Demystifying Determinism

[Marvin Edwards]

That the brain is constantly changing doesn't alter the fact that the state and condition of the brain is not chosen, yet it is the state and condition of the brain that determines what is thought and done.

Or, to put it more succinctly, the brain determines what is thought and done. The "state and condition of the brain" is the brain.

The state and condition is the brain, but it is not a chosen state and condition, consequently what is thought and done is entailed by state and condition, not free will. What is thought and done is necessarily thought and done.

The fact that the brain does not choose to be a brain does not prevent it from being a brain that chooses other things! And, that choosing proceeds without deviation exactly as it must proceed. Again, choosing is something that necessarily happens as a real event in physical reality. There is no getting around this fact. We have no choice but to choose.

Now, when our choosing proceeds while free of coercion and undue influence, it is known as "free will". It is literally free of coercion and undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is a fully deterministic event within a totally reliable chain of causation from any prior point in time.

 

[DBT]

That the brain is constantly changing doesn't alter the fact that the state and condition of the brain is not chosen, yet it is the state and condition of the brain that determines what is thought and done.

Or, to put it more succinctly, the brain determines what is thought and done. The "state and condition of the brain" is the brain.

The state and condition is the brain, but it is not a chosen state and condition, consequently what is thought and done is entailed by state and condition, not free will. What is thought and done is necessarily thought and done.

The fact that the brain does not choose to be a brain does not prevent it from being a brain that chooses other things! And, that choosing proceeds without deviation exactly as it must proceed. Again, choosing is something that necessarily happens as a real event in physical reality. There is no getting around this fact. We have no choice but to choose.

Now, when our choosing proceeds while free of coercion and undue influence, it is known as "free will". It is literally free of coercion and undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is a fully deterministic event within a totally reliable chain of causation from any prior point in time.

What is entailed is not chosen. No alternative is possible. What happens must necessarily happen. That is not choice.

 

[Jarhyn]

the fact that the state and condition of the brain is not chosen

... Is in contention. You haven't answered the contention that your reductive elimination of choice as a function of a deterministic process is not a sensible one. You have not in the least answered against the modal fallacy.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

What is entailed is not chosen. No alternative is possible. What happens must necessarily happen. That is not choice.

Choosing is deterministically entailed, and must necessarily happen. We have no choice but to choose. There is no alternative possible, choosing must happen, whether we like it or not.

Now, the inevitable choosing event itself is a logical operation. This operation inputs two or more possibilities, evaluates these options, and selects one of them to be the choice. These options represent actions that CAN be successfully completed IF we choose to exercise that option. The selected option becomes what we WILL do. The unselected options become things we COULD HAVE done, but didn't do.

This logical operation is performed by our brain's decision making function, and may involved both conscious and unconscious processing.

To picture this understanding correctly, we have:

(Determinism, in which all events are reliably caused and proceed without deviation from any prior point in the past to any future point,
... (which contains Events
... ... (which contains Choosing events
... ... ... (which input multiple possibilities, perform comparisons, and output a single "I will X")
... ... )
... )
)

I hope that helps.

 

[Kylie]

There is the restaurant menu. It contains multiple POSSIBLE options. Choosing one option never makes the other options IMPOSSIBLE. For example, although you actually chose the Chicken, you could have chosen the Steak instead. Under the given circumstances, you NEVER WOULD HAVE chosen the Steak, but you still COULD HAVE.

To test this, why don't you order the Steak for me. Thank you. And now you see that you had the ABILITY to order the Steak all along.

To say that you CAN order the Steak never implies that you WILL order the Steak. It simply means that the Steak was available on the menu as a real option that you COULD HAVE chosen IF you wanted to.

So you are saying that in a deterministic universe where it is 100% guaranteed that I will inevitably "choose" the chicken...

... That it's possible for me to order the steak?

For YOU, yes, it's possible. For the universe, it's not possible; But YOU don't (and can't) know that, until you have considered and rejected the possibility.

If something is impossible for me to do, it is not required that I know it is impossible before it actually is impossible.

If something is impossible and I believe it IS possible, then I am mistaken in that belief, aren't I?

The mechanism by which you inevitably order chicken, is that you inevitably reject the possibility of ordering the steak, in a process known to observers of this process as 'choosing'.

The past is knowable, the future is not. The process of changing from one to the other includes a routine we call 'choosing', and like every other part of a deterministic reality, it's completely unavoidable.

I would say that it can't be this "choosing" you speak of if there's no choice, and the fact that the outcome is inevitable means there is no choice, but you've ignored me every other time I've said it, so you'll just ignore me again.

 

[Kylie]

So you are saying that in a deterministic universe where it is 100% guaranteed that I will inevitably "choose" the chicken...
... That it's possible for me to order the steak?

Correct.

Pray tell, how could there be any positive probability that I can order the steak if there is a 100% probability that I will order the chicken?

Do probabilities add up to more than 100% in your universe?

There's no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you, is there? You seem to be suffering from almost lethal levels of cognitive dissonance in order to believe two such contradictory positions at the same time.

LOL! Ironically, my position eliminates cognitive dissonance. Here, suppose we are given two options, chocolate and vanilla. "We can choose the chocolate" is true. "We can choose the vanilla" is also true. These are two things that we CAN choose and both are considered "real" possibilities at the time of our choosing.

So, we choose the chocolate. We could have chosen the vanilla, but we chose chocolate instead.

What happens when the hard determinist tells us "No. You could not have chosen the vanilla!" THAT'S when we experience cognitive dissonance. Just a moment ago, "We can choose the vanilla" was true, and since "could have" is simply the past tense of "can", it is logically true that we could have chosen the vanilla.

If "I can do X" was true at any point in the past, then "I could have done X" will be forever true in the future when speaking of that same point. That is just the logic of the verb tenses. To claim that "I could not have done X" creates cognitive dissonance, because it contradicts the fact that "I can do X" was true at the start of the choosing operation.

So, the hard determinist has again broken the logic by which we correctly think about possibilities. And, we must think about possibilities every time we make a choice. And, according to neuroscience, making decisions is a primary function of the brain.

Now, it creates NO cognitive dissonance to say that "I WOULD NOT have chosen vanilla" at that time. After all, I had good reasons for choosing the chocolate, so, as long as those reasons stand, I WOULD NOT choose vanilla. But not "could not".

To eliminate the cognitive dissonance, determinism must stop claiming that we "could not have done otherwise" and assert only that we "would not have done otherwise".

The fact is that there are multiple possible futures, but only one actual future. And if you can understand the difference between a possibility and an actuality, then the truth of that fact should be clear.

Your cognitive dissonance is that you believe both of the following statements are true at the same time.

1. There is no way for the outcome of events to be any different.
2. The outcome of events could be one of several different possibilities.

 

[Kylie]

If God knows what I will do (or any other situation you want to imagine where the future has but a single inevitable outcome that is 100% guaranteed to happen, no way to avoid it) and I am unable to change that outcome, then I am not making the choice freely!

What if God knows that you will freely choose the chicken?

Can't be done. The instant he knows, that outcome has been "locked in." It HAS to be that way, since God can't be wrong. if I am locked in to that outcome, I can't freely choose.

How can you escape your inevitable destiny to make that choice? Certainly, you could fool yourself by declaring that, despite its having every appearance of a choice, it's not one because someone knows the result in advance. But as you don't know, and can't know, unless and until you choose, it's completely irrelevant to you what a fictional omnicognisant entity might say about it.

You believe you made a choice. God disagrees - but God isn't as powerful or important as you are in this situation, not least because she doesn't actually exist.

My belief that it is a free choice doesn't make it one. I do not believe that my knowledge of things is what determines whether they are real or not. The universe can be a certain way even if I am not aware of it.

 

[DBT]

What is entailed is not chosen. No alternative is possible. What happens must necessarily happen. That is not choice.

Choosing is deterministically entailed, and must necessarily happen. We have no choice but to choose. There is no alternative possible, choosing must happen, whether we like it or not.

Now, the inevitable choosing event itself is a logical operation. This operation inputs two or more possibilities, evaluates these options, and selects one of them to be the choice. These options represent actions that CAN be successfully completed IF we choose to exercise that option. The selected option becomes what we WILL do. The unselected options become things we COULD HAVE done, but didn't do.

This logical operation is performed by our brain's decision making function, and may involved both conscious and unconscious processing.

To picture this understanding correctly, we have:

(Determinism, in which all events are reliably caused and proceed without deviation from any prior point in the past to any future point,
... (which contains Events
... ... (which contains Choosing events
... ... ... (which input multiple possibilities, perform comparisons, and output a single "I will X")
... ... )
... )
)

I hope that helps.

You could make a claim for 'choosing' if there was a possibility of an alternate action. However, according to the given definition of determinism, no alternative actions are possible, hence, no possibility of an alternate action.

With no possibility of an alternate action, events proceed as they must, brain condition equates to the action performed, conditions are not freely willed, brain state is entailed by antecedents and brain state entails response, making the notion of free will incompatible with determinism..

 

[DBT]

the fact that the state and condition of the brain is not chosen

... Is in contention. You haven't answered the contention that your reductive elimination of choice as a function of a deterministic process is not a sensible one. You have not in the least answered against the modal fallacy.

It has nothing to do with me, the given definition of determinism states no deviation, that all events are fixed by antecedents, that the system evolves as it must, that nobody can choose to do otherwise, that every action is entailed by the prior state of the system, that the past, present and future state of the system is fixed.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Your cognitive dissonance is that you believe both of the following statements are true at the same time.

1. There is no way for the outcome of events to be any different.
2. The outcome of events could be one of several different possibilities.

Ironically, those two statements are functionally identical. A "way for the outcome of events to be different" is a "possibility". So, your two statements become: 1. There is no possibility for the outcome of events to be any different. and 2. There is the possibility that the outcome of events could be different. And, of course, those two statements are contradictory. So, that's not what I'm saying.

The two statements that I have made that are giving you the willies are:
1. There are multiple possible futures.
2. There is a single actual future.

Which are functionally equivalent to these two statements:
1. There are multiple things that can happen.
2. There is a single thing that will happen.

There is no contradiction between statement 1 and statement 2 in either of these pairs.

The fact that there is a single actual future does not contradict the fact that there are multiple possible futures. The actual future will exist in physical reality. And there's only room for one of them. The possible futures will only exist in our imagination. And there's plenty of room for lots of possibilities there.

The fact that a single thing will happen does not contradict the fact that there are multiple things that can happen. Things that can happen are possibilities. Things that will happen are actualities.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

What is entailed is not chosen. No alternative is possible. What happens must necessarily happen. That is not choice.

Choosing is deterministically entailed, and must necessarily happen. We have no choice but to choose. There is no alternative possible, choosing must happen, whether we like it or not.

Now, the inevitable choosing event itself is a logical operation. This operation inputs two or more possibilities, evaluates these options, and selects one of them to be the choice. These options represent actions that CAN be successfully completed IF we choose to exercise that option. The selected option becomes what we WILL do. The unselected options become things we COULD HAVE done, but didn't do.

This logical operation is performed by our brain's decision making function, and may involved both conscious and unconscious processing.

To picture this understanding correctly, we have:

(Determinism, in which all events are reliably caused and proceed without deviation from any prior point in the past to any future point,
... (which contains Events
... ... (which contains Choosing events
... ... ... (which input multiple possibilities, perform comparisons, and output a single "I will X")
... ... )
... )
)

I hope that helps.

You could make a claim for 'choosing' if there was a possibility of an alternate action. However, according to the given definition of determinism, no alternative actions are possible, hence, no possibility of an alternate action.

With no possibility of an alternate action, events proceed as they must, brain condition equates to the action performed, conditions are not freely willed, brain state is entailed by antecedents and brain state entails response, making the notion of free will incompatible with determinism..

There are no alternate events in choosing. Choosing is a deterministic function. Each brain event that appears as a thought during the choosing process will be reliably caused by prior thoughts. These mental events will proceed from start to end deterministically. For example, I will see the Steak Dinner on the menu. It will cause me to recall that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. And that will bring to mind my doctor's advice to eat more fruits and veggies. So I'll consider the Chef Salad and decide to order that instead.

Now, when describing this chain of thoughts, the steak and the salad are called "alternate possibilities" or "options" or "things that I can choose". And, it is inevitable that they are called by those names, because that is the way that our language evolved to provide us with the logical tools needed to deal with matters of uncertainty, such as "What will I order for dinner?".

All of the events proceeded without deviation according to the logical order of our thoughts. And that logic provides special names for things that "can" happen versus things that "will" happen, in order to keep our possibilities from being confused with the actuality.

But the hard determinist falsely conflates "can" with "will", confusing the possible with the actual, and breaking the logic that we evolved specifically to deal with uncertainty.

And you'll recall the example of how this conflation screws things up:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner, sir?"
Customer: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Given that we live in a deterministic world, there is only one possibility."
Customer: "So, what is the one thing that I can order."
Waiter: "I have no clue".

 

[The AntiChris]

You've arbitrarily redefined "choice" so it no longer means choice, and you're having a go at me? Ha.

I haven't redefined anything.

The physical selection process that occurs in the customer's brain in Marvin's restaurant is what the vast majority of competent English speakers recognise as 'choosing'.

You're the one who's attempting to impose your idiosyncratic, and misguided, language rules.

 

[Jarhyn]

that nobody can choose to do otherwise,

People CAN absolutely choose to do otherwise and this is you yet again begging the question that they can't.

As it is, determinism only only means that people WON'T choose otherwise, not that they could not or can not.

Again, you have not answered the modal fallacy.

 

[DBT]

What is entailed is not chosen. No alternative is possible. What happens must necessarily happen. That is not choice.

Choosing is deterministically entailed, and must necessarily happen. We have no choice but to choose. There is no alternative possible, choosing must happen, whether we like it or not.

Now, the inevitable choosing event itself is a logical operation. This operation inputs two or more possibilities, evaluates these options, and selects one of them to be the choice. These options represent actions that CAN be successfully completed IF we choose to exercise that option. The selected option becomes what we WILL do. The unselected options become things we COULD HAVE done, but didn't do.

This logical operation is performed by our brain's decision making function, and may involved both conscious and unconscious processing.

To picture this understanding correctly, we have:

(Determinism, in which all events are reliably caused and proceed without deviation from any prior point in the past to any future point,
... (which contains Events
... ... (which contains Choosing events
... ... ... (which input multiple possibilities, perform comparisons, and output a single "I will X")
... ... )
... )
)

I hope that helps.

You could make a claim for 'choosing' if there was a possibility of an alternate action. However, according to the given definition of determinism, no alternative actions are possible, hence, no possibility of an alternate action.

With no possibility of an alternate action, events proceed as they must, brain condition equates to the action performed, conditions are not freely willed, brain state is entailed by antecedents and brain state entails response, making the notion of free will incompatible with determinism..

There are no alternate events in choosing. Choosing is a deterministic function. Each brain event that appears as a thought during the choosing process will be reliably caused by prior thoughts. These mental events will proceed from start to end deterministically. For example, I will see the Steak Dinner on the menu. It will cause me to recall that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. And that will bring to mind my doctor's advice to eat more fruits and veggies. So I'll consider the Chef Salad and decide to order that instead.

Now, when describing this chain of thoughts, the steak and the salad are called "alternate possibilities" or "options" or "things that I can choose". And, it is inevitable that they are called by those names, because that is the way that our language evolved to provide us with the logical tools needed to deal with matters of uncertainty, such as "What will I order for dinner?".

All of the events proceeded without deviation according to the logical order of our thoughts. And that logic provides special names for things that "can" happen versus things that "will" happen, in order to keep our possibilities from being confused with the actuality.

But the hard determinist falsely conflates "can" with "will", confusing the possible with the actual, and breaking the logic that we evolved specifically to deal with uncertainty.

And you'll recall the example of how this conflation screws things up:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner, sir?"
Customer: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Given that we live in a deterministic world, there is only one possibility."
Customer: "So, what is the one thing that I can order."
Waiter: "I have no clue".

If there are no alternatives, there is no 'choosing.'

Determinism has no alternative actions.

Therefore, there are no realizable options to choose from.

Whatever happens must happen. As the system evolves from prior to current states and future states, the customer must enter the restaurant at the specific time, the customer must read the menu at the specifically determined time and the customer must order the specific item at the specific moment in time. No deviation. No alternate actions. No choice.


''The No Choice Principle implies that I cannot have a choice about anything that is an unavoidable consequence of something I have no control of.''

''How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitable consequence of something I have no choice about? And yet ...the compatibilist must deny the No Choice Principle.” - Van Inwagen

 

[DBT]

that nobody can choose to do otherwise,

People CAN absolutely choose to do otherwise and this is you yet again begging the question that they can't.

As it is, determinism only only means that people WON'T choose otherwise, not that they could not or can not.

Again, you have not answered the modal fallacy.

'Won't' is irrelevant. Given the nature of determinism as it is defined, 'won't' is equivalent to 'cannot.'

As there are no alternative actions in determinism, saying 'won't do otherwise' is absurd. It's not a matter of 'won't' but a matter of 'there is no possibility of doing otherwise.' Events are fixed by antecedents. It won't happen because the system, as defined, doesn't permit it to happen.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

What is entailed is not chosen. No alternative is possible. What happens must necessarily happen. That is not choice.

Choosing is deterministically entailed, and must necessarily happen. We have no choice but to choose. There is no alternative possible, choosing must happen, whether we like it or not.

Now, the inevitable choosing event itself is a logical operation. This operation inputs two or more possibilities, evaluates these options, and selects one of them to be the choice. These options represent actions that CAN be successfully completed IF we choose to exercise that option. The selected option becomes what we WILL do. The unselected options become things we COULD HAVE done, but didn't do.

This logical operation is performed by our brain's decision making function, and may involved both conscious and unconscious processing.

To picture this understanding correctly, we have:

(Determinism, in which all events are reliably caused and proceed without deviation from any prior point in the past to any future point,
... (which contains Events
... ... (which contains Choosing events
... ... ... (which input multiple possibilities, perform comparisons, and output a single "I will X")
... ... )
... )
)

I hope that helps.

You could make a claim for 'choosing' if there was a possibility of an alternate action. However, according to the given definition of determinism, no alternative actions are possible, hence, no possibility of an alternate action.

With no possibility of an alternate action, events proceed as they must, brain condition equates to the action performed, conditions are not freely willed, brain state is entailed by antecedents and brain state entails response, making the notion of free will incompatible with determinism..

There are no alternate events in choosing. Choosing is a deterministic function. Each brain event that appears as a thought during the choosing process will be reliably caused by prior thoughts. These mental events will proceed from start to end deterministically. For example, I will see the Steak Dinner on the menu. It will cause me to recall that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. And that will bring to mind my doctor's advice to eat more fruits and veggies. So I'll consider the Chef Salad and decide to order that instead.

Now, when describing this chain of thoughts, the steak and the salad are called "alternate possibilities" or "options" or "things that I can choose". And, it is inevitable that they are called by those names, because that is the way that our language evolved to provide us with the logical tools needed to deal with matters of uncertainty, such as "What will I order for dinner?".

All of the events proceeded without deviation according to the logical order of our thoughts. And that logic provides special names for things that "can" happen versus things that "will" happen, in order to keep our possibilities from being confused with the actuality.

But the hard determinist falsely conflates "can" with "will", confusing the possible with the actual, and breaking the logic that we evolved specifically to deal with uncertainty.

And you'll recall the example of how this conflation screws things up:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner, sir?"
Customer: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Given that we live in a deterministic world, there is only one possibility."
Customer: "So, what is the one thing that I can order."
Waiter: "I have no clue".

If there are no alternatives, there is no 'choosing.'

Determinism has no alternative actions.

Therefore, there are no realizable options to choose from.

Whatever happens must happen. As the system evolves from prior to current states and future states, the customer must enter the restaurant at the specific time, the customer must read the menu at the specifically determined time and the customer must order the specific item at the specific moment in time. No deviation. No alternate actions. No choice.


''The No Choice Principle implies that I cannot have a choice about anything that is an unavoidable consequence of something I have no control of.''

''How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitable consequence of something I have no choice about? And yet ...the compatibilist must deny the No Choice Principle.” - Van Inwagen

So, that went right over your head? You did not see that the alternatives and possibilities are located within the choosing operation itself and not in the deterministic framework? You still wish to swallow up the details of the actual causal mechanism and hide from them in the generality of causation?

Choosing is a deterministic operation in a deterministic universe, and the choosing operation functions by perceiving multiple things that we can do, evaluating these options, and choosing the one thing that we will do. Not only does it happen, but in a deterministic universe it necessarily must happen exactly as it does.

There is no use in pretending that it doesn't happen.

 

[Jarhyn]

Given the nature of determinism as it is defined, 'won't' is equivalent to 'cannot.'

You make this assertion, yet you make it against the pointed revelation that this runs afoul of the modal fallacy.

As "can" discusses a situation entirely agnostic to what "that which is", I dare say that they are NOT equivalent.

You have yet to answer the modal fallacy refuse petulantly in fact, and so all your bullshit is clear for anyone to see.

 

[DBT]

Given the nature of determinism as it is defined, 'won't' is equivalent to 'cannot.'

You make this assertion, yet you make it against the pointed revelation that this runs afoul of the modal fallacy.

As "can" discusses a situation entirely agnostic to what "that which is", I dare say that they are NOT equivalent.

You have yet to answer the modal fallacy refuse petulantly in fact, and so all your bullshit is clear for anyone to see.

It's not an assertion. It is just how determinism is defined. It is how you define determinism. As defined, there is no deviation in determinism all events must proceed as determined, hence no alternate actions, hence 'won't do' is equivalent to 'it cannot happen' (no deviation).

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not an assertion

Look, ANOTHER bald assertion *yawn"

It is just how determinism is defined

Argumentum ad dictum.

And no, it is not "how determinism is defined". That's a begged question on your part.

defined, there is no deviation in determinism all events must proceed as determined

Some of those events being choices...

hence no alternate actions

... Is a modal fallacy applying figurative language to bad effect.

Obviously there were alternate actions that could have been taken. They just weren't, because that's how choice works. You have a set, the you get a subset, and only the subset happen.

hence 'won't do' is equivalent to 'it cannot happen'

And there you step into the modal fallacy again.

Can't says "even if you were to load a blank universe with particles in any you wished, X would still not happen".

 

[pood]

Presented with a formalized modal argument, DBT does not address the argument itself, but rather goes a-Googling in search of someone, anyone, who will attack modal logic itself! And sure enough he succeeds; the internet is gravid with crackpots.

This tells me that DBT can’t address the argument — otherwise, he would — and that he can’t rebut modal logic, because if he could, he would do it himself, rather than seeking someone to do it for him.

Typical ad homs and dismissal of opposing ideas.

Never mind your own googling. Never mind that you ignore anything that doesn't suit your belief in compatibilism.
Namely, that brain state is not chosen, yet it is brain state that determines what is thought, felt and done.

It is not philosophy or modal logic that falsifies the notion of free will, but neuroscience and physics.

What ad hom? Where did I ad hom you?

I simply pointed out that I presented you with a formal modal argument and you did not address it. That is the truth, isn’t it? No ad hom there.

My own googling? Of course I google up stuff to supprt and supplement arguments that I make in my own words. You do something quite different. You google up stuff in lieu of making an argument of your own. I am afraid you are the google champ, not I.

I presented you with a formal modal argument and you did not address it. Instead, you google up someone who does not address the argument either, but instead makes some generalized and frankly incoherent attack on modal logic, which means he is attacking logic itself. Good luck with that.

If you have a beef with modal logic, why don’t you state that beef in your own words. If you disagree with the formal modal argument I presented, why don’t you list the objections to the argument in your own words?