compatibilism

[Belinda]

If you believe that there even IS a "mind," let alone "reason" and "learning," then you are no Determinist.

Mind, reason, and learning are processes not things.

If you believe they are capable of altering anything at all, you're not a Determinist. And if they're not capable of altering anything at all, then in what sense can you believe that they "exist"?

Determinism is itself the way according to which nature, or God if you will, orders what is happening. Determinism is comprehensible by causality. Individual men understand causality in the form of causal chains. Some men , such as scientists and serious poets and writers, understand also causal circumstances . Some philosophers have a vision of total determinism, such that each and every event no matter how banal or minute is an eternally necessary event.

Where is human freedom in all this? Those who are more free can see more choices i.e. perceive different perspectives among which they may select the best.

[henry quirk]

Where is human freedom in all this?

Where is it not?

Name one circumstance where you aren't choosin', for reasons you suss out for yourself or knowingly adopt.

[Immanuel Can]

Mind, reason, and learning are processes not things.

If you believe they are capable of altering anything at all, you're not a Determinist. And if they're not capable of altering anything at all, then in what sense can you believe that they "exist"?

Determinism is itself the way according to which nature, or God if you will, orders what is happening.

No, actually, it's not.

I can see you don't actually know what "Determinism" refers to, at all. You think you're a "Determinist," but what you really are is a version of Compatibilist, imagining that you can speak of things like "mind," "learning," "reason" and "will" within that world-concept.

But you can't. That's what you don't get. There are no such real entities in a Deterministic scheme; and if any of those entities really exists, and really has causal significance, then Determinism, by definition is not true.

You're sitting on the fence, unwilling to face the price of being a full-on Determinist, and yet unwilling to let go of Determinism either. You're a Compatibilist. But what all real Determinists understand is that Compatibilism is an impossible, irrational hope. It cannot possibly work.

However, so long as you don't even recognize the conventional definitions of "Determinism," you won't see the point.

All who believe in the free will position also believe in causality, in natural laws, and in some things that are not volitional -- so long as they also believe that some are genuinely volitional. But a Determinist cannot believe in ANY such things as you claim exist...she has to believe that ALL phenomena, including "learning," or "mind," or "Belinda" are nothing more than pure products of material causation: and that none of them have ANYTHING to do with what actually happens. Unless you agree, you're simply not a Determinist at all.

But I think I can't make the point clearer than that.

[iambiguous]

As though in dealing with the probability of such a hypothesis this too isn't but a psychological illusion

Yeah...I get what you're doing. You don't want to answer the question.

And I get what you are doing. Merely assuming that I have the free will necessary to answer your question without any definitive experiential/experimental proof that this is in fact the case.

In my view, there's no getting around the centuries old philosophical conundrum here. You can define the meaning of the words you use to construct your analytical deductions but what doesn't change is that we simply do not grasp yet how mindless/lifeless matter "somehow" evolved into the matter that is us here on planet Earth.

Given the gap between what you think you know about all of this and all that can be known about it going back to an ontological understanding of existence itself, you are basically throwing a dart at the bullseye here and almost certainly not even hitting the dartboard itself.

At least accept that.

Well, click, if, of your own volition, you can.

What purely-mechanical or material feature of the Deterministic universe would produce intelligent beings, but beings that cannot live as if Determinism were true? That would require some very interesting explanation.

Well, don't expect to get the explanation from me.

Yes, I'm seeing that.

Okay, but only because the explanation itself lies beyond your attempt to make the resolution revolve solely around dueling definitions and deductions. An explanation that instead is derived from actual scientists exploring the human brain itself.

Instead, you are back to your usual "analytical" rebuttals.

Having asked the question many times, and having given ample time for a sensible reply to come back, and having received nothing but a bunch of denials that the question can even be entertained, I'm reasonably convinced there will be no serious reply.

A sensible and serious reply being one that confirms your own "philosophical" premises.

Thus...

Okay, given the existence of free will, entice me to explore that with the most potent proof that he offers.

No, I think I'll put the ball in your court. You know where the book is, and you can consider the evidence for yourself. With me, I have to conclude you have no serious intention of discussion.

Come on, if his argument did indeed come closest to the objective truth here, where were/are the media headlines around the globe applauding this extraordinary breakthrough. Would not the scientist who did pin down the determinism/free will debate experientially/experimentally not be, at the very least, the recipient of a Nobel Prize?

What is this compelling [peer reviewed] empirical evidence that he provides?

[Age]

If you believe they are capable of altering anything at all, you're not a Determinist. And if they're not capable of altering anything at all, then in what sense can you believe that they "exist"?

Determinism is itself the way according to which nature, or God if you will, orders what is happening.

No, actually, it's not.

I can see you don't actually know what "Determinism" refers to, at all. You think you're a "Determinist," but what you really are is a version of Compatibilist, imagining that you can speak of things like "mind," "learning," "reason" and "will" within that world-concept.

But you can't. That's what you don't get. There are no such real entities in a Deterministic scheme; and if any of those entities really exists, and really has causal significance, then Determinism, by definition is not true.

You're sitting on the fence, unwilling to face the price of being a full-on Determinist, and yet unwilling to let go of Determinism either. You're a Compatibilist. But what all real Determinists understand is that Compatibilism is an impossible, irrational hope. It cannot possibly work.

However, so long as you don't even recognize the conventional definitions of "Determinism," you won't see the point.

All who believe in the free will position also believe in causality, in natural laws, and in some things that are not volitional -- so long as they also believe that some are genuinely volitional. But a Determinist cannot believe in ANY such things as you claim exist...she has to believe that ALL phenomena, including "learning," or "mind," or "Belinda" are nothing more than pure products of material causation: and that none of them have ANYTHING to do with what actually happens. Unless you agree, you're simply not a Determinist at all.

But I think I can't make the point clearer than that.

You can make your point clear, but this OBVIOUSLY does NOT mean that your point is ACTUALLY True, Right, nor Correct.

[Immanuel Can]

As though in dealing with the probability of such a hypothesis this too isn't but a psychological illusion

Yeah...I get what you're doing. You don't want to answer the question.

And I get what you are doing. Merely assuming that I have the free will necessary to answer your question without any definitive experiential/experimental proof that this is in fact the case.

I gave it to you, repeatedly. I gave you the empirical facts of all human life, plus the neurological evidence of Wilder Penfield, plus at least two important philosophers of mind who have come to the same view. And you just ignored it.

I can see you're determined not to know anything contrary to what you are wanting to believe. That's a strategy I cannot beat. You'll have to get beyond it yourself, first.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

All who believe in the free will position also believe in causality, in natural laws, and in some things that are not volitional -- so long as they also believe that some are genuinely volitional.

Then you believe that Free Will can be broken up into little pieces and a piece of Free Will can be applied to this or that range of options.
When you were a very young child who persuaded you and taught you?

[iambiguous]

I gave it to you, repeatedly. I gave you the empirical facts of all human life plus the neurological evidence of Wilder Penfield, plus at least two important philosophers of mind who have come to the same view. And you just ignored it.

But: my own assumption here is that the hard determinists can give us their own rendition of the empirical facts and the neurological evidence such that neither one of us were ever able to not either ignore or not to ignore, well, everything.

Just Google "determinism free will and neuroscience" and dive down into the conflicting conclusions.

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gle+Search

I can see you're determined not to know anything contrary to what you are wanting to believe. That's a strategy I cannot beat. You'll have to get beyond it yourself, first.

Determined indeed. But that's my point.

Though again, I make it abundantly clear that in regard to both morality and metaphysics, "I" start with the assumption that my own conclusions are rooted subjectively in dasein. I can only believe what existentially my life experiences predisposed me to "think I know" about all of this "here and now".

To me, you are the one who comes off as the arrogant objectivist here. And with the Christian God to back you up to boot.

As for what I want, I'm inclined to go here...

"You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want." Arthur Schopenhauer

Of course, he too grappled with all this...philosophically?

[Immanuel Can]

I gave it to you, repeatedly. I gave you the empirical facts of all human life plus the neurological evidence of Wilder Penfield, plus at least two important philosophers of mind who have come to the same view. And you just ignored it.

But: my own assumption here is that the hard determinists can give us their own rendition of the empirical facts and the neurological evidence

Then let's see it. What "empirical facts" and "neurological evidence" do you suppose to be supportive of Determinism? I've given you very specific stuff, so I would be grateful if you'd do likewise, in response. No vague generalties, please: let's see what you have.

[promethean75]

Just as a rock does not decide to move when acted upon by a force, the neuron does not decide to fire when acted upon by a force.

Next.

[iambiguous]

I gave it to you, repeatedly. I gave you the empirical facts of all human life plus the neurological evidence of Wilder Penfield, plus at least two important philosophers of mind who have come to the same view. And you just ignored it.

But: my own assumption here is that the hard determinists can give us their own rendition of the empirical facts and the neurological evidence

Then let's see it. What "empirical facts" and "neurological evidence" do you suppose to be supportive of Determinism? I've given you very specific stuff, so I would be grateful if you'd do likewise, in response. No vague generalties, please: let's see what you have.

Again, I'm not a neuroscientist. So, when it comes to the "hard guys and gals" exploring the functioning human brain utilizing the "scientific method", I can only explore this by way of Googling "neuroscience determinism free will" and seeing what the latest conclusions might be.

What are you suggesting, that the evidence of Wilder Penfield is now the "gold standard" among brain scientists in regard to pinning down how mindless/lifeless matter "somehow" evolved into autonomous human brain matter?

There is now a broad consensus in the scientific community that human beings do in fact have free will?

[Immanuel Can]

What are you suggesting, that the evidence of Wilder Penfield is now the "gold standard" among brain scientists in regard to pinning down how mindless/lifeless matter "somehow" evolved into autonomous human brain matter?

I made no such claim. But I get what you hope to do: turn my claim extravagant so it can be questioned, rather than recognizing what I DID give you.

You asked for neurologist who had data conducive to the conclusion, and I supplied you with one. And I added some philosophers of mind into the bargain. I asked you for something equivalent on the Determinist side...and you say you don't have such.

Okay. But you can't say that it's impossible for us to have data on the free will side, because we have that. But Determinism remains merely an unfalsifiable myth without any data.

Seems about right to me.

[promethean75]

"Anyway, Penfield, whom you can read about in great detail at Neurophilosophy, was a pioneer in the functional mapping of the cerebral cortex. He was a neurosurgeon, and as part of his surgical procedures he would systematically stimulate different points of the cerebral cortex with an electrode, so as to locate which areas were responsible for important functions and avoid damaging them. Michael Egnor, following Penfield, is correct that this kind of point stimulation of the cortex tends to evoke sensations or motor responses which are experienced by the patient as external. Point stimulation is not reported to be able to effect our "higher" mental faculties such as our beliefs, desires, decisions, and "will"; it might evoke a movement of the arm, say, but the subject will report that this felt like an involuntary reflex, not a willed action.

However, to take this as evidence for some kind of a dualism between a form of conciousness which can be manipulated via the brain and another, non-material level of conciousness which can't (the "soul" in other words), is like saying that because hammering away at one key of a piano produces nothing but an annoying noise, there must be something magical going on when a pianist plays a Mozart concerto. Stimulating a single small part of the brain is about the crudest manipulation imaginable; all we can conclude from the results of point-stimulation experiments is that some kinds of mental processes are not controlled by single points on the cortex. This should not be surprising, since the brain is a network of 100 billion cells; what's interesting, in fact, is that stimulating a few million of these cells with the tip of an electrode can do anything."

https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/w ... still-dead

[iambiguous]

What are you suggesting, that the evidence of Wilder Penfield is now the "gold standard" among brain scientists in regard to pinning down how mindless/lifeless matter "somehow" evolved into autonomous human brain matter?

I made no such claim. But I get what you hope to do: turn my claim extravagant so it can be questioned, rather than recognizing what I DID give you.

Click.

We clearly have two very different renditions of what you did give me. You have Penfield for the science and then all your analytical contraptions for the philosophy. From my frame of mind though your empirical evidence basically revolves around you "just knowing" that you have free will and that "nobody ever lives as a Determinist".

Okay, what hard evidence does Penfield provide to back that up? After all, what if the lives people think they live freely is really only the psychological illusion of possessing free will. The brain "tricking" you in the waking world as it does in the dream world.

You asked for neurologist who had data conducive to the conclusion, and I supplied you with one. And I added some philosophers of mind into the bargain. I asked you for something equivalent on the Determinist side...and you say you don't have such.

Okay. But you can't say that it's impossible for us to have data on the free will side, because we have that. But Determinism remains merely an unfalsifiable myth without any data.

Yes and then I noted that you can Google "determinism free will and neuroscience" and come across the usual conflicting sets of assumptions here. I never suggested that there were no scientists arguing for free will, only that this particular quandary has never been resolved by either scientists, philosophers or theologians.

In other words, the determinism/free will/compatibilism debate is still ongoing among both the scientific and philosophical communities.

[Immanuel Can]

...your empirical evidence basically revolves around you "just knowing" that you have free will and that "nobody ever lives as a Determinist".

I see you're resolved to believe that. But I gave you Penfield, Nagel and Kim. So you now have empirical, philosophical AND existential reasons to suppose that Determinism isn't true.

Okay, what hard evidence does Penfield provide...

The book is still available.

If you want to know, you'll buy it. If you don't want to know, I won't be able to help you, no matter what I say.