Demystifying Determinism

[DBT]

We are not talking about a chaotic system that is not deterministic.

Chaotic systems are deterministic.

That is what I said.

They're unpredictable, because the fastest way to calculate how they will behave is to watch them do it. You can work out what they will do from basic physics, but to do so always takes at least as long as the system itself takes to reach that calculated condition.

The rules that would allow you to make forecasts of the state of a chaotic system are hypersensitive to minor deviations, so any simplified ruleset might give wildly different results from those expected.

That wasn't the point of my remark.

 

[DBT]

If all events are causally necessary - as defined - there is no choosing. Choosing requires the possibility of other options or actions being taken. Yet all events, being causally necessary, means that there are no realizable alternate options or actions to choose from...despite the surface appearance of options.

And that is how incompatibilists carefully craft the illusion that what we see happening isn't actually happening. A hoax is created by a series of false but believable suggestions.

It's not an illusion to abide by the nature and terms and definitions of determinism as it defined, choice as it is defined and the function of will as brain function. It's the reasonable thing to do.

What is unreasonable is the compatibilist attempt to redefine the terms in order to suit the desired conclusion; that free will is compatible with determinism...

The problem is that we can actually see people in the restaurant choosing from the menu what they will order for dinner. And we see no one forcing them to choose something they don't want, so each of them is free to make this choice for themselves.

We see people acting according to their will. This says nothing about the nature and function of will as an assumed driver of decision making (not choice), or its status.

Will, as shown, is not the driver, not the decision maker, will makes no difference to outcomes that are fixed by antecedents before will even comes into play.

Now, what if we stipulate that every event is reliably caused by prior events (causal determinism)? How should this assumption alter what we see happening?

Not just 'reliably' but inexorably. No choice involved. No free agency is in play for will to make a difference. It is this, then that, no alternative possible.

The incompatibilist claims this changes everything. The compatibilist claims it changes nothing.

Fixes is fixed is fixed. Compatibilists can't get around inevitability and natural necessity, or that this negates freedom of will regardless of attempts at revising terms

The incompatibilist claims that choosing, free will, and responsibility all disappear.

It's entailed in the given terms; all events - including brain activity - is inevitable.

The compatibilist simply notes that choosing is necessarily happening, and that people deciding for themselves what they will do (or being prevented from doing so by coercion or undue influence) is necessarily happening, and that people being held responsible for their deliberate actions is also necessarily happening.

Actions happen freely, unrestricted, without impediment just as determined, fixed, not chosen. Fixed actions, necessary actions are not a matter of choice or freedom of will.

This is determinism, not Alice in Wonderland.

The incompatibilist asks us to believe his words.

Nope, the terms, condition and definitions are clearly set out, just as the compatibilist defines determinism, minus the insistence on choosing...which clearly contradicts the terms and conditions of determinism as defined by the compatibilist.



''As nouns the difference between choice and determinism is that choice is an option; a decision; an opportunity to choose or select something while determinism is (ethics) the doctrine that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice.''

determinism
English
Noun

• (ethics) The doctrine that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice.
• (computing) The property of having behavior determined only by initial state and input.

choice
English
option; a decision; an opportunity to choose or select something.

 

[Jarhyn]

We are not talking about a chaotic system that is not deterministic.

Chaotic systems are deterministic.

That is what I said.

They're unpredictable, because the fastest way to calculate how they will behave is to watch them do it. You can work out what they will do from basic physics, but to do so always takes at least as long as the system itself takes to reach that calculated condition.

The rules that would allow you to make forecasts of the state of a chaotic system are hypersensitive to minor deviations, so any simplified ruleset might give wildly different results from those expected.

That wasn't the point of my remark.

No, I dare say the point of your remark was to avoid talking about the fact that chaotic, unpredictable systems create situations where the only way they may resolve

The doctrine that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice

Quit begging the question. The compatibilist contention is that the definition of determinism that tacks on "no-choice" is spurious, in fact that it ignores that the future is chosen by the intersection of the laws of physics with the present, and that there is an interaction happening.

HARD determinism poses that there can be no compatibility but as discussed here, plenty of determinists observe that there are events which involve a subsystem of the universe taking in a set and returning a subset.

You cannot reasonably claim I didn't put five marbles in the tube.

You cannot reasonably claim one marble did not come out of the tube.

Thus you cannot reasonably claim a "choice" did not happen upon the marbles according to the definitions offered.

The definitions offered for choice here are sufficient to derive concepts of responsibility: what was responsible most immediately for determining which marble came out, given that insertion order? The shape of the tube!

Such a derivation of responsibility allows regulatory control: don't like how the decision was made? Change the shape of the tube for next time.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

It's not an illusion to abide by the nature and terms and definitions of determinism as it defined, choice as it is defined and the function of will as brain function. It's the reasonable thing to do.

Causal Determinism is the assertion that every event is reliably caused by antecedent events. The antecedent event of choosing is our encountering the restaurant menu. The choosing process becomes the antecedent event that causally determines the choice. The choice becomes the antecedent event that causally determines what we say to the waiter. Etc. ad infinitum.

Determinism is satisfied. Choosing is satisfied. Because choosing is acknowledged by all to be a brain function, Neuroscience is satisfied. And because our choice was free of coercion and undue influence, Free Will is satisfied.

What is unreasonable is the compatibilist attempt to redefine the terms in order to suit the desired conclusion; that free will is compatible with determinism...

What is unreasonable is that the incompatibilist is still not satisfied.

Instead, the incompatibilist insists that choosing is not happening, even when it is happening right there in front of him. Instead of the diner's own brain making the choice, the incompatibilist insists the choice was made by the Big Bang.

And this confuses the Waiter, who must deliver the meal and the bill to the person responsible for the order. So, the incompatibilist then suggests that no person is ever responsible for the bill. This is clearly unreasonable!

We see people acting according to their will. This says nothing about the nature and function of will as an assumed driver of decision making (not choice), or its status.

Will is the intention that motivates and directs our actions. That's why a person declares how they want their estate distributed after they die in something called their "last will and testament". It is a declaration of the deceased person's intentions.

In common everyday usage, such as in the restaurant, "will" communicates our intention to the Waiter, as in "I will have the Peperoni Pizza, please".

In most, if not all, cases there are multiple things that we can do (simplest case is do or not do), and we select from them what we will do. Thus, choosing is the final responsible antecedent cause of our will. That's why the Waiter brings the dinner and the bill to the person responsible for the order.

Will, as shown, is not the driver, not the decision maker, will makes no difference to outcomes that are fixed by antecedents before will even comes into play.

Will is the "driver" but choosing is the "decision maker". Choosing selects the will and sets it in motion. As we act upon one will we typically encounter other circumstances requiring additional choices. For example, after we decide to drive to the restaurant we will be deciding which route to take, when to slow down, when to pass another vehicle, etc. After we get to the restaurant we will be choosing what to order for dinner. After leaving the restaurant, having satisfied both our appetite and our intent, we may ask ourselves, "What will we do now?", and the answer will set our next intent.

Not just 'reliably' but inexorably. No choice involved. No free agency is in play for will to make a difference. It is this, then that, no alternative possible.

What I just described above is exactly "this, then that". Causal determinism is satisfied.

Choosing from alternate possibilities was "inexorably" right there in the chain of events.

Because the choices were free of coercion and undue influence, the result was a "freely chosen will" or simply "free will".

As to agency, the person who placed the dinner order is the meaningful causal agent, and will be held responsible for the bill.

... Compatibilists can't get around inevitability and natural necessity ...

Compatibilists have no need to "get around" anything. We embrace inevitability and natural necessity. It was always going to be the case that I would order the Greek Salad in the restaurant. It was always going to be me, and no one and nothing else, that would be making that choice for myself. It was always going to be the case that I would be the final responsible cause of that choice.

If you don't believe me, then ask the Waiter, an objective observer, "Who ordered the Greek Salad?".

... Fixed actions, necessary actions are not a matter of choice or freedom of will. ...

Obviously, that is not the case. If it is fixed and necessary that choosing will happen then it will damn well happen! Choosing is inexorably inevitable, just like ever other thing that happens in a deterministic universe.

But, not to worry. Inexorable inevitability doesn't actually change anything. It was always going to be us ordering dinner of our own free will.

''As nouns the difference between choice and determinism is that choice is an option; a decision; an opportunity to choose or select something while determinism is (ethics) the doctrine that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice.''

determinism
English
Noun

• (ethics) The doctrine that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice.
• (computing) The property of having behavior determined only by initial state and input.

choice
English
option; a decision; an opportunity to choose or select something.

You will certainly find many others who embrace the metaphysical notion that determinism eliminates choice. But you've now seen for yourself how that conclusion is not supported by any premises other than the presumption itself. Choosing happens, therefore choice is possible, even in a perfectly deterministic world.

 

[bilby]

We are not talking about a chaotic system that is not deterministic.

Chaotic systems are deterministic.

That is what I said.

It may be what you planned to say, or what you intended to say; But it very clearly is not what you said.

 

[DBT]

We are not talking about a chaotic system that is not deterministic.

Chaotic systems are deterministic.

That is what I said.

They're unpredictable, because the fastest way to calculate how they will behave is to watch them do it. You can work out what they will do from basic physics, but to do so always takes at least as long as the system itself takes to reach that calculated condition.

The rules that would allow you to make forecasts of the state of a chaotic system are hypersensitive to minor deviations, so any simplified ruleset might give wildly different results from those expected.

That wasn't the point of my remark.

No, I dare say the point of your remark was to avoid talking about the fact that chaotic, unpredictable systems create situations where the only way they may resolve

The doctrine that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice

Quit begging the question. The compatibilist contention is that the definition of determinism that tacks on "no-choice" is spurious, in fact that it ignores that the future is chosen by the intersection of the laws of physics with the present, and that there is an interaction happening.

HARD determinism poses that there can be no compatibility but as discussed here, plenty of determinists observe that there are events which involve a subsystem of the universe taking in a set and returning a subset.

You cannot reasonably claim I didn't put five marbles in the tube.

You cannot reasonably claim one marble did not come out of the tube.

Thus you cannot reasonably claim a "choice" did not happen upon the marbles according to the definitions offered.

The definitions offered for choice here are sufficient to derive concepts of responsibility: what was responsible most immediately for determining which marble came out, given that insertion order? The shape of the tube!

Such a derivation of responsibility allows regulatory control: don't like how the decision was made? Change the shape of the tube for next time.

Begging the question? No, it's you. You are frantically scraping the bottom of your barrel of excuses.

You refuse to accept a clear contradiction between how compatibilists define determinism and how choice is defined. That the two are not compatible. That choice requires the possibility of selecting any one of a number of options while determinism entails one outcome, a fixed course of actions with no realizable alternatives.

Not to mention the failure of the definition - 'acting in accordance with one's will' - because that ignores inner necessity and necessitation by definition is not a matter of choice.

''Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes. Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X.'' - Cold Comfort in Compatibilism.

 

[DBT]

We are not talking about a chaotic system that is not deterministic.

Chaotic systems are deterministic.

That is what I said.

It may be what you planned to say, or what you intended to say; But it very clearly is not what you said.

What I said has no hint or suggestion that I claim or think that chaotic systems are non-deterministic. I said that we are not talking about a non-deterministic chaotic system in relation to Marvin's comment on choice - ''Because chaotic systems are like that. Inevitability doesn't preclude choice, where the inevitable isn't knowable prior to its being chosen'' - and not that chaotic deterministic systems don't exist.

It's irrelvant.

What is inevitable is not a matter of choice (no alternatives), and certainly not because it isn't knowable prior to the inevitable happening, which is ridiculous.

 

[DBT]

It's not an illusion to abide by the nature and terms and definitions of determinism as it defined, choice as it is defined and the function of will as brain function. It's the reasonable thing to do.

Causal Determinism is the assertion that every event is reliably caused by antecedent events. The antecedent event of choosing is our encountering the restaurant menu. The choosing process becomes the antecedent event that causally determines the choice. The choice becomes the antecedent event that causally determines what we say to the waiter. Etc. ad infinitum.

Entailed is not chosen. Natural necessity is the antithesis of choosing. There is no deliberation or selecting, maybe this, maybe that, within a deterministic system.

All events proceed inexorably to their determined, not chosen, conclusion.

Determinism is satisfied. Choosing is satisfied. Because choosing is acknowledged by all to be a brain function, Neuroscience is satisfied. And because our choice was free of coercion and undue influence, Free Will is satisfied.

The system evolves, unfolds or develops according to initial conditions and how its constituent elements interact ever after. This followed by that, no choosing this or that. All events inevitable, all events necessarily proceed as they must.

Choice? Not even a hint of it. The decision making process is a matter of entailment, not choice.

What is unreasonable is the compatibilist attempt to redefine the terms in order to suit the desired conclusion; that free will is compatible with determinism...

What is unreasonable is that the incompatibilist is still not satisfied.

Satisfaction or lack of it doesn't come into it.

It's just a matter of definitions and how they relate.

That the given definition of determinism does not relate to the given definition of choice or free will for the given reasons.

Instead, the incompatibilist insists that choosing is not happening, even when it is happening right there in front of him. Instead of the diner's own brain making the choice, the incompatibilist insists the choice was made by the Big Bang.

Wrong, the incompatibilist merely points out that choice is not a part of determinism as it is defined, not that the big bang made choices.
The system doesn't make choices, whatever happens is entailed by prior states of the system, not choice.

That is according to your own definition

It is the compatibilist that insists that determinism includes choice.

And this confuses the Waiter, who must deliver the meal and the bill to the person responsible for the order. So, the incompatibilist then suggests that no person is ever responsible for the bill. This is clearly unreasonable!

Not the waiter again. The poor waiter is there to take orders, not debate determinism and free will.

Nobody is claiming that customers cannot place orders.

Obviously, that is not the case. If it is fixed and necessary that choosing will happen then it will damn well happen! Choosing is inexorably inevitable, just like ever other thing that happens in a deterministic universe.

Something that is fixed is not a matter of choice.

But, not to worry. Inexorable inevitability doesn't actually change anything. It was always going to be us ordering dinner of our own free will.

Inexorable inevitability cannot change anything. It means that whatever you do, you must necessarily do. It means that you cannot do otherwise, therefore have no choice in the matter.

''As nouns the difference between choice and determinism is that choice is an option; a decision; an opportunity to choose or select something while determinism is (ethics) the doctrine that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice.''

determinism
English
Noun

• (ethics) The doctrine that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice.
• (computing) The property of having behavior determined only by initial state and input.

choice
English
option; a decision; an opportunity to choose or select something.

You will certainly find many others who embrace the metaphysical notion that determinism eliminates choice. But you've now seen for yourself how that conclusion is not supported by any premises other than the presumption itself. Choosing happens, therefore choice is possible, even in a perfectly deterministic world.

It's not a matter of presumption. It's right there for all to see; the given definition of determinism contradicts the given definition of choice because determinism does not entail an opportunity to select. The outcome is fixed prior to the event being played out as determined, not selected.

 

[Jarhyn]

You refuse to accept a clear contradiction between how compatibilists define determinism and how choice is defined

No, I refuse to accept your attempts to ignore the following:

You cannot reasonably claim I didn't put five marbles in the tube.

You cannot reasonably claim one marble did not come out of the tube.

This is a choice happening.

Five went in.

One came out.

Therefore choice of one from five happened.

End of story.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Entailed is not chosen. Natural necessity is the antithesis of choosing. There is no deliberation or selecting, maybe this, maybe that, within a deterministic system.

Universal causal necessity/inevitability (aka "determinism") includes ALL events. Anything that actually happens is entailed to actually happen.

For example, in the restaurant, choosing is entailed to happen. Deliberately selecting is entailed to happen. The consideration of "maybe this or maybe that" is entailed to happen.

If they were not entailed to happen then they would not be happening, and they are most certainly and undeniably happening.

This is the only way that determinism makes any sense.

Denying that these events are happening does not make sense.

 

[DBT]

You refuse to accept a clear contradiction between how compatibilists define determinism and how choice is defined

No, I refuse to accept your attempts to ignore the following:

You cannot reasonably claim I didn't put five marbles in the tube.

You cannot reasonably claim one marble did not come out of the tube.

This is a choice happening.

Five went in.

One came out.

Therefore choice of one from five happened.

End of story.

Ignore? It's Goddamn Hilarious. It's beyond belief that you imagine this to be an example of choice in relation to determinism.

You can jam any number of marbles in the tube and it still remains that what you do and the number of marbles you stick in the tube is fixed by natural necessity: the things that are happening around you that prompt your brain to initiate the only possible action in response.
In other words, whatever you do, stick marbles in a tube, plug your ears and chant 'LALALAH,' you do necessarily.

End of story.

''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


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

 

[DBT]

Entailed is not chosen. Natural necessity is the antithesis of choosing. There is no deliberation or selecting, maybe this, maybe that, within a deterministic system.

Universal causal necessity/inevitability (aka "determinism") includes ALL events. Anything that actually happens is entailed to actually happen.

Of course, and that is the very point that negates choosing or doing otherwise and the notion of free will

For example, in the restaurant, choosing is entailed to happen. Deliberately selecting is entailed to happen. The consideration of "maybe this or maybe that" is entailed to happen.

The 'selection' is inevitable. The consideration of 'maybe this or maybe that' - itself inevitable - results in the inevitable related action.

An inevitable action is not a matter of choice.

If they were not entailed to happen then they would not be happening, and they are most certainly and undeniably happening.

The relevant word being 'entailed.' Which means 'must happen precisely as determined through a process of inner and outer necessity.'

If you must necessarily order Steak and your partner must necessarily order salad and this was entailed before you are aware of these impending actions, the decisions were beyond your ability or means to modify or choose.

Your decisions are entailed. They are fixed by antecedents and underlying processes of which you have no awareness of or control over.

You feel hungry, you feel like an outing, you think 'why not go to the restaurant for a nice meal,' you look at the menu and you feel the urge to order steak, you proceed to order steak......

This is the only way that determinism makes any sense.

Denying that these events are happening does not make sense.

Nobody is denying that the events happen. It's the nature and means of action within a deterministic system that is being disputed.

The compatibilist claims choice. The incompatibilist points out that entailment and natural necessity is not a matter of choice.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's beyond belief that you imagine this to be an example of choice in relation to determinism.

It exactly satisfies the definition of choice: selection of a subset from a set.

You may WISH choice to be more complicated than that, but it's not.

This definition of choice is sufficient for derivation of responsibility, which I expect is what you really want to run from.

Five marbles went into the tube.

One marble came out of the tube.

A subset was selected from a set.

Since a subset being selected from a set is a "choice", choice happened.

No amount of hand waving or attempting to obfuscate or spin or pull up a red herring will change that.

The point most of us here are trying to make is that determinism does not forbid or proscribe the bolded part from happening. Rather, it describes how the bolded part happens.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The 'selection' is inevitable. The consideration of 'maybe this or maybe that' - itself inevitable - results in the inevitable related action.

Now you're getting the idea. It was inevitable that I would consider whether to order the Steak or not, and, because I already had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, it was inevitable that I would reject the Steak and select the Salad instead for dinner.

An inevitable action is not a matter of choice.

It obviously IS a matter of choice if the inevitable action happens to be choosing! (Just like it is obviously a matter of walking if the inevitable action happens to be walking to the kitchen).

The relevant word being 'entailed.' Which means 'must happen precisely as determined through a process of inner and outer necessity.'

Exactly. Which means that whenever choosing (or calculating or walking) happens it was always going to happen exactly as it did happen.

Choosing, calculating, walking, etc. are causally necessitated by prior events, events that take place either inside us or outside us. Those events that take place inside us, such as considering what we will order for dinner, determine what we will cause to happen outside us, such as telling the waiter, "I will have the Salad".

If you must necessarily order Steak and your partner must necessarily order salad and this was entailed before you are aware of these impending actions, the decisions were beyond your ability or means to modify or choose.

You are ignoring inner necessity! Your claim that the decisions are "beyond" our ability makes all causes external to us! But all of the events involved in choosing the Salad rather than the Steak happened inside my own head. It was my own inner necessity, my own thoughts and feelings, my own goals and reasoning, that controlled and causally determined the choice.

But perhaps you do not understand what inner necessity is really about.

Your decisions are entailed. They are fixed by antecedents and underlying processes of which you have no awareness of or control over.

What you fail to realize is that I do not need to control those unconscious processes, because I AM those inner processes. Whatever those inner processes choose to order for dinner, I have chosen to order for dinner. The Waiter knows this, that's why he brought the Salad and the bill to me, instead of to my prior causes.

You feel hungry, you feel like an outing, you think 'why not go to the restaurant for a nice meal,' you look at the menu and you feel the urge to order steak, you proceed to order steak......

You're getting warmer now, but you've missed one important fact. Despite the urge to order the Steak, I chose to order the Salad instead! You know, it's that choosing thing that you keep pretending cannot happen. It happened!

Denying that these events are happening does not make sense.

Nobody is denying that the events happen. It's the nature and means of action within a deterministic system that is being disputed.

Every time that you claim that choosing cannot be an entailed event you are denying that choosing happens!

The compatibilist claims choice.

Of course we claim choice. Only the incompatibilist goes around claiming that choosing isn't happening.

The incompatibilist points out that entailment and natural necessity is not a matter of choice.

Which is a silly claim when choosing is happening right in front of us in the restaurant.

 

[DBT]

It's beyond belief that you imagine this to be an example of choice in relation to determinism.

It exactly satisfies the definition of choice: selection of a subset from a set.

What you conveniently overlook is that selection in a deterministic system is entailed by prior states of the system. And more to the point, this process of 'selection' has no possible alternatives.

Again: whatever happens within a deterministic system must necessarily happen as determined, fixed, set, finalized without deviation.

That is according to how you define determinism.

You may say 'selection' as a figure of speech, but a matter of 'choice' it is not.

You may WISH choice to be more complicated than that, but it's not.

This definition of choice is sufficient for derivation of responsibility, which I expect is what you really want to run from.

Five marbles went into the tube.

One marble came out of the tube.

A subset was selected from a set.

Since a subset being selected from a set is a "choice", choice happened.

No amount of hand waving or attempting to obfuscate or spin or pull up a red herring will change that.

The point most of us here are trying to make is that determinism does not forbid or proscribe the bolded part from happening. Rather, it describes how the bolded part happens.

Marbles? You talk about marbles? That's just absurd. It was absurd the first time you posted it and it is absurd every time you post it.

Repeating a fallacy that is based on false premises, as absurd as it is, doesn't prove the reality of choice (as choice is defined), within a deterministic system.

I think I know where the missing marbles went.

 

[Jarhyn]

What you conveniently overlook is that selection in a deterministic system is entailed by prior states of the system

No, I look right at it. And then observe it does not matter.

A set was taken, and a subset rendered.

This is completely agnostic to how that subset was rendered.

And more to the point, this process of 'selection' has no possible alternatives

It had five actual alternatives: objects in the set (the set which will be rendered to a subset in the event of the choice).

You may say 'selection' as a figure of speech, but a matter of 'choice' it is not.

I do not. I say it as a matter of observed reality.

A choice was made: a subset was rendered from a set.

Marbles? You talk about marbles? That's just absurd.

Ah yes, the argument from incredulity.

It is as uncompelling now as it ever has been.

Yes, marbles. If you can't understand something so simple as a choice of one of five marbles through the mechanism of a shaped tube, it is no wonder you cannot understand the choice of reading off one line of a menu of five lines through the mechanism of a human brain, or the selection of one object in an array of five objects through the mechanism of a computing machine.

All these are deterministic. All these are still "choices: renditions of a subset from a set"

All of these choices have elements identifiable as "responsible" for the specific determination of the choice being made.

It makes them no less choices, makes the sets presented to them no less alternatives, and allows just as ready identification of responsibility within the system.

 

[DBT]

The 'selection' is inevitable. The consideration of 'maybe this or maybe that' - itself inevitable - results in the inevitable related action.

Now you're getting the idea. It was inevitable that I would consider whether to order the Steak or not, and, because I already had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch, it was inevitable that I would reject the Steak and select the Salad instead for dinner.

If you accept that every step of the process of the evolution or development of the system has no alternatives, that the progression of events is fixed, you must accept that there is no choice or free will involved in the process.

An inevitable action is not a matter of choice.

It obviously IS a matter of choice if the inevitable action happens to be choosing! (Just like it is obviously a matter of walking if the inevitable action happens to be walking to the kitchen).

Inevitable actions have no alternatives.

The relevant word being 'entailed.' Which means 'must happen precisely as determined through a process of inner and outer necessity.'

Exactly. Which means that whenever choosing (or calculating or walking) happens it was always going to happen exactly as it did happen.

Inserting the word 'choosing' where it doesn't belong doesn't establish choice as a feature of determinism....which by definition is the antithesis of choice.

Choosing, calculating, walking, etc. are causally necessitated by prior events, events that take place either inside us or outside us. Those events that take place inside us, such as considering what we will order for dinner, determine what we will cause to happen outside us, such as telling the waiter, "I will have the Salad".

If you omit the word 'choosing,' you are describing determinism correctly.

You are just one word away from incompatibilism.

If you must necessarily order Steak and your partner must necessarily order salad and this was entailed before you are aware of these impending actions, the decisions were beyond your ability or means to modify or choose.

You are ignoring inner necessity! Your claim that the decisions are "beyond" our ability makes all causes external to us! But all of the events involved in choosing the Salad rather than the Steak happened inside my own head. It was my own inner necessity, my own thoughts and feelings, my own goals and reasoning, that controlled and causally determined the choice.

I didn't say that all causes are external to us. I said that there is both external and internal necessity at work. That information is acquired and processed deterministically by the brain, itself an inseparable element within the overall system.

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

But perhaps you do not understand what inner necessity is really about.

Oh, but I do. Only too well. Which is why I argue for incompatibilism.

Your decisions are entailed. They are fixed by antecedents and underlying processes of which you have no awareness of or control over.

What you fail to realize is that I do not need to control those unconscious processes, because I AM those inner processes. Whatever those inner processes choose to order for dinner, I have chosen to order for dinner. The Waiter knows this, that's why he brought the Salad and the bill to me, instead of to my prior causes.

Being an aspect of the system changes nothing in terms of choice, action or free will.

Every object and aspect of the system has attributes.

''The compatibilist might say because those are influences that are “outside” of the person, but this misses the entire point brought up by the free will skeptic, which is that ALL environmental conditions that help lead to a person’s brain state at any given moment are “outside of the person”, and the genes a person has was provided rather than decided.''

You feel hungry, you feel like an outing, you think 'why not go to the restaurant for a nice meal,' you look at the menu and you feel the urge to order steak, you proceed to order steak......

You're getting warmer now, but you've missed one important fact. Despite the urge to order the Steak, I chose to order the Salad instead! You know, it's that choosing thing that you keep pretending cannot happen. It happened!

It must happen regardless of 'choosing.' Which means there is no choosing at work. Determinism works on the principle of natural necessity, not choice.

Denying that these events are happening does not make sense.

Nobody is denying that the events happen. It's the nature and means of action within a deterministic system that is being disputed.

Every time that you claim that choosing cannot be an entailed event you are denying that choosing happens!

If determined, events do happen. They must happen. They must happen precisely as determined.

The compatibilist claims choice.

Of course we claim choice. Only the incompatibilist goes around claiming that choosing isn't happening.

Nope, that is determined by the definition of determinism in relation to the definition of choice.

The incompatibilist points out that entailment and natural necessity is not a matter of choice.

Which is a silly claim when choosing is happening right in front of us in the restaurant.

The issue is not a question of events happening, but the nature of the process by which they happen: how they happen.


''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.'' - Van Inwagen

 

[Jarhyn]

You obviously have control of yourself in many respects DBT. For instance, I didn't like the effect testosterone had on me, so I removed it.

I had circumstances of my body as a result of my birth yes, but I chose to change those aspects of myself because of... An aspect of myself.

Yet again, all that matters is that some process renders a subset from a set. That's what choice is. You cannot reasonably claim it is not happening, the rendering of subsets from sets, all across the universe.

This definition handily still allows sensible application to derive "responsibility" so what do I care that it captures many things many people wouldn't natively recognize as such?

The same math of derivation of responsibility with respect to what people would call "inanimate" is still useful: "The shape of the tube is responsible for determining which marble was removed."

this simply means that if someone wants to respond such that the determination happens differently, the tube shape is where they must go to do that. A choice function on shapes of tubes rendered upon the tube such that the shape is a subset of the shapes that tubes may take will be responsible for changing the tube, and the new tube's shape will be responsible.

responsibility runs out when you find yourself no longer looking at something which can be responded to.

i can respond to the person ordering food with a bill, but I cannot respond to their parents, or the fact that they were born needing to eat, or to the fact that I need money to buy more food after they have eaten it. I cannot respond to a great many things. I cannot respond directly to the big bang.

But I can respond to them and ask them to pay their bill.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If you accept that every step of the process of the evolution or development of the system has no alternatives, that the progression of events is fixed, you must accept that there is no choice or free will involved in the process.

I can see why someone might "think" that. But I can also see why that is not the case. It happens in empirical reality that people often encounter circumstances in which they are presented with two or more options, and that they must choose between. Everyone already agrees that "selecting", "deciding", or "choosing" are the names we will call these "events", "operations", or "processes".

Because we all observe these events, these events cannot be logically or empirically denied. They happen, and that's all there is to it.

The argument that the inevitability of these events implies that they are not happening is invalidated by empirical reality. One cannot say that any event that inevitably must happen is not "really" happening. The very inevitability of the event strengthens rather than weakens the argument that choosing is really going to be happening.

All of the elements of choosing are found to be present in the restaurant example. We have the list of multiple possibilities, physically laid out before us in the restaurant menu. And everyone should agree that we are able to order any (or even all) of the options listed on the menu.

The fact that we will not order any or all of the items does not contradict the fact that we actually can order any or all of them. This is the correct understanding of the difference between what we "will" do versus what we "can" do. We can do a lot more than we ever will do. The fact that we "will not" do something never logically implies that we "can not" do it.

Our ability to do something is not determined by what we will do. A person can take off all their clothes and run around the block, but most sane people will not do this. (Despite the popular craze on campus in the early 1970's).

So, the claim that a deterministic system "has no alternatives" is false. There will be alternatives and we will choose between them. And the fact that "the progression of events is fixed" only reinforces the truth that the alternatives will be there, showing up at exactly the time and place that they necessarily must. And it will necessarily be up to us to choose between them, which we will do in a deterministic fashion.

Inserting the word 'choosing' where it doesn't belong doesn't establish choice as a feature of determinism....which by definition is the antithesis of choice.

Determinism without choice already goes by a different name: "fatalism". The only way to distinguish determinism from fatalism is to open our eyes to how events are actually being determined. How a person causally determines what they will have for dinner in the restaurant is called "choosing". And if they decide for themselves what they will order, while free of things like coercion and undue influence, it is called a "freely chosen will", or simply "free will".

Determinism without free will is fatalism. So, choose the correct name for the horse you rode in on.

If you omit the word 'choosing,' you are describing determinism correctly. You are just one word away from incompatibilism.

I choose to be faithful to the truth of the matter.

...That information is acquired and processed deterministically by the brain, itself an inseparable element within the overall system.

Reading the restaurant menu is information processing. Choosing what we will order is information processing. You are attempting to substitute "information processing" for "choosing". You are attempting to make choosing invisible. But anyone can objectively observe it happening.

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

I know you feel that these little quips from others support your argument, but they don't. Searle is not speaking of the empirical event of choosing, but rather some subjective experience of freedom. His poetic expressions add nothing to either side of the argument.

... The issue is not a question of events happening, but the nature of the process by which they happen: how they happen.

All events happen deterministically, of course, including choosing what we will have for dinner from the restaurant menu. And neuroscience will attest to the fact that our own brains are doing the decision making.

''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.'' - Van Inwagen

It seems rather obvious to me that Van Inwagen is incorrect. Choosing necessarily happens, therefore there can be no "no choice principle". And neuroscience tells us that it is our own brains that are doing the choosing. Decision-making is a form of information processing that any real neuroscientist is well aware of.

 

[bilby]

What you conveniently overlook is that selection in a deterministic system is entailed by prior states of the system.

And what you conveniently overlook is that the fastest way to find out what that entailed new state will be, is to run the system forward in time and watch what happens.

In English, we call this technique "waiting to see what choices are made".