Demystifying Determinism

[Jarhyn]

Golly, what a comundrum.

Am I predetermined to have Cheerios for breakfast whEn I have Cheerios? If I want to test determinism andI choose nto eat anything, but maybe that is predermined.

Wow, what a headache. It could drive a man to drink, but maybe hat is predetermined.

When it comes to hard determinism, I do not see how that can be tested. If we rewound the sunrise to just after the event known as 'the big bang' , would thing happen exactly the same?

Yes. If we started over with exactly the SAME Big Bang, then everything that happens thereafter would happen again, exactly as it did before. The question is, why should this bother us? For example, if we bowled a strike, and the next time we bowled we released and rolled the ball in exactly the same way, then we would bowl another strike. So, is reliable cause and effect a good thing or a bad thing?

What it means is that if it is 'you' that makes a choice, you do not have any choice in what choice you choose. No matter what, that choice was predetermined... and therefore no choice at all. The choice is an illusion

Except it isn't, because that isn't the meaning of "choice" in any reasonable math.

There are a few good discussions in the thread on "choice function" and what that means. Search up ListA.

Math is math. The concept of 'Free Will and 'Deterioration' . Python 'list a' still generates non-random numbers if you start with the same seed. Just because the programmer doesn't know what the seed will be doesn't mean that the list of numbers is random once you have the initial input. Once there is the seed, there is no choice. What can't be shown is that even if the programmer does not know the seed , that the seed was not predetermined by the past events. It doesn't mean it is, either.

Once there is a seed there is always still choice function operating out of the system that is defined between the rules and that seed.

The system doesn't "choose", but that very group extension of the seed does, in it's calculation, operate via a large array of choice functions of the kind I describe on sets of universes.

Some of those choice functions are chaotic or "random" by whatever material fact.

Some of those choice functions operate as the large-scale outcome of a statistical result of aforementioned apparent chaotic or random function.

Some of those large scale material objects operating such choice functions are "us, in the restaurant, eating a steak because a guy with a gun is pointing it at us and we would rather eat steak tonight against our will to eat salad, rather than be shot and never be able to eat another salad again."

 

[Marvin Edwards]

What it means is that if it is 'you' that makes a choice, you do not have any choice in what choice you choose. No matter what, that choice was predetermined... and therefore no choice at all. The choice is an illusion

Sorry, but the "and therefore no choice at all" is the illusion. We both admit to the fact that a choice was made in physical reality, therefore the claim that "the choice is an illusion" is clearly false.

The question then is how the delusion was formed that something that clearly happened didn't happen.

 

[ramoss]

What it means is that if it is 'you' that makes a choice, you do not have any choice in what choice you choose. No matter what, that choice was predetermined... and therefore no choice at all. The choice is an illusion

Sorry, but the "and therefore no choice at all" is the illusion. We both admit to the fact that a choice was made in physical reality, therefore the claim that "the choice is an illusion" is clearly false.

The question then is how the delusion was formed that something that clearly happened didn't happen.

Really??? How do you know that? What potentially testable idea, if proven true, would falsify it? Just because you say so doesn't mean it's true.

By definition, hard determination means there is no choice. I didn't say there was a choice if there is hard determination. that's your position. You have not shown that statement to be true.

 

[pood]

Math is math. The concept of 'Free Will and 'Deterioration' . Python 'list a' still generates non-random numbers if you start with the same seed. Just because the programmer doesn't know what the seed will be doesn't mean that the list of numbers is random once you have the initial input. Once there is the seed, there is no choice. What can't be shown is that even if the programmer does not know the seed , that the seed was not predetermined by the past events. It doesn't mean it is, either.

It says I ”liked” this. It was inadvertent. I meant to “like” the post that followed it.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

By definition, hard determination means there is no choice.

No. Hard determinism asserts that determinism is incompatible with free will.

But ordinary determinism simply asserts that all events will be the reliable result of prior events. All events that happen are causally necessary from any prior point in time. Choosing is one of those events that is causally necessary from any prior point in time.

You see, it is not just the choice that is inevitable, but the event of choosing is also inevitable. And if the event includes us doing the choosing, then it will be inevitable from any prior point in time that we will actually be the single thing in the entire universe that does the choosing.

 

[Jarhyn]

What it means is that if it is 'you' that makes a choice, you do not have any choice in what choice you choose. No matter what, that choice was predetermined... and therefore no choice at all. The choice is an illusion

Sorry, but the "and therefore no choice at all" is the illusion. We both admit to the fact that a choice was made in physical reality, therefore the claim that "the choice is an illusion" is clearly false.

The question then is how the delusion was formed that something that clearly happened didn't happen.

Really??? How do you know that? What potentially testable idea, if proven true, would falsify it? Just because you say so doesn't mean it's true.

By definition, hard determination means there is no choice. I didn't say there was a choice if there is hard determination. that's your position. You have not shown that statement to be true.

I think I just successfully answered how you get both choice and free will in a deterministic system.

In some ways you are asking the wrong side to bring the burden, insofar as the way to prove this idea as false requires a particular process: one must assume compatibilism and reach a contradiction in the language of compatibilism.

You could also assume the inverse and disproved that.

Marvin has in fact done the latter, and in fact shown that any definition of choice that "cannot work in a deterministic system" is in fact a nonsensical definition, because all systems, stochastic or dererministic, are representable through replay determinism.

 

[ramoss]

By definition, hard determination means there is no choice.

No. Hard determinism asserts that determinism is incompatible with free will.

But ordinary determinism simply asserts that all events will be the reliable result of prior events. All events that happen are causally necessary from any prior point in time. Choosing is one of those events that is causally necessary from any prior point in time.

You see, it is not just the choice that is inevitable, but the event of choosing is also inevitable. And if the event includes us doing the choosing, then it will be inevitable from any prior point in time that we will actually be the single thing in the entire universe that does the choosing.

You can not show that soft determinism exists. You are fated to fail in the claim.

You are also failing to show that our actions are both determined and free. That shows that there is a inherent self contradition in the concept of soft determinism. It is defined into place, but the contradiction has not been resolved, merely ignored

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You can not show that soft determinism exists.

Well, soft determinism is not an object that exists or doesn't exist. It is a description of how the world works. The question is whether or not the description it presents is accurate or not. Oh, and I prefer to use the term "determinism" without qualifiers when speaking of the correct version of determinism.

If we must qualify it, then it should be called "perfect determinism", because it presumes that all events are reliably caused by prior events, such that every event is causally necessary from any prior point in time, and inevitably must happen. There are no uncaused uncaused events.

I hope that definition satisfies you. If not, then by all means offer your own.

You are also failing to show that our actions are both determined and free. That shows that there is a inherent self contradition in the concept of soft determinism. It is defined into place, but the contradiction has not been resolved, merely ignored

If you start with a false premise, then you will end with a false conclusion. There is no such thing as freedom from causal necessity! Nor is there such a thing as freedom from oneself, nor freedom from reality. These are impossible freedoms. So, any use of the term "free" or "freedom" must be taken to mean something other than an impossible freedom.

The notion of freedom only becomes meaningful when it refers, explicitly or implicitly, to some meaningful and relevant constraint, that is, something that we might want to be free of and something that we actually can be free of.

For example:

1. We set the bird free (from its cage).
2. The woman at the grocery store was handing out free samples (free of charge).
3. In this country we enjoy freedom of speech (free from censorship).
4. I participated in Libet's experiment of my own free will (free of coercion and undue influence).

So, in each example we have the meaningful and relevant constraints that one might want to be free from. And, in each example we have actions that are both determined and free, in a meaningful and relevant way.

1. In a world of perfect determinism, the bird cannot be free from causation, but it can be free from its cage.
2. And the samples in the grocery store cannot be free from causation, but they can be free of charge.
3. And the words we speak cannot be free from causation, but they can be free of censorship.
4. And our choices cannot be free from causation, but they can be free from coercion or undue influence.

So, despite causal necessity, the bird, the samples, our speech, and our choices can all be free from specific meaningful and relevant constraints, while never being free from causal necessity.

There is no contradiction between our choice being both determined and free from coercion and undue influence.

Your contradiction has just been resolved.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's interesting that some have such a hard time understanding deterministic choice.

It's like Thunderdome, yes we all know that Mel Gibson is walking out of there. No question. That choice function is in fact "of the set of characters, select the one played by the sexier actor". It's bsolutely deterministic, as Mel Gibson is absolutely the sexiest person in that movie.

Just because the choice is not fair, just because we know what the choice is, it makes no difference to the fact that two entered, and only one walked out.

The compatibilist does not demand more than this, because it is still a choice, even if a foregone one.

 

[ramoss]

You can not show that soft determinism exists.

Well, soft determinism is not an object that exists or doesn't exist. It is a description of how the world works. The question is whether or not the description it presents is accurate or not. Oh, and I prefer to use the term "determinism" without qualifiers when speaking of the correct version of determinism.

If we must qualify it, then it should be called "perfect determinism", because it presumes that all events are reliably caused by prior events, such that every event is causally necessary from any prior point in time, and inevitably must happen. There are no uncaused uncaused events.

I hope that definition satisfies you. If not, then by all means offer your own.

You are also failing to show that our actions are both determined and free. That shows that there is a inherent self contradition in the concept of soft determinism. It is defined into place, but the contradiction has not been resolved, merely ignored

If you start with a false premise, then you will end with a false conclusion. There is no such thing as freedom from causal necessity! Nor is there such a thing as freedom from oneself, nor freedom from reality. These are impossible freedoms. So, any use of the term "free" or "freedom" must be taken to mean something other than an impossible freedom.

The notion of freedom only becomes meaningful when it refers, explicitly or implicitly, to some meaningful and relevant constraint, that is, something that we might want to be free of and something that we actually can be free of.

For example:

1. We set the bird free (from its cage).
2. The woman at the grocery store was handing out free samples (free of charge).
3. In this country we enjoy freedom of speech (free from censorship).
4. I participated in Libet's experiment of my own free will (free of coercion and undue influence).

So, in each example we have the meaningful and relevant constraints that one might want to be free from. And, in each example we have actions that are both determined and free, in a meaningful and relevant way.

1. In a world of perfect determinism, the bird cannot be free from causation, but it can be free from its cage.
2. And the samples in the grocery store cannot be free from causation, but they can be free of charge.
3. And the words we speak cannot be free from causation, but they can be free of censorship.
4. And our choices cannot be free from causation, but they can be free from coercion or undue influence.

So, despite causal necessity, the bird, the samples, our speech, and our choices can all be free from specific meaningful and relevant constraints, while never being free from causal necessity.

There is no contradiction between our choice being both determined and free from coercion and undue influence.

Your contradiction has just been resolved.

Now, all you have to do is show that you didn't start with a false premise.

You make claims, but,do your claims match reality? Conceptually, the concept of soft determinism is flawed. It can not explain how you can things can be deterministic, but you have choice at the same time. Your syllogism can not be shown to be either valid or sound.

 

[The AntiChris]

Now, all you have to do is show that you didn't start with a false premise.

What premise are you referring to?

It can not explain how you can things can be deterministic, but you have choice at the same time.

I think you may have an unrealistic concept of 'choice'. Can you explain how we choose in the absence of reliable causation?

 

[fromderinside]

The point is that objectivity is established by multiple observations, especially by unbiased observers, and by controlled experiments.
Scientific instruments extend our senses through telescopes and microscopes, and x-rays, and magnetic imaging, etc., making the invisible measurable. But it is still ultimately us, interpreting what we see.

Multiple observations by unbiased observers aren't nearly enough to establish control of elements in experiment. The aspects of the object being specified for test must be be materially established. By material establishment the object must be described in more fundamental reductionist terms already established as part of the body of science such as mass, extent, dimension, temperature, velocity, elemental configuration etc. Its what I've been calling materiality.

That you are providing a well defined acoustics signals to the ear isn't enough to raise the results of observations to psychometrics. The specifications must at a minimum also include randomization of conditions, temporal and procedural order of experimental process bringing the signals to the ears and responses from the fingers of the observers. As well as accounting for time and extent of test sessions along with controls for specific verified repeatable operations. then there is the review and commentary prior to publication then there is editorial acceptance and publication to specific communities.

Each sense tells us something different. Is this "really" an apple? It looks like an apple, but when I pick it up it is much lighter, and if I thump it with my knuckle it feels hard, but it sounds hollow. Hmm. It is an artificial apple, put in this bowl of artificial fruit for decoration.

Since each sense uses differing aspects associated with reality their relationships to one another need be refined to specific material dimensional and material concomitants. Even then experiments need be conducted verifying the onto nature of such relationships.

Right. We presume the "existence" of a wall when we bump into it. Bumping into the wall is a "measure" of its solidity, its hardness, and its realness.

Our abilities to verify it's attributes are still indirect and do not qualify as evidence realness by kind.

You have miles and miles go before you begin to understand materiality and experiment. And you certainly don't understand what is meant by scientific experiment. What you talk to is causal study or investigation. Nothing material nor scientific can be properly reported from such.

I think you'll find https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/ and Wiki's article addressing Percy Bridgman's  Operationalism enlightening. I'm a an Acoustical psychophysicist by early doctoral training and practice who was confused by SS Stevens and BF Skinner's interpretations.

So I went to the source which is much more adequate and useful. And as he concludes "The scientific method, as far as it is a method, is nothing more than doing one’s damnedest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” My added thought is "The mind always suspect need be as far removed from evidence as methodologically possible." ... and by all accounts he plotted a pretty good path because establishment of materiality is proof positive that mind is a contaminant.

I like to believe that I can operationally define any word I use. But I didn't get into this via Bridgman, but rather through Pragmatism, and William James's "cash value" of words. I also have a modest systems analysis background from a time when manual systems were being documented to assure that introducing computer data processing into the manual system would continue to perform all of the necessary business functions. (My interest in systems analysis was spurred by the original movie, "Cheaper By the Dozen", the story of Frank Gilbreth and his family).

You may have noticed that I refer to the ordinary notion of free will as the "operational free will", the one we use in the operation of assessing responsibility. And I describe "choosing" as an operation that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and, based on that evaluation outputs a single choice, usually in the form of an "I will X" where X is the thing we have set our intent upon doing.

Approaching practical matters in terms of operations and functions helps provide a practical and meaningful description of how things actually work. And I see meaning lost when philosophers get themselves lost in abstractions that divorce them from reality, such as the claim that "determinism implies that choosing doesn't happen", when there it is happening right in front of us in the restaurant. To me, that abstraction would be a demonstration of "mind as a contaminant", and it results in "hard determinism".

You can't get to objectivity via any method using the facilities brain provides for man. brain. The brain has no access to reality. That is because the brain has just impressions generated by senses which are nothing more than brain activity related to external reality but not actual external reality, just, as above, impressions.

All that is left is access to material which is part of reality that can be examined by methods that provide more explicit information about the material, still not actual reality, just explicit information about reality. Still many steps to go to appreciate reality.

 

[Jarhyn]

The point is that objectivity is established by multiple observations, especially by unbiased observers, and by controlled experiments.
Scientific instruments extend our senses through telescopes and microscopes, and x-rays, and magnetic imaging, etc., making the invisible measurable. But it is still ultimately us, interpreting what we see.

Multiple observations by unbiased observers aren't nearly enough to establish control of elements in experiment. The aspects of the object being specified for test must be be materially established. By material establishment the object must be described in more fundamental reductionist terms already established as part of the body of science such as mass, extent, dimension, temperature, velocity, elemental configuration etc. Its what I've been calling materiality.

That you are providing a well defined acoustics signals to the ear isn't enough to raise the results of observations to psychometrics. The specifications must at a minimum also include randomization of conditions, temporal and procedural order of experimental process bringing the signals to the ears and responses from the fingers of the observers. As well as accounting for time and extent of test sessions along with controls for specific verified repeatable operations. then there is the review and commentary prior to publication then there is editorial acceptance and publication to specific communities.

Each sense tells us something different. Is this "really" an apple? It looks like an apple, but when I pick it up it is much lighter, and if I thump it with my knuckle it feels hard, but it sounds hollow. Hmm. It is an artificial apple, put in this bowl of artificial fruit for decoration.

Since each sense uses differing aspects associated with reality their relationships to one another need be refined to specific material dimensional and material concomitants. Even then experiments need be conducted verifying the onto nature of such relationships.

Right. We presume the "existence" of a wall when we bump into it. Bumping into the wall is a "measure" of its solidity, its hardness, and its realness.

Our abilities to verify it's attributes are still indirect and do not qualify as evidence realness by kind.

You have miles and miles go before you begin to understand materiality and experiment. And you certainly don't understand what is meant by scientific experiment. What you talk to is causal study or investigation. Nothing material nor scientific can be properly reported from such.

I think you'll find https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/ and Wiki's article addressing Percy Bridgman's  Operationalism enlightening. I'm a an Acoustical psychophysicist by early doctoral training and practice who was confused by SS Stevens and BF Skinner's interpretations.

So I went to the source which is much more adequate and useful. And as he concludes "The scientific method, as far as it is a method, is nothing more than doing one’s damnedest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” My added thought is "The mind always suspect need be as far removed from evidence as methodologically possible." ... and by all accounts he plotted a pretty good path because establishment of materiality is proof positive that mind is a contaminant.

I like to believe that I can operationally define any word I use. But I didn't get into this via Bridgman, but rather through Pragmatism, and William James's "cash value" of words. I also have a modest systems analysis background from a time when manual systems were being documented to assure that introducing computer data processing into the manual system would continue to perform all of the necessary business functions. (My interest in systems analysis was spurred by the original movie, "Cheaper By the Dozen", the story of Frank Gilbreth and his family).

You may have noticed that I refer to the ordinary notion of free will as the "operational free will", the one we use in the operation of assessing responsibility. And I describe "choosing" as an operation that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and, based on that evaluation outputs a single choice, usually in the form of an "I will X" where X is the thing we have set our intent upon doing.

Approaching practical matters in terms of operations and functions helps provide a practical and meaningful description of how things actually work. And I see meaning lost when philosophers get themselves lost in abstractions that divorce them from reality, such as the claim that "determinism implies that choosing doesn't happen", when there it is happening right in front of us in the restaurant. To me, that abstraction would be a demonstration of "mind as a contaminant", and it results in "hard determinism".

You can't get to objectivity via any method using the facilities brain provides for man. brain. The brain has no access to reality. That is because the brain has just impressions generated by senses which are nothing more than brain activity related to external reality but not actual external reality, just, as above, impressions.

All that is left is access to material which is part of reality that can be examined by methods that provide more explicit information about the material, still not actual reality, just explicit information about reality. Still many steps to go to appreciate reality.

Bullshit. You can get to objectivity by reading the same page of the same book twice.

Objectivity is, as pointed out, a function of accepting something is an object and has "object properties", no less and no more.

Some object properties are discernable with one's bare eyes: objectively that person over there is between 5 and 6 feet tall. I can look away, look again, and know to that level of certainty.

I can improve the objectivity of my observation by asking a second person, but if there is none available, I can do any manner of tests I wish go confirm my observation from merely looking again, to getting a tape measure to comparing him against some object that does not compress.

And so on.

With the computer, I have had enough aspects proven to me that indicate barring external hijinks, when this pixel on the screen is lit, it deterministically means that some specific byte of memory responsible for catching the messages being sent to the monitor contains exactly 0xFEFE00, because the pixel is very bright yellow. I can validate that the refresh rate of the monitor is 60hz not because I have a high speed camera but because the clock system on the monitor is functional at 1hz and 2hz, and right now, it reads 60hz, which again it would not unless everything else was working, and I know all the code that defines how the object deterministically acts on that information.

A computer is an object FDI, twist and moan as you will. It's almost as if the only one here with NO access to reality is FDI...

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You can not show that soft determinism exists.

Well, soft determinism is not an object that exists or doesn't exist. It is a description of how the world works. The question is whether or not the description it presents is accurate or not. Oh, and I prefer to use the term "determinism" without qualifiers when speaking of the correct version of determinism.

If we must qualify it, then it should be called "perfect determinism", because it presumes that all events are reliably caused by prior events, such that every event is causally necessary from any prior point in time, and inevitably must happen. There are no uncaused uncaused events.

I hope that definition satisfies you. If not, then by all means offer your own.

You are also failing to show that our actions are both determined and free. That shows that there is a inherent self contradition in the concept of soft determinism. It is defined into place, but the contradiction has not been resolved, merely ignored

If you start with a false premise, then you will end with a false conclusion. There is no such thing as freedom from causal necessity! Nor is there such a thing as freedom from oneself, nor freedom from reality. These are impossible freedoms. So, any use of the term "free" or "freedom" must be taken to mean something other than an impossible freedom.

The notion of freedom only becomes meaningful when it refers, explicitly or implicitly, to some meaningful and relevant constraint, that is, something that we might want to be free of and something that we actually can be free of.

For example:

1. We set the bird free (from its cage).
2. The woman at the grocery store was handing out free samples (free of charge).
3. In this country we enjoy freedom of speech (free from censorship).
4. I participated in Libet's experiment of my own free will (free of coercion and undue influence).

So, in each example we have the meaningful and relevant constraints that one might want to be free from. And, in each example we have actions that are both determined and free, in a meaningful and relevant way.

1. In a world of perfect determinism, the bird cannot be free from causation, but it can be free from its cage.
2. And the samples in the grocery store cannot be free from causation, but they can be free of charge.
3. And the words we speak cannot be free from causation, but they can be free of censorship.
4. And our choices cannot be free from causation, but they can be free from coercion or undue influence.

So, despite causal necessity, the bird, the samples, our speech, and our choices can all be free from specific meaningful and relevant constraints, while never being free from causal necessity.

There is no contradiction between our choice being both determined and free from coercion and undue influence.

Your contradiction has just been resolved.

Now, all you have to do is show that you didn't start with a false premise.

You make claims, but,do your claims match reality? Conceptually, the concept of soft determinism is flawed. It can not explain how you can things can be deterministic, but you have choice at the same time. Your syllogism can not be shown to be either valid or sound.

The best way to check our claims against reality is to use a common example that we're all familiar with: people actually making choices in a restaurant. In the restaurant, we do not have to deal with subjective feelings. We can objectively observe people walking in, sitting at a table, picking up the menu, browsing through the possibilities, and then telling the waiter what they will have for dinner. Whether they are having any illusions of choosing for themselves we do not know. But we know that we are not having any illusions as we watch them actually doing it.

If we want to know the reasons why they chose one thing rather than another, we can simply ask them: "Excuse us, but we're scientists doing a survey. Would you mind if we asked you a question?" "Sure, why not". "Why did you choose the Chef Salad for dinner tonight?". "I saw the steak first, but when I thought of the bacon and eggs I had for breakfast and the double cheeseburger I had for lunch, I decided I had better have some vegetables for dinner, so I chose the salad instead." "So, those reasons caused you to choose the salad instead of the steak?" "Yes, they did." "Thank you for participating in our survey."

The first thing we notice from this is that they believe that their choice was reliably caused. They do not view it as an "uncaused" event. They have their own goals and their own reasons, and these goals and reasons are deterministically causing their choice.

The second thing we notice that there is no one holding a gun to their head. And their choice appears reasonable, and not the product of some mental illness, or hypnosis, or any other undue influence. So we conclude that this was a choice they made for themselves, "of their own free will".

Our conclusion then is that the choice was reliably caused (deterministic) and also reliably caused by the customer (free will). Thus, we conclude that determinism and free will are compatible notions.

So, the ball is in your court to prove otherwise.

 

[ramoss]

Now, all you have to do is show that you didn't start with a false premise.

What premise are you referring to?

It can not explain how you can things can be deterministic, but you have choice at the same time.

I think you may have an unrealistic concept of 'choice'. Can you explain how we choose in the absence of reliable causation?

The premise of soft determination, that you can have choice even if everything is predetermined.

 

[The AntiChris]

Now, all you have to do is show that you didn't start with a false premise.

What premise are you referring to?

It can not explain how you can things can be deterministic, but you have choice at the same time.

I think you may have an unrealistic concept of 'choice'. Can you explain how we choose in the absence of reliable causation?

The premise of soft determination, that you can have choice even if everything is predetermined.

Yes I know you believe determinism precludes choice, but I'm trying to understand why you think that. I was hoping that your answer to my second question would shed some light.

 

[ramoss]

Now, all you have to do is show that you didn't start with a false premise.

What premise are you referring to?

It can not explain how you can things can be deterministic, but you have choice at the same time.

I think you may have an unrealistic concept of 'choice'. Can you explain how we choose in the absence of reliable causation?

The premise of soft determination, that you can have choice even if everything is predetermined.

Yes I know you believe determinism precludes choice, but I'm trying to understand why you think that. I was hoping that your answer to my second question would shed some light.

It's like dominos, living creatures are just more complicated Rube Goldberg machines. If we are going to do something, then we are going to do that, despite the chances of something else the 'could have ' occurred

 

[Marvin Edwards]

1. The premise of soft determination, that you can have choice even if everything is predetermined.

It's simple, really. It was predetermined that you would have to make a choice.

1. It was predetermined that you would encounter a problem or issue that required you to make a choice before you could continue (for example, you are in the restaurant, facing a literal menu of different things you can order, and you must tell the waiter what you will have for dinner, or go hungry tonight).
2. It was predetermined that you would evaluate your options in terms of your own dietary or other goals.
3. It was predetermined that one of these options would satisfy your goals and reasons better than the other options.
4. It was predetermined that you would set your intention (your will) upon having that option for dinner.
5. It was predetermined that you would tell the waiter, "I will have the (your choice), please."
6. It was predetermined that the waiter would bring you your choice, and the bill for your dinner.
7. It was predetermined that, after you ate your dinner, you would takes responsibility for the bill, and pay the cashier on your way out.

The fact that events were predetermined did not alter the fact that you would be making a choice!

Do you see it yet?

 

[The AntiChris]

Now, all you have to do is show that you didn't start with a false premise.

What premise are you referring to?

It can not explain how you can things can be deterministic, but you have choice at the same time.

I think you may have an unrealistic concept of 'choice'. Can you explain how we choose in the absence of reliable causation?

The premise of soft determination, that you can have choice even if everything is predetermined.

Yes I know you believe determinism precludes choice, but I'm trying to understand why you think that. I was hoping that your answer to my second question would shed some light.

It's like dominos, living creatures are just more complicated Rube Goldberg machines. If we are going to do something, then we are going to do that, despite the chances of something else the 'could have ' occurred

This doesn't answer my question. How does choosing work without reliable causation?

 

[Jarhyn]

Now, all you have to do is show that you didn't start with a false premise.

What premise are you referring to?

It can not explain how you can things can be deterministic, but you have choice at the same time.

I think you may have an unrealistic concept of 'choice'. Can you explain how we choose in the absence of reliable causation?

The premise of soft determination, that you can have choice even if everything is predetermined.

Yes I know you believe determinism precludes choice, but I'm trying to understand why you think that. I was hoping that your answer to my second question would shed some light.

It's like dominos, living creatures are just more complicated Rube Goldberg machines. If we are going to do something, then we are going to do that, despite the chances of something else the 'could have ' occurred

This doesn't answer my question. How does choosing work without reliable causation?

So, something I generally have a very hard time educating the religious about is how nonsensical the idea of a "god" who can do "anything" can do any such thing without there first being a concept of things to do, or indeed things they can't do, is.

Essentially such concepts of choice are similar, and can only possibly rely on a concept of "FIAT choice": such that in a world of unreliable cause and effect, the effect is imagined to be caused by the simple fact of it's imagining, a fulfillment of wish by nonsensical just-so happenstance and whether an infinite god decides on a whim to grant this weak prayer.

We obviously know this is not how choice functions work. Rather, they operate a mechanism which selects one of a set by fixed means. Choice function is just the set of words we use to describe that behavior.