Demystifying Determinism

[Jarhyn]

it is the inexorable consequence of activity that preceded it

And you have yet to support that the inexorable consequence of the activity that preceded this activity is that this activity meets the definition of compatibilist choice.

To that end, I invited you to find the reference to randomness or deviation in the scenario I posed.

You are the one saying that such would require randomness or deviation neither of which are happening there.

It is not irrelevant, insofar as the discussion on randomness and deviation, which you frequently pretend are important.

Here you are claiming our positions stand on "randomness" or "deviation", when they do not, when these would merely result in madness, not choice, as @bilby identified well.

At any rate watching you spin around with arguments from authority and so unable to support anything you claim to believe in your own words makes me think that you came to a nuke fight with a fart in paper bag.

 

[DBT]

Social conditioning.
''Human behavior is affected both by genetic inheritance and by experience. The ways in which people develop are shaped by social experience and circumstances within the context of their inherited genetic potential. The scientific question is just how experience and hereditary potential interact in producing human behavior.

Each person is born into a social and cultural setting—family, community, social class, language, religion—and eventually develops many social connections. The characteristics of a child's social setting affect how he or she learns to think and behave, by means of instruction, rewards and punishment, and example.

This setting includes home, school, neighborhood, and also, perhaps, local religious and law enforcement agencies. Then there are also the child's mostly informal interactions with friends, other peers, relatives, and the entertainment and news media. How individuals will respond to all these influences, or even which influence will be the most potent, tends not to be predictable.

There is, however, some substantial similarity in how individuals respond to the same pattern of influences—that is, to being raised in the same culture. Furthermore, culturally induced behavior patterns, such as speech patterns, body language, and forms of humor, become so deeply imbedded in the human mind that they often operate without the individuals themselves being fully aware of them.'

Yes. Sociology is an important study area because it demonstrates the social influences that can affect human behavior. It can detail the specific causes of specific effects. And that is useful information, because it suggests to us that making changes to society can improve the behavior of its individual members.

Unfortunately, Determinism tells us nothing useful about human behavior. It simply asserts that every event is reliably caused by prior events, such that whatever happens inevitably must happen. It is a general statement about general causation, without any details. In fact, the hard determinist will typically sweep the details under the rug of the generality. The hard determinist pretends that certain events, like choosing for ourselves what we will do, simply don't happen.

The sociologist, on the other hand, tells us the specific causes of criminal behavior, like poverty, unemployment, poor education, lack of afterschool recreation facilities, etc. Things we can actually do something about, if we choose to.

Dr. Robert Sapolsky: The basic theme is that we are biological creatures, which shouldn't be earth-shattering. And thus all of our behavior is a product of our biology, which also shouldn't be earth-shattering—even though it's news to some people.

If we want to make sense of our behavior—all the best, worst, and everything in between—we're not going to get anywhere if we think it can all be explained with one thing, whether it's one part of the brain, one childhood experience, one hormone, one gene, or anything. Instead, a behavior is the outcome of everything from neurobiology one second before the action, to evolutionary pressure dating back millions of years.

Sapolsky also provides some useful information about the biological constants of human behavior.

But neither of these quotes relate directly to determinism, or why determinism should matter to us. Perhaps it is because determinism simply doesn't matter, never has, and never will matter.

If the world is causally deterministic, the quotes relate to determinism.

Social conditioning is causal, past generations pass their beliefs and traditions to following generations. As described, social, political, economic and religious values shape/determine thought and action in response to life challenges as they arise.

 

[Jarhyn]

Social conditioning is causal, past generations pass their beliefs and traditions to following generations. As described, social, political, economic and religious values shape/determine thought and action in response to life challenges as they arise

All this can support is that choices must have reasons lest they be "madness". You have not defended in any way that choices don't happen though.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Social conditioning is causal, past generations pass their beliefs and traditions to following generations. As described, social, political, economic and religious values shape/determine thought and action in response to life challenges as they arise.

And we learn about the effects of societal norms upon individual behavior by studying Psychology and Sociology, not by studying determinism. There is so much unscientific and superstitious crap tied to determinism that it is a huge waste of time just climbing out of all the nonsense. For example, neither Psychology nor Sociology will go around claiming that people in the restaurant are not really deciding for themselves what they will order for dinner. And neither Psychology nor Sociology will find it necessary to abandon the notion of free will in order to explain why people do what they do.

 

[DBT]

Social conditioning is causal, past generations pass their beliefs and traditions to following generations. As described, social, political, economic and religious values shape/determine thought and action in response to life challenges as they arise

All this can support is that choices must have reasons lest they be "madness". You have not defended in any way that choices don't happen though.

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

Determinism
All events develop or evolve as they must without deviation, there are no possible alternate actions, consequently determinism does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

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

You have no case to argue.

 

[DBT]

Social conditioning is causal, past generations pass their beliefs and traditions to following generations. As described, social, political, economic and religious values shape/determine thought and action in response to life challenges as they arise.

And we learn about the effects of societal norms upon individual behavior by studying Psychology and Sociology, not by studying determinism. There is so much unscientific and superstitious crap tied to determinism that it is a huge waste of time just climbing out of all the nonsense. For example, neither Psychology nor Sociology will go around claiming that people in the restaurant are not really deciding for themselves what they will order for dinner. And neither Psychology nor Sociology will find it necessary to abandon the notion of free will in order to explain why people do what they do.

Human behaviour is not separate from the nature of the world or how it works.

As compatibilism is the argument that free will is compatible with determinism, human behaviour must be looked at in context of determinism: how the environment works, how society works, cultural conditioning, etc, where - if the world is deterministic - human behaviour must be deterministic.

If not, we are not talking about compatibilism or determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

All events develop or evolve as they must without deviation,

You conveniently overlook the obvious: life and the world makes you what you are and how you think and respond

No, you have dodged the question. I'll get to that and in fact that is also answered in my post below, but first, please highlight where "randomness" or "deviation" is happening, because FIRST THINGS FIRST, you need to stop making invalid arguments about randomness and deviation.

so find the randomness and deviation, or stop bringing up randomness and deviation.

hilight it in red

Jarhyn - A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

entailed, fixed, unchangeable

So it won't, which doesn't mean it can't re:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

Nowhere is there randomness. There is only linear deterministic calculation happening here.

As you can see, it's not illusory, it's just approximal.

It's necessary approximal nature due to Incompleteness does not in fact change that it is the same fundamental operation being done, merely with approximal data.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Social conditioning is causal, past generations pass their beliefs and traditions to following generations. As described, social, political, economic and religious values shape/determine thought and action in response to life challenges as they arise

All this can support is that choices must have reasons lest they be "madness". You have not defended in any way that choices don't happen though.

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

Determinism
All events develop or evolve as they must without deviation, there are no possible alternate actions, consequently determinism does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

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

You have no case to argue.

The case is simple. Peter Van Inwagen needs to read a dictionary. You see, humans have evolved concepts to name events. There is "walking". There is "talking". There is "choosing". All of these are things that people actually do. We can do them ourselves. We can watch other people do them. A "No Choice Principle", just like a "No Walk Principle", or a "No Talk Principle", contradicts what is actually happening in the real world.

All of these events, are equally consistent with a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. Determinism cannot erase one without erasing them all. Therefore, determinism cannot erase choosing, and there can be no such thing as a "No Choice Principle".

The case is simple.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Human behaviour is not separate from the nature of the world or how it works.

Different objects exhibit different behavior according to their nature. So, if we want to know how the world works, we need to know how different types of objects work. For example, (1) inanimate objects respond passively to physical forces. Place a bowling ball on a slope and it will always roll downhill. It's behavior is governed by the force of gravity. But (2) living organisms, while still affected by gravity, are governed by biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. Place a squirrel on that same slope and he may go up, down, or any other direction where he hopes to find his next acorn. His body is able to marshal energy to resist the pull of gravity as he scurries up a tree. And (3) an intelligent species comes with a brain capable of imagining, evaluating, and choosing. While still affected by gravity and biological drives, it can choose when, where, and how it will go about satisfying those drives.

This ability to choose for itself what it will do is called "free will". The "free" means that the choosing was free of coercion and other forms of undue influence that might prevent it from deciding for itself what it will do.

As compatibilism is the argument that free will is compatible with determinism, human behaviour must be looked at in context of determinism: how the environment works, how society works, cultural conditioning, etc, where - if the world is deterministic - human behaviour must be deterministic.

Human behavior is certainly deterministic. Choosing, after all, is a deterministic operation. The choice is reliably caused by the person's own goals and reasons, thoughts and feelings, beliefs and values, etc. So, the free will event is a deterministic event.

And, we may assume that the free will event fits nicely within the history of causation leading up to that specific person making that specific choice. There is no violation of causal necessity. Free will, after all, is not free from causal necessity (nothing ever is and nothing ever needs to be). Free will is simply free from coercion and other forms of undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Jarhyn]

Social conditioning is causal, past generations pass their beliefs and traditions to following generations. As described, social, political, economic and religious values shape/determine thought and action in response to life challenges as they arise

All this can support is that choices must have reasons lest they be "madness". You have not defended in any way that choices don't happen though.

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

Determinism
All events develop or evolve as they must without deviation, there are no possible alternate actions, consequently determinism does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

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

You have no case to argue.

The case is simple. Peter Van Inwagen needs to read a dictionary. You see, humans have evolved concepts to name events. There is "walking". There is "talking". There is "choosing". All of these are things that people actually do. We can do them ourselves. We can watch other people do them. A "No Choice Principle", just like a "No Walk Principle", or a "No Talk Principle", contradicts what is actually happening in the real world.

All of these events, are equally consistent with a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. Determinism cannot erase one without erasing them all. Therefore, determinism cannot erase choosing, and there can be no such thing as a "No Choice Principle".

The case is simple.

I would like for a moment to discuss the role  madness has in determinism. This is not a discussion of "choice", but a discussion of "how does learning happen".

Most of this is reconstructed from the implications and direct discussion of Artificial Neural Networks, not just gathered in argument of a single automatic authority who never actually seems to manage to actually back up their claims.

Fundamentally the math of a neural network involves the transit of various error surfaces in various mathematical spaces.

To simplify, usually the image of a landscape is used, of rivers and valleys and mesas and cratered mountaintops.

This landscape is the "error surface", and it is a surface of the error created by the configuration of a neural system in the difference between a datum's expected output and the system's output. Through a stunning act of linear algebra, one may intersect these and take their average and thus find the systemic error. This error varies across each degree of freedom on the configuration of the system.

Then, the request is made to imagine oneself on this landscape trying to find "the lowest point" that the system may locate with no knowledge of the elevations of the place in which one has been dropped other than the slope: you get an idea of which way is down, based on the single point you are standing upon.

If you find yourself in the Crater of an extinct volcano, you might say "well, all there is is up, perhaps. I am at the bottom of truth!" You would never for instance, find the bottomless pit that sits just over the horizon of your perspective.

This is where madness comes in. Because all learning is madness and chaos.

The Madness That Learns says "this is low, but can I save a copy of that and drop another pin, maybe somewhere nearby?"

This Madness then goes out and says "let's find some abject fucked up nonsense that has nothing to do with the problem, and then intersect the solution with that to varying degrees."

This pushes the solution on the system in a different direction to a place it has not been.

It is not always the system's explicit mechanism that provides this madness that directs it towards a lower error state.

In this way knowledge and learning are some weird kind of reflection of entropy against a system, by any thing that has the capacity to act as a solver and accept such interference from things uncorrolated to the solution.

This is how evolution happens. It is nothing but chemical systems which are arrayed momentarily such that they direct at the requirements for a complete cyclic metabolic process that centers on a variable instruction set to an objective interpreter... Intersected with something that can shift the system in differently valid directions, presented against something which selects for the lower point on the error surface of "cyclic processes continue?"

Evolution probes against an error surface of survival with Madness and Chaos.

Sometimes the solution that madness and chaos finds is a way to describe itself, recognize how it's direction towards survival harms it's overall ability to find tools which could help that survival greatly through indirect means, and so focus not on immediate survival but instead on actually figuring out physics and math and ethics and so on.

 

[DBT]

All events develop or evolve as they must without deviation,

You conveniently overlook the obvious: life and the world makes you what you are and how you think and respond

No, you have dodged the question. I'll get to that and in fact that is also answered in my post below, but first, please highlight where "randomness" or "deviation" is happening, because FIRST THINGS FIRST, you need to stop making invalid arguments about randomness and deviation.

so find the randomness and deviation, or stop bringing up randomness and deviation.

hilight it in red

Jarhyn - A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

entailed, fixed, unchangeable

So it won't, which doesn't mean it can't re:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

Nowhere is there randomness. There is only linear deterministic calculation happening here.

As you can see, it's not illusory, it's just approximal.

It's necessary approximal nature due to Incompleteness does not in fact change that it is the same fundamental operation being done, merely with approximal data.

This has all been dealt with.

 

[DBT]

Human behaviour is not separate from the nature of the world or how it works.

Different objects exhibit different behavior according to their nature. So, if we want to know how the world works, we need to know how different types of objects work. For example, (1) inanimate objects respond passively to physical forces. Place a bowling ball on a slope and it will always roll downhill. It's behavior is governed by the force of gravity. But (2) living organisms, while still affected by gravity, are governed by biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. Place a squirrel on that same slope and he may go up, down, or any other direction where he hopes to find his next acorn. His body is able to marshal energy to resist the pull of gravity as he scurries up a tree. And (3) an intelligent species comes with a brain capable of imagining, evaluating, and choosing. While still affected by gravity and biological drives, it can choose when, where, and how it will go about satisfying those drives.

This ability to choose for itself what it will do is called "free will". The "free" means that the choosing was free of coercion and other forms of undue influence that might prevent it from deciding for itself what it will do.

If different objects, including people, produce or exhibit sets of behaviour according to their physical makeup - which is not chosen - that behaviour however complex is not freely willed or chosen.

''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

A brain processes information unconsciously, according to its properties, nature and makeup prior to conscious representation of that information.

As compatibilism is the argument that free will is compatible with determinism, human behaviour must be looked at in context of determinism: how the environment works, how society works, cultural conditioning, etc, where - if the world is deterministic - human behaviour must be deterministic.

Human behavior is certainly deterministic. Choosing, after all, is a deterministic operation. The choice is reliably caused by the person's own goals and reasons, thoughts and feelings, beliefs and values, etc. So, the free will event is a deterministic event.

And, we may assume that the free will event fits nicely within the history of causation leading up to that specific person making that specific choice. There is no violation of causal necessity. Free will, after all, is not free from causal necessity (nothing ever is and nothing ever needs to be). Free will is simply free from coercion and other forms of undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Choosing requires alternatives. Determinism - by definition - permits no alternatives. Whatever is done is done necessarily without the possibility of alternate decisions or actions.

There is no choice in determinism.

''The consequence argument can be viewed as part of a more general incompatibilist argument. This standard incompatibilist argument can be stated as follows (see Kane, 2002):

(1) The existence of alternative possibilities (or the agent's power to do otherwise) is a necessary condition for acting freely.

(2) Determinism is not compatible with alternative possibilities (it precludes the power to do otherwise).

(3) Therefore, determinism is not compatible with acting freely.

 

[Jarhyn]

All events develop or evolve as they must without deviation,

You conveniently overlook the obvious: life and the world makes you what you are and how you think and respond

No, you have dodged the question. I'll get to that and in fact that is also answered in my post below, but first, please highlight where "randomness" or "deviation" is happening, because FIRST THINGS FIRST, you need to stop making invalid arguments about randomness and deviation.

so find the randomness and deviation, or stop bringing up randomness and deviation.

hilight it in red

Jarhyn - A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

entailed, fixed, unchangeable

So it won't, which doesn't mean it can't re:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

Nowhere is there randomness. There is only linear deterministic calculation happening here.

As you can see, it's not illusory, it's just approximal.

It's necessary approximal nature due to Incompleteness does not in fact change that it is the same fundamental operation being done, merely with approximal data.

This has all been dealt with.

Funny, I keep quoting deeper and deeper into the thread and yet I see no additional highlighting in red.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Inanimate objects exhibit passive behavior. Their behavior is entirely governed by physical forces. Place a bowling ball on a slope and it will always roll downhill, governed by the force of gravity.

Living organisms exhibit purposeful behavior. While still affected by gravity, they are governed by biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. Place a squirrel on that same slope and he may go up, down, or any other direction where he hopes to find his next acorn. His body is able to marshal energy to resist the pull of gravity as he scurries up a tree.

Intelligent species exhibit deliberate behavior. They come with a brain capable of imagining, evaluating, and choosing. While still affected by gravity and biological drives, its behavior is governed by deliberate choice. It can choose when, where, and how it will go about satisfying those drives.

If different objects, including people, produce or exhibit sets of behaviour according to their physical makeup - which is not chosen - that behaviour however complex is not freely willed or chosen.

Your paradox still falls flat. There is no need for us to choose to be an intelligent species in order for us to choose what we will have for dinner. Insisting that we must choose our nature in order to exercise that nature is an irrational notion. Knock it off.

''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

Choosing happens, therefore the "No Choice Principle" is false. Case closed.

It will not be opened a silly riddle which insists we must cause ourselves before we can cause anything else. There is no prior cause that can pass such a test. So, the test would collapse the very notion of causal determinism, for the lack of any valid causes.

A brain processes information unconsciously, according to its properties, nature and makeup prior to conscious representation of that information.

Yeah, we know that. And that brain also brings to conscious awareness the essential information we need to explain our decisions to ourselves and others.

... There is no choice in determinism. ...

Any theory as to the nature of reality must be consistent with any phenomena that we objectively observe. We objectively observe choosing happening. We objectively observe menus of alternatives we can choose from. The theory that there is no choice in determinism would make determinism inconsistent with reality. So, now it is my turn to call you a libertarian, because you are obviously trying to prove that determinism is false.

 

[DBT]

All events develop or evolve as they must without deviation,

You conveniently overlook the obvious: life and the world makes you what you are and how you think and respond

No, you have dodged the question. I'll get to that and in fact that is also answered in my post below, but first, please highlight where "randomness" or "deviation" is happening, because FIRST THINGS FIRST, you need to stop making invalid arguments about randomness and deviation.

so find the randomness and deviation, or stop bringing up randomness and deviation.

hilight it in red

Jarhyn - A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

entailed, fixed, unchangeable

So it won't, which doesn't mean it can't re:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

Nowhere is there randomness. There is only linear deterministic calculation happening here.

As you can see, it's not illusory, it's just approximal.

It's necessary approximal nature due to Incompleteness does not in fact change that it is the same fundamental operation being done, merely with approximal data.

This has all been dealt with.

Funny, I keep quoting deeper and deeper into the thread and yet I see no additional highlighting in red.

I've lost interest in reading anything you post. Based on what I have read, your attempt at rationalizing free will shows that you are unable to grasp the meaning of determinism and its implications for free will, that even trying to explain the basics to you is a waste of time.

Perhaps you should talk to your conscious computers.

 

[DBT]

Inanimate objects exhibit passive behavior. Their behavior is entirely governed by physical forces. Place a bowling ball on a slope and it will always roll downhill, governed by the force of gravity.

Determinism includes everything within the system. The brain, according to the definition, is subject to determinism.

There can be no exceptions.

Complexity doesn't give a brain exemption.

''All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

Just the wording is a bit off. There are no two or more options to choose from in any given instance, consequently, no choice.

Every action, including brain activity, is necessitated by antecedents, inputs, neural architecture, information processing, and so on.

Living organisms exhibit purposeful behavior. While still affected by gravity, they are governed by biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. Place a squirrel on that same slope and he may go up, down, or any other direction where he hopes to find his next acorn. His body is able to marshal energy to resist the pull of gravity as he scurries up a tree.

Intelligent species exhibit deliberate behavior. They come with a brain capable of imagining, evaluating, and choosing. While still affected by gravity and biological drives, its behavior is governed by deliberate choice. It can choose when, where, and how it will go about satisfying those drives.

Purposeful behaviour is not an exemption from determinism, not is intelligence or deliberate behaviour.

Deliberation is a brain process: information is acquired and processed according to the information state, neural networks/memory function, etc, of the brain, which in turn produces output in the form of thoughts, feelings and actions.

There are no exceptions. Nothing operates outside of the system and its progression of inevitable events.

An inevitable progression of events does not permit choice. I'll have 'this' instead of 'that' if 'that' is determined cannot happen.


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.''

That's determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've lost interest in reading anything you post. Based on what I have read, your attempt at rationalizing free will shows that you are unable to grasp the meaning of determinism and its implications for free will, that even trying to explain the basics to you is a waste of time.

Perhaps you should talk to your conscious computers.

Translation: DBT keeps making assertions about "deviation and randomness", yet cannot actually find it.

We are at the point in the conversation now where either you find what I keep asking you to find, or you admit it is not there. It's not a hard task.

I can understand why it frustrates you so much that I won't let you slip away from it, so long as you keep bringing up "deviation" and "randomness".

The post will plague you every time you try to bring it up.

The words that move the discussion away from there are "Compatibilist Free Will depends on neither Deviation nor Randomness to function."

You know the words if you wish to discuss something else, but then you are on the much more difficult ground of discussing regulatory controls and timing of awareness, and actually picking apart the sequence of events in an execution of choice.

You would no longer be in the domin of "can't" but merely "isn't".

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Determinism includes everything within the system.

That's what I've been saying, over and over! Determinism cannot exclude any event. It cannot exclude choosing any more than it can exclude a tree growing or the rain falling or anything else that happens. We cannot pretend that trees don't grow or that people don't chop them down to build houses. We cannot pretend that rain doesn't fall or that people don't invent umbrellas to stay dry.

And most important, we cannot pretend that the people in the restaurant are not choosing what they will have for dinner, while free of coercion and undue influence.

The brain, according to the definition, is subject to determinism.

Using the wrong metaphors can distort the truth. The brain is not "subject to determinism". The brain simply "functions deterministically". Everything that happens within our brain, every neuron firing, every thought and feeling we experience, is reliably caused by prior neurons firing, and prior thoughts and feelings.

The proper metaphor is not determinism being the "king" of the brain, but rather the brain itself being determinism exercising control over other objects. For example, I filled a cup with water to take my morning pills. My brain controlled these events, and it did so deterministically.

My brain is simply doing what it naturally does. Neither the laws of nature nor determinism are external "agents" controlling what I do. They are simply me, doing what I naturally do.

Complexity doesn't give a brain exemption.

Don't worry. I've never suggested that complexity itself provides agency. Scrambling eggs introduces complexity without improving function.

It is simply that the brain has evolved into a machine that can perform rational thought, which enables it to perform logical operations like choosing, or arithmetic, or planning, or any of the other many functions that it performs. It is simply by the nature of its structure that it is able to do these things. Just like it is a matter of structure that a microwave oven is able to cook our breakfast and an automobile is able to transport us to work.

There are no two or more options to choose from in any given instance, consequently, no choice.

Choosing is a logical operation, like addition. Both operations actually happen in physical reality. Determinism does not eliminate any choosing events any more than it eliminates any addition events. We perform addition whenever we need to find the sum of two or more numbers. We perform choosing whenever we need to decide between two or more options.

In the restaurant we must choose from a menu of options to determine what we will order for dinner. And the waiter must add the cost of our food with the cost of our drinks to determine our bill. We cannot say that the addition is happening but the choosing is not happening. Both the choosing and the adding were equally causally necessary from any prior point in time.

Every action, including brain activity, is necessitated by antecedents, inputs, neural architecture, information processing, and so on.

Correct. All mental events, whether choosing or adding, are necessitated by antecedent events and inputs, neural architecture, information processing, and so on. Both choosing and addition are forms of "information processing".

Living organisms exhibit purposeful behavior. While still affected by gravity, they are governed by biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. Place a squirrel on that same slope and he may go up, down, or any other direction where he hopes to find his next acorn. His body is able to marshal energy to resist the pull of gravity as he scurries up a tree.

Intelligent species exhibit deliberate behavior. They come with a brain capable of imagining, evaluating, and choosing. While still affected by gravity and biological drives, its behavior is governed by deliberate choice. It can choose when, where, and how it will go about satisfying those drives.

Purposeful behaviour is not an exemption from determinism, nor is intelligence or deliberate behaviour.

There is never any requirement for any exemption from determinism in order to decide for ourselves what we will do while free of coercion and undue influence. Free will requires no exemption from determinism whatsoever.

Deliberation is a brain process: information is acquired and processed according to the information state, neural networks/memory function, etc, of the brain, which in turn produces output in the form of thoughts, feelings and actions.

Yes. We know all that. There is no dispute about the facts of neuroscience, except your own dispute with the neuroscience claim that the brain actually does make decisions and therefore choosing really happens in the real world.

An inevitable progression of events does not permit choice. I'll have 'this' instead of 'that' if 'that' is determined cannot happen.

An inevitable progression of events not only DOES PERMIT choice, it damn well REQUIRES choice to happen whenever it happens!

And that logically results in "I would only have chosen the Chef Salad for dinner that night, even though I could have chosen the Steak instead".

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.''

That's determinism.

Indeed it is. Given the same person, exactly as they were at the time they made that choice, with exactly the same prior experiences (the bacon and eggs for breakfast and the double cheeseburger for lunch) and exactly the same goals and reasons (the doctor's advice to eat more fruits and vegetables), they always would have ordered the Chef Salad, even though they could have chosen the juicy Steak. And both the "would have" and the "could have" would be causally necessary/inevitable from any prior point in time.

 

[pood]

You have formidable stamina, Marvin.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You have formidable stamina, Marvin.

Like they say, "practice makes perfect".