Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Jarhyn]

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.

I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.

"I can make ..." is self-reference.

No, it's example. You can pretend all you want that things put right in front of you do not exist but they are there, and extant.

The fact that you wish to deny a machine is or can be real and behave the way it is described as behaving is silliness.

Unless you wish to accuse me of dishonesty about what the machine is doing, though I could as easily provide source code.

You say "things can't have a particular kind of relationship, wherein one thing prevents another thing from meaningfully impacting the statistical out one of an event (to impede a free will)".

I propose to hold up something doing that thing right in front of you, to point it out, to even describe in context and text what it is doing and why, and what the "causal diagram" of the system looks like, and how some momentary agencies would be causal drivers and some would not be.

But of course it's not science. It's something much more basic in the stack of philosophy than science. It's much closer to math and logic.

 

[fromderinside]

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.

I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.

"I can make ..." is self-reference.

No, it's example. You can pretend all you want that things put right in front of you do not exist but they are there, and extant.

The fact that you wish to deny a machine is or can be real and behave the way it is described as behaving is silliness.

Unless you wish to accuse me of dishonesty about what the machine is doing, though I could as easily provide source code.

You say "things can't have a particular kind of relationship, wherein one thing prevents another thing from meaningfully impacting the statistical out one of an event (to impede a free will)".

I propose to hold up something doing that thing right in front of you, to point it out, to even describe in context and text what it is doing and why, and what the "causal diagram" of the system looks like, and how some momentary agencies would be causal drivers and some would not be.

But of course it's not science. It's something much more basic in the stack of philosophy than science. It's much closer to math and logic.

That you know mathematics is nice. However is there anything in mathematics that requires it be related to material? No!!!

Just because you self reference and build a mathematical or logical construct from that self-reference doesn't mean it relates to the material world. You can't go from imagined construct to application to material brain or nervous system.

I insist on taking a scientific view here.

It's in that failure where you lose your way. Introspection fails for the same reasons, as do any things built up like "I am", "mind", "consciousness". That are all place holders for what one hopes may be real but they cannot be treated as if they are real until they are verified as arising the material. Don't get caught up in the mystique, the charm, the elegance, of the proposition. One needs material findings. That's why Bridgeman proposed Operationalism and that's where Skinner screwed it up.

 

[fromderinside]

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.

I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.

"I can make ..." is self-reference.

No, it's example. You can pretend all you want that things put right in front of you do not exist but they are there, and extant.

The fact that you wish to deny a machine is or can be real and behave the way it is described as behaving is silliness.

Unless you wish to accuse me of dishonesty about what the machine is doing, though I could as easily provide source code.

You say "things can't have a particular kind of relationship, wherein one thing prevents another thing from meaningfully impacting the statistical out one of an event (to impede a free will)".

I propose to hold up something doing that thing right in front of you, to point it out, to even describe in context and text what it is doing and why, and what the "causal diagram" of the system looks like, and how some momentary agencies would be causal drivers and some would not be.

But of course it's not science. It's something much more basic in the stack of philosophy than science. It's much closer to math and logic.

That you know mathematics is nice. However is there anything in mathematics that requires it to be related to the material? No!!!

Just because you self-reference and build a mathematical or logical construct from that self-reference doesn't mean it relates to the material world. You can't go from imagined construct to material brain or nervous system until you have material evidence it is physically so. Mind remains a construct. it is not a Thing.

I insist on taking a scientific view here.

It's in that failure where you lose your way. Introspection fails for the same reasons, as do any things built up like "I am", "mind", "consciousness". They are all placeholders for what one hopes may be real but they cannot be treated as if they are real until they are verified as arising the material. Don't get caught up in the mystique, the charm, the elegance, of the proposition. One needs material findings. That's why Bridgeman proposed Operationalism and that's where Skinner screwed it up.

Just a thought. If, by "I can make ..." you re saying I can take physical evidence parameters and model the existing theoretical interpretation as a model that is one thing.

However, if you have in mind a mental logical or mathematical model that is imagined, isn't directly supported, and derived from measurement of physical activity of physical stuff obeying existing physical laws you are introspecting or self-referencing.

 

[DBT]

P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

As I happen to be arguing that the term 'free will' does not represent the mechanics of cognition, decision making or motor action - for the given reasons - I argue that there is no such thing as 'free will.'

Cognition and decision making is how free will operates. Our deliberate motor actions are the result of that cognition and decision making. So, the facts of neuroscience confirm the mechanisms by which we choose what we will do.

The critical part is the means and mechanisms of decision making. Wording the process of motor as 'deliberate motor actions' gives the impression that conscious will runs the show.

A motor action, while you can say that it deliberate in the sense that it's a response to stimuli, has not been consciously deliberated, regulated or willed into being.

The motor response is determined by unconscious neural activity prior to conscious awareness. Rather than being willed, it is necessitated and fixed by information exchange between the brain and environment.

This is not free will.

When we are free to choose for ourselves what we will do, it is a freely chosen will. But if the choice is imposed upon us by someone or something else, then we are not free to make that choice for ourselves.

How the brain operates is a constant that is not in dispute here. Whether we make the choice ourselves, or someone points a gun at us, making us do his will, the brain continues to operate through cognition and decision making. The brain deals with the empirical conditions it faces, whether coerced or free of coercion.

But whether we are coerced or free of coercion is a significant distinction between the two cases. It makes a difference in how we assess who is responsible for the action.

The distinction between being forced by external agent and routine information processing does not establish the latter as freely willed activity.

The distinction being.

1 - You being forced against your will.

2 - You act according to your will, but your will is fixed by determinants beyond your control.

Neither case is an example of free will

If I was to speculate on what free will would look like, I would say it must include regulative control through the power of will, the ability to do otherwise in any given instance in time.

1. Regulative control falls to that which decides what will happen next. And that is us, specifically our brains, deciding what the we will do next. So, your first condition is satisfied.

2. The ability to do otherwise in any given instance in time always shows up whenever a choosing operation appears in the causal chain. Choosing logically requires at least two real possibilities to choose from and it logically requires that it is possible to choose either one. This means that there will always be at least two things that we "can" do. And when we've make our choice there will be the single thing that we inevitably "will" do, plus each of the other things that we inevitably "could have done" instead. So, your second condition is also satisfied.

If actions are determined, there is never the possibility of an alternate choice or action. The state of a brain produces the action that is determined in any given instance. To call this freedom of will is a mistake.

It is information processing. The unique state of a brain produces actions that are specific to that brain.

Intelligence, but not free will.

''This is shown here: if the absence of constraints is all that is needed for us to make free choices then surely this should apply to inanimate objects such as rocks, boulders or clouds. If there was a rock fall which killed a person camping underneath, it seems ridiculous to attribute blame to those rocks. In addition, if acting voluntarily is to be considered central to the theory then animals could be seen to be morally responsible. Either way it can be argued that the theory rests on a flawed principle; thus undermining the whole compatibilist theory.''

 

[DBT]

It's one thing to say that there's a sense in which I can make a difference in the world. It's another thing to show that it is a sense worth philosophically caring about.

It's not often I find a view so wrong I would use the term "repugnant".

Whatever you may feel about it, doesn't alter the nature of determinism. It is the nature of determinism that all actions within the system are fixed.

Being fixed means that your actions are an inevitable part of the system. You can't do otherwise, you can't will otherwise.

Like it or not, repugnant or not, that is the system works.

The fact is we can each make exactly the difference in the world that a human existing where we are with the power to decide (choose; "exercise free will") can make. The difference your existence imparts on the world may be a difference reflected back onto yourself, or the invention of some new things, or perhaps even just sadly repeating someone else's "greatest hits". All of the above are possible.

If determined, the difference we make is determined. That is the point. Not that we can't think or act, but how thinking and acting is enabled by the system, of which the brain is an inseparable aspect or component.

Compatibilists, it seems, shy away from the harsh reality of determinism by using language like 'reliable causation' - as if 'free will' uses 'reliable causation' as a means to a freedom that is not compatible with determinism.

Harsh? Perhaps, but I don't set the definition. Merely point out the consequences.

To ignore this is to blind yourself to what you are
and to merely exist, as The Stranger.

I recognize that I have choices, and that I do not always have to accept, repeat, implement, or respect every (or any) thought that passes across my awareness. I pick and choose.

Multiple options may be present, but only one is realizable in any given instance in time. Being determined, there was never the possibility of you choosing option A over option B in any given instance in time.

Determinism doesn't allow alternate actions, only what is determined.

 

[Jarhyn]

is there anything in mathematics that requires it be related to material? No!!!

Everything in our universe is related to mathematics, and to logic.

Mathematics was in fact developed to be able to consistently describe the properties of material, and then continued to be developed on account of us finding that not only did math describe material, but that there was nothing about material that couldn't be described by math.

And then later we find that there is no thing in our universe that may not be so described by set, and graph, and other such basic concepts as numbers.

If everything in our universe is describable by science, which you claim is the case, and everything in science is built on math (it is), then this simple statement of yours takes the cake for nonsensical religious beliefs.

 

[Jarhyn]

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.

I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.

"I can make ..." is self-reference.

No, it's example. You can pretend all you want that things put right in front of you do not exist but they are there, and extant.

The fact that you wish to deny a machine is or can be real and behave the way it is described as behaving is silliness.

Unless you wish to accuse me of dishonesty about what the machine is doing, though I could as easily provide source code.

You say "things can't have a particular kind of relationship, wherein one thing prevents another thing from meaningfully impacting the statistical out one of an event (to impede a free will)".

I propose to hold up something doing that thing right in front of you, to point it out, to even describe in context and text what it is doing and why, and what the "causal diagram" of the system looks like, and how some momentary agencies would be causal drivers and some would not be.

But of course it's not science. It's something much more basic in the stack of philosophy than science. It's much closer to math and logic.

That you know mathematics is nice. However is there anything in mathematics that requires it to be related to the material? No!!!

Just because you self-reference and build a mathematical or logical construct from that self-reference doesn't mean it relates to the material world. You can't go from imagined construct to material brain or nervous system until you have material evidence it is physically so. Mind remains a construct. it is not a Thing.

I insist on taking a scientific view here.

It's in that failure where you lose your way. Introspection fails for the same reasons, as do any things built up like "I am", "mind", "consciousness". They are all placeholders for what one hopes may be real but they cannot be treated as if they are real until they are verified as arising the material. Don't get caught up in the mystique, the charm, the elegance, of the proposition. One needs material findings. That's why Bridgeman proposed Operationalism and that's where Skinner screwed it up.

Just a thought. If, by "I can make ..." you re saying I can take physical evidence parameters and model the existing theoretical interpretation as a model that is one thing...

You are trying to make judgements of the existence or nonexistence of aspects of a relationship. This judgement is of the form "(choice) is not a property or extant relationship of (deterministic systems)."

To disprove this, I don't need reality entire, I merely need any deterministic system, which according to both of us, everything that exists in reality is.

My requirement to disprove your bullshit merely needs to hold up a well modeled deterministic system and point out the choice that exists there.

 

[Jarhyn]

Being fixed means that your actions are an inevitable part of the system. You can't do otherwise, you can't will otherwise.

This is plainly an assertion fallacy. It is non sequitur. It does not follow from "you cannot do otherwise" to "you cannot will otherwise". I can absolutely "will otherwise." I just won't get it. Whether I "will otherwise" is in fact the measure of whether my will is free.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

P1: A freely chosen will is when someone chooses for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.
P2: A world is deterministic if every event is reliably caused by prior events.
P3: A freely chosen will is reliably caused by the person's own goals, reasons, or interests (with their prior causes).
P4: An unfree choice is reliably caused by coercion or undue influence (with their prior causes).
C: Therefore, the notion of a freely chosen will (and its opposite) is still meaningful within a fully deterministic world.

The critical part is the means and mechanisms of decision making. Wording the process of motor as 'deliberate motor actions' gives the impression that conscious will runs the show.

It is necessary to distinguish between autonomic actions, like a heart beat, reflexive actions, like a hand jerks away from hot surface, and deliberate actions, like choosing to raise our hand to ask a question in class.

A motor action, while you can say that it deliberate in the sense that it's a response to stimuli, has not been consciously deliberated, regulated or willed into being.

That would be a reflex. For example, the doctor taps under your patella producing a knee-jerk response. It is not something that you choose to do.

The motor response is determined by unconscious neural activity prior to conscious awareness. Rather than being willed, it is necessitated and fixed by information exchange between the brain and environment.

Well, no. The only "information" is the signal from the nerves under the patella to the spinal cord and back to the muscle. It never reaches the brain. Reflexes have nothing to do with free will.

Free will is a decision we make for ourselves while free coercion and undue influence. It will involved the brain, thinking about options, and choosing between them. You will know when you have made a deliberate decision.

The distinction between being forced by external agent and routine information processing does not establish the latter as freely willed activity.

The distinction being.
1 - You being forced against your will.
2 - You act according to your will, but your will is fixed by determinants beyond your control.

The "determinants beyond my control" happen to be "me" deciding what I will have for dinner. You are still resting your argument upon a delusion that these determinants are somehow not me. But they are uniquely located within me, and within each person sitting with me in the restaurant. They are an integral part of who and what we are. They have no control at all except by their being part of an intelligent species that is capable of choosing what it will have for dinner and communicating that choice to the waiter.

And, if I choose to make a ruckus in the restaurant, such that the owner throws me out, those "determinants beyond my control" will also go out the door. So, I had best learn some self-control, which would again be those "determinants beyond my control" controlling themselves better.

I am they and they are me. There is no dualism to be found here. That would be a delusion.

If actions are determined, there is never the possibility of an alternate choice or action.

That has been repeatedly refuted. There is not merely the "possibility" of an alternate choice or action, but the "necessity" of an alternate choice and action!

Look at the menu. In a deterministic world that menu had to be there. It was inevitable. And, there on the menu, are a list of alternate choices for dinner, every one of which is a real possibility. So, your claim that "there is never the possibility of an alternate choice or action" is empirically false, because there they are.

The state of a brain produces the action that is determined in any given instance.

Of course. We wouldn't want it to happen any other way. The brain functions deterministically, and every choice it ever makes will be the reliable result of some specific combination of the physical, biological, and rational causal mechanisms. The last thing we would want is an unreliable brain. (And yet it seems to be the last thing we get).

It is information processing. The unique state of a brain produces actions that are specific to that brain.

Yes. Information processing is the rational causal mechanism. It's what the brain evolved to do. With intelligence species we get imagination, evaluation, and choosing. When we are free to decide for ourselves what we will do, we get free will. When someone imposes their will upon us at gunpoint, our will is subjugated to their will, and we are not free to decide for ourselves what we will do.

''This is shown here: if the absence of constraints is all that is needed for us to make free choices then surely this should apply to inanimate objects such as rocks, boulders or clouds. ..."

Are you kidding me? Inanimate objects do not have brains. They do not make choices as to what they will or will not do. They respond passively to physical forces. We, on the other hand, do have brains. We can choose what we will or will not do. If something bumps into us, we can bump back.

I would like to think that we were above that rather silly level of argument.

 

[Jarhyn]

Inanimate objects do not have brains. They do not make choices as to what they will or will not do

I pose that "inanimate" is an arbitrary declaration.

For the record "arbitrary" and "absolute" are much more useful here than concepts of "subjective" and "objective" even if there is much overlap, at least as regards discussions of free will and determinism.

What can be said of them is that their model is of "very low quality", composed as it is by a chaotic assembly of silicon and oxygen. When a thing bumps into it's rigid body, it's rigid body spits some force back dictated by and not modified much from the expectations of a thing as chaotically assembled as a rock.

What can be said of us is that we have models "of higher quality", more representative of our universe, and these models of higher quality allow us more freedom of will specifically because our stuff well models the universe and the game theory of various strategies which themselves preserve the existence of the model.

The wants of a rock are much more absolute than the wants of a person. A rock wants to be cohesive to itself, and not much more; this in .any ways defines it's shape as a rock. People want this too, or at least our material does, though interestingly not as badly as the rock wants it... Person meets rock and the rock will almost certainly have more free will as regards to remaining entirely cohesive.

That the rock cannot change to want anything else does not change these facts, except through massive and generally "violent" abrogation of the will it does have. We just don't care about this because the will we are destroying is literally a thing of pure and useless chaos.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Inanimate objects do not have brains. They do not make choices as to what they will or will not do

I pose that "inanimate" is an arbitrary declaration.

For the record "arbitrary" and "absolute" are much more useful here than concepts of "subjective" and "objective" even if there is much overlap, at least as regards discussions of free will and determinism.

What can be said of them is that their model is of "very low quality", composed as it is by a chaotic assembly of silicon and oxygen. When a thing bumps into it's rigid body, it's rigid body spits some force back dictated by and not modified much from the expectations of a thing as chaotically assembled as a rock.

What can be said of us is that we have models "of higher quality", more representative of our universe, and these models of higher quality allow us more freedom of will specifically because our stuff well models the universe and the game theory of various strategies which themselves preserve the existence of the model.

The wants of a rock are much more absolute than the wants of a person. A rock wants to be cohesive to itself, and not much more; this in .any ways defines it's shape as a rock. People want this too, or at least our material does, though interestingly not as badly as the rock wants it... Person meets rock and the rock will almost certainly have more free will as regards to remaining entirely cohesive.

That the rock cannot change to want anything else does not change these facts, except through massive and generally "violent" abrogation of the will it does have. We just don't care about this because the will we are destroying is literally a thing of pure and useless chaos.

A rock is called "inanimate" because if you place it on a chair, it will just sit there. Living organisms come with built-in needs that animate them to seek food, shelter, a mate, etc.

 

[Jarhyn]

Inanimate objects do not have brains. They do not make choices as to what they will or will not do

I pose that "inanimate" is an arbitrary declaration.

For the record "arbitrary" and "absolute" are much more useful here than concepts of "subjective" and "objective" even if there is much overlap, at least as regards discussions of free will and determinism.

What can be said of them is that their model is of "very low quality", composed as it is by a chaotic assembly of silicon and oxygen. When a thing bumps into it's rigid body, it's rigid body spits some force back dictated by and not modified much from the expectations of a thing as chaotically assembled as a rock.

What can be said of us is that we have models "of higher quality", more representative of our universe, and these models of higher quality allow us more freedom of will specifically because our stuff well models the universe and the game theory of various strategies which themselves preserve the existence of the model.

The wants of a rock are much more absolute than the wants of a person. A rock wants to be cohesive to itself, and not much more; this in .any ways defines it's shape as a rock. People want this too, or at least our material does, though interestingly not as badly as the rock wants it... Person meets rock and the rock will almost certainly have more free will as regards to remaining entirely cohesive.

That the rock cannot change to want anything else does not change these facts, except through massive and generally "violent" abrogation of the will it does have. We just don't care about this because the will we are destroying is literally a thing of pure and useless chaos.

A rock is called "inanimate" because if you place it on a chair, it will just sit there. Living organisms come with built-in needs that animate them to seek food, shelter, a mate, etc.

Except it will not "just" sit there. A lot is happening as a function of what it is, while it is, generally, there. This is decided by the matter that composes it in the same way as other matter you arbitrarily declare "animate". The chemistry and physics of it's "decision of force" is not different meaningfully on that qualitative dimension.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Except it will not "just" sit there. A lot is happening as a function of what it is, while it is, generally, there. This is decided by the matter that composes it in the same way as other matter you arbitrarily declare "animate". The chemistry and physics of it's "decision of force" is not different meaningfully on that qualitative dimension.

I'm pretty sure it will just sit there, until I pick it up and throw it at you.

 

[Jarhyn]

Except it will not "just" sit there. A lot is happening as a function of what it is, while it is, generally, there. This is decided by the matter that composes it in the same way as other matter you arbitrarily declare "animate". The chemistry and physics of it's "decision of force" is not different meaningfully on that qualitative dimension.

I'm pretty sure it will just sit there, until I pick it up and throw it at you.

No, it's going to be vibrating, translating the forces of kinetic energy from one end to the other, perhaps reflecting them back in along it's surface unto thermal chaos, perhaps refracting those waves of force along the interface of it's surface All according to the conformity and uniformity of it's material matrix.

Just sitting there is still a lot of stuff.

It is not fundamentally different insofar as the locality decides on force in a discrete way.

It has the free will to do all these things mo matter if you pick it up and throw it, so long as it is not thrown so hard as to violate this will and fracture it.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

No, it's going to be vibrating, translating the forces of kinetic energy from one end to the other, perhaps reflecting them back in along it's surface unto thermal chaos, perhaps refracting those waves of force along the interface of it's surface All according to the conformity and uniformity of it's material matrix.

Just sitting there is still a lot of stuff.

It is not fundamentally different insofar as the locality decides on force in a discrete way.

It has the free will to do all these things mo matter if you pick it up and throw it, so long as it is not thrown so hard as to violate this will and fracture it.

I would never hurt you. Just trying to convey my frustration at your attempt to give rocks intelligence. There are at least three distinct causal mechanisms, physical, biological, and rational. The bowling ball (a rock shaped to roll) placed on a slope will always roll downhill, its behavior governed by the force of gravity. Place a squirrel on that same slope, and he'll go up, down, or any other direction where he hopes to find his next acorn, or perhaps a mate. While the squirrel is affected by gravity, he is not governed by it (like the rock). Instead, the living organism is governed by biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. Place a woman on that slope, and she will chop down trees, build a house, form a nation, and any other thing that she can imagine. The woman is affected by gravity and by biological drives, but she is not governed by them. She is governed by her own choices.

 

[fromderinside]

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.

I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.

"I can make ..." is self-reference.

No, it's example. You can pretend all you want that things put right in front of you do not exist but they are there, and extant.

The fact that you wish to deny a machine is or can be real and behave the way it is described as behaving is silliness.

Unless you wish to accuse me of dishonesty about what the machine is doing, though I could as easily provide source code.

You say "things can't have a particular kind of relationship, wherein one thing prevents another thing from meaningfully impacting the statistical out one of an event (to impede a free will)".

I propose to hold up something doing that thing right in front of you, to point it out, to even describe in context and text what it is doing and why, and what the "causal diagram" of the system looks like, and how some momentary agencies would be causal drivers and some would not be.

But of course it's not science. It's something much more basic in the stack of philosophy than science. It's much closer to math and logic.

That you know mathematics is nice. However is there anything in mathematics that requires it to be related to the material? No!!!

Just because you self-reference and build a mathematical or logical construct from that self-reference doesn't mean it relates to the material world. You can't go from imagined construct to material brain or nervous system until you have material evidence it is physically so. Mind remains a construct. it is not a Thing.

I insist on taking a scientific view here.

It's in that failure where you lose your way. Introspection fails for the same reasons, as do any things built up like "I am", "mind", "consciousness". They are all placeholders for what one hopes may be real but they cannot be treated as if they are real until they are verified as arising the material. Don't get caught up in the mystique, the charm, the elegance, of the proposition. One needs material findings. That's why Bridgeman proposed Operationalism and that's where Skinner screwed it up.

Just a thought. If, by "I can make ..." you re saying I can take physical evidence parameters and model the existing theoretical interpretation as a model that is one thing...

You are trying to make judgements of the existence or nonexistence of aspects of a relationship. This judgement is of the form "(choice) is not a property or extant relationship of (deterministic systems)."

To disprove this, I don't need reality entire, I merely need any deterministic system, which according to both of us, everything that exists in reality is.

My requirement to disprove your bullshit merely needs to hold up a well modeled deterministic system and point out the choice that exists there.

Determinism isn't "if this then thatA or thatB", it's simply that! Self reference is basically pulling imaginary shit out of your imaginary ass as ploy to appear systematic. Example: Jesus fed the multitudes with a few fish and a few loaves - Miracle.

 

[fromderinside]

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.

I can make a whole universe, set up with various domino trails that will cascade through an identifiable series of decision events.

"I can make ..." is self-reference.

No, it's example. You can pretend all you want that things put right in front of you do not exist but they are there, and extant.

The fact that you wish to deny a machine is or can be real and behave the way it is described as behaving is silliness.

Unless you wish to accuse me of dishonesty about what the machine is doing, though I could as easily provide source code.

You say "things can't have a particular kind of relationship, wherein one thing prevents another thing from meaningfully impacting the statistical out one of an event (to impede a free will)".

I propose to hold up something doing that thing right in front of you, to point it out, to even describe in context and text what it is doing and why, and what the "causal diagram" of the system looks like, and how some momentary agencies would be causal drivers and some would not be.

But of course it's not science. It's something much more basic in the stack of philosophy than science. It's much closer to math and logic.

That you know mathematics is nice. However is there anything in mathematics that requires it to be related to the material? No!!!

Just because you self-reference and build a mathematical or logical construct from that self-reference doesn't mean it relates to the material world. You can't go from imagined construct to material brain or nervous system until you have material evidence it is physically so. Mind remains a construct. it is not a Thing.

I insist on taking a scientific view here.

It's in that failure where you lose your way. Introspection fails for the same reasons, as do any things built up like "I am", "mind", "consciousness". They are all placeholders for what one hopes may be real but they cannot be treated as if they are real until they are verified as arising the material. Don't get caught up in the mystique, the charm, the elegance, of the proposition. One needs material findings. That's why Bridgeman proposed Operationalism and that's where Skinner screwed it up.

Just a thought. If, by "I can make ..." you re saying I can take physical evidence parameters and model the existing theoretical interpretation as a model that is one thing...

You are trying to make judgements of the existence or nonexistence of aspects of a relationship. This judgement is of the form "(choice) is not a property or extant relationship of (deterministic systems)."

To disprove this, I don't need reality entire, I merely need any deterministic system, which according to both of us, everything that exists in reality is.

My requirement to disprove your bullshit merely needs to hold up a well modeled deterministic system and point out the choice that exists there.

Determinism isn't "if this then thatA or thatB", it's simply that! Self reference is basically pulling imaginary shit out of your imaginary ass as ploy to appear systematic. Example: Jesus fed the multitudes with a few fish and a few loaves - Miracle. Or alternatively, Jarhyn found choice in a well-modeled self-referenced system with determined outputs. - Miracle.

 

[Jarhyn]

Determinism isn't "if this then thatA or thatB", it's simply that! Self reference is basically pulling imaginary shit out of your imaginary ass as ploy to appear systematic. Example: Jesus fed the multitudes with a few fish and a few loaves - Miracle.

This is your claim, and you don't own "determinism", and you certainly do not know what "deterministic systems" actually are in logic, science, or math if this is the case.

All those mathematicians with all their imagined things proving things within the context of math, by which such concepts as "deterministic" originated. You wish to apply a mathematical term to all of reality: "deterministic".

You don't then get to dodge when someone then operates on the principle or concept that you claim the universe has within the framework that defined the concept entire and crystalline!

 

[Jarhyn]

The bowling ball (a rock shaped to roll) placed on a slope will always roll downhill, its behavior governed by the force of gravity.

What I'm trying to point out is that, we are governed by four forces, and how those four forces interact.

The way those four forces interact is called physics. Everything is a physical assembly of those forces, and the principles by which they interact regularly. If we are to model choice in the most general way, to understand choice within the context of math and determinism and game theory, and use that to understand something within the physics those things describe, it is something that is going to have to scale.

I am a compatibilist not because once several years ago a very good friend muttered some words about compatibilism. Rather, I am a compatibilist because I had for years felt the need to reconcile the meaningfulness and study of decision against determinism and I just acquired a more commonly used word for it at that point.

I came at this from the direction of the machine, not the meat. It can be easy coming at it from the meat to not see how deep it goes and if you don't understand how deep the concept embeds, it's easy to have folks play games at the boundaries of your understanding.

I'm down here at the foundations of choice.

I find if you simplify your problems, solutions become easier to locate.

 

[fromderinside]

Determinism isn't "if this then thatA or thatB", it's simply that! Self reference is basically pulling imaginary shit out of your imaginary ass as ploy to appear systematic. Example: Jesus fed the multitudes with a few fish and a few loaves - Miracle.

This is your claim, and you don't own "determinism", and you certainly do not know what "deterministic systems" actually are in logic, science, or math if this is the case.

All those mathematicians with all their imagined things proving things within the context of math, by which such concepts as "deterministic" originated. You wish to apply a mathematical term to all of reality: "deterministic".

You don't then get to dodge when someone then operates on the principle or concept that you claim the universe has within the framework that defined the concept entire and crystalline!

Puleez.
Don't equate your self-defined proposition as akin to those who take material elements and apply them in a logical system. That is a simulation using known variables through proven logics verifying realized material outcomes. You pulled your demonstration out of the Mind of Mencia which is my polite way of saying your thought it up out of pure cloth.