Compatibilism: What's that About?

[The Sage of Main Street]

You guys should start a thread on string theory.

A Thread Is Not a Tightrope

Human will is another dimension with the power to control, contend with, or limit the damages of the determined world. So it is analogous with the fourth spatial dimension that will be recognized in post-Postclassical Physics.

Will, in determined World with its necessitated objects and events, is shaped and formed by events beyond any possible control or ability to alter. Will is fixed as a matter of natural law, time and events.

Science Must Not Be a Game Played by Escapist Immature Nerds

The way you deny extra-dimensionality you must believe in the Quantum Quacks.

 

[DBT]

You guys should start a thread on string theory.

A Thread Is Not a Tightrope

Human will is another dimension with the power to control, contend with, or limit the damages of the determined world. So it is analogous with the fourth spatial dimension that will be recognized in post-Postclassical Physics.

Will, in determined World with its necessitated objects and events, is shaped and formed by events beyond any possible control or ability to alter. Will is fixed as a matter of natural law, time and events.

Science Must Not Be a Game Played by Escapist Immature Nerds

The way you deny extra-dimensionality you must believe in the Quantum Quacks.

How is extra-dimensionality supposed to help with free will? You need to explain, not assert, cry wow or wring your hands in anguish.

 

[steve_bank]

That is the problem with philosophy and metaphysics, there are no precise definitions. One freely coopts terms and invents new ones.

 

[fromderinside]

Cummon steve_bank, be rational.

 

[DBT]

Will, in determined World with its necessitated objects and events, is shaped and formed by events beyond any possible control or ability to alter. Will is fixed as a matter of natural law, time and events.

No problem. A person, like any other natural object, behaves according to natural law. A person's will is necessitated by a series of deterministic events within that person: the consideration of realizable alternatives, the estimated outcome of realizing each alternative, and setting their intent upon realizing the best outcome. Their intent then marshals their body into action realizing that alternative.

This deterministic process of deciding for themselves what they will do is called "free will", which is literally a freely chosen "I will". And, what is it "free" of? It is obviously not free of reliable causation, because without reliable causation they could never realize their selected alternative. So, it must be free of something else. Something that choosing can actually be free of. Hmm. How about "free from coercion and undue influence"? Yes! That works!

Realizable alternatives exist in general, but these are not realizable options available to all. A career in Mathematics, for instance, is quite possible for some, but not all. It's not only a matter of application and study, but aptitude. Some learn easily, others not at all. Not for want of trying, but because their brain is not wired for it.

A career in sports is a realizable option for some, becoming champion swimmer, boxer, sprinter, tennis player, but not for all, not even for most people....not because of want of training, drive, motivation, just physical suitability: they are not built for it.

Again, nothing to do with will, free will or choice, just 'luck of the draw' - yet in a determined system, whatever you are and whatever you can or can't do being necessitated.... not even luck of the draw.

 

[DBT]

2- If freedom does not require the possibility of realizable options, that the world proceeds along a determined, singular, course of events, why call it freedom?

Why not? I'm serious.

If the meaning of words is derived from how we use those words, why then should we not use 'freedom of will' to describe our deciding for ourselves what we will do while "free of coercion and undue influence".

Why not? It has been explained over and over.

Yes, but your explanation makes no sense.

If your actions are fixed as a matter of natural law, your behaviour and response necessitated by events outside of your ability to alter or control, your will - just as everything else in the world - set as a consequence, how is your will free? It is not. It has the same status as everything else within a determined system

So, according to you, nothing in a determined system is free. This implies that all usage of the terms 'free' and 'freedom' are mistaken. Are you actually suggesting that the words 'free' and 'freedom' should be expunged from the English language?

If this is not what you intended, you should correct your explanation.

Yeah, as simple and as straight forward the terms and definitions are - freedom, will, necessity, the consequences of determinism - I didn't expect that it would make sense to you.

Your response is precisely what I expected to see.

 

[DBT]

Origination Argument;

1. An agent acts with free will only if she is the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions.
2. If determinism is true, then everything any agent does is ultimately caused by events and circumstances outside her control.
3. If everything an agent does is ultimately caused by events and circumstances beyond her control, then the agent is not the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions.
4. Therefore, if determinism is true, then no agent is the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions.
5. Therefore, if determinism is true, no agent has free will.

Item 1 is question-begging. It assumes as true the very thing that is under discussion.

No, it's not begging the question.

1- If determinism allows multiple options to be realized by an agent, as a matter of choice, why call it determinism?

I don't understand your response (it doesn't appear to address my criticism).

Marvin has not suggested (or implied) that "determinism allows multiple options to be realized by an agent".

Marvin is expressing philosophical compatibilism. I am arguing for incompatibility. Giving the reasons why compatibilism fails. It fails because it tries to define free will into reality by ignoring the implications of determinism, that simply calling something free will does not make will free, which makes it a word game.

And I am pointing out as a software engineer that your efforts to use physical determinism to attempt to hand-wave concepts of contention over executiveness which arise over the activity of disparate reference frames with incomplete information of the state of outside frames.

You are engaging in just as much of a word game, ignoring that there are abstract systems of order that arise within ANY deterministic system of sufficient complexity.

you have not answered in any sufficient manner my explanations of the concept from the perspective of software engineering: a system being deterministic does not change the truth of priority levels nor of contention

I am engaging with the standard incompatibilist argument against compatibalism/ free will, which gives valid reasons why the term "free will" does not relate to determinism, the nature of thought, decision making or human behaviour.

I haven't engaged with you because time constraint does not allow me to deal with multiple posters or numerous points, which are usually repetitive.

The argument against free will is clear and relates to determinism, brain function and behaviour, while compatibilism does not, simply pasting a label on a select set of behaviors and declaring this is free will.

Except that it is exactly the thing people generally engage with in philosophical discussions of free will.

Your mistake is that you are failing to see that there are two machines at play.

The first set of machines are the physics engines themselves: put in two quarks, plus virtual event, and you get whatever as a combined object.

Then there are machines made of those machines. The claim that one machine's deterministic flow prevents meaningfulness of the discussion of a set of machines that have private contexts within the substrate and their interaction of contention over goals and subjugation of intent is silly and nonsense.

Will you be so bold as to declare "the discussion of flow control, mutex, priority levels, and interrupts is meaningless, computers are deterministic!"

Of course the universe is deterministic. That doesn't change the worth of metagaming.

Free will is not a concept of physical rules, it's a concept of metagaming. The existence of rules invalidated the value of meta just about NEVER.

There is no mistake. What you say, not being related, does not establish free will. If the world is determined everything proceeds according to initial conditions and natural law, no deviations, no second options, no freedom to do otherwise. Simply declaring action that is not coerced to be free will is not sufficient because everything that happens is necessitated, that events once in motion proceeds without impediment. How things go/fixed is neither ''willed'' or chosen. Free will is incompatible with determinism.

Then you DO claim that software engineering is meaningless because software execution systems are deterministic, so concepts of contention and "flow control" don't need to happen?

How exactly is ''flow control'' related to determinism, compatibilism, brain function, decision making, behaviour and the concept of free will?

How do you relate ''flow control'' to ''free will?''

How do you not?

That's what you need to explain. You need to link your ''flow control'' to cognition and will in a way that supports 'freedom of will.'

What are you proposing? How does it work? You are not suggesting that computers have free will, I take it? So how does it relate to the brain and human cognition?

"Computers" do not have free will. "Processes" may or may not with relation to another process, because there is only a single computer but there are many processors and many processes.

I am saying specifically that "the quality of a process which is capable of operating without being descheduled, overridden, or terminated; the exclusivity of it's needed resources so as to stay out of "bad states", this is exactly the same stuff as our discussions of "free will" as comes from the compatibilist position.

A process does not have "free will" if a secondary process executes that starts donking around with it's memory, or leverages some kind of enhanced permission level and deschedules the other! Something has "suborned" it's "free will".

Humans need to discuss these concepts, not just as regards processes on computer based processes in deterministic electronic systems but of organic processes interacting in physical deterministic systems , and this need arises from the fact that understanding them more enables the efficiency that comes from handling the above well.

The only difference here is that humans have much more variant and unintentional purpose to our lives.

Even if the execution of a whole system is deterministic, processes within it have local indeterminabilities. In fact, on any system with more than one processor state (the universe has (particles) processor states, at a minimum!), This must be true.

I don't disagree with most of what you say. But if your intent is to argue for the reality of free will, I see anything here that does that.

 

[DBT]

Determinism has a given definition. Basically - ''that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature''

That's fine! It is indeed the case that every event is always necessitated by antecedent events and conditions. For example, a person's birth happens to be one of those antecedent events and conditions in the chain of events to what the person becomes later. And a person behaves according to their nature. When a person is old enough to choose for themselves what they will do, they will be presented with realizable alternatives, "It's lunchtime. Would you like to go to MacDonald's or Wendy's?" In order to eat they must make a choice. They will imagine what they like about MacDonald's. Then they will imagine what they like about Wendy's. They will choose the option that seems most likely to please their desires today. All of these smaller events are causally necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

And, the event of choosing for ourselves what we will do is called "free will", because they are free to choose for themselves what they will do.

Do any of these events contradict causal necessity or the laws of nature? No. Not one.

Does the term "free will" mean that any of these events contradict causal necessity or the laws of nature? No. All of these events are deterministic, following a causal chain stretching back in time as far as anyone can imagine.

So, what does "free will" mean? It means they decided for themselves what they would do, while free of coercion and undue influence.

- the risk in imposing one's own rules and conditions can create biases in favour of whatever is being claimed.

Fortunately, there was never any necessity to impose my own rules or conditions.

I like to use "operational" definitions when I can, which describe the concept in terms of how it "works" and what the notion is actually used for. For example:

This ultimately fails because it does not take critical factors into account; the nature and role of will, brain function, self and determinism, yet the label is pasted and asserted.

"Will" is a person's specific intent for the immediate ("I will have pancakes for breakfast") or distant ("last will and testament") future. This intent both motivates and gives direction to the person's subsequent actions.

"Brain functions" are the various functions provided by the neural architecture. Perhaps the most significant of these is the organization of sensory input into a model of reality. Included in this model is the "self" and its "internal environment" and also its "external environment". The key brain functions related to free will are imagination, evaluation, and choosing.

"Self" is the brain's model of the person, including things like their body, their thoughts, and their experiences.

"Determinism" is the belief (-ism) that all events are the reliable result of prior events.

"Causal necessity" is the notion that prior events reliably bring about future events, making them necessary and inevitable.

Are there any differences between how we are using those terms?

That's right....it goes wrong when someone points to a select portion of determined events and declares this select portion to be free will.

Are you suggesting that we should avoid looking at the different events within the determined system? As long as all of the events are equally determined by preceding events and the laws of nature, what is your objection?

''Determinism (which I take to be Causal Determinism) posits that all activity in the universe is both (i) the effect of [all] prior activity, and (ii) the only activity that can occur given the prior activity. That is what is meant by saying that everything is “determined” — it is the inexorable consequence of activity that preceded it. In a deterministic universe, everything that has ever occurred, is occurring, and will occur since the universe came into existence (however that might have occurred) can only occur exactly as it has occurred, is occurring, or will occur, and cannot possibly occur in any different manner. This mandated activity necessarily includes all human action, including all human cognition.''

Yes, Bruce. And among these "mandated activities" are choosing for ourselves what we will do. Not free of determinism, of course, but definitely free of coercion and undue influence.

''As I understand the two concepts, Determinism and Free Will are irreconcilably incompatible unless (i) Determinism is defined to exclude human cognition from the inexorable path of causation forged through the universe long before human beings came into existence, and/or (ii) Free Will is defined to be include the illusion of human cognition that is a part of the path of Determinism.

No, Bruce. Free will and determinism are not opposites. The opposite of free will is a choice imposed upon us by someone or something else. The opposite of determinism (reliable causation) is indeterminism, where causation is unreliable. All of the causation within the choosing event is presumed to be reliable. So, there is no conflict between the notion of determinism and the notion of free will.

''When all is said and done, all arguments for compatibilism suffer from a stubborn refusal to come to grips with the true and complete nature of the two incompatible concepts.'' Bruce Silvertein - B.A. Philosophy - Quora.

Sorry, Bruce, but the stubbornness is wholly owned by the hard determinist, who refuses to see what is right there in front of him.

Well, no. Bruce is quite correct. He gives a nice summary of the issue that relates to the terms and conditions of freedom and determinism.

Because determinism doesn't allow realizable alternatives at each point of decision making (unless sting theory is correct and the world splits) we don't actually get to choose, the brain responds to it inputs according to its architecture and state in that moment in time, producing the only possible action in that that moment in time.

Nothing is willed, information is acquired, processed, represented in conscious form, the action initiated even before intent comes to conscious attention.

Brain/mind/cognition, highly complex information processing/behaviour. Free will? Not really.

 

[Bomb#20]

Inhibited Escapists

The very reason that the Postclassical gurus didn't use the extra-dimensional explanations for quantum physics was that, decades earlier, it had acquired a bad reputation when fantasists made it the home of ghosts, demons, or even God. That just shows the low character of nerds that they would let the reputation created by people even weirder than they are determine their science. I'm not going to use the "I know, but..." hedge. Anyone who associates an idea with what Hollywood projects about it is being dishonest and can't offer any rational objections.

Oh for the love of god! You have no idea just how uninhibited those guys are. Quantum Mechanics is an extra-dimensional explanation. The Schroedinger Equation is not an equation about 3-space; it's an equation about "configuration space". To describe a system of two particles it posits six dimensions, seven when you count time. QM needs a ten-dimensional space to explain what a three particle system will do, and so forth. But to do QM right, including antimatter, pair-creation, and relativistic speeds, you need Quantum Field Theory, where the predicted quantities aren't particle positions and velocities, but force fields, which means you need a dimension for the strength and direction of those forces at every point in spacetime. I.e. QFT is a theory of infinitely many dimensions. The Postclassical gurus are way ahead of you.

 

[The AntiChris]

So, according to you, nothing in a determined system is free. This implies that all usage of the terms 'free' and 'freedom' are mistaken. Are you actually suggesting that the words 'free' and 'freedom' should be expunged from the English language?

Yeah, as simple and as straight forward the terms and definitions are - freedom, will, necessity, the consequences of determinism - I didn't expect that it would make sense to you.

Your response is precisely what I expected to see.

Apologies for being dense (it's not intentional). Can you confirm that you really are suggesting that all uses of the the words 'free' and 'freedom' to describe anything in a determined system are mistaken?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Realizable alternatives exist in general, but these are not realizable options available to all. A career in Mathematics, for instance, is quite possible for some, but not all. It's not only a matter of application and study, but aptitude. Some learn easily, others not at all. Not for want of trying, but because their brain is not wired for it.

A career in sports is a realizable option for some, becoming champion swimmer, boxer, sprinter, tennis player, but not for all, not even for most people....not because of want of training, drive, motivation, just physical suitability: they are not built for it.

Again, nothing to do with will, free will or choice, just 'luck of the draw' - yet in a determined system, whatever you are and whatever you can or can't do being necessitated.... not even luck of the draw.

Becoming a "champion" in any sport is limited by definition (the champion is the single person who wins). But becoming proficient in any sport is open to the vast majority of people. It's more nurture than nature. And like the guy said when asked "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?", "Practice, practice, practice".

All of the events always are causally necessary from any prior point in time, of course, but that logical fact does not enlighten any of our choices. All it tells us is that whatever we choose, it would have been causally necessary. Basically, causal necessity says "You will do what you will do". And that is useless.

The guy telling you to "Practice, practice, practice", on the other hand, is giving you useful information.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I like to use "operational" definitions when I can, which describe the concept in terms of how it "works" and what the notion is actually used for. For example:

"Will" is a person's specific intent for the immediate ("I will have pancakes for breakfast") or distant ("last will and testament") future. This intent both motivates and gives direction to the person's subsequent actions.

"Brain functions" are the various functions provided by the neural architecture. Perhaps the most significant of these is the organization of sensory input into a model of reality. Included in this model is the "self" and its "internal environment" and also its "external environment". The key brain functions related to free will are imagination, evaluation, and choosing.

"Self" is the brain's model of the person, including things like their body, their thoughts, and their experiences.

"Determinism" is the belief (-ism) that all events are the reliable result of prior events.

"Causal necessity" is the notion that prior events reliably bring about future events, making them necessary and inevitable.

Because determinism doesn't allow realizable alternatives at each point of decision making (unless sting theory is correct and the world splits) we don't actually get to choose, the brain responds to it inputs according to its architecture and state in that moment in time, producing the only possible action in that that moment in time.

The "brain responding to its inputs according to its architecture and state in that moment in time, producing the only possible action in that moment in time" is identical to "us choosing what we will do". They are not two different things. They are one and the same.

Nothing is willed, information is acquired, processed, represented in conscious form, the action initiated even before intent comes to conscious attention.

In all of the neuroscience experiments upon volunteers, the act of volunteering is a conscious choice. And that conscious intent then motivates the subject to listen to the instructions and attempt to carry them out.

Brain/mind/cognition, highly complex information processing/behaviour. Free will? Not really.

Were the subjects forced to participate in the experiment? Or did they participate of their own free will? The notion of free will carries meaningful information. The notion of causal necessity does not.

Causal necessity is logically true, but it is neither a meaningful nor a relevant fact. But free will is a meaningful and relevant fact.

 

[Copernicus]

...

Brain/mind/cognition, highly complex information processing/behaviour. Free will? Not really.

Were the subjects forced to participate in the experiment? Or did they participate of their own free will? The notion of free will carries meaningful information. The notion of causal necessity does not.

Causal necessity is logically true, but it is neither a meaningful nor a relevant fact. But free will is a meaningful and relevant fact.

It seems clear by now that DBT is never going to concede that ordinary usage of the expression "free will" is a valid basis for defining its meaning. Freedom from coercion or undue influence is a completely acceptable way to define the term, but hard determinists want to treat it as either meaning freedom from causal necessity or not having any meaningful significance at all. In the end, their argument means little, because people are still going to be judged guilty and punished for using their "imaginary" free will to commit crimes. Eliminativism strikes me as an intellectually bankrupt position, but no harm as long as it makes them happy.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

...

Brain/mind/cognition, highly complex information processing/behaviour. Free will? Not really.

Were the subjects forced to participate in the experiment? Or did they participate of their own free will? The notion of free will carries meaningful information. The notion of causal necessity does not.

Causal necessity is logically true, but it is neither a meaningful nor a relevant fact. But free will is a meaningful and relevant fact.

It seems clear by now that DBT is never going to concede that ordinary usage of the expression "free will" is a valid basis for defining its meaning. Freedom from coercion or undue influence is a completely acceptable way to define the term, but hard determinists want to treat it as either meaning freedom from causal necessity or not having any meaningful significance at all. In the end, their argument means little, because people are still going to be judged guilty and punished for using their "imaginary" free will to commit crimes. Eliminativism strikes me as an intellectually bankrupt position, but no harm as long as it makes them happy.

Well, actually there is some harm: http://eddynahmias.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Neuroethics-Response-to-Baumeister.pdf

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You guys should start a thread on string theory.

A Thread Is Not a Tightrope

Human will is another dimension with the power to control, contend with, or limit the damages of the determined world. So it is analogous with the fourth spatial dimension that will be recognized in post-Postclassical Physics.

Will, in determined World with its necessitated objects and events, is shaped and formed by events beyond any possible control or ability to alter. Will is fixed as a matter of natural law, time and events.

Science Must Not Be a Game Played by Escapist Immature Nerds

The way you deny extra-dimensionality you must believe in the Quantum Quacks.

How is extra-dimensionality supposed to help with free will? You need to explain, not assert, cry wow or wring your hands in anguish.

Gurus Gobble Up Individualism

You need to understand that I did connect it, instead of having your mind go blank as soon as you hear something that you've never heard before, as if all viewpoints have been covered and the debate now becomes quibbling among partisans.

 

[bilby]

You guys should start a thread on string theory.

A Thread Is Not a Tightrope

Human will is another dimension with the power to control, contend with, or limit the damages of the determined world. So it is analogous with the fourth spatial dimension that will be recognized in post-Postclassical Physics.

Will, in determined World with its necessitated objects and events, is shaped and formed by events beyond any possible control or ability to alter. Will is fixed as a matter of natural law, time and events.

Science Must Not Be a Game Played by Escapist Immature Nerds

The way you deny extra-dimensionality you must believe in the Quantum Quacks.

How is extra-dimensionality supposed to help with free will? You need to explain, not assert, cry wow or wring your hands in anguish.

Gurus Gobble Up Individualism

You need to understand that I did connect it, instead of having your mind go blank as soon as you hear something that you've never heard before, as if all viewpoints have been covered and the debate now becomes quibbling among partisans.

You really seem to miss the essential difference between thinking a lot, and merely thinking a lot of yourself.

You have yet to say anything that people here haven't heard before.

 

[steve_bank]

Cummon steve_bank, be rational.

What do you mean by rationale?

They say Socrates was a real pain in the ass.

 

[DBT]

You guys should start a thread on string theory.

A Thread Is Not a Tightrope

Human will is another dimension with the power to control, contend with, or limit the damages of the determined world. So it is analogous with the fourth spatial dimension that will be recognized in post-Postclassical Physics.

Will, in determined World with its necessitated objects and events, is shaped and formed by events beyond any possible control or ability to alter. Will is fixed as a matter of natural law, time and events.

Science Must Not Be a Game Played by Escapist Immature Nerds

The way you deny extra-dimensionality you must believe in the Quantum Quacks.

How is extra-dimensionality supposed to help with free will? You need to explain, not assert, cry wow or wring your hands in anguish.

Gurus Gobble Up Individualism

You need to understand that I did connect it, instead of having your mind go blank as soon as you hear something that you've never heard before, as if all viewpoints have been covered and the debate now becomes quibbling among partisans.

You may believe that you have made a connection between extra-dimensionality and free will, but I don't see it. Where is your explanation of free will in terms of extra-dimensionality? What exactly is extra-dimensionality? Where is the evidence to support it? How does free will work in terms of extra-dimensionality? What exactly do you believe free will to be?

 

[DBT]

Realizable alternatives exist in general, but these are not realizable options available to all. A career in Mathematics, for instance, is quite possible for some, but not all. It's not only a matter of application and study, but aptitude. Some learn easily, others not at all. Not for want of trying, but because their brain is not wired for it.

A career in sports is a realizable option for some, becoming champion swimmer, boxer, sprinter, tennis player, but not for all, not even for most people....not because of want of training, drive, motivation, just physical suitability: they are not built for it.

Again, nothing to do with will, free will or choice, just 'luck of the draw' - yet in a determined system, whatever you are and whatever you can or can't do being necessitated.... not even luck of the draw.

Becoming a "champion" in any sport is limited by definition (the champion is the single person who wins). But becoming proficient in any sport is open to the vast majority of people. It's more nurture than nature. And like the guy said when asked "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?", "Practice, practice, practice".

All of the events always are causally necessary from any prior point in time, of course, but that logical fact does not enlighten any of our choices. All it tells us is that whatever we choose, it would have been causally necessary. Basically, causal necessity says "You will do what you will do". And that is useless.

The guy telling you to "Practice, practice, practice", on the other hand, is giving you useful information.

The point is that a sports star, mathematician, rock star, etc, does not choose their physical makeup, body or brain, that it is their non chosen physical makeup, neural architecture, muscles, physique, inherent talents, drive/will that open possibilities for them but not others.

Options that are open for someone, but not for everyone, sometimes only for the very few, and in relation to determinism, not only open but necessitated....it cannot be otherwise.

So, again, where does this thing we call free will come into the picture as a real attribute that makes a difference?

 

[DBT]

...

Brain/mind/cognition, highly complex information processing/behaviour. Free will? Not really.

Were the subjects forced to participate in the experiment? Or did they participate of their own free will? The notion of free will carries meaningful information. The notion of causal necessity does not.

Causal necessity is logically true, but it is neither a meaningful nor a relevant fact. But free will is a meaningful and relevant fact.

It seems clear by now that DBT is never going to concede that ordinary usage of the expression "free will" is a valid basis for defining its meaning. Freedom from coercion or undue influence is a completely acceptable way to define the term, but hard determinists want to treat it as either meaning freedom from causal necessity or not having any meaningful significance at all. In the end, their argument means little, because people are still going to be judged guilty and punished for using their "imaginary" free will to commit crimes. Eliminativism strikes me as an intellectually bankrupt position, but no harm as long as it makes them happy.

Ahem, I don't deny ordinary usage. The argument here is not merely about semantics, how people use words. The argument relates to actual function, how decisions are made, determinism and how actions are performed. The argument against free will is about reality, not semantics, that common usage is inadequate in explaining cognition or motor action, how and why we think and behave as we do...that the compatibilist definition fails for the given reasons.....reasons that are typically ignored by its supporters.