Compatibilism: What's that About?

[DBT]

Perhaps DBT will address my earlier oft-repeated question of why evolution selected for complex, extremely energy intensive brains that can evaluate and choose when all of that is simply an illusion and we are no different from rocks rolling down hills.

I have, it has been explained, studies, quotes and references provided in abundance....but it appears that rather than read and consider what has been provided and explained over and over, you just repeat the question.

Basically;

Principle 1. The brain is a physical system. It functions as a computer. Its circuits are designed to generate behavior that is appropriate to your environmental circumstances.

The brain is a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. What does this mean? It means that all of your thoughts and hopes and dreams and feelings are produced by chemical reactions going on in your head (a sobering thought). The brain's function is to process information. In other words, it is a computer that is made of organic (carbon-based) compounds rather than silicon chips. The brain is comprised of cells: primarily neurons and their supporting structures. Neurons are cells that are specialized for the transmission of information. Electrochemical reactions cause neurons to fire.

Neurons are connected to one another in a highly organized way. One can think of these connections as circuits -- just like a computer has circuits. These circuits determine how the brain processes information, just as the circuits in your computer determine how it processes information. Neural circuits in your brain are connected to sets of neurons that run throughout your body. Some of these neurons are connected to sensory receptors, such as the retina of your eye. Others are connected to your muscles. Sensory receptors are cells that are specialized for gathering information from the outer world and from other parts of the body. (You can feel your stomach churn because there are sensory receptors on it, but you cannot feel your spleen, which lacks them.) Sensory receptors are connected to neurons that transmit this information to your brain. Other neurons send information from your brain to motor neurons. Motor neurons are connected to your muscles; they cause your muscles to move. This movement is what we call behavior.

But you have not addressed what I said at all. I am not asking you to describe how you think the brain works.The question I am asking, which thus far you have glossed over at best, is why you think evolution gave us brains that seem to evaluate among multiple options and then choose the one that seems best, if all this is an illusion. There must have been a rather vast number of selective pressures over many generations to produce a brain that doesn’t actually do what it seems to do! Also, you keep repeating the claim that the brain is a computer. So far as I know — perhaps I missed it — you did not address the rather detailed article I posted arguing that the brain is NOT a computer, and that it takes active steps in constructing reality and choosing among options.

I provided quotes and links to the relevant information. Sure, I could type up a summary, but whatever I say or provide is basically ignored.

Again, the basics of evolutionary biology;


Principle 1. The brain is a physical system. It functions as a computer. Its circuits are designed to generate behavior that is appropriate to your environmental circumstances.

'The brain is a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. What does this mean? It means that all of your thoughts and hopes and dreams and feelings are produced by chemical reactions going on in your head (a sobering thought). The brain's function is to process information. In other words, it is a computer that is made of organic (carbon-based) compounds rather than silicon chips. The brain is comprised of cells: primarily neurons and their supporting structures. Neurons are cells that are specialized for the transmission of information. Electrochemical reactions cause neurons to fire.

Neurons are connected to one another in a highly organized way. One can think of these connections as circuits -- just like a computer has circuits. These circuits determine how the brain processes information, just as the circuits in your computer determine how it processes information. Neural circuits in your brain are connected to sets of neurons that run throughout your body. Some of these neurons are connected to sensory receptors, such as the retina of your eye. Others are connected to your muscles. Sensory receptors are cells that are specialized for gathering information from the outer world and from other parts of the body. (You can feel your stomach churn because there are sensory receptors on it, but you cannot feel your spleen, which lacks them.) Sensory receptors are connected to neurons that transmit this information to your brain. Other neurons send information from your brain to motor neurons. Motor neurons are connected to your muscles; they cause your muscles to move. This movement is what we call behavior.

In other words, the reason we have one set of circuits rather than another is that the circuits that we have were better at solving problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history than alternative circuits were. The brain is a naturally constructed computational system whose function is to solve adaptive information-processing problems (such as face recognition, threat interpretation, language acquisition, or navigation). Over evolutionary time, its circuits were cumulatively added because they "reasoned" or "processed information" in a way that enhanced the adaptive regulation of behavior and physiology.''


In other words, consciousness, mind and the ability to take/necessitate options - which for the given reasons is not free will - is an adaption that enables the organism to form mental map of the world and self and respond according to needs and wants, avoid dangers, etc......

 

[DBT]

A hard determinist takes the position that the future is fixed and determined by past events. So there will only ever be one choice that can happen, and it is the one that will happen. That is why I have insisted that one needs to distinguish between choices actually made in reality and those that will be made in the agent's imagination. When the choice is being made, alternative possibilities only exist in the mind of the agent, not reality. At some point, the "choice" stops being an imagined one and actually becomes a real one.

Reality is something entirely different, because future outcomes can never be certain. The only thing an agent can know is what possible future outcomes could happen. So free will only exists in the mind. It is a subjective experience, i.e. something that only has existence as a mental construct. And this is where the debate becomes tricky, because eliminative materialists take the position that mental constructs are illusions and therefore dismissible.

It is almost impossible to shake them from that position, even though they themselves actually treat these "illusions" seriously. They can deny that pain is ultimately real, but that doesn't mean that they will ignore pain. So about the only thing that one can do in the face of such self-delusion is let them go on their merry way. They aren't really hurting anyone, not even themselves. Sometimes people just get caught up in that kind of sophistry.

Again, determinism is the same for both compatibilists and incompatibilists, the difference is that one side argues that free will is compatible with determinism and the other side argues that it is not.

I argue that the term free will is irrelevant. It doesn't tell us anything about human behaviour, its drivers or how or why we act as we do.

I'm not a hard determinist because I suspect that there may be elements of quantum randomness at work in the brain....but of course random elements do not help the notion of free will....which is essentially a useless term.

 

[DBT]

It was inevitable.

It doesn't mean I didn't choose for it to happen.

Exactly.

It wasn't actually chosen, actions are necessitated by information acting upon the brain. You are not aware of the process. Wording alone doesn't prove the proposition. It's about how the system works.

Chosen implies that there was a possible alternate action, which is not possible within a determined system. Actions simply proceed as determined.

The principle applies to any system that can process information. It happens without will or consciousness, purely on the basis of information acting upon circuitry or neural networks and criteria.

 

[Jarhyn]

It was inevitable.

It doesn't mean I didn't choose for it to happen.

Exactly.

It wasn't actually chosen, actions are necessitated by information acting upon the brain. You are not aware of the process. Wording alone doesn't prove the proposition. It's about how the system works.

Chosen implies that there was a possible alternate action, which is not possible within a determined system. Actions simply proceed as determined.

The principle applies to any system that can process information. It happens without will or consciousness, purely on the basis of information acting upon circuitry or neural networks and criteria.

information acting upon the brain. Technically in the context it's the brain acting on information, as the brain is functional, and the information is argumentative.

Ah yes you hard determinists trying very hard to use words that MEAN "choice" without saying choice, and then pretending you didn't say choice when you say "it wasn't a 'choice' it was a (choice)!"

 

[DBT]

'Choice' in relation to determinism is just a figure of speech/communication.

Choice in relation to determinism is exactly what it always has been. Choosing is an operation that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice. Choosing is an empirical event. The word "choosing" refers to the event. The word "choice" refers to the output of this event, but is also used to refer to the options, because they are our possible choices.

A figure of speech of would be saying something like, "Because the choice is inevitable, it is AS IF choosing never happened". That is a figurative statement. And, like all figurative statements, it is literally (actually, objectively, empirically) false. Choosing does happen and we do it.

Casual references or common usage of words does not tell us how the brain functions. Yet it is how the brain functions within a deterministic system that determines whether we have something we can call 'free will.' Mere labelling or pointing to common usage does not prove the proposition. Nor does a carefully crafted definition.

Neuronal information processing necessitating actions that are not willed is certainly not an example of free will.

Function is not willed.

No alternate actions are possible.

Freedom by definition demands regulative control and to be free from necessity. The function and condition (neural architecture) of a brain determines output, which is inner necessity.


“It might be true that you would have done otherwise if you had wanted, though it is determined that you did not, in fact, want otherwise.” - Robert Kane

Multiple options exist, but only one can be realized by someone in any given instance in time.

Nope. Only one will be realized. You are conflating what "will" happen with what "can" happen. Every option that can be realized if we choose to realize it, is something that can happen. But only the option that we choose will happen.

Every time a choosing event appears in the causal chain, there will be at least two real possibilities, two things that we can choose, two things that can be realized.

What can happen constrains what will happen. If it cannot happen, then it will not happen.
But what will happen never constrains what can happen. What can happen is only constrained by our imagination and our ability to carry out the option if we choose it.

Multiple possibilities exist, just not for you in any given moment. Only one action in any given situation is possible. Only one action can be realized. At no point during the realization of an action is an alternate action possible. There is no 'could have done otherwise' within a determined system.


Fixed outcome - determinism cannot, by definition, have two or more real possibilities. The terms can't be altered. Determinism means that all actions are fixed. Being fixed, there are no other possibilities. Fixed means fixed.


You appear to be softening the accepted definition of determinism to suit your argument.


I'll leave it at that for now to avoid more repetition.

 

[Jarhyn]

How about this: when prior causes relevant to the causal outcomes primary to the function of your locality do not, as described, sufficiently account for the primacy of your locality's causal influences such that the prior causes relevant to my locality's causal outcomes lose primacy in determining the course of effects of my locality, my locality has in it's prior cause generated a phenomena that will through causal necessity deliver effect unto your locality which renders greater complexity of model into your locality such that your causality's prior cause no longer takes this primacy of effect in the determination of events.

It's a LOT of words to just say "if you make choices that deprive me of my ability to act freely, I will choose to do what I must to stop you from doing that and instead consider your options more deeply in the future and not make such selfish choices."

 

[DBT]

It was inevitable.

It doesn't mean I didn't choose for it to happen.

Exactly.

It wasn't actually chosen, actions are necessitated by information acting upon the brain. You are not aware of the process. Wording alone doesn't prove the proposition. It's about how the system works.

Chosen implies that there was a possible alternate action, which is not possible within a determined system. Actions simply proceed as determined.

The principle applies to any system that can process information. It happens without will or consciousness, purely on the basis of information acting upon circuitry or neural networks and criteria.

information acting upon the brain. Technically in the context it's the brain acting on information, as the brain is functional, and the information is argumentative.

Ah yes you hard determinists trying very hard to use words that MEAN "choice" without saying choice, and then pretending you didn't say choice when you say "it wasn't a 'choice' it was a (choice)!"

It works both ways, information is acquired by the brain via its senses, which becomes a part of the system, an interaction between the environment and the brain. The environment effects the brain and the brain effects the environment by its response.

Nor am I a hard determinist because I argue against the compatibilist definition of free will.

Quantum randomness no more makes 'free will' possible that determinism. I argue that the term free will is flawed, that's all. It doesn't represent volition or the functionality of the brain.

It's not that complicated.


''I don't think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don't need neuroscience to reject it -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will! Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality -- that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system -- After all, computers are rational physical systems!'' - Martha Farah, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuroethicist.

 

[The AntiChris]

an adaption that enables the organism to form mental map of the world and self and respond according to needs and wants, avoid dangers, etc......[

"respond according to" clearly implies that more than one possible response is available. This seams to contradict what you've been saying.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

A hard determinist takes the position that the future is fixed and determined by past events. So there will only ever be one choice that can happen, and it is the one that will happen. That is why I have insisted that one needs to distinguish between choices actually made in reality and those that will be made in the agent's imagination. When the choice is being made, alternative possibilities only exist in the mind of the agent, not reality. At some point, the "choice" stops being an imagined one and actually becomes a real one.

Reality is something entirely different, because future outcomes can never be certain. The only thing an agent can know is what possible future outcomes could happen. So free will only exists in the mind. It is a subjective experience, i.e. something that only has existence as a mental construct. And this is where the debate becomes tricky, because eliminative materialists take the position that mental constructs are illusions and therefore dismissible.

It is almost impossible to shake them from that position, even though they themselves actually treat these "illusions" seriously. They can deny that pain is ultimately real, but that doesn't mean that they will ignore pain. So about the only thing that one can do in the face of such self-delusion is let them go on their merry way. They aren't really hurting anyone, not even themselves. Sometimes people just get caught up in that kind of sophistry.

It is not quite right to call free will an "illusion". The brain organizes sensory input into a "model" of reality. When the model is accurate enough to be useful, as when we navigate our body through a doorway, then the model is called "reality", because it is our only access to reality. It is only when the model is inaccurate enough to cause a problem, as when we walk into a glass door, thinking it was open, that we call it an "illusion".

We know the difference between dreams and reality. We know that while we are imagining the consequences of our choices, that we have not yet made our choice, but that we will make it shortly, after we finish evaluating our options by simulating them in our mind.

The choosing operation, taking place in our imagination, is a real brain event. We assume through neuroscience that there are physical events in the brain that correspond in some fashion to the mental events we experience, and that we model these events through descriptive language just as we model everything else in reality. Thus, the alternative possibilities that come to mind are real brain events, and are just as causally necessary as any other events.

The brain must deal with certainties and uncertainties, and it uses different word tokens to perform logical operations. If something "will" happen, then it certainly "will" happen. If something "can" happen, then we are still uncertain whether it ever "will" happen, even though we are certain that it "can" happen.

The choosing operation requires (1) at least two things that "can" happen if we choose to make them happen, and (2) it also requires that we "can" choose either one of them. These are matters of "logical necessity", because they are required in order for the logical operation to proceed.

It is just like the operation of addition. In order for addition to proceed there must be at least two numbers that can be added together to produce the result. Addition cannot take place if there is only one number. And choosing cannot proceed if there is only one alternative that we can choose.

Is the operation of addition real or is it just an "illusion"? It is real because it has consequences in the real world: It calculates our bill in the restaurant.

Is the operation of choosing real or is it just an "illusion"? It is real because it has consequences in the real world: It selects what we will have for dinner.

Is the distinction between a person aiding and abetting the escape of terrorists of ones own free will, versus doing so because one of them is pointing a gun at your head, real or is it just an "illusion"? It is real because it has consequences in the real world. If you do it of your own free will then you will be treated as a conspirator, but if you were coerced you will not be charged with any crime.

So, no. Free will is not an illusion. It is a significant empirical distinction between two events.

A hard determinist takes the position that the future is fixed and determined by past events. So there will only ever be one choice that can happen, and it is the one that will happen.

And that would be an example of an "illusion". Both the past and the future are currently being determined by present events.

 

[pood]

DBT,

First, you keep saying the brain is a computer. I (and many others, including many neuroscientists) challenge this. Did you read the link to the article that I posted?

Second, you keep trying to explain how the brain works. Never mind that we don’t have full knowledge of this to begin with (as my linked article makes clear). We don’t even know how the brain generates consciousness, including of course qualia, and this is known as the hard problem of consciousness (See Chalmers), though we do have some functional accounts of this. The real point is that your necessarily incomplete effort to describe how the brain works is irrelevant to my question. My question, again, is why did evolution select for brains that remember, foresee, evaluate options and then choose among available options, when all these behaviors and functions are illusions, according to you.

Evolution is jury-rigged, building, often kludgily, on previous structures in response to selective pressures, though drift is also heavily involved. You are asking us to believe that over untold generations, selective pressures favored complex cerebration that foresees, remembers, models the world, evaluates options, and then chooses, when all of this, according to you, is an illusion.

Much more parsimoniously, as I have contended and believe rightly so, is, in a hard deterministic world, for evolution to select for philosophical zombies (again, see Chalmers) in which entities may appear to act freely and choose among available options, but in reality have no consciousness, qualia or awareness at all. They are dark inside. Those would be, in my view, the most likely (because the most parsimonious and easy to kludge together) sorts of organisms to exist in a Hard Determinist world. The fact that they don’t exist, and we do, is a clear flashing signal that Hard Determinism is false.

But then you yourself write:

In other words, consciousness, mind and the ability … is an adaption that enables the organism to form mental map of the world and self and respond according to needs and wants, avoid dangers, etc......

I omitted one of the clauses in your quote with ellipses because it directly contradicts your succeeding clause, which is CORRECT: The self responds to needs and wants, avoids dangers, etc. …. because, obviously, being able to do these things — to model the world, remember, foresee, and then freely choose among available options — provides organisms with a tremendous survival edge and thereby increases their fitness.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Principle 1.

Here again is the correct URL: https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html

 

[DBT]

an adaption that enables the organism to form mental map of the world and self and respond according to needs and wants, avoid dangers, etc......[

"respond according to" clearly implies that more than one possible response is available. This seams to contradict what you've been saying.

''Respond according to'' says nothing about alternate actions being possible. 'According to' refers to the determinants that fix the outcome or action. You are now scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Compatibilists generally acknowledge that alternate actions are not possible within a determined system, yet try to soften determinism with 'could have' or 'might have,' which given the definition of determinism, is absurd.


“It might be true that you would have done otherwise if you had wanted, though it is determined that you did not, in fact, want otherwise.” - Robert Kane

 

[DBT]

DBT,

First, you keep saying the brain is a computer. I (and many others, including many neuroscientists) challenge this. Did you read the link to the article that I posted?

I didn't say the brain is a computer. The article did. I would describe the brain as a parallel information processor. Computers being linear processors.

Which doesn't alter or negate the point of the article, that the brain, mind, consciousness evolved as a means with which to negotiate within a given niche or environment.

Second, you keep trying to explain how the brain works. Never mind that we don’t have full knowledge of this to begin with (as my linked article makes clear). We don’t even know how the brain generates consciousness, including of course qualia, and this is known as the hard problem of consciousness (See Chalmers), though we do have some functional accounts of this. The real point is that your necessarily incomplete effort to describe how the brain works is irrelevant to my question. My question, again, is why did evolution select for brains that remember, foresee, evaluate options and then choose among available options, when all these behaviors and functions are illusions, according to you.

That we don't fully know how the brain works or how it generates conscious experience doesn't mean that nothing is known about how it works or the physical means- neural architecture, electrochemical activity, inputs, memory function, etc - by which it generates conscious experience.

Enough is understood to say that unconscious information processing precedes conscious activity and continues to 'feed' information while consciousness is active. First processing, then experience....and that this is a matter of will or freedom to have done otherwise, that the action taken is determined by the information conditions in that moment of time.

So without regulative control of the underlying activity or the ability to have done otherwise....say goodbye to the notion of free will.

 

[DBT]

Principle 1.

Here again is the correct URL: https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html

Ok, thanks...I'm using material I've kept on file from past debates. Years ago. Some of the links are probably out of date or broken.

 

[The AntiChris]

an adaption that enables the organism to form mental map of the world and self and respond according to needs and wants, avoid dangers, etc......[

"respond according to" clearly implies that more than one possible response is available. This seams to contradict what you've been saying.

''Respond according to'' says nothing about alternate actions being possible. 'According to' refers to the determinants that fix the outcome or action.

But if there is only ever one option available, you still haven't explained (as pood asked earlier) why "evolution gave us brains that seem to evaluate among multiple options and then choose the one that seems best". Why has evolution endowed us with brains that appear to appraise, sometimes at great length, and make what appears to be a choice? According to your view this would seem to be redundant processing. There has to be an explanation.

 

[Jarhyn]

DBT,

First, you keep saying the brain is a computer. I (and many others, including many neuroscientists) challenge this. Did you read the link to the article that I posted?

Second, you keep trying to explain how the brain works. Never mind that we don’t have full knowledge of this to begin with (as my linked article makes clear). We don’t even know how the brain generates consciousness, including of course qualia, and this is known as the hard problem of consciousness (See Chalmers), though we do have some functional accounts of this. The real point is that your necessarily incomplete effort to describe how the brain works is irrelevant to my question. My question, again, is why did evolution select for brains that remember, foresee, evaluate options and then choose among available options, when all these behaviors and functions are illusions, according to you.

Evolution is jury-rigged, building, often kludgily, on previous structures in response to selective pressures, though drift is also heavily involved. You are asking us to believe that over untold generations, selective pressures favored complex cerebration that foresees, remembers, models the world, evaluates options, and then chooses, when all of this, according to you, is an illusion.

Much more parsimoniously, as I have contended and believe rightly so, is, in a hard deterministic world, for evolution to select for philosophical zombies (again, see Chalmers) in which entities may appear to act freely and choose among available options, but in reality have no consciousness, qualia or awareness at all. They are dark inside. Those would be, in my view, the most likely (because the most parsimonious and easy to kludge together) sorts of organisms to exist in a Hard Determinist world. The fact that they don’t exist, and we do, is a clear flashing signal that Hard Determinism is false.

But then you yourself write:

In other words, consciousness, mind and the ability … is an adaption that enables the organism to form mental map of the world and self and respond according to needs and wants, avoid dangers, etc......

I omitted one of the clauses in your quote with ellipses because it directly contradicts your succeeding clause, which is CORRECT: The self responds to needs and wants, avoids dangers, etc. …. because, obviously, being able to do these things — to model the world, remember, foresee, and then freely choose among available options — provides organisms with a tremendous survival edge and thereby increases their fitness.

The brain is mechanism, which is really what it comes down to in terms of deterministic basis.

Honestly I don't think it matters whether we understand 100% of it's mechanism. In some ways there are probably indeterministic things that the brain uses to produces some manner of randomization and variation in our executions of our behavior, little hidden nuggets of context derived from chaos or quantum noise...

These randomizations are even themselves at best inconsequential insofar as they are small pieces of input, arguments to the function.

The important part of all of this is identity of function, and locality.

The collection of particles or field values, or however you choose to model it is "a collection of particles that will react 'this' way IF certain and specific particles enter this area, and 'this other' way when different particles hit it"

The system CAN behave both ways, and this is dependent on which particles hit it.

The system 'chooses' on the basis of which particles hit it there.

That only one behavior will happen, and it depends on which particles hit it is definitional of choice.

The mail is not in the box yet. The function has not received arguments yet: regardless of the state of (not-local), because the universe maintains a property of (locality), those particles are not in the locality no matter what they happen to be.

Those. Particles. Are. Not. Here. There is a local indeterminability! The local system can behave either way. In fact the local system can still behave that way if particles hit it again, assuming that the first event does not change the local context to prevent the same system from being presented the same choice with different arguments so that it may choose differently.

 

[pood]

an adaption that enables the organism to form mental map of the world and self and respond according to needs and wants, avoid dangers, etc......[

"respond according to" clearly implies that more than one possible response is available. This seams to contradict what you've been saying.

''Respond according to'' says nothing about alternate actions being possible. 'According to' refers to the determinants that fix the outcome or action. You are now scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Compatibilists generally acknowledge that alternate actions are not possible within a determined system, yet try to soften determinism with 'could have' or 'might have,' which given the definition of determinism, is absurd.


“It might be true that you would have done otherwise if you had wanted, though it is determined that you did not, in fact, want otherwise.” - Robert Kane

DBT,

You keep saying this, and I (and Marvin) have tried to demonstrate where this argument goes wrong. I don’t think you have ever seriously addressed this point.

Given a specified set of antecedent circumstances, x will do y. Given the same circumstances, x will do y again.

It does not follow from this, as a matter of logic, that x must do y, as you seem to assume. All that follows is that x WILL do y. But WILL is not the same as MUST.

As I have repeatedly tried to demonstrate, the confusing of necessity (must) with contingency (will) is a modal scope fallacy.

Something very like the opposite of your whole argument is actually the case. Given a specified set of antecedent circumstances, x WILL do by, because he WANTS to, not because he is FORCED to. If, in this case, x did NOT do y, THEN it would be the case either that x’s action was willy-nilly or random or indeterminate (hence not free), OR he was FORCED to do not-y, by coercion perhaps, such as being held at gunpoint; in that case, his action is also not free.

It is precisely because x does y, because he wants to given a specified set of antecedent circumstances, that his act is freely willed.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

... Yet it is how the brain functions within a deterministic system that determines whether we have something we can call 'free will.'

Within a deterministic system the brain performs many different functions. It performs basic logical operations, including things like addition and choosing.

The addition operation requires two or more numbers as input. If you have only one number, then addition does not continue. Thus, at least two numbers are required by logical necessity. It then adds these together and outputs a sum total.

The choosing operation requires two or more options, things that you can do if you choose to. If you have only one option, then choosing does not continue. Thus, at least two options are required by logical necessity. Choosing applies some criteria for evaluating these options. Based on that evaluation, the operation outputs the option that appears best. The output is usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is what we have decided we will do.

Both the addition operation and the choosing operation are deterministic. Given the same parameters, each will output the same result.

For addition, the parameters are the list of numbers to be added. For choosing, the parameters are the list of options to be evaluated and the criteria for evaluation. The criteria for evaluation will vary based upon the context of the issue being decided. But, given the same issue, the same criteria, and the same options, the option chosen will be the same.

Whether we were free to do the choosing ourselves, or, whether the choice was imposed upon us against our will by someone or something else, is an empirical question to be decided by objective evidence. For example, if someone were holding a gun to our head and telling us what we must do, then we would clearly not be free to decide for ourselves what we would do.

The case where we are free to make the choice for ourselves while free of coercion and undue influence is called "a freely chosen will", or simply "free will". Everyone understands this definition of free will and correctly applies it to real life scenarios in which we must identify the responsible cause of an event.

Mere labelling or pointing to common usage does not prove the proposition.

The proposition is that free will is an event that occurs within a fully deterministic system. And we see it happening, in physical reality, every day.

Nor does a carefully crafted definition.

The definition is simple. Either we made the choice for ourselves or the choice was imposed upon us by someone else (for example, the guy with a gun) or something else (for example, a significant mental illness).

The choice is about what we "will" do. The question is whether we are "free" to make that choice for ourselves.

Neuronal information processing necessitating actions that are not willed is certainly not an example of free will.

But neuronal information processing is definitely involved in the operation that chooses what we will do (in the absence of coercion and undue influence) is therefore clearly an example of free will.

Free will does not require "freedom from neuronal information processing". Free will is actually an example of neuronal information processing.

Function is not willed.

Some functions are not willed. Other functions are most definitely willed. We don't choose when our hearts beat, but we do choose what we will have for dinner.

No alternate actions are possible.

When we do not know what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare for what does happen. Alternate possibilities are part of the neuronal information processing that performs the function of "imagining what can happen". Alternate actions must be considered possible until they are ruled out by actual information that resolves the uncertainty as to what will happen.

Freedom by definition demands regulative control ...

That which chooses what will happen next has regulative control. You might have noticed yourself and others making decisions as to what you and they will do next. That is regulative control.

and to be free from necessity.

There is no such thing as "freedom from causal necessity" in a deterministic world, mostly because causal necessity is neither a meaningful nor a relevant constraint.

After all, without reliable cause and effect, we would have no freedom to do anything at all.

The function and condition (neural architecture) of a brain determines output, which is inner necessity.

Yes. And one of those functions of the neural architecture of the brain is to choose from the restaurant menu what I will necessarily have for dinner.

“It might be true that you would have done otherwise if you had wanted, though it is determined that you did not, in fact, want otherwise.” - Robert Kane

Exactly. And that is why causal necessity is never coercive, because it never forces you to do something you did not in fact already want to do! Cool, huh.

Multiple possibilities exist, just not for you in any given moment. Only one action in any given situation is possible. Only one action can be realized. At no point during the realization of an action is an alternate action possible. There is no 'could have done otherwise' within a determined system.

The possibility need only exist for a moment. If it is true right now that something can happen, even if it doesn't happen, then it will be true tomorrow that it could have happened, even if it did not happen. It's just a change in the tense of the verb as the present becomes the past. When we reflect upon what could have happened, we are deliberately returning to that point of uncertainty.

Using words like "can" and "possibility" invoke the context of uncertainty, and bring us back into realm of imagination. Within our imagination we can revisit past events and consider how different choices may have worked out. This is especially true if the choice we actually made did not turn out the way we expected. Then we really need to consider what we could have done differently, to better prepare ourselves for similar issues in the future.

Fixed outcome - determinism cannot, by definition, have two or more real possibilities. The terms can't be altered. Determinism means that all actions are fixed. Being fixed, there are no other possibilities. Fixed means fixed.

If you wish. But in that case determinism must remain silent as to matters of possibility and things that can happen. After all, it knows of no such things. It may only speak of what certainly will happen.

You appear to be softening the accepted definition of determinism to suit your argument.

I am just looking for the pragmatic and empirical truth of the matter. It seems to me that reliable cause and effect is both a good thing and an actual fact. It seems to me that free will is both a good thing and an actual fact.

 

[fromderinside]

... Yet it is how the brain functions within a deterministic system that determines whether we have something we can call 'free will.'

Within a deterministic system the brain performs many different functions. It performs basic logical operations, including things like addition and choosing.

The addition operation requires two or more numbers as input. If you have only one number, then addition does not continue. Thus, at least two numbers are required by logical necessity. It then adds these together and outputs a sum total.

The choosing operation requires two or more options, things that you can do if you choose to. If you have only one option, then choosing does not continue. Thus, at least two options are required by logical necessity. Choosing applies some criteria for evaluating these options. Based on that evaluation, the operation outputs the option that appears best. The output is usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is what we have decided we will do.

Both the addition operation and the choosing operation are deterministic. Given the same parameters, each will output the same result.

For addition, the parameters are the list of numbers to be added. For choosing, the parameters are the list of options to be evaluated and the criteria for evaluation. The criteria for evaluation will vary based upon the context of the issue being decided. But, given the same issue, the same criteria, and the same options, the option chosen will be the same.

Whether we were free to do the choosing ourselves, or, whether the choice was imposed upon us against our will by someone or something else, is an empirical question to be decided by objective evidence. For example, if someone were holding a gun to our head and telling us what we must do, then we would clearly not be free to decide for ourselves what we would do.

The case where we are free to make the choice for ourselves while free of coercion and undue influence is called "a freely chosen will", or simply "free will". Everyone understands this definition of free will and correctly applies it to real life scenarios in which we must identify the responsible cause of an event.

Mere labelling or pointing to common usage does not prove the proposition.

The proposition is that free will is an event that occurs within a fully deterministic system. And we see it happening, in physical reality, every day.

Nor does a carefully crafted definition.

The definition is simple. Either we made the choice for ourselves or the choice was imposed upon us by someone else (for example, the guy with a gun) or something else (for example, a significant mental illness).

The choice is about what we "will" do. The question is whether we are "free" to make that choice for ourselves.

Neuronal information processing necessitating actions that are not willed is certainly not an example of free will.

But neuronal information processing is definitely involved in the operation that chooses what we will do (in the absence of coercion and undue influence) is therefore clearly an example of free will.

Free will does not require "freedom from neuronal information processing". Free will is actually an example of neuronal information processing.

Function is not willed.

Some functions are not willed. Other functions are most definitely willed. We don't choose when our hearts beat, but we do choose what we will have for dinner.

No alternate actions are possible.

When we do not know what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare for what does happen. Alternate possibilities are part of the neuronal information processing that performs the function of "imagining what can happen". Alternate actions must be considered possible until they are ruled out by actual information that resolves the uncertainty as to what will happen.

Freedom by definition demands regulative control ...

That which chooses what will happen next has regulative control. You might have noticed yourself and others making decisions as to what you and they will do next. That is regulative control.

and to be free from necessity.

There is no such thing as "freedom from causal necessity" in a deterministic world, mostly because causal necessity is neither a meaningful nor a relevant constraint.

After all, without reliable cause and effect, we would have no freedom to do anything at all.

The function and condition (neural architecture) of a brain determines output, which is inner necessity.

Yes. And one of those functions of the neural architecture of the brain is to choose from the restaurant menu what I will necessarily have for dinner.

“It might be true that you would have done otherwise if you had wanted, though it is determined that you did not, in fact, want otherwise.” - Robert Kane

Exactly. And that is why causal necessity is never coercive, because it never forces you to do something you did not in fact already want to do! Cool, huh.

Multiple possibilities exist, just not for you in any given moment. Only one action in any given situation is possible. Only one action can be realized. At no point during the realization of an action is an alternate action possible. There is no 'could have done otherwise' within a determined system.

The possibility need only exist for a moment. If it is true right now that something can happen, even if it doesn't happen, then it will be true tomorrow that it could have happened, even if it did not happen. It's just a change in the tense of the verb as the present becomes the past. When we reflect upon what could have happened, we are deliberately returning to that point of uncertainty.

Using words like "can" and "possibility" invoke the context of uncertainty, and bring us back into realm of imagination. Within our imagination we can revisit past events and consider how different choices may have worked out. This is especially true if the choice we actually made did not turn out the way we expected. Then we really need to consider what we could have done differently, to better prepare ourselves for similar issues in the future.

Fixed outcome - determinism cannot, by definition, have two or more real possibilities. The terms can't be altered. Determinism means that all actions are fixed. Being fixed, there are no other possibilities. Fixed means fixed.

If you wish. But in that case determinism must remain silent as to matters of possibility and things that can happen. After all, it knows of no such things. It may only speak of what certainly will happen.

You appear to be softening the accepted definition of determinism to suit your argument.

I am just looking for the pragmatic and empirical truth of the matter. It seems to me that reliable cause and effect is both a good thing and an actual fact. It seems to me that free will is both a good thing and an actual fact.

Seems cannot resolve to empirical, nor pragmatic truth under any scenario.

 

[DBT]

an adaption that enables the organism to form mental map of the world and self and respond according to needs and wants, avoid dangers, etc......[

"respond according to" clearly implies that more than one possible response is available. This seams to contradict what you've been saying.

''Respond according to'' says nothing about alternate actions being possible. 'According to' refers to the determinants that fix the outcome or action.

But if there is only ever one option available, you still haven't explained (as pood asked earlier) why "evolution gave us brains that seem to evaluate among multiple options and then choose the one that seems best". Why has evolution endowed us with brains that appear to appraise, sometimes at great length, and make what appears to be a choice? According to your view this would seem to be redundant processing. There has to be an explanation.

The evaluation process itself is determined.

You guys appear to believe in some sort of special exemption from determinism....that 'evaluation' somehow, inexplicably, operates outside of a determined system.

When information is being process, every step of the process must necessarily be fixed, that is the nature of determinism. Freedom from determinism doesn't lie within the deterministically fixed process of 'evaluation.'

You can't bypass the rules of determinism. You can't have it both ways. Determined is not free.