Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Marvin Edwards]

... Antecedent events no doubt influence our behavior. But I do not see how they cause or determine our behavior.

No prior-cause-of-me can participate in my choices without first becoming an integral part of who and what I am. My prior causes cannot bypass me and bring about events themselves without my knowledge and consent. And, once they become part of me, it is once again actually me, and not my prior causes, that is doing the choosing.

The final prior cause of a deliberate act is the act of deliberation that precedes it.

 

[pood]

... Antecedent events no doubt influence our behavior. But I do not see how they cause or determine our behavior.

No prior-cause-of-me can participate in my choices without first becoming an integral part of who and what I am. My prior causes cannot bypass me and bring about events themselves without my knowledge and consent. And, once they become part of me, it is once again actually me, and not my prior causes, that is doing the choosing.

The final prior cause of a deliberate act is the act of deliberation that precedes it.

Yes, I agree. I think you put it very well.

 

[pood]

No. Considering neuroscience, numerous experiments, case studies, lesions, memory loss, etc, it's clear that will is not means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response....

That's ridiculous. I considered whether to click your link, and then, by act of will, I clicked it -- and that's how I acquired the information that it's a dead link. "404 Not Found The resource requested could not be found on this server!". Of course will is means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response.

What is ridiculous is that you are simply labeling your ability to respond ''free will.'' The ability to respond is enabled by neural networks processing information, not ''will'' - especially not ''free will'' for the given reasons.

How do you figure I'm simply "labeling" something "free will"? Please point out where you are quoting from in your quotation of my words. Are you now claiming you own the word "will" too, and redefining it as a synonym for "free will"? Are you claiming there's no such thing as an act of will? Just how much of the English language are you planning to torpedo?

I'm not talking about you personally, what you do or what you believe. I am pointing out the failure of compatibility, that freedom of will is incompatible with determinism for all the given reasons.....which is not my personal argument, but by the terms and conditions of determinism - which is defined as: everything that happens is FIXED as a matter of natural law.

Which means everything that happens is FIXED as determined, allowing no freedom to diverge, to choose or do other than what is determined.

Which everything within a determined system does, planets orbit, plants grow, animals hunt, people go about their business under the illusion that they are in control, that they are able to do otherwise, that their decisions and actions are not determined.

Compatibilism merely asserts freedom of will. ''He was not coerced, he acted freely, he has free will'' - ignoring the underlying drivers of his thoughts, decisions and action, which within a determined system are FIXED as a matter of natural law.

If natural laws are both causative and immutable, and we attempt to hold them responsible, instead of ourselves, then how do we go about correcting those laws when they do something criminal, like robbing a bank?

We can get Congress to change the ”laws” of nature.

 

[steve_bank]

... Antecedent events no doubt influence our behavior. But I do not see how they cause or determine our behavior.

No prior-cause-of-me can participate in my choices without first becoming an integral part of who and what I am. My prior causes cannot bypass me and bring about events themselves without my knowledge and consent. And, once they become part of me, it is once again actually me, and not my prior causes, that is doing the choosing.

The final prior cause of a deliberate act is the act of deliberation that precedes it.

Yes, I agree. I think you put it very well.

Which came first,. the chicken or the egg?

Causation of 'you' is based in brain chemistry. Inanimate atoms reacting with each other.

It does not appear to be a fixed steps, more a continuity process. We take inputs, process and integrate, cast back to the past, and extrolte the future as a continuous process conscious and unconscious.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

... It does not appear to be a fixed steps, more a continuity process. We take inputs, process and integrate, cast back to the past, and extrolte the future as a continuous process conscious and unconscious.

I used to wonder how consciousness could fit into a materialist view. It is a process. A process is not exactly a material thing. But rather a series of rapid changes within a material thing. We exist as a physical process within the brain. When the process stops, the brain reverts to an inert lump of matter, and we no longer exist.

 

[steve_bank]

... It does not appear to be a fixed steps, more a continuity process. We take inputs, process and integrate, cast back to the past, and extrolte the future as a continuous process conscious and unconscious.

I used to wonder how consciousness could fit into a materialist view. It is a process. A process is not exactly a material thing. But rather a series of rapid changes within a material thing. We exist as a physical process within the brain. When the process stops, the brain reverts to an inert lump of matter, and we no longer exist.

I'd say the same for a plant or an ant.

Is there an alternative for materialism as immaterialism meaning things immaterial exist? An immaterial mind? Something based in experiment.

 

[DBT]

... Antecedent events no doubt influence our behavior. But I do not see how they cause or determine our behavior.

No prior-cause-of-me can participate in my choices without first becoming an integral part of who and what I am. My prior causes cannot bypass me and bring about events themselves without my knowledge and consent. And, once they become part of me, it is once again actually me, and not my prior causes, that is doing the choosing.

The final prior cause of a deliberate act is the act of deliberation that precedes it.

But they are not 'your' causes. You have no say on how they - genetics, neural architecture, the events of the world/inputs - shape and form what you are, and generate your thoughts and actions. If determinism is true, we have a web of events, each 'cause' an 'effect' and each 'effect' being a 'cause.'

 

[DBT]

No. Considering neuroscience, numerous experiments, case studies, lesions, memory loss, etc, it's clear that will is not means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response....

That's ridiculous. I considered whether to click your link, and then, by act of will, I clicked it -- and that's how I acquired the information that it's a dead link. "404 Not Found The resource requested could not be found on this server!". Of course will is means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response.

What is ridiculous is that you are simply labeling your ability to respond ''free will.'' The ability to respond is enabled by neural networks processing information, not ''will'' - especially not ''free will'' for the given reasons.

How do you figure I'm simply "labeling" something "free will"? Please point out where you are quoting from in your quotation of my words. Are you now claiming you own the word "will" too, and redefining it as a synonym for "free will"? Are you claiming there's no such thing as an act of will? Just how much of the English language are you planning to torpedo?

I'm not talking about you personally, what you do or what you believe. I am pointing out the failure of compatibility, that freedom of will is incompatible with determinism for all the given reasons.....which is not my personal argument, but by the terms and conditions of determinism - which is defined as: everything that happens is FIXED as a matter of natural law.

Which means everything that happens is FIXED as determined, allowing no freedom to diverge, to choose or do other than what is determined.

Which everything within a determined system does, planets orbit, plants grow, animals hunt, people go about their business under the illusion that they are in control, that they are able to do otherwise, that their decisions and actions are not determined.

Compatibilism merely asserts freedom of will. ''He was not coerced, he acted freely, he has free will'' - ignoring the underlying drivers of his thoughts, decisions and action, which within a determined system are FIXED as a matter of natural law.

If natural laws are both causative and immutable, and we attempt to hold them responsible, instead of ourselves, then how do we go about correcting those laws when they do something criminal, like robbing a bank?

We can get Congress to change the ”laws” of nature.

Good luck with that. With determinism, there is no luck. If something happens, it necessarily happens. No alternative possible.

 

[DBT]

No. Considering neuroscience, numerous experiments, case studies, lesions, memory loss, etc, it's clear that will is not means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response....

That's ridiculous. I considered whether to click your link, and then, by act of will, I clicked it -- and that's how I acquired the information that it's a dead link. "404 Not Found The resource requested could not be found on this server!". Of course will is means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response.

What is ridiculous is that you are simply labeling your ability to respond ''free will.'' The ability to respond is enabled by neural networks processing information, not ''will'' - especially not ''free will'' for the given reasons.

How do you figure I'm simply "labeling" something "free will"? Please point out where you are quoting from in your quotation of my words. Are you now claiming you own the word "will" too, and redefining it as a synonym for "free will"? Are you claiming there's no such thing as an act of will? Just how much of the English language are you planning to torpedo?

I'm not talking about you personally, what you do or what you believe. I am pointing out the failure of compatibility, that freedom of will is incompatible with determinism for all the given reasons.....which is not my personal argument, but by the terms and conditions of determinism - which is defined as: everything that happens is FIXED as a matter of natural law.

Which means everything that happens is FIXED as determined, allowing no freedom to diverge, to choose or do other than what is determined.

Which everything within a determined system does, planets orbit, plants grow, animals hunt, people go about their business under the illusion that they are in control, that they are able to do otherwise, that their decisions and actions are not determined.

Compatibilism merely asserts freedom of will. ''He was not coerced, he acted freely, he has free will'' - ignoring the underlying drivers of his thoughts, decisions and action, which within a determined system are FIXED as a matter of natural law.

If natural laws are both causative and immutable, and we attempt to hold them responsible, instead of ourselves, then how do we go about correcting those laws when they do something criminal, like robbing a bank?

Experience and understanding of human nature tells us that deterrence is effective. That rational mind/brains responds according to multiple factors, safety (that its safer to obey road rules rather than risk injury or death by breaking them) self interest (the penalty of breaking the law is greater than the benefit), so the law is formulated accordingly;


Cognition
''Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes,and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.





Necessity
''Necessity is the idea that everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is necessary, and can not be otherwise. Necessity is often opposed to chance and contingency. In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated.'' - http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/necessity.html


The Law

''Because most behavior is driven by brain networks we do not consciously control, the legal system will eventually be forced to shift its emphasis from retribution to a forward-looking analysis of future behavior. In the light of modern neuroscience, it no longer makes sense to ask "was it his fault, or his biology's fault, or the fault of his background?", because these issues can never be disentangled. Instead, the only sensible question can be "what do we do from here?" -- in terms of customized sentencing, tailored rehabilition, and refined incentive structuring.'' - http://www.neulaw.org/

 

[DBT]

It should be noted perhaps that the above-mentioned Colin McGinn presented the standard argument against free will but then rejected it. Not that appeals to authority should matter much.

It's not the authority that matters, or that he rejected it, but the argument. The argument is sound for the given reasons.

 

[DBT]

It's not exactly a matter of 'choosing.'

Within a determined system, all actions are fixed as a matter of natural law. If determinism is true, the brain follows its determined path to whatever end with no possibility of divergence. The brain necessarily produces a determined outcome.

(1) P(A.B) > P(A).P(B)
(2) P(A.B|C) = P(A|C).P(B|C)

1- If determinism allows multiple options to be realized by an agent, as a matter of choice, why call it determinism?

2- If freedom does not require the possibility of realizable options, that the world proceeds along a determined, singular, course of events, why call it freedom?

3- If 'freedom' does not require a means for the selection an option from set of realizable alternatives, what is freedom?

4 - Without regulative control or realizable options, why call it free will?

''The argument is exceedingly familiar, and runs as follows. Either determinism is true or it is not. If it is true, then all our chosen actions are uniquely necessitated by prior states of the world, just like every other event. But then it cannot be the case that we could have acted otherwise, since this would require a possibility determinism rules out. Once the initial conditions are set and the laws fixed, causality excludes genuine freedom.'' - Colin McGinn is an Anglo-American Analytic (AAA) philosopher who presented the standard argument against free will.

There are a lot of figurative assumptions there. The first is the assumption that since the choice was causally necessary, "it is AS IF choosing did not happen". Thus, the false suggestion, "It's not exactly a matter of 'choosing.' "

My comment ''not exactly a matter of choosing'' specifically refers to there being no alternative possible within a determined system...which does not allow you to have chosen otherwise in any given instance in time.

What "exactly" is choosing? Choosing is an operation that (1) inputs two or more options, (2) applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and (3) outputs a single choice, typically in the form of an "I will X", where X is what we will do. This series of events is called "choosing". When we observe this series of events, it is "exactly a matter of 'choosing' ".

For example, we can walk into any restaurant and observe people browsing the menu and then placing their order. At the end of their meal, the waiter brings them the bill, holding them responsible for their deliberate actions (choosing has consequences). In the restaurant a person is (1) presented with a literal menu of options, (2) they weigh these options by their own goals, which may include dietary, taste, satisfaction, price, etc., and (3) based upon this evaluation they tell the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please". Each event is the reliable result of the prior events.

Choosing is a real event in the real world. Choosing is deterministic.

Again, no alternatives exists within a determined system, whatever happens is necessitated by antecedents and fixed as a matter of natural law.

The choice in your examples is an illusion of limited perspective.

If you had a Gods eye view of a determined world, the world, it objects and events would appear fixed like the the actions on a film.

I'm pretty sure that determinism works more simply, just like this: A->B->C->...

Events are not matter of linear causation. There are multiple elements at work in every action/reaction. A web rather than a chain of 'causality.' And of course, every cause being an effect.


That's all I have time for. Posts have a tendency to grow.

 

[fromderinside]

... I believe all of this speaks to why religion was so ubiquitous throughout the world before the scientific revolution. In lieu of a material understanding human experience feels immaterial, supernatural, and normalized.

Big category lots of caveats, conditions, presumptions, attached to religion meme. If you want to compare that, whatever it is, to material understanding you need shift to material as objective and to religious as subjective. Otherwise there is no comparison.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

My comment ''not exactly a matter of choosing'' specifically refers to there being no alternative possible within a determined system...which does not allow you to have chosen otherwise in any given instance in time.

Again, no alternatives exists within a determined system, whatever happens is necessitated by antecedents and fixed as a matter of natural law.

The choice in your examples is an illusion of limited perspective.

If you had a Gods eye view of a determined world, the world, it objects and events would appear fixed like the the actions on a film.

Events are not matter of linear causation. There are multiple elements at work in every action/reaction. A web rather than a chain of 'causality.' And of course, every cause being an effect.

That's all I have time for. Posts have a tendency to grow.

The "limited perspective" is on the hard determinist side. It is limited by a highly abstract view of causation. It's kind of the opposite of "not seeing the forest for the trees", but rather not seeing the trees for the forest. Instead of the specific causes of specific effects, the hard determinist only sees universal causal necessity/inevitability. And that viewpoint ignores all of the meaningful and relevant information, like the people who actually make the choices that determine what happens next.

The people are replaced by causal necessity. Causal necessity is promoted to "an entity with causal powers", and all control and all responsibility are vested in this non-entity, rather than in the people who decide for themselves what they will do, the people who actually exercise control over their actions, actions that causally determine what happens next. This abstraction of individual people into causal necessity is the real illusion.

Within the domain of human influence (things we can make happen if we choose to), the single inevitable future is chosen by us from among the many possible futures we imagine. That is how the single inevitable future comes about.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Is there an alternative for materialism as immaterialism meaning things immaterial exist? An immaterial mind? Something based in experiment.

That was the issue for me. Should mind be classified as material or immaterial? For example, a chef writes a book of his favorite recipes. The chef passes away. Years later, someone finds the recipe book in the public library, and cooks a meal, just like the author described. Ideas and information continue to exist outside us, in the books, and then can causally affect what someone else does. Is an idea "material" or "not material" or something else?

Mind appears to be a working process. We're pretty sure this process is taking place within the brain. We can follow where blood flow is highest in specific areas of the brain using a function magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while the person is performing some mental function, like making a decision. So, we're confident that mind is a process going on within the material of the brain. And others have recommended to me that mind would be termed a "physical process".

But a physical process is not identical to physical material. Rather it is a series of rapid changes taking place within the physical material. When the process stops, the brain reverts to a lump of inert matter, and we are considered "brain dead".

 

[DBT]

Change is not separate from the material. It is the material that changes. Time is the rate of change.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

But they are not 'your' causes. You have no say on how they - genetics, neural architecture, the events of the world/inputs - shape and form what you are, and generate your thoughts and actions. If determinism is true, we have a web of events, each 'cause' an 'effect' and each 'effect' being a 'cause.'

The notion, that I must be the prior cause of myself before I can be the prior cause of anything else, leads to a logical absurdity. If the test for a "real" cause is the absence of prior causes, then what causes can pass that test? None. There would be no real causes of anything.

In order to be the real cause of an event, I do not need to be the cause of myself, I only need to be myself.

The hard determinist attempts to place my genetic dispositions and prior life experiences, my beliefs and values, my thoughts and feelings, and all the other things that make me uniquely me, in one corner of the room, and then places me in a different corner. Then he asserts that all of that which makes me "me" is exercising control over me, leaving me with no control. Ironically, he ends up embracing dualism by this approach.

The problem he overlooks is that one of those two corners is now empty. All of that stuff is me. And whatever everything-that-makes-me-"me" decides, I myself have decided.

In order to be the real cause of an event, I do not need to be the cause of myself, I only need to be myself.

 

[steve_bank]

Finite State Machine (FSM) : Types, Properties, Design and Applications

This Article Discusses What is a Finite State Machine or FSM?, Types of FSM Namely Mealy State Machine, Mealy State Machine, Examples, Advantages, and Applications

www.elprocus.com

There are two general forms of finite state machines used in electronics, Mealy and Moore.

The Moore machine has inputs, outputs, memory, and outputs fed back as inputs. Substitute our bio neural net for the combinatorial logic block that maps inputs to outputs. A complex system can have multiple state machines and state machines within state machines.

Standing up and balancing is a form of a feedback control system.

 

[rousseau]

... I believe all of this speaks to why religion was so ubiquitous throughout the world before the scientific revolution. In lieu of a material understanding human experience feels immaterial, supernatural, and normalized.

Big category lots of caveats, conditions, presumptions, attached to religion meme. If you want to compare that, whatever it is, to material understanding you need shift to material as objective and to religious as subjective. Otherwise there is no comparison.

Of course much more complicated / nuanced, but the basic point is that an understanding of natural science down to the atomic level is a post-hoc conceptualization of the world. It has no relevance to the conditions that gave rise to our cognitive function and experience, and how that cognitive function exists now. It's basically just a data point, granted a data point that can be disconcerting, but a data point nonetheless.

And when you look at early societies we don't see much perception of materialism, we largely see spirituality across the board. To me this is a good pointer to how most of us actually experience the world. And even today, despite greater material understanding, I'm not sure this has actually changed much.

That's not to say that we have free will by any means, but despite a bit of generalization I think my last few posts answer the why we feel free question.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

...
Experience and understanding of human nature tells us that deterrence is effective. That rational mind/brains responds according to multiple factors, safety (that its safer to obey road rules rather than risk injury or death by breaking them) self interest (the penalty of breaking the law is greater than the benefit), so the law is formulated accordingly;

Cognition
''Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes, and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.

In other words, when presented with different options, we estimate the likely outcomes of each, and choose the option that seems best to us. This is what is commonly known as "free will". And, if we choose to rob a bank, then we will be held responsible for our deliberate act.

Necessity
''Necessity is the idea that everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is necessary, and can not be otherwise. Necessity is often opposed to chance and contingency. In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated.'' - http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/necessity.html

All events come about by a reliable history of prior causes and their effects. This is called "causal necessity". This means that if someone decides to rob a bank, then it was causally necessary that this would happen, from any prior point in time. This also means, that if the judge sentences the bank robber to death by stoning, then that would also be causally necessary from any prior point in time.

The problem with universal causal necessity/inevitability is that it always applies equally to every event. It makes no distinction between good events or bad events. It makes no distinction between the bank robber and the judge. If it excuses one thing, then it excuses everything.

The Law

''Because most behavior is driven by brain networks we do not consciously control, the legal system will eventually be forced to shift its emphasis from retribution to a forward-looking analysis of future behavior. In the light of modern neuroscience, it no longer makes sense to ask "was it his fault, or his biology's fault, or the fault of his background?", because these issues can never be disentangled. Instead, the only sensible question can be "what do we do from here?" -- in terms of customized sentencing, tailored rehabilition, and refined incentive structuring.'' - http://www.neulaw.org/

What are the meaningful and relevant causes of the bank robber's actions? If we wish to reduce the risk of further robberies, which causes of his behavior can we correct? Well, there is the robber's thought process that led him to choose to rob the bank. We can address that, as the author of the quote suggested, by "customized sentencing, tailored rehabilitation, and refined incentive structuring". If this is the offender's first heist, then that would be our first choice. But if the offender has a long history of successful robberies, then it will be more difficult to get him to give up that self-rewarding line of work.

What about the "fault of his background"? Fixing the community that raised the offender and encouraged him to pursue a life of crime is also a real possibility. But it takes political will, a choice of the community itself and of the helping agencies, that can address drug trafficking, criminal street gangs, ineffective schools, the lack of after school activities, racial discrimination, unemployment, and any other specific contributing factors.

In any case, the judge in the courtroom is unable to deal with external factors. He can only deal with the offender in front of him.

Well, then, what about the "fault of his biology"? What about the fact that the robber has a brain that operates deterministically to bring about all of his choices and actions? Has neuroscience identified the brain area responsible for criminal behavior? Do they have a procedure for removing this area? Are we ethically able to perform such an operation upon an unwilling prisoner?

Well, no. We cannot operate upon a sane person against their will. But if the robber's brain is physically abnormal, and that abnormality makes them incompetent to make rational choices on their own behalf, then neuroscience and psychiatry can provide medical treatment to correct the physical problem.

But neuroscientists offer us very little in terms of correcting criminal behavior by a normal brain, one that rationally chooses to rob banks for the simple reason that it gives them quick access to cash. For this we rely upon the sciences of psychology and sociology. It is these sciences that inform us about rehabilitation, about "customized sentencing, tailored rehabilitation, and refined incentive structuring". It is not neuroscience.

And the fact that our brains operate deterministically, is pretty much taken for granted. We choose what we will do according to how we estimate that each of our options will turn out. The location of this choosing operation is within our brains. And our brains come with the ability to describe our reasoning to ourselves and others. Just ask Jesse James, "Why do you rob banks?", "Because that's where the money is", he responds. The choice is causally determined by his own reasoning. His choice is free of coercion and undue influence. It is legitimately a choice of his own free will.

 

[steve_bank]

TV crime dramas have covered the issue. Is crime more nature or nurture? Statistical abused kids tmed to be abusers as adults.