I didn't analyze 'my' concept of free will. I started by analyzing YOUR definition! Get that straight our we have to stop.

You can't have a definition 'considered as a whole' and not open up its constituent parts to analysis.

You haven't analyzed the constituent parts, you have simply claimed that your definitions for the constituent parts are correct and that mine are not. That's not how you analyze my definition of choice.

LOL.

You aren't actually engaging any of my arguments, then.

I've taken your definition of choice and gave arguments for why having a 'range of options' implies being able to select either disjunct in the actual world.

Do you actually have a counterargument to that? Or are you just throwing a tantrum?

You haven't given any arguments. You've just stated that having a range of options means having possibilities in the actual world.

That's not how I define "range of options." I've even presented an example of a range of options that clearly does not involve alternate possibilities, the set of legal moves available to a chess computer.

And wikipedia is the authority for uncommon language? But this is irrelevant.

It's a real shame that we're not talking about a vacuous truth. I made no reference to the truth value of anything when I accused you of taking a vacuous position:

And in the context that I used it, the meaning is quite clear and not that what you're trying to make it into.

But of course, by the madnakian rules of definitions, any definition can apply at any time (plus some other definitions that can be thrown in at any time at the whim of the speaker), and thereby your blatantly wrong interpretation of my statement is perfectly consistent even though it means that nobody knows what you're saying at all anymore.

Edit: By the way, you do realize that this was not even the definition of "vacuous" that you used to counter my position, right?

Then we're done. You don't know how to engage in conceptual analysis. I've given arguments against the applicability of counterfactuals for your definition of 'choice.' But you've not been able to do the same to mine.

So it's deep blue's turn and he calculates the EV for either moving its bishop to b6 or f4. Properly speaking what's the term you propose for either... option(?)? (I.e. Now you just defined option in a way that is incompatible with determinism, still the same semantic trick as with "choose" before.)

Also, while the outcome is determined, it clearly is dependent on deep blue being the player (I would have chosen differently from the set of valid moves and lost)... how is he not responsible in the outcome of Kasparov being defeated?

You introduced "vacuous" as a clarification while discussing the philosophy that everything is information.

Not at all clear, still not clear in fact, but it still doesn't matter.

Yeah, it was:

You haven't given arguments. You gave one useless analogy and insisted that it was relevant when nobody other than the libertarians agreed with you, and then you fiated over and over again that your inapt analogy was apt, and that temporal possibility is necessary (despite giving no reason you would even think of temporal responsibility). Neither stating your position over and over again nor making up non-sequitur analogies counts as argument. Or "analysis," heh.

But it doesn't even matter. Counterfactual possibility isn't even necessary. In fact, NO kind of possibility is really necessary for the concept of choice, but epistemic possibility is sufficient if you want to cherrypick the definitions of the terms of my definition that include the term "possibility." Counterfactual possibility was only relevant in the first place to defend my statement that it was possible to do otherwise (it was).

I am glad that you are enjoying this. To make this easier on me (for the consciousness/decision making stuff), do you have any background in psychology? This could get into some very heavy cognitive psychology theory and research, and I want to tailor it to avoid writing an entire book. I may be able to simplify things, but I am not sure whether it will be satisfying...

I think that this is a good question. I'm not sure. In the case of people, I think that we can make irrational decisions. So, when we choose the utility maximizing option, we are being rational and we choose that option for those reasons, but we had the ability to do otherwise (ie, be irrational). So, just because something is utility maximizing doesn't rule-out that it was free.

However, the Big Blue case seems importantly different. The computer could only select the utility maximizing option (and if there are equal options it will use a pseudorandomizing function). I'd like to reserve 'decision' for where there are genuine options...so let's not use that word.

Act? Big Blue 'acts' when it makes one move instead of another...but it could only have picked the one it was going to pick because it was determined to do so.

Big Blue is the reason why Kasparov loses, but it's not morally responsible. So, it would only be 'responsible' in the loose sense...but not in the specific sense that we're using wrt free will and responsibility.

Ignorance and illusion are not sufficient for freedom and responsibility.

To get it out of the way, determinism does kill the concept of pure responsibility. You are left with punishing people because they are jerks (or rehabilitation, removal from society, etc.).

Well, then you're not a compatibilist

Nope, it was:

That is, your definitions are devoid of content because they keep changing. It's not even possible to interpret this statements as "if A then B, but A is false". What is the A? What is the B? We're talking about DEFINITIONS. Definitions are not implications.

That is, these are not empty containers (ie, not vacuously true statements).

Edit: I don't even think this can be properly interpreted as "If A then B, but A is false." It would have to be phrased "If n is an even number larger than two, then it is not prime." But we would never know a priori the truth value of "n is an even number larger than two" since n can take values that would make it true, and values that would make it false.

I don't have any specific training in psychology (or philosophy, for that matter). I hold a PhD in math, so I'm accustomed to technical speak and am very well focused in terms of tracking logical trains of thought.

Durr. Wait, was that not obvious? I have spoken of the processes as extremely important in human terms, but I thought I was very clear about cause and effect being the law of the land.

You thought that I was possibly a compatibilist?!? Really?

The only thing I have stated is (I hope) cause -> effect, but that the "->" is kind of cool and complicated.

I don't have a table with everyone's positions sitting next to me...sorry.

What about 'outputs'? This seems more consistent with the product of an algorithm.

No offense, but the conversation continued below.

It also continued after the last time you stated "done." And the time before that.

You should know that ceasing to reply does not equal agreement. The rest of us do, and you should trust us in that.

Act seems fine...but output may work too. Probably a hair not worth splitting

And I thought I was special.

The dialectic is done so far...because he can't see the mistakes that he's making.

But even if I'm putting him on a very short leash, that doesn't mean I'm done w/ the thread...just w/ him until he adds something.

Awesome! I just got to work on translating an entire body of work into plain language. Much easier than explaining the math.* This might take some time.

You are cool with me just throwing theory around as truth, right? I mean, we are talking possibilities and unproven (and based on your hypothesis unprovable) theories, so, at least kill the headwinds. I will do my best to pick the most current theories that have some research in favor of them, rather than the silly ones. (we can work out the details as we go. I am promising honest thought though. I gain nothing here other than having to think things through.)

*The furthest I got was matrix calculus.

Again, time is seemingly plentiful.

I can accept that you're working off of theories and see where it takes us. Unless you throw out something that's completely weird, I doubt this will be an issue. I'm not sure how those theories (presumably, theories about the functioning of the human brain) will play into a discussion about how to make sense of these concepts under determinism, but there's no harm in it.

Can you briefly summarize where you are thinking of taking the conversation?

This is the best way to go.

That's okay. I haven't taken a single course in psychology. But as long as the concepts are not too convoluted, I think I'll be able to keep up.

I hope I haven't missed this from elsewhere, but how extensive is your psychological background?