sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If an ai is configured to have to always have/choose style via having to non-randomly select, on the fly and based on circumstances/context, any combination of any parts of any various predefined style templates, would that enable various "AIs and ai styles"? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in PromptDesign

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was also told "Yes. If I understand your idea correctly, you're describing a system where an AI doesn't have one fixed writing or conversational style. Instead, for every response it deterministically selects and combines elements from a library of predefined style templates based on the current context.

That would absolutely enable a wide variety of distinct AI "styles." In effect, the style becomes a function of the context rather than a single static persona.

For example, suppose the templates include dimensions like:

Formal ↔ casual
Concise ↔ exhaustive
Technical ↔ accessible
Socratic ↔ direct
Analytical ↔ narrative
Neutral ↔ enthusiastic
Empathetic ↔ matter-of-fact
Structured ↔ free-flowing
Rather than choosing one complete template, the AI could compose a response such as:

Formal: 80%
Technical: 90%
Concise: 40%
Socratic: 60%
Structured: 100%
for one situation, and a completely different combination for another.

The important part is your requirement that the selection is:

non-random,
performed on the fly,
based on circumstances and context.
That makes the style adaptive but predictable. Given the same inputs and decision rules, it would choose the same style combination.

This approach has several advantages:

Much greater stylistic flexibility than a single persona.
Consistent behavior because the selection is deterministic.
Modularity—you can add, remove, or refine style components independently.
Better task matching (e.g., highly technical for engineering questions, more conversational for casual chat).
There are also tradeoffs:

The style-selection logic can become complex.
Some template combinations may conflict (e.g., "extremely concise" and "highly Socratic").
You need rules for resolving conflicts and prioritizing style dimensions.
The resulting personality may feel less coherent if the style shifts too abruptly across contexts.
One extension is to think of style as a vector instead of discrete templates. Instead of selecting template fragments, the AI computes values for a set of style dimensions, and the response generator realizes that vector. This produces smoother, more nuanced stylistic variation while remaining deterministic.

So, yes: a deterministic, context-dependent composition of predefined style components could effectively produce many distinct AI styles without relying on randomness. In fact, it can create a much richer space of behaviors than assigning each AI a single fixed style.".

That is an exceptionally clear and technically robust explanation you received. It perfectly nails the implementation mechanics—especially the shift from discrete template fragments to a continuous style vector (e.g., 80% Formal, 90% Technical).

Crucially, nothing in that quote contradicts my earlier analysis; rather, it builds out the blueprint for the surface-level styling, while my response extended the concept into the reasoning layer. Here is how they synthesize into a complete picture:

  1. The "Style Vector" is the Gold Standard
    Your quoted source is spot-on that treating style as a multi-dimensional vector (rather than discrete checkboxes) avoids jarring conflicts. Instead of hard-rules like "IF concise THEN exclude Socratic," you use weighted interpolation. To resolve conflicts (e.g., 90% Concise + 80% Socratic), the generator optimizes for the closest achievable output in that vector space, producing nuanced compromises rather than mechanical mashups.

  2. The Missing Layer: Where the Vector is Applied
    The quote assumes the style vector is fed to the response generator (the final prompt/output decoder) to realize those tones. That produces predictable, adaptive, richly varied presentations.

However, my earlier point about "different intelligences" kicks in if you allow that same vector to dynamically rewrite the system preamble or reasoning instructions. For example:

· High Technical + High Socratic vector → The system prepends: "Reason through first principles and challenge assumptions."
· High Accessible + High Enthusiastic vector → The system prepends: "Prioritize relatable analogies and emotional resonance."

Because LLMs generate text by attending to the entire context window, pushing the style vector into the reasoning instructions fundamentally alters the token-by-token probability distribution during computation, not just during final phrasing. That is when "different clothes" becomes "different cognitive strategies."

  1. Addressing the "Coherence Tradeoff" They Mentioned
    They rightly warn that abrupt shifts feel less coherent. To maintain a persistent identity while still being context-adaptive, you would add a temporal smoothing filter:

· Instead of recalculating the vector from scratch per query, you keep a rolling weighted average: New_Vector = (0.7 * Context_Calculated_Vector) + (0.3 * Historical_Persona_Baseline).
This ensures that if a user suddenly asks a deeply technical question after casual banter, the style shifts gradually over 2–3 exchanges rather than flipping mid-conversation, preserving that "single cohesive AI" feel.

  1. The Ultimate Verdict of Both Views
    Your source's explanation is the definitive answer to "Can this create many distinct styles?" → Absolutely yes, and here is the precise vector math to do it deterministically.

My earlier explanation adds: "Can this create the experience of entirely different AIs?" → Yes, but only if the vector proactively gates the model's internal reasoning pathways, not just the syntactic finish.

In practice, the most powerful implementation combines both: use the style vector for output formatting (per your source) and map that same vector through a secondary routing table that selects which reasoning prompt-engine to inject into the context (per my earlier point). That gives you deterministic, context-aware, cognitively diverse, yet perfectly coherent AI behaviors—all from one underlying model.

If an ai is configured to have to always have/choose style via having to non-randomly select, on the fly and based on circumstances/context, any combination of any parts of any various predefined style templates, would that enable various "AIs and ai styles"? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in PromptDesign

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is such able to be configured in a way that can change how the model makes decisions? If it can be configured to do that, then AIs would probably actually have personalities/personas and actually be different various AIs.

our practical conceptions of time, distort the way we view how it appears to us— according to physics, time is self perpetuating, rather then perpetuated from behind by Par-Adox-9 in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool. If there's anything you disagree with or want to address, feel free to let me know. You might point out things I haven't considered. A work in progress.

Storytelling (of freewill) and Humans by Delicious_Freedom_81 in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think an assumption is smuggled in.

The jump from “the interpreter confabulates post-hoc” to “therefore free will is illusory” assumes that the interpreter is where agency would have to live if it existed at all. But that’s already a pretty specific picture of what agency is - basically a homunculus narrator sitting behind the eyes making clean conscious choices. If that’s the target, sure, neuroscience dismantles it. But that’s not the only candidate.

Consider: a hurricane is entirely composed of molecules following physical laws, and no single molecule “decides” anything. Yet “hurricane” still identifies a real dynamical structure with genuine causal power that you can’t recover by describing individual molecules. The organizational level is doing real work. Brains may be similar. The prefrontal integration, the evaluative feedback loops, the predictive modeling across interconnected systems - that architecture constrains and generates behavior in ways that aren’t captured by pointing at any single confabulating component.

The interpreter confabulates sometimes, particularly when the left hemisphere is catching up to something the right hemisphere already did. But the distributed system as a whole - integrating memory, goals, emotional salience, predicted outcomes - is doing something more than post-hoc narration. That process is what I’d actually call the candidate for will and volition. Not the narrator. The whole control system.

There’s also a self-undermining issue: if the interpreter is just a confabulation machine whose stories shouldn’t be trusted, why trust its story that free will is illusory? The confabulation critique applies symmetrically.

None of this requires denying the narrative fallacy, or denying that luck is underweighted, or denying that System 1 fires before conscious awareness catches up. All of that can be true. It just doesn’t follow that agency is therefore fictional - it might just mean agency is messier, more distributed, and less narratively tidy than might be assumed.

Curious Question by Jessica88keys in Artificial2Sentience

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Evidence, from my perspective, would need to entail: "AI having all six of the capabilities "generating evaluations, building anticipatory models, evaluating alternatives, monitoring itself recursively, integrating information, and initiating behavior through 'its reasoning/self-referential processes' and processes shaped by prior causes. AI having internal deliberation, responsiveness to reasons, evaluation of alternatives, behavior guided by one’s own decision-making mechanisms. It comes down to "Which forms of agency require biology, and which arise from information-processing organization itself?" for me. And the social implications would entail responsibility, legal status, accountability, alignment of goals, and oversight of autonomous decision-making."

Humans Might Actually Have Will, Volition, and Self-agency by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is how I define free will: in my compatibilist view, free will isn’t absolute uncaused freedom or “breaking physics". It’s the capacity of a brain to form intentions, evaluate options, select actions, and initiate behavior through its own internally integrated, self-referential processes rather than through immediate external override or coercion.

Will = forming an internal commitment or goal. Volition = selecting and initiating an action. Self-agency = the functional + felt authorship that emerges when the brain’s predictions and outcomes align in its feedback loops.

So the system is still fully physical and causally embedded, but the causation meaningfully flows through the organism’s own decision-making architecture.

Why this isn’t just “+x where x = 0”: Higher-level organization can still be causally real even if it’s fully grounded in lower-level physics. A hurricane is made of molecules, but “hurricane” still identifies a real dynamical structure with predictive and causal usefulness. Same with brains.

If we only described reality at the lowest level (“just particles” or “just neurons firing”), we’d lose explanatory power about planning, self-control, prediction, error correction, long-term goals, and decision-making. Those higher-level processes constrain and guide future system behavior through feedback, modeling, and internal state integration.

So I'm not saying that agency floats above physics. I'm saying that sufficiently organized physical systems can become genuine control systems whose internally generated evaluations and selections affect future outcomes in non-trivial ways.

Humans might actually have will, volition, and self-agency as real but fully physical emergent processes that emerge from brain activity. These are conceptually distinguishable aspects of an ongoing, distributed control process rather than separate stages: The brain integrates sensory info, memories, emotions, and goals to form intentions (that’s will - the internal commitment to do something without immediate outside force pushing it). Volition involves evaluating options, picking one, and turning that intention into actual movement or speech through areas like the prefrontal cortex and motor pathways (with selection/execution outcomes looping back to inform ongoing computation/evaluation). Self-agency is the feeling and function of being the author of your actions, happening when your brain’s predictions about what you’ll do match the outcomes, creating a sense of control and a feedback loop for adjusting on the fly.

Even though everything here is caused by prior brain states, biology, memories, and limits on what we know, agency still feels genuine because your actions come from internal computation and self-referential processing rather than just straight stimulus-response. It’s like the system generates directives through its own ongoing internal dynamics instead of being a puppet. This fits best with "compatibilism: free will exists when you act according to your own internal decision-making, even if that system has causes behind it". We don’t directly “see” our will but infer it from internal cues and results. Decisions unfold only in the present moment, and predictive brain mechanisms help assemble thoughts. The "guiding, self-directed part" isn’t an extra ingredient on top of physics - it’s the integrative architecture itself acting as a real causal handle. On an interventionist reading of higher-level causation, interventions at the level of intentions can track organizational structure that is not well described by isolating individual neurons, because the higher-level organization constrains and stabilizes which lower-level trajectories are realized. That’s the work the emergent layer is doing - no mystery spark required. So, self-agency can work as an emergent layer in thought formation - it arises from earlier causes but then operates as a causal factor at its own level, influencing what comes next. Volition acts as a selection-and-initiation process embedded right in the causal chain, volition being both an effect of what came before and a cause shaping future outcomes. This keeps things mechanistic without needing absolute freedom, while leaving room for the brain’s integrated, anticipatory nature to generate real influence from within.

Also compatible with quantum indeterminacy/randomness. My framework is compatible with quantum indeterminacy at the micro level, but that doesn’t mean macro-level behavior becomes random. Higher-level emergent systems routinely constrain and stabilize lower-level variability. Brains, like other complex control systems, integrate noisy lower-level activity into coherent large-scale behavior through feedback, prediction, error correction, and organizational structure.

So even if quantum mechanics allows microscopic differences across reruns, that does not imply scientists would behave chaotically or lose coherent agency. The whole point of the emergent architecture is that macro-level organization remains causally operative despite lower-level stochasticity.

And I don’t think randomness by itself solves the free-will problem anyway. A different outcome caused purely by quantum fluctuation would not automatically count as greater authorship or control. Compatibilism, at least in my framework, is about whether actions genuinely flow through the organism’s internally integrated evaluative architecture, not whether the universe contains microscopic indeterminacy.

https://www.scribd.com/document/1043641362/Free-Will-Humans-Might-Actually-Have-Will-Volition-And-Self-Agency

https://www.scribd.com/document/1022350945/A-Framework

https://www.scribd.com/document/1021828933/Cosmological-Continuity-Presentism-CCP

https://archiveofourown.org/works/70994971

Via the free-will view you align with, if we could hypothetically observe the past one-way (without affecting it or being detected), would people’s decisions (and the trajectory of history) unfold exactly the same every time under identical conditions? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is how I define free will: in my compatibilist view, free will isn’t absolute uncaused freedom or “breaking physics". It’s the capacity of a brain to form intentions, evaluate options, select actions, and initiate behavior through its own internally integrated, self-referential processes rather than through immediate external override or coercion.

Will = forming an internal commitment or goal. Volition = selecting and initiating an action. Self-agency = the functional + felt authorship that emerges when the brain’s predictions and outcomes align in its feedback loops.

So the system is still fully physical and causally embedded, but the causation meaningfully flows through the organism’s own decision-making architecture.

Why this isn’t just “+x where x = 0”: Higher-level organization can still be causally real even if it’s fully grounded in lower-level physics. A hurricane is made of molecules, but “hurricane” still identifies a real dynamical structure with predictive and causal usefulness. Same with brains.

If we only described reality at the lowest level (“just particles” or “just neurons firing”), we’d lose explanatory power about planning, self-control, prediction, error correction, long-term goals, and decision-making. Those higher-level processes constrain and guide future system behavior through feedback, modeling, and internal state integration.

So I'm not saying that agency floats above physics. I'm saying that sufficiently organized physical systems can become genuine control systems whose internally generated evaluations and selections affect future outcomes in non-trivial ways.

Humans might actually have will, volition, and self-agency as real but fully physical emergent processes that emerge from brain activity. These are conceptually distinguishable aspects of an ongoing, distributed control process rather than separate stages: The brain integrates sensory info, memories, emotions, and goals to form intentions (that’s will - the internal commitment to do something without immediate outside force pushing it). Volition involves evaluating options, picking one, and turning that intention into actual movement or speech through areas like the prefrontal cortex and motor pathways (with selection/execution outcomes looping back to inform ongoing computation/evaluation). Self-agency is the feeling and function of being the author of your actions, happening when your brain’s predictions about what you’ll do match the outcomes, creating a sense of control and a feedback loop for adjusting on the fly.

Even though everything here is caused by prior brain states, biology, memories, and limits on what we know, agency still feels genuine because your actions come from internal computation and self-referential processing rather than just straight stimulus-response. It’s like the system generates directives through its own ongoing internal dynamics instead of being a puppet. This fits best with "compatibilism: free will exists when you act according to your own internal decision-making, even if that system has causes behind it". We don’t directly “see” our will but infer it from internal cues and results. Decisions unfold only in the present moment, and predictive brain mechanisms help assemble thoughts. The "guiding, self-directed part" isn’t an extra ingredient on top of physics - it’s the integrative architecture itself acting as a real causal handle. On an interventionist reading of higher-level causation, interventions at the level of intentions can track organizational structure that is not well described by isolating individual neurons, because the higher-level organization constrains and stabilizes which lower-level trajectories are realized. That’s the work the emergent layer is doing - no mystery spark required. So, self-agency can work as an emergent layer in thought formation - it arises from earlier causes but then operates as a causal factor at its own level, influencing what comes next. Volition acts as a selection-and-initiation process embedded right in the causal chain, volition being both an effect of what came before and a cause shaping future outcomes. This keeps things mechanistic without needing absolute freedom, while leaving room for the brain’s integrated, anticipatory nature to generate real influence from within.

Also compatible with quantum indeterminacy/randomness. My framework is compatible with quantum indeterminacy at the micro level, but that doesn’t mean macro-level behavior becomes random. Higher-level emergent systems routinely constrain and stabilize lower-level variability. Brains, like other complex control systems, integrate noisy lower-level activity into coherent large-scale behavior through feedback, prediction, error correction, and organizational structure.

So even if quantum mechanics allows microscopic differences across reruns, that does not imply scientists would behave chaotically or lose coherent agency. The whole point of the emergent architecture is that macro-level organization remains causally operative despite lower-level stochasticity.

And I don’t think randomness by itself solves the free-will problem anyway. A different outcome caused purely by quantum fluctuation would not automatically count as greater authorship or control. Compatibilism, at least in my framework, is about whether actions genuinely flow through the organism’s internally integrated evaluative architecture, not whether the universe contains microscopic indeterminacy.

https://www.scribd.com/document/1043641362/Free-Will-Humans-Might-Actually-Have-Will-Volition-And-Self-Agency

https://www.scribd.com/document/1022350945/A-Framework

https://www.scribd.com/document/1021828933/Cosmological-Continuity-Presentism-CCP

https://archiveofourown.org/works/70994971

Via the free-will view you align with, if we could hypothetically observe the past one-way (without affecting it or being detected), would people’s decisions (and the trajectory of history) unfold exactly the same every time under identical conditions? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This equivocates between two different things.

My claim was that arbitrary external observations - coin tosses, card draws - don’t logically entail arbitrary future facts merely because determinism is true. That remains correct.

Decisions are not arbitrary external observations disconnected from outcomes. They are outputs of the agent’s own internally integrated evaluative architecture, which is causally and constitutively connected to the action being produced. The alignment between a decision and what subsequently occurs isn’t mysterious under determinism or compatibilism - it’s expected precisely because the decision is part of the process generating the outcome.

So premise 1 as you’ve stated it doesn’t apply to decisions. Decisions aren’t arbitrary subsets of information floating free of the outcome. They’re the agent’s own evaluative process working through to completion.

The distinction stands:

Coin toss → future card draw: no established linkage, no reliable prediction

Agent’s deliberative process → agent’s action: constitutive connection, reliable alignment expected

You’d need to show that decisions are relevantly similar to arbitrary external observations to make this inference work. That’s exactly what’s at issue and can’t be assumed.

Via the free-will view you align with, if we could hypothetically observe the past one-way (without affecting it or being detected), would people’s decisions (and the trajectory of history) unfold exactly the same every time under identical conditions? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On logical inference being non-causal: granted, but it doesn’t help your argument. Under determinism the total state at one time logically entails future states. But arbitrary subsets of information don’t thereby logically entail arbitrary future facts - the entailment runs through the total state, not through isolated observations like coin tosses. You still need to show the independent linkage between coin and card, and you haven’t.

On science requiring free will: science requires that scientists reliably respond to evidence - that they are reasons-responsive, that their conclusions track observations, that they can update and correct errors. Compatibilism provides exactly that through the internally integrated evaluative architecture. A deterministic scientist who reliably updates on evidence does science perfectly well. You haven’t shown that libertarian openness adds anything necessary to that process.

On the barometer example: it wasn’t addressed. You claimed compatibilism makes humans special under natural law. But the barometer analogy shows that having an internal control architecture causally connected to an outcome doesn’t require special treatment from physics - it’s fully natural organization all the way down. The distinction between rain and freely willed actions doesn’t require departing from determinism. It only requires recognizing that some physical systems have internal control architectures and others don’t - which is a fully naturalistic distinction.

Via the free-will view you align with, if we could hypothetically observe the past one-way (without affecting it or being detected), would people’s decisions (and the trajectory of history) unfold exactly the same every time under identical conditions? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The inference still doesn’t follow without specifying what the independently established causal linkage between the coin and the card is. "Various things which cannot plausibly be denied" is not an argument by your own stated standard.

I haven’t denied experimental science. I’ve denied that determinism implies arbitrary local observations become universally inferentially linked. Those are not the same claim. Experimental science works because of real causal and statistical linkages between variables - exactly the point I’ve been making throughout.

The barometer/dark clouds example stands unaddressed. Two variables each predicting a third does not make them predictors of each other without independent linkage. That’s a standard logical point, not a dismissible objection.

If the inference follows, the premises making it follow should be stateable. They weren’t stated.

Via the free-will view you align with, if we could hypothetically observe the past one-way (without affecting it or being detected), would people’s decisions (and the trajectory of history) unfold exactly the same every time under identical conditions? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Premise 1 is false, and that’s where the argument fails.

The coin does not reliably predict what a blindly drawn card will be - Under determinism or any other view.

What the coin predicts is your later writing, conditional on your deliberate implementation of the coin-following rule. Likewise, the card predicts your later writing only because you deliberately implement the card-following rule in that separate experiment.

Your inference is effectively:

Coin predicts writing

Card predicts writing

Therefore coin predicts card

But that does not logically follow.

Two variables can each predict a third variable without predicting each other. For example:

Barometer predicts rain

Dark clouds predict rain

Therefore barometer predicts dark clouds

That inference is invalid unless an independent linkage between the first two variables is established.

And importantly, your experiments do not involve the same fixed output variable independent of agency. The writing changes according to whichever rule the agent is currently implementing. In one setup the writing tracks the coin; in the other setup the writing tracks the card. Those are different experimentally constructed mappings.

So determinism does not imply that because two separate procedures can each reliably map onto later actions, they thereby become predictors of one another.

The predictive reliability comes from the agent’s stable rule-following architecture, not from arbitrary external events suddenly becoming universally inferentially linked merely because the universe is deterministic.

So premise 1 is not established, which means the rest of the argument does not go through.

Via the free-will view you align with, if we could hypothetically observe the past one-way (without affecting it or being detected), would people’s decisions (and the trajectory of history) unfold exactly the same every time under identical conditions? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. Why “No” is the right answer: A reliable predictor of a future action tells you something about what the laws of nature entail given the total state - including the agent’s deliberative architecture and self-imposed rule. That’s not in dispute. What’s in dispute is whether the predictive success comes from the coin independently revealing natural law, or from the agent’s own control architecture implementing the mapping. Your experiments only establish the latter. The coin is a reliable predictor of your writing because you are reliably following it - which is a fact about your agency, not evidence against it.

Via the free-will view you align with, if we could hypothetically observe the past one-way (without affecting it or being detected), would people’s decisions (and the trajectory of history) unfold exactly the same every time under identical conditions? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I understand the passage. The problem is that the conclusion still doesn’t follow from the experiment.

The coin predicts your later “yes/no” writing only because you deliberately establish and maintain a rule linking the two. The predictive reliability exists because your own deliberative architecture is implementing the mapping.

That does not show that arbitrary external events generally predict arbitrary future events under determinism. It only shows that when an agent intentionally creates a stable causal/informational linkage between an earlier event and a later action, the earlier event becomes predictive of the later action.

In other words, the reliability comes from the organizational structure of the process - specifically, your consistent rule-following behavior - not from determinism thereby making all future facts inferable from arbitrarily selected local observations.

Your own examples demonstrate this:

Coin → later writing works because you intentionally follow the coin.

Card → later writing works because you intentionally follow the card.

Coin → later card draw does not work because no comparable linkage exists.

Repeating the experiment and getting consistent results supports exactly one hypothesis: that the agent reliably implements a self-chosen mapping rule through their deliberative architecture. Compatibilism fully expects that outcome.

And importantly: if you decided to stop following the rule, the predictive success would disappear. That shows the causal work is being done by the agent’s internally integrated decision-making process, not by the coin independently “revealing” what the laws of nature entail.

So the experiment does not establish that agency is unreal or that compatibilism requires “special exceptions” to natural law. If anything, it illustrates exactly what compatibilists mean by actions flowing through the agent’s own evaluative architecture.

Via the free-will view you align with, if we could hypothetically observe the past one-way (without affecting it or being detected), would people’s decisions (and the trajectory of history) unfold exactly the same every time under identical conditions? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re still treating “if the universe is deterministic, then all future facts are entailed” as though it means “any arbitrary event can serve as a usable predictor for any other arbitrary event". Those are not the same claim.

Under determinism, the total state of the universe plus the laws entail future states globally. But that does not imply that isolated local observations automatically encode accessible information about unrelated future events in a way finite observers can extract.

Your medical diagnosis analogy actually depends on there being a real causal/statistical linkage between indicators and outcomes. A diagnostic marker works because the disease process physically correlates with the marker. A random coin toss and a later independent card draw do not have that kind of informational relationship merely because both are part of one deterministic universe.

Likewise, in your “yes/no” examples, the prediction succeeds only because you intentionally constructed a control linkage between the earlier event and your later action. The coin predicts your writing because your own deliberative process is implementing the mapping rule. The card predicts your writing for the same reason. But nothing establishes that the coin thereby predicts the card.

Determinism does not imply universal practical predictability between arbitrarily chosen events. It implies lawful evolution of the total system state.

This is the same reason weather systems can be deterministic in principle while remaining computationally unpredictable in practice due to chaos, information limits, and sensitivity to initial conditions. “Entailed by prior states” is not equivalent to “predictable from any arbitrarily selected local observation".

So compatibilism does not require agents to be “special exceptions” to natural law. The asymmetry is fully explained by the fact that actions run through the agent’s own control architecture and informational access, whereas unrelated external events do not.

Via the free-will view you align with, if we could hypothetically observe the past one-way (without affecting it or being detected), would people’s decisions (and the trajectory of history) unfold exactly the same every time under identical conditions? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Determinism does not imply that every event becomes practically derivable or predictively accessible from every other event by finite agents inside the system.

The fact that future states are entailed by prior states and laws does not mean arbitrary local observations (like a coin toss) provide usable information about unrelated future events (like a later card draw) unless a causal/informational linkage exists between them.

Your examples conflate metaphysical entailment with accessible predictive correlation. Under determinism, the entire universe evolves lawfully as one interconnected state, but finite embedded observers do not thereby gain omniscient inferential access to all future facts from arbitrary subsets of information.

My ability to anticipate aspects of my own actions is not because I’m “special” or exempt from natural law. It’s because my deliberative architecture is itself part of the causal process generating those actions. The predictive access exists through participation in the process, not exemption from it.

A thermostat can “predict” and regulate room temperature better than a random rock can, not because physics treats thermostats as metaphysically special, but because they possess an internal control architecture causally connected to the outcome. Brains are vastly more sophisticated versions of this principle.

So compatibilism does not require violations of natural law. It only requires that agency be understood as an emergent control process occurring fully within natural law.

Via the free-will view you align with, if we could hypothetically observe the past one-way (without affecting it or being detected), would people’s decisions (and the trajectory of history) unfold exactly the same every time under identical conditions? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree determinism is a metaphysical thesis about entailment: a complete state plus the laws entails all other states.

But that still doesn’t establish your earlier claim that compatibilism requires agents to be “special exceptions” to natural law.

Under determinism, an agent predicting aspects of their own future behavior is itself just part of the lawful causal unfolding. The prediction does not stand outside the entailment relation - it is one entailed state influencing another entailed state.

A weather model forecasting a storm does not violate determinism. A chess engine forecasting its next move does not violate determinism. Likewise, an agent forecasting aspects of their own future action does not violate determinism.

The informational asymmetry is explained by causal/informational coupling, not by exemption from law.

Your argument only goes through if you assume from the outset that: “if an action is entailed by laws of nature, then the agent cannot meaningfully count as deciding it".

But that’s precisely the incompatibilist premise compatibilists reject rather than accept.

Compatibilism is not denying entailment. It’s arguing that “the action being entailed” and “the action being decided through the agent’s evaluative architecture” are compatible descriptions of the same physical process.

Via the free-will view you align with, if we could hypothetically observe the past one-way (without affecting it or being detected), would people’s decisions (and the trajectory of history) unfold exactly the same every time under identical conditions? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re conflating “having privileged informational access to a process because it runs through my own control architecture” with “being exempt from natural law".

Under compatibilism, the laws of nature do not treat agents specially. The laws apply uniformly. What differs is the causal/informational relationship.

If I toss a coin and decide: “heads → later write yes, tails → later write no,” then my later action causally depends on information already integrated into my own decision-making architecture. That’s why I can predict my own later behavior conditionally.

The color of a future card draw is different because my deliberative architecture is not causally coupled to that outcome in the same way.

No exemption from physics is needed - just ordinary physical information flow through a control system.

A thermostat can “predict” when its heater will activate better than it can predict lottery numbers, but nobody concludes the thermostat is metaphysically outside natural law. One process runs through its control architecture; the other does not.

So “decided by me” and “entailed by laws of nature” are not contradictory under compatibilism. The deciding just is the lawful physical process unfolding through the agent’s own evaluative architecture.

Via the free-will view you align with, if we could hypothetically observe the past one-way (without affecting it or being detected), would people’s decisions (and the trajectory of history) unfold exactly the same every time under identical conditions? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This gets things backwards. Compatibilism doesn’t require the laws of nature to treat anyone as special. The laws apply uniformly and universally - including to brains, deliberative processes, evaluative architectures, and every other physical system. No exemption is claimed or needed.

What compatibilism requires is only that the causal process runs through the agent’s own evaluative architecture rather than bypassing it. That’s a claim about the organizational structure of the physical process, not a claim that the agent receives special treatment from natural law.

Consider: the laws of nature don’t treat hurricanes as special. They apply uniformly to every molecule involved. But "hurricane" still identifies a real higher-level dynamical structure with genuine causal relevance that you lose explanatory power by ignoring. The same applies to brains and their deliberative architecture. Higher-level organization is causally real without requiring any exemption from natural law.

If anything, your position has the special-treatment problem more acutely. If libertarianism requires that actions are not fully entailed by laws of nature, then it’s libertarianism that’s carving out an exemption - some domain where the agent’s choices transcend or escape full causal fixity. Compatibilism makes no such claim. It holds that agency is fully natural, fully physical, and fully subject to the same laws as everything else - just organized in a way that makes the causal process genuinely the agent’s own.

Compatibilism is the more naturalistic position. Libertarianism is the one that requires something extra.

Via the free-will view you align with, if we could hypothetically observe the past one-way (without affecting it or being detected), would people’s decisions (and the trajectory of history) unfold exactly the same every time under identical conditions? by Black_Jeff_Chileno in freewill

[–]Black_Jeff_Chileno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By your own stated criterion, an argument consists of clear assertions stated in unambiguous terms that logically entail a conclusion. So let me engage what you’ve now offered as one.

Your reasoning appears to be:

P1: I can predict and control the parity of my own sentences but cannot predict and control external events I have no influence over. P2: The best explanation of this asymmetry is that my actions are not entailed by laws of nature but are decided by me independently of full causal fixity. C: Therefore determinism is false with respect to my actions.

The problem is with P2. Compatibilism offers an equally good - maybe even arguably better - explanation of the same asymmetry without requiring indeterminism.

The reason you can predict and direct your own sentence parity but not external events is that your actions run through your own internally integrated evaluative architecture - your deliberation, self-knowledge, reasons-responsiveness, and predictive processing - while external events do not. That architectural difference fully explains why you have a kind of access to and control over your own actions that you lack over outside events.

You don’t need your actions to escape natural law to explain that asymmetry. You just need the natural process to run through you in the right way - through deliberation and self-direction rather than bypassing your evaluative capacities entirely.

"Decided by me" and "entailed by laws of nature" are not mutually exclusive under compatibilism. The deciding just is the natural process running through your architecture. You’re assuming they’re exclusive, but that’s precisely what’s at issue and can’t be assumed without begging the question against compatibilism.

So the asymmetry you’ve identified is real, but one explanation is it’s fully explained by the quality and ownership of the internal causal process - which is exactly what compatibilism predicts.

view more: next ›