I agree that this is what most people think, but it is a mistake.
I don’t agree to leave Newcomb aside in considering this, because my position is that they are the same problem. If I have no choice in the smoking lesion, I have no choice in Newcomb.
Consider the Newcomb case.
I exist, and my brain and body are in a certain condition. I did not put them in that condition. I cannot make them not have been in that condition.
Omega looks at me. Using the condition of my brain and body—conditions over which I have no control whatsoever—he determines whether I am going to choose one box or two boxes. He has 100% accuracy, and this implies that the situation is completely determined by the condition of my brain and body.
In other words, “the condition of my brain and body” functions exactly like the lesion. It completely “predetermines” the outcome. If I have no choice in the lesion case, I have no choice in Newcomb.
Nonetheless, I say I have a choice in Newcomb, because the condition of my brain and body imply that I will engage in a certain process of reasoning, considering the alternatives of one boxing and two boxing, and choose one of them.
Likewise, I have a choice in the lesion case, because the lesion implies that I will engage in a certain process of reasoning, considering the alternatives of smoking and not smoking, and choose one of them.
In both cases, the outcome is predetermined. In both cases, the outcome is the result of a choice that results from a process of thought.
I don’t agree to leave Newcomb aside in considering this, because my position is that they are the same problem.
If they are the same problem, you shouldn’t care about leaving one aside. The smoking lesion is a simpler and clearer problem because it doesn’t need to postulate a supernatural entity.
In other words, “the condition of my brain and body” functions exactly like the lesion. It completely “predetermines” the outcome.
So you’re a determinist. OK.
Nonetheless, I say I have a choice in Newcomb, because the condition of my brain and body imply that I will engage in a certain process of reasoning, considering the alternatives of one boxing and two boxing, and choose one of them.
That, to me, doesn’t follow at all. You don’t choose, you’re just an automaton going through the motions. It is, as you say, similar to the lesion—there might well be complicated intermediate steps but there is no choice involved. You literally do not have a choice.
In which way your choice is different from the choice of a calculator which also goes through a bunch of processes before deciding to output 4 as a response to 2+2?
This is all in the context of discussing Newcomb and the smoking lesion. It is possible that libertarian free will is true. If it is, neither Newcomb nor the smoking lesion is possible in the real world, at least in the 100% way.
So I do not assert that determinism is necessarily true (although I do not know that it is not). But if it is true, it is equally true in Newcomb and in the smoking lesion, and if it is false, it is equally false in both cases.
The situation is different from the calculator because the calculator does not consider various possible answers, but just calculates a single answer directly. However, the determinist choice would be similar to a chess computer, which considers various possible moves, but still computes a determinate outcome.
This is all in the context of discussing Newcomb and the smoking lesion. It is possible that libertarian free will is true. If it is, neither Newcomb nor the smoking lesion is possible in the real world, at least in the 100% way.
Hold on. Are you saying that determinism is a precondition, an axiom built into the formulation of the Newcomb and the lesion problems? That they make no sense unless you accept determinism?
Besides, I don’t think Newcomb is possible in the real world anyway since, again, it requires a supernatural entity.
The situation is different from the calculator because the calculator does not consider various possible answers, but just calculates a single answer directly. However, the determinist choice would be similar to a chess computer
This implies that the gap between a chess computer and a human is smaller than a gap between a calculator and a chess computer. I am not sure I’m willing to accept that :-/
Yes, I am saying that 100% predictive accuracy does not make sense apart from determinism. I agree that lower degrees of accuracy could happen without complete determinism. Even lower degrees of accuracy would not necessarily change my decision in the scenarios (although it would change the decision once the degree of accuracy became too low.)
I agree with you about the gap between humans, calculators, and chess computers. I am just saying that “making a choice” just implies considering several possibilities before selecting one of them. So it isn’t true that “you don’t have a choice” if you consider several possibilities, even if there are reasons why you will definitely choose a particular one.
So for example, even if determinism is false, I am quite sure that I am not going to kill myself tomorrow. That doesn’t change the fact that it is one possibility that I could consider. So I have a choice between killing myself and not killing myself, even though I know which one I am going to choose.
I am just saying that “making a choice” just implies considering several possibilities before selecting one of them. So it isn’t true that “you don’t have a choice” if you consider several possibilities,
That’s a straightforward logical fallacy. You’re saying “If A then B, therefore if B then A” where A=”making a choice” and B=”considering several possibilities”.
Besides, you just moved the heavy-lifting part to the word “considering”. If I’m going to count to 3, whether I will consider 2 or 4 (five is right out) is quite irrelevant because I will count to 3 regardless.
A considered alternative is one you could choose, but in the situation we’re talking about you could not (since your choice is predetermined). And in this case, it’s merely something your attention slides over before settling on the inevitable.
I am saying “making a choice” is nothing more and nothing less than “considering two or more possibilities and selecting one of them.” Each one implies the other.
If you are planning to count to three, you do not consider stopping at two, so there is no choice.
Your objection is that there are not really two or more possibilities, but only one. But that is not the way consideration works. When you consider two possible choices, they are both possible as far as you know, since you do not know which one you are going to choose. So from your point of view, you are making a choice, even if more fundamentally something is determining which choice you are making.
I’m not sure what you mean by “a choice from an external point of view.” Other people can see that you considered several possibilities and selected one of them. It may be (if this deterministic theory is true) that someone can figure out in advance which one you are going to select, and perhaps that person wouldn’t describe it as a choice. That’s just a question of how they are using the word.
I’m not sure what you mean by “a choice from an external point of view.”
The usual—e.g. in the “perfect predictor” version of the Newcomb problem you might think you’re making a choice, but Omega knows what you are going to choose and so from its point of view (“external” to you) you don’t actually have a choice and will do what you are predetermined to do.
In any case, we’ve dug down to the more or less standard free-will debate...
I agree that this is what most people think, but it is a mistake.
I don’t agree to leave Newcomb aside in considering this, because my position is that they are the same problem. If I have no choice in the smoking lesion, I have no choice in Newcomb.
Consider the Newcomb case.
I exist, and my brain and body are in a certain condition. I did not put them in that condition. I cannot make them not have been in that condition.
Omega looks at me. Using the condition of my brain and body—conditions over which I have no control whatsoever—he determines whether I am going to choose one box or two boxes. He has 100% accuracy, and this implies that the situation is completely determined by the condition of my brain and body.
In other words, “the condition of my brain and body” functions exactly like the lesion. It completely “predetermines” the outcome. If I have no choice in the lesion case, I have no choice in Newcomb.
Nonetheless, I say I have a choice in Newcomb, because the condition of my brain and body imply that I will engage in a certain process of reasoning, considering the alternatives of one boxing and two boxing, and choose one of them.
Likewise, I have a choice in the lesion case, because the lesion implies that I will engage in a certain process of reasoning, considering the alternatives of smoking and not smoking, and choose one of them.
In both cases, the outcome is predetermined. In both cases, the outcome is the result of a choice that results from a process of thought.
If they are the same problem, you shouldn’t care about leaving one aside. The smoking lesion is a simpler and clearer problem because it doesn’t need to postulate a supernatural entity.
So you’re a determinist. OK.
That, to me, doesn’t follow at all. You don’t choose, you’re just an automaton going through the motions. It is, as you say, similar to the lesion—there might well be complicated intermediate steps but there is no choice involved. You literally do not have a choice.
In which way your choice is different from the choice of a calculator which also goes through a bunch of processes before deciding to output 4 as a response to 2+2?
This is all in the context of discussing Newcomb and the smoking lesion. It is possible that libertarian free will is true. If it is, neither Newcomb nor the smoking lesion is possible in the real world, at least in the 100% way.
So I do not assert that determinism is necessarily true (although I do not know that it is not). But if it is true, it is equally true in Newcomb and in the smoking lesion, and if it is false, it is equally false in both cases.
The situation is different from the calculator because the calculator does not consider various possible answers, but just calculates a single answer directly. However, the determinist choice would be similar to a chess computer, which considers various possible moves, but still computes a determinate outcome.
Hold on. Are you saying that determinism is a precondition, an axiom built into the formulation of the Newcomb and the lesion problems? That they make no sense unless you accept determinism?
Besides, I don’t think Newcomb is possible in the real world anyway since, again, it requires a supernatural entity.
This implies that the gap between a chess computer and a human is smaller than a gap between a calculator and a chess computer. I am not sure I’m willing to accept that :-/
Yes, I am saying that 100% predictive accuracy does not make sense apart from determinism. I agree that lower degrees of accuracy could happen without complete determinism. Even lower degrees of accuracy would not necessarily change my decision in the scenarios (although it would change the decision once the degree of accuracy became too low.)
I agree with you about the gap between humans, calculators, and chess computers. I am just saying that “making a choice” just implies considering several possibilities before selecting one of them. So it isn’t true that “you don’t have a choice” if you consider several possibilities, even if there are reasons why you will definitely choose a particular one.
So for example, even if determinism is false, I am quite sure that I am not going to kill myself tomorrow. That doesn’t change the fact that it is one possibility that I could consider. So I have a choice between killing myself and not killing myself, even though I know which one I am going to choose.
That’s a straightforward logical fallacy. You’re saying “If A then B, therefore if B then A” where A=”making a choice” and B=”considering several possibilities”.
Besides, you just moved the heavy-lifting part to the word “considering”. If I’m going to count to 3, whether I will consider 2 or 4 (five is right out) is quite irrelevant because I will count to 3 regardless.
A considered alternative is one you could choose, but in the situation we’re talking about you could not (since your choice is predetermined). And in this case, it’s merely something your attention slides over before settling on the inevitable.
I am saying “making a choice” is nothing more and nothing less than “considering two or more possibilities and selecting one of them.” Each one implies the other.
If you are planning to count to three, you do not consider stopping at two, so there is no choice.
Your objection is that there are not really two or more possibilities, but only one. But that is not the way consideration works. When you consider two possible choices, they are both possible as far as you know, since you do not know which one you are going to choose. So from your point of view, you are making a choice, even if more fundamentally something is determining which choice you are making.
Ah, so you’re defining the expression “making a choice” as “considering and selecting”. OK.
Am I making a choice from an external point of view?
I’m not sure what you mean by “a choice from an external point of view.” Other people can see that you considered several possibilities and selected one of them. It may be (if this deterministic theory is true) that someone can figure out in advance which one you are going to select, and perhaps that person wouldn’t describe it as a choice. That’s just a question of how they are using the word.
The usual—e.g. in the “perfect predictor” version of the Newcomb problem you might think you’re making a choice, but Omega knows what you are going to choose and so from its point of view (“external” to you) you don’t actually have a choice and will do what you are predetermined to do.
In any case, we’ve dug down to the more or less standard free-will debate...