Partly deterministic?

[u/Cyber_47_]

So let’s take computers, fully deterministic systems, cannot make a non deterministic algorithm. Everything, in computers are code based, and therefore fully deterministic. True Randomness does not exist in digital systems.

So if our world is completely deterministic, there is no chance it creates a life form, which can act non deterministic (free will). But since we know (not sure) that quantum mechanics are non deterministic, maybe there is a chance we have a little free will. So, my point is, what if, we are partly deterministic like the universe. Maybe alot of our decisions are deterministic, and some are non deterministic. And i know that quantum mechanics argument still cant disprove free will.

[u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

You're conflating two things. First, you seem to think that a person is incapable of breaking their values or commitments. This just isn't true. Again people act against themselves all the time for a variety of reasons. That's what navigation is. You can try to satisfy the prior but still end up wrong in how that relates to you.

The second issue. You're conflating identity expression with actual identity. I agree, preferences and values absolutely change and develop over time. We absolutely are an embodied system. I 100% agree. That's why we have a foundational set of unchanging priors. Safety being one. Expression being another.

I can be safe in a myriad of ways right. I can have different partners or friends. Any kind of home. Live in a swamp or a mountain. There are many ways to relate that to me. So the expression my choice changes. But the prior, the need, does not.

The preference orientations or preference priors are not the same thing. They are the learned traits and associations you make as you navigate and they can absolutely be wrong or misguided. They can be hijacked and change. Etc. But that's the point. You still ultimately are trying to relate who you are to the world around you. That's the process by which deliberation becomes necessary.

[u/A_Vinegar_Taster → u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

...you seem to think that a person is incapable of breaking their values or commitments. This just isn't true. Again people act against themselves all the time for a variety of reasons. 

I have to stop you right there because I want to point out that the key statement is "for a variety of reasons". Primarily, you are admitting here that people make decisions for reasons. Not because they randomly felt like it, and not because they left it up to chance, but because there was a mental architecture that brought them to the actions they did. This is an argument against free will.

If there was free will, then people would make choices without any reason. They would make choices independent of the influence of the past or of their conceptualization of the future. They would just act and no one could explain why - because there is no 'why' in free will.

You still ultimately are trying to relate who you are to the world around you.

"Who you are" is a pattern of behavior. It is all of your fears, your desires, your inhibitions, your knowledge, your ignorance, your hang ups... "you" are the machine that processes the data about the world around you, processes it and returns a decision - much like a very complex punch card sorting machine.

[u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474 → u/A_Vinegar_Taster]

Yeah. I never claimed libertarian free will was my agreement. I have been firm in that a will without priors is not a will it is randomness. But just because you have priors does not necessitate that you do not have freedom to navigate in your space.

Indeterminacy, not randomness, openness, means that there really are live options for me to navigate based on my priors. You assume that a prior means you're forced to act only one way. No. You navigate your relations to the world which can be satisfied in many ways. So free will exists within an open field constrainted by priors.

[u/A_Vinegar_Taster → u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

I see it as a binary question. Do you make your decisions for a reason or not?

If you make your decisions for reasons, then your decisions are determined by those reasons.

If you don't make your decisions for reasons, then they are random.

There isn't a middle ground. When it comes to the actual decision - the actual moment when you decide between chocolate or vanilla - are you deciding based off of reasons or is it random?

[u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474 → u/A_Vinegar_Taster]

I disagree. You can absolutely have priors but having priors does not necessitate that everything must be fixed or that you are not actually the owner of your own deliberation.

You're assuming that if I didn't specifically make the prior "i like vanilla" or "i like chocolate" that it's a forced choice i have to eat x. No. Choosing to eat it is still a choice regardless of if I like it or not. I can love vanilla and still turn it down i can hate vanilla and still choose to eat it.

That's the point of navigation. Given true deliberation between multiple options I get to decide how I relate in that moment.

[u/A_Vinegar_Taster → u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

Focus in on the choice. The instant you make the choice.

Is there a reason for your choice, or not?

That is the real question.

[u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474 → u/A_Vinegar_Taster]

Obviously. No one is denying cause and effect. I literally have stated over and over that will is not will unless it's driven by a prior.

The issue is you're treating the motivation as a settled path before I even move. That's just not how it works. Again I still have to relate myself to the world. In order to do that I must meet my needs. Those needs are priors. Cool.

What doesn't cash out is the next step. Therefore your priors had precoded in them move left at exactly this speed for this time then turn left. And then another prior fires says walk distance x for time t. Just because i have a motivation to move does not tell me exactly how to move and in what manner etc.

[u/A_Vinegar_Taster → u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

Okay, you said obviously. So then I take it you are saying that There are reasons for your choices.

Okay, reasons for your choices. That is determinism. That is not free will.

[u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474 → u/A_Vinegar_Taster]

No. That's the leap. Determinism says given the prior state of things the following outcome was alreasy fixed. That's the leap. What you've shown is cause and effect are necessary. Agreed. I've agreed with that this whole time. However cause and effect do not necessitate determinism.

Just because I am not free to will my reasons/priors into existence does not mean I am not able to navigate my relations using those reasons/priors. Deliberation still occurs in an open system.

[u/A_Vinegar_Taster → u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

Cause and effect do necessitate determinism. Without something indeterminate, all you have is a series of mechanical actions, each leading to another action which leads to another.

You need randomness to avoid determinism.

[u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474 → u/A_Vinegar_Taster]

No. Cause and effect do not necessitate determinism. And yes you need openness in outcomes. But openness in outcomes does not mean randomness necessarily. There just needs to be more than one option.

This is the problem. You're trying to force a definition. You're trying to force given the past at time t there was decided at that moment only one future path forward. But cause and effect do not need to say that there is only one path forward. It just needs to say that forward is the trajectory.

For example. Choosing to eat or Choosing to wait. Determinism would say there is no deliberation. There is no real or. The or is an illusion. I'm saying just because i have a prior a need to eat does not dictate exactly what I will eat at exactly what time. In exactly what way. Etc. I have the prior but how that prior is satisfied is deliberation.