Demystifying Determinism

[Marvin Edwards]

... If you must necessarily order Steak at dinner in the restaurant on Main street at 8 pm, there is no choice in the matter, you go to the restaurant on Main street and you order steak at 8pm.

If someone has a gun to my head and tells me I must order steak at the restaurant at 8pm, then I have no choice.

But if I decide on my own to go to the restaurant, and then I choose to order the steak instead of the salad, then that is literally a choice, and it is literally a choice of my own free will (free of coercion and undue influence).

Reliable cause and effect, in itself, is neither coercive nor undue. It does not force us to do anything against our will, because it is the very source of our will. Choosing is the deterministic causal mechanism that sets our will upon a specific goal, such as having steak for dinner.

You are still conflating what is generally possible with what must necessarily happen in any given instance as the system evolves from prior to present and future states without deviation.

Ironically, it is you, not me, that is still conflating what is generally possible with what must necessarily happen in any given instance. I am saying it is possible for me to order the salad and it is also possible for me to order the steak. That's two possibilities. Only one of these two possibilities must necessarily happen at the restaurant. So, I'm the one that is avoiding conflating multiple possibilities with the single necessity. You are the one insisting that there is only one possibility, by conflating possibility with necessity.

What can generally happen is not the same as what must necessarily happen in any given instance in time.

That's what I've been saying!

All events, including our choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment. This includes us opening the menu, considering the many things that we can order, and choosing from them what we will order for dinner.

It makes no sense to claim that what we just did could not have happened, when it necessarily had to happen, exactly like it did happen.

As all events within a deterministic system are causally necessary, they are never choices.

That's the claim that has no merit. You see:
A. If ALL events within a deterministic system are causally necessary,
AND
B. SOME events are choices,
THEN
C. SOME events within a deterministic system are causally necessary choices.

These choosing events are unavoidable, inevitable, and must proceed without deviation, exactly as they do proceed.

If you must do something, and you have no alternate action (events proceed without deviation), that is not choice.

Events proceeding without deviation will necessarily include us opening the menu, considering more than one possibility, and choosing to order one of those possibilities for dinner.

Initial state delivers output without variation.

In a way, yes. But actually, the initial state only delivers the next state, and that state delivers the next, and so on ad infinitum. We cannot rationally say that the Big Bang ordered and delivered the steak dinner to my table. I did the ordering and the Waiter did the delivering. That's the only reasonable way to view the event. And that's how reasonable people normally view it.

And there is no way that the Big Bang is going to pay my dinner bill. That's my responsibility.

Rewind and play the system over and over and each and every action will be precisely the same.

Correct! Every time we rewind and play the system over, we will open the menu, consider our options, and choose for ourselves what we will order for dinner, free of coercion and undue influence (aka "of our own free will"). So, a choice of our own free will shows up every time in the replay.

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

Is that choice? ...

Yes indeed. Opening the menu, considering our options, and choosing what we will have for dinner is obviously a choice! And the fact that it was causally necessary to happen exactly like that, does not change the fact that it was a choice!

 

[pood]

You invoke the word 'responsible' as if it has something to do with freedom of will.

It's the essence and entirety of Compatibilist freedom of will.

The mechanisms and events are 'responsible.' Not morally responsible. Not ethically responsible. Not responsible through choice, will, wish or free will, but just by the token of non chosen inherent makeup and function.

''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. '

You can only reject it in this way if by "freedom of will" you are referring to Libertarian freedom of will.

The argument is that free will as defined by compatibilism is not compatible with determinism because the given definition is flawed because it neglects a critical element: inner necessity.

This entire waste of time - almost 1,500 posts - boils down to your unjustified and utterly false belief that everyone agrees with you that "free will" only has, and only ever can have, the Libertarian definition.

Yet I have not forced anyone to participate.

No, I guess the big bang did that,

 

[pood]

Perhaps you will say, as you’ve done before in different contexts, that Roark was compeleld by “inner necessity.” But since “inner necessity” is just a couple of weasel worlds for “myself,” than in so saying you must again agree that Roark has compatibilist free will. Your own words belie your claims.

Are you getting frustrated? It appears so.

Projection.

Necessity essentially describes determinism. Everything that happens, happens necessarily.

Because everything happens necessarily, there are no alternate actions, ''determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment,'' and without alternate actions, there is no choice: whatever is done must be done.

As with everything that happens, whatever Roark thinks, designs and builds, he thinks, designs and build necessarily, ie, it must necessarily happen as determined, not chosen, not freely willed.

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

Please answer the questions put to you here.

 

[bilby]

You invoke the word 'responsible' as if it has something to do with freedom of will.

It's the essence and entirety of Compatibilist freedom of will.

The mechanisms and events are 'responsible.' Not morally responsible. Not ethically responsible. Not responsible through choice, will, wish or free will, but just by the token of non chosen inherent makeup and function.

''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. '

You can only reject it in this way if by "freedom of will" you are referring to Libertarian freedom of will.

The argument is that free will as defined by compatibilism is not compatible with determinism because the given definition is flawed because it neglects a critical element: inner necessity.

This entire waste of time - almost 1,500 posts - boils down to your unjustified and utterly false belief that everyone agrees with you that "free will" only has, and only ever can have, the Libertarian definition.

Yet I have not forced anyone to participate.

 

[DBT]

Perhaps you will say, as you’ve done before in different contexts, that Roark was compeleld by “inner necessity.” But since “inner necessity” is just a couple of weasel worlds for “myself,” than in so saying you must again agree that Roark has compatibilist free will. Your own words belie your claims.

Are you getting frustrated? It appears so.

Projection.

Doubt it. You manner and tone screams frustration, anger and angst.

Necessity essentially describes determinism. Everything that happens, happens necessarily.

Because everything happens necessarily, there are no alternate actions, ''determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment,'' and without alternate actions, there is no choice: whatever is done must be done.

As with everything that happens, whatever Roark thinks, designs and builds, he thinks, designs and build necessarily, ie, it must necessarily happen as determined, not chosen, not freely willed.

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

Please answer the questions put to you here.

You keep banging on about your question regardless of how many times it's pointed out to be a strawman.

Once again, nobody is denying that the brain has the ability to think, plan and initiate actions.

The issue here is determinism. That every thought, plan and action is entailed by countless necessary events, that what your Roark thinks, plans, designs and builds, he does necessarily. Not through choice, not through free will, but necessity, inner and outer, the activity of the world and the brain.

And yet again, it is impossible that Roark 'could have made any other decision or performed any other action than what he did.' That 'it is never true' that Roark could have decided or acted otherwise than he actually did

''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.''

That is your answer.

So I guess you'll ignore it only to invoke your Roark Strawman tomorrow?

Of course you will.

 

[DBT]

You invoke the word 'responsible' as if it has something to do with freedom of will.

It's the essence and entirety of Compatibilist freedom of will.

The mechanisms and events are 'responsible.' Not morally responsible. Not ethically responsible. Not responsible through choice, will, wish or free will, but just by the token of non chosen inherent makeup and function.

''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. '

You can only reject it in this way if by "freedom of will" you are referring to Libertarian freedom of will.

The argument is that free will as defined by compatibilism is not compatible with determinism because the given definition is flawed because it neglects a critical element: inner necessity.

This entire waste of time - almost 1,500 posts - boils down to your unjustified and utterly false belief that everyone agrees with you that "free will" only has, and only ever can have, the Libertarian definition.

Yet I have not forced anyone to participate.

View attachment 41523

Nobody is being forced to respond, Bilby. I am not the only player here. I am not compelling you or your colleagues to participate. you know about inner necessity. You keep responding until it gets to the point where aversion or frustration overcomes the impulse to respond.

You guys stop, I stop and it's over.

 

[DBT]

... If you must necessarily order Steak at dinner in the restaurant on Main street at 8 pm, there is no choice in the matter, you go to the restaurant on Main street and you order steak at 8pm.

If someone has a gun to my head and tells me I must order steak at the restaurant at 8pm, then I have no choice.

Outer necessity. Then we have inner necessity. We have inner necessity because that is how determinism works and the brain is not exempt.

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

But if I decide on my own to go to the restaurant, and then I choose to order the steak instead of the salad, then that is literally a choice, and it is literally a choice of my own free will (free of coercion and undue influence).

Your decision is not a choice because there are no alternate actions within a deterministic system. What your brain decides, it decides necessarily, no alternate actions, so you do what is determined, not chosen. In determinism, decisions have no alternatives..

Reliable cause and effect, in itself, is neither coercive nor undue. It does not force us to do anything against our will, because it is the very source of our will. Choosing is the deterministic causal mechanism that sets our will upon a specific goal, such as having steak for dinner.

Necessity is not an enabler of freedom choice.

It's just a different form of restriction.

You are still conflating what is generally possible with what must necessarily happen in any given instance as the system evolves from prior to present and future states without deviation.

Ironically, it is you, not me, that is still conflating what is generally possible with what must necessarily happen in any given instance. I am saying it is possible for me to order the salad and it is also possible for me to order the steak. That's two possibilities. Only one of these two possibilities must necessarily happen at the restaurant. So, I'm the one that is avoiding conflating multiple possibilities with the single necessity. You are the one insisting that there is only one possibility, by conflating possibility with necessity.

No, I point out that any number of things can happen in the world as a deterministic system, but that in any given instance there is only one possible action per person. You can do x, someone can do y....but while you do x, you can't do y, while the person who can do y cannot do x.

That is according to the terms and conditions of determinism as you define it. You know this is so.

What can generally happen is not the same as what must necessarily happen in any given instance in time.

That's what I've been saying!

Yet you try to circumvent it when you invoke 'choosing' where there are no possible alternate actions.

It makes no sense to claim that what we just did could not have happened, when it necessarily had to happen, exactly like it did happen.

That's not what I said.

I pointed out that any number of things can happen in the world as a deterministic system, but that in any given instance there is only one possible action per person. In any specific moment, you can do x, someone else can do y...while you do x, you can't do y, while the person who can do y cannot do x.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

Determinism doesn't permit choosing because all present and future actions are fixed by the prior states of the system, this singular progression of events permits no alternate actions.

The state of the world is fixed by antecedents in any and every moment in time

 

[Jarhyn]

If someone has a gun to my head and tells me I must order steak at the restaurant at 8pm, then I have no choice

Well, you do have a choice, the choice is to eat steak or die.

The problem is that the outcome you want is not available.

Then one must ask "who is responsible for violating your freedom of choice? Who or what has taken the rest of the menu off and replaced it with 'or die'?"

You only lack a choice in the figurative sense. In the literal sense, you what you lack is not the choice, what you lack is truth of your assumptions that going to the diner meant having access to the menu and safety, the freedom of the will to not have a gun in your face, the freedom of the will to have access to the full menu at low stakes, and to not order steaks.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Then we have inner necessity. We have inner necessity because that is how determinism works and the brain is not exempt.

All of the work of internal necessity is being done by the brain itself. Determinism never does any work. "Deterministic" is how we describe a reliable causal mechanism, such as the human brain.

But determinism is neither an object nor a force, so it is incapable of causing anything itself. All of these claims you present, of determinism doing some form of work, or making things happen, or permitting or not permitting this or that, or excluding any event, are all figurative statements. None of them can be taken literally without sounding a bit foolish.

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

The notion that freedom is nothing more than a "feeling" that we experience is foolish. "Freedom" refers to a person's ability to actually do something without any meaningful or relevant constraint. Freedom is not always a good thing. For example, Adam Lanza was free to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2018. He was free to kill his mother with a .22 rifle and then free to take her Bushmaster XM-15 to the school.

But Adam was not free of a brain that tortured him throughout his life. He was diagnosed with severe autism, sensory-integration disorder, OCD, and schizophrenia. When he reached middle school, he could not tolerate the noise and confusion of changing of classes during the day. He was removed from school and had to earn his G.E.D. at home.

We may assume that it was his need to escape this hell that drove him to mass murder and suicide. If this torture were relieved by medication and treatment then things would have been different. But the one medication the family tried had intolerable side effects and they gave up on psychiatric treatment. Instead he depended upon the relative safety of his room. But when his mother decided they should move, he went over the edge. He shot her and took the AR-15 style semi-automatic to the school, along with the Glock that he used on himself.

To suggest that this or any other human act is the "work" of determinism is a very stupid approach to such a problem. There is nothing we can do about determinism. But there are many things we might do to reduce the torture of an injured brain. And if the person remains a danger to themselves and others, he can be secured in a medical facility where the environment is controlled and less upsetting.

Our only reason for caring about causes is that knowing the specific cause gives us some control over specific events. But there is never anything we can do about causation itself. So, to dismiss the specific cause and suggest that determinism itself is the true cause, always leads to a dead end, where there is nothing that we can do.

In most cases, there is something we can do.

Your decision is not a choice because there are no alternate actions within a deterministic system. What your brain decides, it decides necessarily, no alternate actions, so you do what is determined, not chosen. In determinism, decisions have no alternatives..

Your continued corruption of the language will do you no good. There are many alternate actions on the restaurant menu. I must choose one, but I can choose any or all. Without this logical distinction between "can" and "will" our brains would be dysfunctional. So, stop forking with it.

... I point out that any number of things can happen in the world as a deterministic system, but that in any given instance there is only one possible action per person. You can do x, someone can do y....but while you do x, you can't do y, while the person who can do y cannot do x.

You are still confusing a "possible" action with an "actual" action. If I'm busy doing X then obviously I will not be doing Y at the same time. But it remains possible that I could be doing Y instead of X at this point in time. My ability to do X, as well as my ability to do Y, is constant over time. Regardless which I am currently doing, I could be doing the other instead.

That is according to the terms and conditions of determinism as you define it. You know this is so.

The only thing I know for sure is that you're deliberately lying. You're assuming determinism means something that it cannot possibly mean. I've explained this to you many times, so there is no excuse for your deliberate fabrication as to what I am saying.

Yet you try to circumvent it when you invoke 'choosing' where there are no possible alternate actions.

We see multiple possibilities on the restaurant menu, and we observe people placing their dinner orders, by selecting one of these many items that they can order for dinner. On this planet, we all call this activity "choosing".

You pretend that choosing is not happening, even when you see it with your own eyes. We call that "delusional thinking".

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

You create this delusion by conflating what "can" happen with what "will" happen. This is done through figurative thinking. If only one thing will happen, then you say to yourself, "it is AS IF only one thing can happen". But every figurative statement is literally false. This means that despite the one thing that will happen, many things can happen and could have happened.

Determinism doesn't permit choosing because all present and future actions are fixed by the prior states of the system, this singular progression of events permits no alternate actions.

And you've even been shown that choosing and its alternate actions are part of the deterministic sequence of events.

Your claims simply do not hold up.