I came up with the Turing-machine universe because you said that you needed something more concrete (and that you "wished we were talking about math").

The information wasn't a claim, it was an example of a scenario in which an n-tuple can clearly be a process (you refused to continue with the conversation because you claimed that an n-tuple can't be a process, so it was necessary to resolve that before moving on).

I've been extremely clear about what my goal is - to take your argument that choice and determinism are logically contradictory and refute it.

You have continued to hold out and avoid expressing your argument on the grounds that I haven't given you enough to work with - first that you need a definition of determinism. Then that the definition has to be more concrete. Then that I have to establish it's not vacuous. And so on. The list of conditions that I must meet in order for you to present your argument keeps growing and growing. And you're blaming me for the fact that the discussion isn't going anywhere?

As I have repeated over and over again throughout this debate, the onus is on you. I shouldn't have to do anything here, as you have the onus you should be able to present your argument without my assistance. To actually criticize me for being dumb enough to jump through your absurd hoops is beyond the pale.

This is a perfectly legitimate starting point for a conversation regarding determinism, don't you think?

Yeah, this is part of that conversation. If nobody knows what you mean, then what reason is there to expect a meaningful conversation to follow?

Because the words you use MUST have meaning if we're going to have a discussion!

Yes.

Are you really that blind? This is the whole problem!

You are trying to say that such-and-such is not logically contradictory. Okay... But if this side of the table presents a definition, it's disallowed because "that's not the determinist view" (for example, of "time"). But when you are asked to provide that view, you do so in a way that allows you infinite freedom to redefine it so that you can maintain your belief in this logical-non-contradiction. And this is where the absurdity happens.

*IF* you have such freedom in your definitions, it is impossible to provide ANY argument of ANY type with ANY meaningful content. Under these "rules of engagement" it is possible to say that P and NOT-P are not logically contradictory, by simply redefining NOT to the point where it doesn't mean anything remotely like what it started.

That you think this is somehow strengthening your argument, as opposed to making you look uneducated and foolish stands as clear evidence that the entire conversation has gone over your head.

The strength of your argument can be summed up in the repetition of "Nuh-uh."

FWIW - You can't take the "RGT-atheist" type of position in this type of discussion. It doesn't work that way. You are making as much of an affirmative claim ("They are not logically contradictory") as much as we are ("They are logically contradictory"). So the position of "the onus is on you and I shouldn't have to do anything" is deeply flawed.

A position has been presented that shows that the two concepts are in logical contradiction with each other. If you think they are not, "the onus is on you" to provide an alternate set of definitions for which that contradiction disappears. And "the onus is on you" to defend that definition. And if you cannot do this, "the onus is on you" to accept that you cannot do this, and be willing to admit it.

I'm saying you won't seem to accept any meaning I can possibly put forth.

This is a fundamental problem of the debate itself. So far, the arguments for your position require that the compatibilists define their terms in such a way as to make choice and determinism contradictory.

You reject any definitions that don't support that. Of course I can't arbitrarily change definitions, but neither can you simply reject every definition out of hand.

Funny, I'm the one offering ideas and definitions (sometimes in a clumsy way, I admit) and you're the one rejecting them all out of hand.

Proving "they are not logically contradictory" is proving a negative. I can't take two premises and prove that they aren't contradictory.

This is why the atheist position in RGT works - because I can't disprove the existence of Zeus, doesn't suggest that Zeus exists.

It's a bit different in this case, but because I can't prove that a contradiction between premise X and premise Y doesn't exist, doesn't suggest that there is some contradiction.

Can you prove that the statement "apple trees need water" and the statement "7 + 7 = 14" do not contradict one another? If not, does that somehow imply that they do?

Of course it doesn't. The claim that these two statement don't contradict one another is not an affirmative statement. The statement that they do, is.

And you haven't presented such a position in discussion with me.

This line doesn't work! It doesn't work because there *ARE* definitions on the table which show a contradiction. You can't just say "nuh-uh" and that there exists some other definition out there and call it a day. You must provide it and support it with argumentation.

If you really think that this is equivalent to the question of "Is P in contradiction with Q" where P and Q are complete devoid of any context whatsoever, you are truly grasping at straws.

It's the same position that has been put forth repeatedly in this thread:

The concept of "choice" has no meaning under determinism. There is no "choice" if there is only one possible outcome.

You reject that definition of choice. Fine. Present another one that is consistent with the basic concept of "choosing." From Post #803:

This challenge had been clearly set forth before that post (as it's a summary of the current state of the discussion), so the position has been clear for at least 300 posts.

Maybe you have one that can be defended (it's certainly not anything you have put forth thus far), or maybe we will just come to the conclusion that we fundamentally disagree on the nature of "choice" (see my response to MrBlah).

But you can't keep playing this silly game and expect to be taken seriously. You haven't been taken seriously by ANYONE posting in this thread since around post 600-650. And here we are, over 400 posts later, and you're still going on and on and on with this nonsense.

LOL

There are definitions that take the ordinary conception of choice and arbitrarily add a new element.

If my claim is that apples are poisonous, I can't defend that claim by defining "apple" as "the usually round, red or yellow, edible fruit of a small tree, Malus sylvestris, of the rose family that is poisonous."

Similarly, you can't just append "that is possible under a particular, narrow definition of possibility" to the definition of "choice" and call it a day. Yes, there is a contradiction according to that definition, but there's no indication that any compatibilist has ever accepted such a definition.

It's logically equivalent. And I contend that P and Q have no inherent relation to one another.

Again, if you redefine the terms of my definition then there's nothing I can do. Definitions are generally designed to be broad - and a good-faith interpretation of a definition doesn't try to narrow the terms. If I define a "flooblitz" as "a carrying vessel," then any carrying vessel is a flooblitz (according to that definition). You can't jump in then and say "ah, but it's only a flooblitz if it's a narrow carrying vessel" - that was never part of my definition.

Still, I'd love to hear why "to take a course of action as a result of an internal process that enumerates and evaluates modeled actions" doesn't work. Or, since nobody likes my wordiness, "to act on an internal process that models and evaluates actions."

I haven't made any friends with my style in this thread, but that's not especially relevant.

But "the onus is on you" (or the compatibilist or whomever) to PRESENT THAT OTHER DEFINITION. You're simply playing "nuh-uh" again and again. If you want a different definition of choice, you must provide it. I don't know how much more clearly this point can be made.

LOL at this analogy. If you don't like the definitions presented, then YOU MUST PROVIDE THE DEFINITION.

What makes the process "internal"? What is an "evaluation"? What does it mean to "model"?

Who is the one who is throwing in arbitrary elements?

It's not about making friends. But it is about having an intellectually honest conversation. And I don't believe that you have been engaged in this for an extended period of time.

Gricean rules being broken ITT!

I've provided many, they've been rejected or redefined. The onus is on me to provide a definition, but if you won't accept any definition that I can offer, that's not me refusing to play ball.

It occurs within the system carrying out the action.

Some weighing or consideration of the modeled actions, on the basis of which one can be picked out.

To represent or simulate.

There's nothing arbitrary about this. It's specifically designed to encompass everything I can think of "choice" applying to while very little that "choice" seems clearly not to apply to, but not to allow easy insertion of weird notions of possibility.

Funny, I was feeling the same way about you.

The thing is that your definitions are being rejected by us providing arguments for rejecting them. It's not because we have different definitions and yours are rejected because they differ. Instead, your definitions have been accepted for the sake of argument and then analyzed. Unfortunately for you, they lead to problematic conclusions and are thereby rejected.

The problem with your contributions ITT is that you don't actually engage that analysis but rather stamp your feet and, as Aaron has put it, say "nuh uh." You aren't understanding that arguments are being provided. Consequently, you're not even engaging us in discussion since you're off just reiterating your point without argument and not engaging our arguments to the contrary. You aren't fulfilling your argumentative and conversational duties.

So if I use a scale to weigh two objects and select the heavier one, is this not a "choice" because the process is external to me?

How do you determine that such an event has occurred? If I grab toast instead of a bagel when I'm in a hurry, do I need to have "considered" the option of a bagel in order for me to have made a "decision"? If I do not "represent or simulate" the situation, does this mean that I have not made a decision?

There's plenty that's arbitrary. The questions above (which are similar to the ones asked of MrBlah) show how these arbitrary bits and pieces can sometimes lead to things being decisions (or not being decisions) that run contrary to what is normally considered to be a decision.

The more words you require in order to create the definition, the harder it is to create a coherent position. This is just a word of warning because you seem to use many words when fewer would be better.

The "problematic conclusions" they lead to are that you are wrong in your claim that choice and determinism are incompatible (and more relevantly, in your claim that compatibilists are internally contradictory).

That's the only defense you've actually made.

It's irrelevant. My definitions lead to no problematics conclusions for me and my position, and since you are claiming that my position is internally contradictory, that's all that matters.

The fact that my definitions lead to problematic conclusions for your position is just tough luck. If we were only talking about the question of compatibilism itself, we could just say we have different conceptions of choice. But since your position is based on the actual persons of the compatibilists contradicting themselves, this doesn't work.

To show that I'm contradicting myself, you need to show that my own conception of choice is incompatible with my own conception of determinism.

You are the ones simply repeating yourselves. If I don't understand your arguments, then your "argumentative duty" is to make the argument clearer.

But there are precious few real arguments in your posts. Very little of "this, therefore that." You just saying "imagine some dominoes, and one of them is red - clearly the redness of that domino has no significance." And I say "I don't think that's clear at all, nor do I think it's a relevant analogy."

And so you just repeat the analogy. That's practically the definition of saying "nuh uh." An analogy doesn't provide any concrete thought process I can analyze, so if I don't see the relevance then there is nothing I can do. Either you can construct a new analogy, or make the reasoning process explicit, or use a Socratic method, or going with some other angle.

But just repeating yourself isn't going to make me see any relevance in your domino analogy.

You are really bad at this, sir.

The "problematic conclusions" are entirely position neutral with respect to compatibilism/libertarianism.

The problems have to do with the very meaning of 'choice' and its related cognates. At each step I've been willing to assume basically all of your premises for the sake of argument and attempted to show that they lead to problematic conclusions for your own position. I've left libertarianism completely out of my argument. Go look.

It is a choice so long as you internally model and evaluate the action of selecting the heavier object. The external weighing is irrelevant to whether it's a choice or not.

That's correct.

I suspect that we do typically evaluate a set of actions and pick one when we make intuitive choices (which is why I call them "intuitive choices" and not "intuitive reflexes" or something like that), but I also think we frequently act on automatic responses to stimuli (essentially instincts, though we can technically resist our drives if we are prepared for them), and I'm sure that we act on reflex. The "instinct" and reflex responses I don't consider to be choices.

Sometimes I'm not sure whether something is a choice - is it always a choice when an alcoholic drinks alcohol? It seems likely and useful to say "yes," but I really don't claim to know.

Generally, if you grab toast I assume it's a choice (it's a convenient heuristic) - but there's a possibility that it isn't. This gets right back to the solipsism issue - I can know for sure (superficially) that I am conscious. I can never know for sure that you are conscious. Similarly, I can only ever be sure that I am choosing, other people I can't know that about (until brain science progresses a ways).

You're making assumptions about "what is normally considered to be a decision" that I don't think bear out. I think most people, for example, acknowledge that there are situations in which a person's actions are not choices (most any situation in which a person is said to be "not in control of his own actions," for example).

I'm trying to be specific, and to avoid misconceptions. And, again, to avoid having my definitions toyed with.

I'd use "selection" to define choice, the way some dictionaries do. And if I trusted my opposition, I'd be fine with that. I think clearly a chess computer "selects" its moves. Ergo, it is clear that chess computers are capable of selection, ergo that chess computers are capable of choice.

That would make my position for me.

But frankly, I expect that while, under normal conditions, you would agree that a chess computer "selects" its moves (and wouldn't oppose that language), within this thread you would claim that the computer doesn't actually "select" at all, because only one move was possible and it isn't "selection" if only one move was possible.

In other words, if I use short language, I think you'll try to hijack and interpret my language in order to suit your position. The fewer the words I use, the vaguer I am, and therefore the easier it is to misinterpret me.

There is at least one premise that you have never been willing to accept:

Choice has nothing to do with "possibility in the actual world."

I haven't seen you show any problem in my position. Aside from the "problem" that libertarians agree with my position. Which is a big problem indeed, but not for my position!

I suspect that how everything works is probably very simple (i.e. very few laws). I have no evidence for this at all.

I also suspect that all we will ever observe is qualitatively the same as we already have. This is not the same as saying that how we have interpreted what we have seen is correct.

This is just as conjectural as your point, so we should probably move on.

Wait. Ph.D. in math hates math. Kind of like me and psychology. Except that I had the balls to just leave the profession.

I am being silly, of course, but you can't discount the fact that mathematics is still evolving.

Current mathematical concepts are not strong enough to model complex interactive systems that involve change in the relationships between variables due to previous computations, right?

Your field clearly has some work to do before you can retire.

This (your imaginary atheist) has a point. It is all well and good to say something exists, but unless you can point to it and say "look, an x" or "look, the footprint of an x" you aren't really going to convince anyone. It is just a practical matter irl.

Plus the reasoning behind the scientific process is pretty robust. Any idea that can't be tested (however indirectly) is rejected immediately. Out of the ones that can be tested (even indirectly) the one that doesn't reflect reality loses.

If an idea can't be tested against reality, it either does not reflect reality or it is just a tautology.

In the end though, you are still left with just yelling across the aisle. "Nuh uh." "Uh huh." ad nauseum

It is fun to examine the possibilities though

It is also hard work to not get all RGT-ish.**

Changing just a word or ten:

This whole section was related to your claim involving the phrase "pretty likely" and how one might take that claim. You said that you don't view it as a very strong claim, which is fine. But I responded that way because I interpreted it as a very strong claim. If you say "It seems pretty likely that sushi is better than hamburger for tonight's meal" then you've made a very strong claim. It reads a lot differently from "It's not clear whether..." or "I don't know whether..." because your position plants you very firmly on one side.

The stakes make all of the difference.* Not to discount the relative value of a nice meal.

We have both proved that we (you and I, at least) are incapable of proving or disproving whether there is free will, I think.

We should, I think, agree to disagree, and go back to the motivations on taking one position or the other. Choice (not the technical definition), consciousness, and meaning would be a good start as differentiating between the two positions. Add what you will to the table.

*mmm steaks.

**I almost typed rpg-ish, which added to rpg-ish in a venn-diagram lookes like two circles that are barely out of sync.

That's not a premise though...that's a conclusion of the analysis: that choice does exhibit that feature according to your definition. That's the refutation of your definition.

If everyone unanimously agreed that determinism was true and that determinism was incompatible with choice, what do you suspect people would call the process that we currently refer to as "choosing"?

They'd call it whatever they're going to call it: what else could they do? Determinism is true!

I am tempted to try to attempt show that durka's and aaron w.'s replying to madnak's posts is sufficient to prove that there is no such thing as free will.

Nothing else could explain the replies.

This is like watching the kids in the back seat playing the "I'm not touching you" game.

But they'd probably just call it choice, right? Which might suggest that you're using 'choice' in an unusually abstract way that most people wouldn't agree with?

You haven't supported that assertion. And again, I suspect you're being disingenuous.

Even you yourself used "choice" to describe something that didn't involve that form of probability (you caught yourself and said "in a loose sense" or something like that - but a loose sense is exactly what you should be using when analyzing my definition).

You're saying they couldn't possibly use choice. Because choice must include possibility in the actual world.

So clearly, the word "choice" would die out, yes?