compatibilism

[Skepdick]

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

What I mean is your maker made this universe. Apparently.

Knowledge does not just magically happen; one has to act to gain knowledge.

Oh OK. So where did your God gain the knowledge on how to make this universe?

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?

Sure. Making concepts is imagination.

Turning imagined concepts into something tangible is reification.

So did your God reify our existence (having first conceptualised it) or not?

[Immanuel Can]

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."

It's quite obviously true, actually.

Do you know the capital of England? Did you make the capital of England?

[Skepdick]

Do you know the capital of England? Did you make the capital of England?

London? Names don't constitute knowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s

[Immanuel Can]

Do you know the capital of England? Did you make the capital of England?

London? Names don't constitute knowledge.

It doesn't have to be just a name. You could have visited London, and know it experientially or in detail. I have been there, and I assure you that I "made" no part of it. It was as I found it.

[Skepdick]

It doesn't have to be just a name. You could have visited London, and know it experientially or in detail. I have been there, and I assure you that I "made" no part of it. It was as I found it.

You seem to be conflating descriptive/propositional and imperative/procedural knowledge.

[Immanuel Can]

It doesn't have to be just a name. You could have visited London, and know it experientially or in detail. I have been there, and I assure you that I "made" no part of it. It was as I found it.

You seem to be conflating descriptive/propositional and imperative/procedural knowledge.

No reason not to. None of those kinds of "knowing" requires "making." Some require involvement on my part, but only because I'm not God and can't know some things without engaging with them. But that's my liability as a human; it changes nothing about the nature of knowledge itself.

[Skepdick]

No reason not to. None of those kinds of "knowing" requires "making."

I see. So God didn't know how to make the universe?

Some require involvement on my part, but only because I'm not God and can't know some things without engaging with them. But that's my liability as a human; it changes nothing about the nature of knowledge itself.

Great! So we agree that it's not the nature of knowledge under dispute. It's whose knowledge we are talking about. Not yours.

God's.

[RCSaunders]

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

What I mean is your maker made this universe. Apparently.

What "maker." Nothing made the universe. Reality is not contingent on anything.

Knowledge does not just magically happen; one has to act to gain knowledge.

Oh OK. So where did your God gain the knowledge on how to make this universe?

What God? Nothing made the universe. Where do you get these ideas?

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?

Sure. Making concepts is imagination.

Your obviously have no idea how human mind works. Imagination and reason are both conscious operations of the mind, but distinctly different.

[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."

It's quite obviously true, actually.

Do you know the capital of England? Did you make the capital of England?

I qualified my statement by saying it depended on what you mean by, "make." I any case, it is obvious, as you've stated it, it is not always true no matter what you mean by make. I can certainly not know what anything I make or do looks like or is until I have made or done it. In addition, since everything I know is in the form or propositions, I have to form (make) those propositions.

I cannot know there is an England, much less a capital without doing the work of acquiring the knowledge of geography, which is how one produces (makes) one's knowledge. Since you dined to say what you mean by make, I use my meaning, which is any work I do to make something exist that didn't until I did that work, like my knowledge.

[Immanuel Can]

No reason not to. None of those kinds of "knowing" requires "making."

I see. So God didn't know how to make the universe?

You're asleep at the switch.

Making requires knowing. But knowing does not require making.

I'll let you figure that out. I expect it will take awhile, so I'll give you some time.

[iambiguous]

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.

What does anything we say mean or not mean if we were never able not to say it? Some link brain matter to this assumption, others to the assumption that "somehow" brain matter is different. That we are able to say something other than what we do.

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?

Well, for one thing [as I keep coming back to over and over and over again], I, like you, have no capacity to actually demonstrate experientially, experimently, empirically, phenomenologically etc., that what I believe "in my head" here and now is in fact true. I, like you, take my own existential leap of faith to one set of assumptions rather than another. I just don't know definitively if this leap was, as some insist, fated or destined to be.

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?

No, that might be the case. But I would never argue that unequivocally it is the case. Unless of course unequivocally it is the case because there was never any possibility of there ever being any other case. And how could others not take it seriously if they were compelled by the laws of matter to take things only as they must?

But how on Earth would I go about demonstrating that?

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.

Now, this is a "general description intellectual contraption" if there ever was one. Let's bring this assessment to Mary. The woman above who is pregnant, doesn't want to be and is thinking about getting an abortion. How, given the points you raise here, would you go about explaining to her the nature of human autonomy given that her own brain is but more matter said by some to be wholly in sync with the laws that govern all matter.

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.

No, that's you insisting that I am insisting I have no choice in the matter. Me, I'm only suggesting that given the life I've life, with all of its personal experiences and information and knowledge I've come upon existentially in regards to determinism, I, "here and now" believe what I do about these things "in my head".

But that, given free will, I might have a new experience or come upon new information and knowledge that changes my mind.

The same as you.

[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.

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?

Need? If one starts with the assumption that all of one's wants and needs precipitate beliefs that were never able not to be, that's the only issue.

You're still the one obligated to explain scientifically/philosophically how, chemically and neurologically, brain matter came to be as no other matter before it....capable of volition, autonomy, free will.

Meanwhile, I still acknowledge that the likelihood of my own argument here being even close to The Final Answer must be staggeringly remote. And even that presumes I am wrong about determinism which I may well be.

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.

Right, like those who posit determinism are forbidden from placing the obligation on you. Again, if there is a default in this exchange it's your seeming arrogance in framing the issue given you own set of assumptions. I would never presume that myself...even given free will. In other words, re "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule", my speculations here are but a tangled intertwining of an educated guess and a wild-ass guess.

Which -- click -- in my opinion, you just whisk away in but another "world of words".

My point is that "proving things" is interchangeable with all the other things our brains are compelled to pursue as but more matter.

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?

Again, unbelievable!!!

I took as long as nature compelled me to take. I was as "concerned" as my brain commanded of me. Now, where is your own definitive proof that, on the contrary, you "got me" here with your clever reasoning. Definitive proof that this exchange is not the embodiment of the psychological illusion of free will.

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.

Unless, of course, human interaction in the waking world is the equivalent of human interaction in the dream world: wholly unfolding as a result of a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter. If that is the case no evidence could not be perfect.

Right?

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.

You're asking me? I suggest you take that question to those scientists who are not just exchanging "philosophical assumptions" in "worlds of words".

The men and women probing actual functioning brains, groping and grappling with the profound mystery that is "mindful matter".

Though, sure, no doubt about it: mindless, nonliving matter "somehow" evolving into mindful living matter here on planet Earth able to become aware of itself as either wholly determined or autonomous is nothing short of...an act of God?

Your own for example?

Then this part:

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.

Are you kidding me? Think of all the myriad experiences we had as children brainwashed into seeing ourselves in the world around us in vastly different ways. Think of all the experiences we had as adults that none of us are ever either fully aware of or in control of. All the countless variables bombarding us from every direction shaping and molding us in this direction rather than that in regard to things like this debate.

Grasping this exactly?!

I'm reminded of that scene from "sex, lies and videotapes":

"Ann: I just wanna ask a few questions, like why do you tape women talkin' about sex? Why do you do that? Can you tell me why?
Graham: I don't find turning the tables very interesting.
Ann: Well, I do. Tell me why, Graham.
Graham: Why? What? What? What do you want me to tell you? Why? Ann, you don't even know who I am. You don't have the slightest idea who I am. Am I supposed to recount all the points in my life leading up to this moment and just hope that it's coherent, that it makes some sort of sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me. You know, I was there. I don't have the slightest idea why I am who I am, and I'm supposed to be able to explain it to you?"

Of course, it's not like we don't have "the slightest idea" of how we came to think what we do about this particular discussion. But our ideas revolve around the life we lived. Leaving out what our conclusions might have been had for any number of reasons our lives had been very different.

And, again, always presuming that determinism as I understand it here and now is wrong. Why? Because it's not what you believe?

[Belinda]

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.

You are not a billiard ball and usually have several options on the go. What causes you to choose what you do choose? For breakfast, what caused you to choose what you did choose? Neither am I a billiard ball and yet I can tell you what choices I had and what caused me to choose a fried egg on toast.

You say "you choose as you decide". What causes you to decide? What causes your volition? What causes me to have a selection ABCor D of choices ? What caused me to be the arbiter of my choice?
Note that causes are not free but are determined by previous causes or enduring circumstances .

[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, by your own account, nothing more than an "assumption." One requires evidence, proofs, reasons...warrant...even for that, or all one has is what we call, "an unreasonable assumption."

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?

Need? If one starts with the assumption that all of one's wants and needs precipitate beliefs that were never able not to be, that's the only issue.

Still just an "assumption." And an "assumption" is only as good as the evidence for it.

What is that evidence?

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.

Right, like those who posit determinism are forbidden from placing the obligation on you.

Burden of proof is not "placed" by anyone's mere decision. It rests where it rests, and it's a logical question, not a matter of preference, where it rests.

It always rests on the person who has the least evidence. In this case, the evidence of how we live is against Determinism. And right now, there's nothing on the table in favour of Determinism. So the burden of proof rests on Determinism.

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.

You're asking me?

Indeed I am.

Though, sure, no doubt about it: mindless, nonliving matter "somehow" evolving into mindful living matter here on planet Earth able to become aware of itself as either wholly determined or autonomous is nothing short of...an act of God?

Indeed so.

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.

Are you kidding me?

No.

You said you have them. So you must know what they are. There can be no reason, then, why you can't say what they are. In fact, it should be dead easy.

And, again, always presuming that determinism as I understand it here and now is wrong. Why? Because it's not what you believe?

No. Again, any preference I have is irrelevant here. What matters is who bears the burden of proof.

Now, so far, I've told you why that burden rests on the Determinist. Not a single person in the history of the world has ever been able to live as if Determinism were true. That's a startling fact.

And the burden remains on the Determinist until he's done something to account for it.

Then it's my turn, obviously.

Fair enough.

[Immanuel Can]

What causes you to choose what you do choose?

Go back and read my previous answer: I already answered this question.

You say "you choose as you decide". What causes you to decide?

And this one, too.

Note that causes are not free but are determined by previous causes or enduring circumstances .

That's your assumption, maybe, but there is actually no reason to believe it's true. You're performing a logical fallacy called "assuming the conclusion" here. You don't get to stipulate that your view is right, and everybody else has to agree: you have to prove it's right.

Go ahead.