Originally Posted by Symbiote

This is where for me the non-determinist position falls down.

If our will isn't determined by causality, (or "predetermined), then it is random. Or random within some domain of possibilities.

And if we are controlled by something random, even random within a domain, we are less free, not more. Someone determind by their own beliefs and desires is much more free than some kind of schizophrenic individual who behaves without cause.

So why assume that if our will is not predetermined then it must be random? I see a third option. Our will is developed by our choices. The will, like any other intellectual faculty, can be developed in the same manner that we develop our bodies: through practice and exercise. When you learn something, it affects multiple aspects of your mindset. The formation of a habit almost always begins with conscious effort. Your behavior is mainly a sum of your habits and your beliefs, both of which we can be changed.

Have you ever considered how vegetarians can literally become physically sick (goose bumps, throwing up, tearing) from eating meat, the smell of meat, and sometimes just the thought of eating meat. How is that possible? Is vegetarianism genetic? A product of one's environment? A random anomaly? Or is it a result of a person's conscious decision to refuse to eat meat? I have never seen a study that links this preference to any predefined factors. So how do we explain this phenomenon?

I agree our present beliefs and desires are influenced by our past choices, and there are many causal pathways for this to happen.

And I agree the human brain is a complex system that is not easily predicted from measurable variables - just like the stockmarket, or climate change, or long range weather forecasting, or the impact on the loss of a species on the rest of an ecology, see complex systems: Complex system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

One key point: "Complex systems may exhibit behaviors that are emergent, which is to say that while the results may be deterministic, they may have properties that can only be studied at a higher level. "

So while human brains and the human decision making process is fundamentally deterministic at the level of physics, it can only really be studied and explained via emergent constructs like "beliefs" "choice" & "memory", which is why psychology and economics aren't subdisciplines of physics.

Symbiote, let's take a simple example of action-reaction: you look at your phone when it signals that you have a new message. The signal is the event trigger, you pulling out your phone from your pocket and looking at it is the reaction, or effect. (I'm not saying that the signal caused you to pull out your phone, there are other internal factors involved.)

You have your deterministic script as follows (simplified, of course):
signal=new message; if (not busy) then look_at_phone();

You have your independent decision-making capacity to look at or ignore the phone, based on your own consideration and rationalization.

Your phone beeps/vibrates. You look at your phone.

Which process was used to result in you looking at your phone?

I don't think you have two processes, one a deterministic process and one a choice process, in fact the only reason you can split them into two is because the deterministic process is hugely simplified in this example.

If you were able to lay out the deterministic process in full, which would be an impossible task given its complexity, you would see that it in fact was the same process as your "independent decision making process".

Ok, so you're saying that we are using an infintely complex, yet deterministic, script to evaluate what our actions will be. But you still believe that, even though it is impossible to map out into an algorithm/flowchart, such a script exists, and that's what makes us act. Is that correct?

In a much more concise form, I think that's what I was trying to say as well.

If we are operating with an infinitely complex script, the only way we could actually make a decision in a finite period of time is if our brains can process with infinte speed. In reality, the scripts must be finite, because the info the scripts are built with is finite, and so is our brain power.

The other thing we have to bear in mind is that both the script and the processor are dynamic. The script modifies the processor by increasing its decision-making experience and the script is modified when we input new external data or make bad decisions.

So our compatibilist model ends up being a very complex computer system, akin to self-sustaining artificial intelligence, that operates automatically through dynamic adjustments. With this model, the question of "magic soul" is somewhat taken care of: we can function without it. However, we really don't have any "control" over our actions, our "script" is a product of external data inputs and operations of the script itself, and possibly of our genetic "bios".

The other thing about this model is that it doesn't explain why we possess consciousness. Being aware of ourselves acting according to an internal complex system that is out of our direct control seems pointless. We could be not aware of our actions and operate in exactly the same manner. The only workaround I can think of is that "consciousness is also an illusion" in that what we call "consciousness" is just the sum of the mental faculties of memory, creativity, emotions, etc that are necessary operations in the overall scheme of our functionality. We appear to have awareness of self, but this "awareness" may just be a by-product of these other dynamic functions. I don't know,the thesis needs a bit more work I think.

Finally, this model ignores the evidence of free will itself, as a separate function of our identity, and independent of the operations of data and processes. We have the ability to make long term decisions based on imagined realities not sourced from the environment or current event. We don't have to wait for an event to trigger a decision. We can recall memories at will with no external prompting. We can act contrary to what would be the common or default response to a situation, or ignore the situation entirely. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that we do not abide by a input-process-output" rule, and the compatibilist, or any other deterministic-based model, does not address that.

By the way, what I described here isn't what any other compatibilist definition describes it as. I'm not even sure if it is the same thing. And I'm not sure if, as compatibilists (symbiote and mrwritela), this is also how you see it.

If, under the compatibilists view, there is no difference between determinism and free will, then I can understand why mrwritela sould say it doesn't matter what label we give it. That is, however, if this truly is the reality of human animation....

I wouldn't call its operation "automatic", since part of its operation is determined by human beliefs and desires.

We have the ability to make long term decisions based on imagined realities not sourced from the environment or current event.

That's the nature of a complex system, it performs actions that cannot be easily or directly traced to a particular input.

There is a lot of evidence that suggests that we do not abide by a input-process-output" rule

No, there's a lot of evidence we don't abide by a simple input-process-output rule.

Originally Posted by Symbiote

I wouldn't call its operation "automatic", since part of its operation is determined by human beliefs and desires.



That's the nature of a complex system, it performs actions that cannot be easily or directly traced to a particular input.



No, there's a lot of evidence we don't abide by a simple input-process-output rule.

You're starting to sound like "the deterministic mind moves in mysterious ways, don't try to figure out how or why it does what it does, just know that it does......"

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

You're starting to sound like "the deterministic mind moves in mysterious ways, don't try to figure out how or why it does what it does, just know that it does......"

Yeah, 'free will exists because I have faith that it does.'

I think the main distinction between those of the determinist belief and others like compatibilists, is the 'god factor'.