compatibilism

[Immanuel Can]

He's quite intelligent and capable of a good conversation.

If you say so...

Sad to say, it looks like you were right. iamb's been all over the posting, but not here. It seems you called it: he's just not going to answer, no matter how obvious the question is.

[RCSaunders]

My guess: the data that leads directly to thinking about the mind-boggling reality of mindless matter evolving into mindful brain matter here on planet Earth in exactly the same way that you do.

Now I have a great deal of sympathy for the physicalist point of view. I believe that everything that exists ontologically (materially or naturally), that is, all that can be known because it is directly perceived (seen, heard, felt, smelled and tasted) is the physical. The ontological is not all that exists, however. There is all that exists in and only in and by human minds, the entire world of the epistemological (psychological) which includes all knowledge, (the physical sciences, history, geography, philosophy) all knowledge methods (language, reason, logic, mathematics) and all human creation (arts, literature, and all invention)--none of which exists ontologically or physically independent of human minds.

I also believe all knowledge must be based on evidence available to anyone's conscious observation, like all the physical sciences, and that physical existence is not contingent on anything else and that all the physical phenomena of existence can be explained entirely in terms of the nature of physical existents. There is no supernatural cause of anything. But I think most physicalists fail to include all evidence, and, furthermore make things up for which their is no evidence to evade the evidence they choose to ignore.

Perhaps the most blantant example is their evasion of the nature of life itself. That there are living organisms and that among physical entities, they are unique, cannot be denied. In fact, what makes organisms unique is that, unlike all other physical entities whose behavior can be entirely described in terms of their physical properties, and even predicted when the entire context of their existence is known, the behavior of living organisms can be neither described or predicted in terms of their physical properties alone, not even those physical aspects covered by the sciences of biology.

What physical property explains why any physical entity should behave in a way that sustains its own existence as the kind of entity it is? No physical property explains why a living organism does no just react in response to other entities, but an organism both detects the existence of other entities and responds differently to different entities which it somehow detects. It's why its called a, "response," rather than a mere reaction. What other kind of physical entity must continue to act to exist and ceases to exist as the kind of entity it is when it's behavior ceases (it dies).

There is really no physical difference between a fish that has just died and that same fish just before it died, but the live fish swims against the current determining its own behavior. The behavior of the dead fish is determine by its environment. It is that difference the physicalist ignores, or tries to. It ignores the fact that the material world has some properties in addition to physical properties--perfectly natural properties, just like the physical ones. There is nothing mystical or supernatural about life, consciousness, and the human mind. They are perfectly natural attributes of real material existents, they are just not physical properties and cannot be explained in terms of the physical properties.

Why the physicalists wish to deny or evade evidence bewilders me. It is not possible to not be fully aware of one's own consciousness, and the fact that everything one does consciously they must choose to do, or they do nothing--and die.

[Do you really believe in abiogenesis?]

[Walker]

Mystery is compatible with unknown determination.

There's a very good reason for that: that how Determinism can possibly be true, in view of how we actually live, is actually a total mystery. But that fact does not help the case for Determinism.

Maybe somebody who believes in Determinism can help us solve that "mystery."

Mystery is compatible with Life, because of unknown determination.

[Immanuel Can]

Mystery is compatible with unknown determination.

There's a very good reason for that: that how Determinism can possibly be true, in view of how we actually live, is actually a total mystery. But that fact does not help the case for Determinism.

Maybe somebody who believes in Determinism can help us solve that "mystery."

Mystery is compatible with Life, because of unknown determination.

The mystery is what on earth that sentence means.

[Walker]

There's a very good reason for that: that how Determinism can possibly be true, in view of how we actually live, is actually a total mystery. But that fact does not help the case for Determinism.

Maybe somebody who believes in Determinism can help us solve that "mystery."

Mystery is compatible with Life, because of unknown determination.

The mystery is what on earth that sentence means.

Translation: Life is mysterious because no one can definitively determine where we came from, or where we are going, although inferences abound.

Must the translation be translated?

[Immanuel Can]

Mystery is compatible with Life, because of unknown determination.

The mystery is what on earth that sentence means.

Translation: Life is mysterious because no one can definitively determine where we came from, or where we are going, although inferences abound.

Well, you'd better say what you think anybody can "definitively determine." And if you can't, then your claim's not surprising: that is, if nothing is "definitively determinable" in that sense at all.

[Walker]

The mystery is what on earth that sentence means.

Translation: Life is mysterious because no one can definitively determine where we came from, or where we are going, although inferences abound.

Well, you'd better say what you think anybody can "definitively determine." And if you can't, then your claim's not surprising: that is, if nothing is "definitively determinable" in that sense at all.

Because everything happens as it must happen doesn’t mean that folks know what is going to happen.

[Immanuel Can]

Because everything happens as it must happen doesn’t mean that folks know what is going to happen.

What's your proof that "everything happens as it must happen?" There's no evidence for that. And there's at least some evidence to the contrary, such as the fact that nobody lives as if that is the case.

So you need proof for such a claim...or there's no reason to believe it at all.

[iambiguous]

New proposition: Real life is incompatible with Determinism.

Take your best shot at explaining why I'm wrong, iambiguous...et al.

Again, the assumption I start with here is that whatever explanation I give is the only explanation I was ever able to give because I assume further that my brain functions wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

So, those who argue that, on the contrary, the human brain is "somehow" different from all other matter, would seem obligated to provide us with the definitive chemical/neurological evidence that demonstrates the nature of human autonomy.

On the other hand, I flat out acknowledge I am unable to provide the definitive evidence that when lifeless/mindless matter did "somehow" configure into self-conscious living matter here on planet Earth, autonomy is only the embodiment of the psychological illusion of free will.

So, that, compelled or otherwise, I take my own "intellectual leap" to determinism "here and now". And this existential leap is predicated largely on the personal experiences I have had and the information and knowledge I have come across pertaining to the determinism/free will/compatibilism debate.

Now -- click -- given the assumption that we do have free will, I suspect that this answer/explanation will not prove him wrong. Why? Because, in my view, no answer that is not his answer can ever be the right answer.

[Age]

Mystery is compatible with Life, because of unknown determination.

The mystery is what on earth that sentence means.

Translation: Life is mysterious because no one can definitively determine where we came from, or where we are going, although inferences abound.

But I CAN and ALREADY HAVE determined DEFINITELY where 'we' came from, and where 'we' are going. And, if you ALSO would like in on the alleged "secret", then just inform us of what the 'we' word here is referring to, EXACTLY.

Must the translation be translated?

'Life', Itself, WAS only 'mysterious', UNTIL 'life', It Self, came to KNOW Its Self.

[Age]

Because everything happens as it must happen doesn’t mean that folks know what is going to happen.

What's your proof that "everything happens as it must happen?" There's no evidence for that. And there's at least some evidence to the contrary, such as the fact that nobody lives as if that is the case.

If, as some BELIEVE, 'God created EVERY thing', and 'God knows EVERY thing', then, to them, 'EVERY thing happens, does happen as it MUST happen'. Otherwise, these BELIEVERS would be CONTRADICTING "themselves" if they said otherwise.

So you need proof for such a claim...or there's no reason to believe it at all.

If there is PROOF for ANY 'thing', then there is NO 'logical reason' NOR 'need' to then start BELIEVING 'it' AT ALL.

[RCSaunders]

New proposition: Real life is incompatible with Determinism.

Take your best shot at explaining why I'm wrong, iambiguous...et al.

Again, the assumption I start with here is that whatever explanation I give is the only explanation I was ever able to give because I assume further that my brain functions wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

Then what you say means nothing at all.

If everything is just so much physical/chemical/electrical activity, what you say has no more meaning than a tree falling in the woods or the sound of a babbling brook. It's just all meaningless physical activity. Why do you bother?

Oh, that's right. You don't have any choice about it, do you? You are just a complex machine making meaningless noises. Why should anyone take it seriously?

So, those who argue that, on the contrary, the human brain is "somehow" different from all other matter, would seem obligated to provide us with the definitive chemical/neurological evidence that demonstrates the nature of human autonomy.

Maybe some do, but I do not know anyone who understands human beings are volitional creatures whose every conscious action must be consciously chosen who believes the human brain and neurological system is any different than any other physical entities. It is not the brain that is conscious at all, it is, like all the rest of the physical organism, one of the physical aspects of the organism which make the additional attributes of life, consciousness and the human mind possible.

I'm not making an argument here, which would be pointless. As you have explained, it is not possible for you to learn anything new about which you could change your mind, since you have no choice in the matter.

[RCSaunders]

New proposition: Real life is incompatible with Determinism.

Take your best shot at explaining why I'm wrong, iambiguous...et al.

While life is not physically determined in the sense that what any living organism will do is determined solely by physical attributes, and if that is what is meant by determinism, than life and determinism are incompatible. But the behavior or living organism is determine by their nature as living organisms. The growth and behavior of a tree is mostly determine by its physical nature guided by the requirements of its nature as a living organism. But if the argument is that life requires volition, obviously trees do not make conscious choices. Nor do any other organisms. Only human being are required to consciously choose their behavior.

So the proposition, "Real life is incompatible with Determinism," as it stands, is not true. Unless you specify that by, "real life," you mean "human," life, and by, "determinism," you mean, "physical determinism," the proposition is false.

[promethean75]

Naw, that'n there's pretty much false no matter how you put it.

In my years I've seen freewillists wiggle in the most unimaginable ways possible to try and get around determinism... but I ain't never seen one like that. That'n there is so ridiculous it don't even warrant any attention.

[Immanuel Can]

New proposition: Real life is incompatible with Determinism.

Take your best shot at explaining why I'm wrong, iambiguous...et al.

Again, the assumption I start with here is that whatever explanation I give is the only explanation I was ever able to give because I assume further that my brain functions wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

That's not an issue. I'm asking you AS a Determinist, so there's no need for you to tell me this at all. I know you believe it: I merely suggest you believe it on the basis of insufficient warrant.

So what is your warrant for believing it?

So, those who argue that, on the contrary, the human brain is "somehow" different from all other matter, would seem obligated to provide us with the definitive chemical/neurological evidence that demonstrates the nature of human autonomy.

No, actually; they're not. The burden of proof runs the opposite way.

Materialists cannot merely stipulate in advance that "material" stuff is all that exists unless anybody can prove otherwise. They can't simply have their way by default. They have no warrant for that belief either.

And on the contrary, as my question shows, they are swimming upstream against the obvious facts of human life, as they appear to everybody; so if anyone owes anybody an explanation, it's the Materialists.

On the other hand, I flat out acknowledge I am unable to provide the definitive evidence that when lifeless/mindless matter did "somehow" configure into self-conscious living matter here on planet Earth, autonomy is only the embodiment of the psychological illusion of free will.

Finally!

What took you so long to answer? Were you "concerned" about something?

But let me not set to you so extreme a task as "definitive evidence." That isn't fair, because nobody has perfect evidence for anything.

Let me ask you this, instead: what is ANY evidence that "autonomy is an illusion," -- and then, later on, we can talk about the problem of non-living matter somehow magically becoming living, and then somehow becoming conscious, and then somehow becoming self-aware, then somehow becoming capable on debates about Compatiblilism...but thank you for pointing out an additional very serious problem for Determinists.

So, that, compelled or otherwise, I take my own "intellectual leap" to determinism "here and now". And this existential leap is predicated largely on the personal experiences I have had and the information and knowledge I have come across pertaining to the determinism/free will/compatibilism debate.

Well, okay: it seems you say that some "personal experiences" plus some "information and knowledge" counts for you in favour of Determinism. That is exactly what I want to know.

Which "personal experiences," or which "information and knowledge," in specific, counts for you in favour of Determinism? Because I'm here to either strengthen my understanding of free will, or to rethink my position on it, according to the kind of justification that comes out of our conversation.

So maybe you don't want to share your "personal experience" component, and maybe you do; but what is your "information and knowledge" component?