

You presume something call choice without defining what it is.

Always happy to provide an operational definition of any of the terms I'm using:

A "choice" is the output of a choosing operation. (self reference is not operational anything).The choosing operation inputs multiple options, applies some criteria of comparison, and outputs a "choice". (structure not bad example is required though) The choice is usually in the form of an "I will X", (I think that is doing operation, not a choosing one) where X is the specific thing we have chosen to do. Having fixed our intent -also known as our "will" - upon a specific task, that intention motivates and directs our subsequent thoughts and actions until the task is complete or interrupted by a different task or abandoned. (I think you know by now that what you just wrote is word salad bereft of operations.)

The "options" are possible choices. (good for you) Things that we "can" choose to do, and that we "can" actually do if we so choose. The "criteria of comparison" is some appropriate set of characteristics that enable us to evaluate the likely outcome of a given course of action. (nice)

For example, in the restaurant, the menu provides a list of possible choices. We evaluate these choices based upon our own dietary goals and our own reasoning. We may find the juicy Steak tempting, but then recall that we had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. So, we may choose a Salad instead of the steak for dinner tonight. (gobble-de-gook again)

What I read is one empty term as reason for other empty terms, the last of which you present stands out: " remove(ing/al) a person's control of their choice would be an undue influence."

Well, I can only write. I can't read things for you. That's something that you're either willing to do or not to do. It's your choice. ( you need to write with more thought about actually making material points.)

 

[Jarhyn]

It cannot be known what is the future until the future becomes past

More, it CAN be ascertained what the future will be on the basis of decisions that have already passed. Certainty isn't possible, but it doesn't need to be. It's exactly the uncertainty that yeilds constraint and thus the reality of both "freedom" and thus "the failure of freedom" which is "unfreeness".

Additionally finding microstate from future macrostate is, uh, finding catfish after they are caught

0/10 points.

It is finding a provisional (read "pretend") future macrostate on the basis of the current macrostate, such that that the provisional macrostate contains the real microstate.

The point is, we can't predict exact microstates and we don't need to, we just need to select a macrostate which at least captures the real microstate somewhere inside, and that one of the causal agents is in fact that the individual successfully parsed the logical sensibility of the "alternative", and chose it as an artifact from among a set because of the results implied of the outcome.

It's more like saying what kind of fish will be caught, and coming up right every time because you are the one who selected the bait.

 

[fromderinside]

It cannot be known what is the future until the future becomes past

More, it CAN be ascertained what the future will be on the basis of decisions that have already passed. Certainty isn't possible, but it doesn't need to be. It's exactly the uncertainty that yeilds constraint and thus the reality of both "freedom" and thus "the failure of freedom" which is "unfreeness".

Additionally finding microstate from future macrostate is, uh, finding catfish after they are caught

0/10 points.

It is finding a provisional (read "pretend") future macrostate on the basis of the current macrostate, such that that the provisional macrostate contains the real microstate.

The point is, we can't predict exact microstates and we don't need to, we just need to select a macrostate which at least captures the real microstate somewhere inside, and that one of the causal agents is in fact that the individual successfully parsed the logical sensibility of the "alternative", and chose it as an artifact from among a set because of the results implied of the outcome.

It's more like saying what kind of fish will be caught, and coming up right every time because you are the one who selected the bait.

Like I said when I chose the bait, "You can't win."

 

[Jarhyn]

It cannot be known what is the future until the future becomes past

More, it CAN be ascertained what the future will be on the basis of decisions that have already passed. Certainty isn't possible, but it doesn't need to be. It's exactly the uncertainty that yeilds constraint and thus the reality of both "freedom" and thus "the failure of freedom" which is "unfreeness".

Additionally finding microstate from future macrostate is, uh, finding catfish after they are caught

0/10 points.

It is finding a provisional (read "pretend") future macrostate on the basis of the current macrostate, such that that the provisional macrostate contains the real microstate.

The point is, we can't predict exact microstates and we don't need to, we just need to select a macrostate which at least captures the real microstate somewhere inside, and that one of the causal agents is in fact that the individual successfully parsed the logical sensibility of the "alternative", and chose it as an artifact from among a set because of the results implied of the outcome.

It's more like saying what kind of fish will be caught, and coming up right every time because you are the one who selected the bait.

Like I said when I chose the bait, "You' can't win."

I think I "won" insofar as you are finally acknowledging here not just if you can choose, but that there are times you do.