compatibilism

[Immanuel Can]

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.

That is exactly what is meant by Determinism.

Determinism entails that "volition" does not instigate any causal chains, and the real causes of all actions are physical-material.

But we're not speaking of "life" generically, so let's not make that mistake. Trees and flowers might be pure products of material causes, and have no volition. That makes no difference, one way or the other.

We're speaking instead of "human life," which is to say that no human being can act as if Determinism is true. It is in that sense that "real life," (ie. human living procedures) is incompatible with Determinism.

[Belinda]

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.

That is exactly what is meant by Determinism.

Determinism entails that "volition" does not instigate any causal chains, and the real causes of all actions are physical-material.

But we're not speaking of "life" generically, so let's not make that mistake. Trees and flowers might be pure products of material causes, and have no volition. That makes no difference, one way or the other.

We're speaking instead of "human life," which is to say that no human being can act as if Determinism is true. It is in that sense that "real life," (ie. human living procedures) is incompatible with Determinism.

In that case, Immanuel, what is the cause of Free Will?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

That is exactly what is meant by Determinism.

Determinism entails that "volition" does not instigate any causal chains, and the real causes of all actions are physical-material.

But we're not speaking of "life" generically, so let's not make that mistake. Trees and flowers might be pure products of material causes, and have no volition. That makes no difference, one way or the other.

We're speaking instead of "human life," which is to say that no human being can act as if Determinism is true. It is in that sense that "real life," (ie. human living procedures) is incompatible with Determinism.

In that case, Immanuel, what is the cause of Free Will?

Volition, obviously. Humans are capable of initiative, decision and choosing their actions. They do not need to be "pre-programmed" by some prior event. They can weigh up their various considerations, and decide what they want to instigate.

Without that, humans would have no power in the world at all. But we do, and we all experience ourselves that way. So if, somehow, that's a deception, it's on the Determinists to prove it to us.

And if they can "prove" anything, rather than us being forced to believe by Determinism, then Determinism isn't true then, either.

So no way you look at it will Determinism be able to give us an account of how we can understand anything or act on anything.

[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.

That is exactly what is meant by Determinism.

Determinism entails that "volition" does not instigate any causal chains, and the real causes of all actions are physical-material.

But we're not speaking of "life" generically, so let's not make that mistake. Trees and flowers might be pure products of material causes, and have no volition. That makes no difference, one way or the other.

We're speaking instead of "human life," which is to say that no human being can act as if Determinism is true. It is in that sense that "real life," (ie. human living procedures) is incompatible with Determinism.

That's fine. The quote was, "Real life is incompatible with Determinism," not, "human life," and you didn't specify what you meant by, "determinism." It does have more than one meaning and ultimately everything is determined by something (because nothing just happens by serendipity or caprice). I just wanted to clarify what you meant. I wasn't arguing with it.

[RCSaunders]

In that case, Immanuel, what is the cause of Free Will?

Good god, I wish people would stop using that absurd theological term, "free will." There is no such thing as free will. Human beings are volitional beings which means everything they do, consciously, they must consciously choose to do. It is the very nature of human behavior.

If you do not choose to do anything, to eat, drink, dress, take your medicine or anything else you do to sustain your life, it will not happen and you will die. There is no question about whether you can choose or not, you must choose or die.

[Immanuel Can]

That's fine. The quote was, "Real life is incompatible with Determinism," not, "human life,"

If you'd read the context of the conversation, that would have been very obvious. However, I'm fine with clarifying that now.

[Age]

New proposition: Real life is incompatible with Determinism.

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

You are Wrong because EVERY physical 'thing', thus the 'event' that is continually existing, the way it is NOW, is because of pre-existing conditions.

Which ALSO MEANS that how 'things' exist NOW 'determines' how they WILL exist. This is 'Real Life'. Therefore, EVERY event was 'determined' by previously existing causes.

And this FITS PERFECTLY WITH 'free will', by the way.

[iambiguous]

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.

Forget the dead fish.

Let's focus in on an example I used above. Mary is pregnant. She doesn't want to be. Here and now she is deciding whether or not to abort the unborn fetus. Given your own understanding of determinism, free will, compatibilism what exactly is unfolding inside her head?

Is she or is she not opting freely here? And how would you go about demonstrating it one way or another beyond your abstract assessment which revolves not around a flesh and blood human being faced with an existential choice but with speculation that revolves around an intellectual assessment of "perfectly natural properties". How, experientially, experimentally, empirically, phenomenologically, etc., would you go about encompassing these natural properties such that we mere mortals in a No God world [my own assumption] would know definitively whether Mary chooses only what she was never able not to choose because her brain, like all other matter, is wholly in sync with the laws of matter...or in fact she was able to opt of her own volition to abort or not to about.

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.

Again, connect the dots between this "world of words" that define and defnd each other and what in fact unfolded in your own brain chemically and neurologically when you came to this conclusion. How specifically would you go about pinning down once and for all whether it is as a result of your own free will?

[Do you really believe in abiogenesis?]

abiogenesis: "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances."

It's not what you or I believe about things like this, but what we are actually able to demonstrate using the scientific method -- or the philosophical equivalent of it? -- is in fact true about it.


On the other hand, I'm the first to admit that I am not thinking this through correctly. And that this is the case even in presuming that I do have free will and am able to think it through more clearly. And that, indeed, going back to an understanding of existence itself and where the "human condition" fits into it ontologically -- teleologically? -- you come the closest of all.

But what are the odds of that?

[Belinda]

That is exactly what is meant by Determinism.

Determinism entails that "volition" does not instigate any causal chains, and the real causes of all actions are physical-material.

But we're not speaking of "life" generically, so let's not make that mistake. Trees and flowers might be pure products of material causes, and have no volition. That makes no difference, one way or the other.

We're speaking instead of "human life," which is to say that no human being can act as if Determinism is true. It is in that sense that "real life," (ie. human living procedures) is incompatible with Determinism.

In that case, Immanuel, what is the cause of Free Will?

Volition, obviously. Humans are capable of initiative, decision and choosing their actions. They do not need to be "pre-programmed" by some prior event. They can weigh up their various considerations, and decide what they want to instigate.

Without that, humans would have no power in the world at all. But we do, and we all experience ourselves that way. So if, somehow, that's a deception, it's on the Determinists to prove it to us.

And if they can "prove" anything, rather than us being forced to believe by Determinism, then Determinism isn't true then, either.

So no way you look at it will Determinism be able to give us an account of how we can understand anything or act on anything.

"Volition, obviously." says he.

But what causes volition?

[Belinda]

In that case, Immanuel, what is the cause of Free Will?

Good god, I wish people would stop using that absurd theological term, "free will." There is no such thing as free will. Human beings are volitional beings which means everything they do, consciously, they must consciously choose to do. It is the very nature of human behavior.

If you do not choose to do anything, to eat, drink, dress, take your medicine or anything else you do to sustain your life, it will not happen and you will die. There is no question about whether you can choose or not, you must choose or die.

"absurd, theological" is why I used capital letters to indicate the name of a doctrine.

It's true we must choose or else we die. All living things choose or else they die. Nature is so constituted that living things must choose or else they die. What is the cause of the perceived necessity to choose?

Nature itself is the cause of the perceived necessity to choose.

[Skepdick]

Not so. Old mistake.

"Knowledge" is not "making." They're two different verbs, two different actions and imply two very different states of being.

One can "know" what one has not "made-to-happen." You do it all the time.

Knowing is not making, but making requires knowing. You can't make something if you don't know how to make it.

Making reifies knowing.

Of course, you could always argue that your God did all of this by accident and haphazardly. Frankly - I am of that view.
Only an imcompetent fool could fuck up this badly.

[RCSaunders]

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.

Forget the dead fish.

How can I? According to your view, I have no choice in the matter.

Let's focus in on an example I used above. Mary is pregnant. She doesn't want to be. Here and now she is deciding whether or not to abort the unborn fetus. Given your own understanding of determinism, free will, compatibilism what exactly is unfolding inside her head?

You keep writing things, like, "Let's focus in on an example ..." as though you expect someone to choose to do that, when your argument is they cannot make such choices. I have no idea what why you say such things, since you deny choosing to. Since everything you write is just the consequence of some physical phenomena over which you have no choice, it obviously means nothing.

[I'm not accusing you of being irrational, only describing your arguments in terms of your own view regarding volition. I know you consciously choose what you think whether you admit it or not, because it is your nature as a human being and reason is not possible without volition.]

On the other hand, ... fits into it ontologically -- teleologically? -- you come the closest of all.

Not sure what your point was in this last paragraph but there is nothing teleological about any aspect of physical or ontological existence. All of teleology begins and ends with human mnds because nothing in the universe matters except to human rational consciousness. If there were no human beings in the universe, nothing would matter and there would be no values of any kind.

[Immanuel Can]

But what causes volition?

Volition is a product of a person assessing his/her options and choosing one.

The options are various: you can choose to have oatmeal, or eggs, or waffles for breakfast, as you please, or all three. You, Belinda, are the arbitor of that choice, though you may be inclined by your level of hunger to choose one over the other. But you can change your mind with the circumstances, too. If your husband really wants eggs, then eggs it may be, even if your biological disposition was for waffles.

So nothing "causes" choice in the same sense that a billiard ball "causes" another one to roll into a pocket. You choose as you decide. You are constrained only by the options available and your personal decision of the moment.

[Immanuel Can]

Not so. Old mistake.

"Knowledge" is not "making." They're two different verbs, two different actions and imply two very different states of being.

One can "know" what one has not "made-to-happen." You do it all the time.

Knowing is not making, but making requires knowing. You can't make something if you don't know how to make it.

Yes, of course.

But knowing does NOT require making. And that's the important point.

[RCSaunders]

But knowing does NOT require making. And that's the important point.

I'm quite sure that's not true, but it depends on what you mean by, "making."

Knowledge does not just magically happen; one has to act to gain knowledge. In that sense, since all knowledge is held in the form of propositions, and all propositions are composed of concepts, to have knowledge one must form concepts which is a kind of, "making," isn't it?