compatibilism

[promethean75]

Don't do it, Biggs. Don't buy those books. Use the money to order a pizza instead.

I've explained neither thesis (determinism or freewill) produces 'empirical evidence'. The difference between the two, however, is that freewill is a product of mysticism (e.g., Descartes), not science or philosophy.... while determinism is a supposition that works very, very well for understanding how physical things in space/time behave as they do. But I dunno, maybe the contiguity of events is a trick... maybe gravity doesn't cause objects to be pulled toward the earth, and it's just that every time somebody throws a ball up in the air, it just happens to fall back down.

The thing is, it would require a far more radically unverifiable theory in order to make freewill even possible. It's the way the world would have to be in order for there to be such a thing as freewill, that's the problem. In fact, it's such a ridiculous feat that you end up saying such stupid things as 'it's seated in the pituitary gland'.

The funny thing is, the religious neither realize that the idea of freewill is a product of mysticism, nor that if there were a 'god', there absolutely couldn't be freewill. This is the greatest double-whammy of the history of philostophy.

[Immanuel Can]

I've explained...

Well, that's a first!

The funny thing is, the religious neither realize that the idea of freewill is a product of mysticism, nor that if there were a 'god', there absolutely couldn't be freewill. This is the greatest double-whammy of the history of philostophy.

The real funny thing is people who are utterly self-assured, simply because they can't think outside of a false dichotomy.

Seriously, Pro...I've never seen anybody so confident on so little warrant. It's quite delightful.

[iambiguous]

Two Conceptions of Free Will
Matthew Gliatto
Published in ILLUMINATION

I sometimes ask people if they believe in free will. Most of the time, the people in question are not familiar with philosophy. They almost always say that they believe in free will, and they justify this by saying something like, “I mean, I make choices every day …… yesterday, I had a choice about whether I wanted grilled cheese or a hamburger, and I chose grilled cheese. That was a free choice.” My response to them is: yes, but that’s only compatibilist free will. For all you know, it might have been pre-determined that you were going to select grilled cheese. Therefore, you have not demonstrated that true free will — libertarian free will — exists.

The sound you hear is me gnashing my teeth.

"Compatibilist free will". You were predetermined to choose the grilled cheese. Okay, how then is that "for all practical purposes" different from saying that you were never able to choose the hamburger instead?

And if you were never able to not choose the grilled cheese, how than is compatibilist not the complete opposite of libertarian free will. The antithesis of it. How is it not completely ridiculous?

And how is either being familiar with or unfamiliar with philosophy make this any different?

This way...?

Thus, for people who aren’t familiar with philosophy, the concept of compatibilist free will is just a misunderstanding. They just don’t understand the subtle distinction between compatibilist free will and libertarian free will. However, I think that for people who do understand philosophy, the concept of compatibilist free will is not merely a misunderstanding; it is an excuse.

An excuse to hold people responsible for the things they do even though they were never able to not do what they can only do in the only possible material world?

For example, Daniel Dennett has written a book promoting compatibilism. In his view, even though our actions have been pre-determined by science, we don’t know what they are yet, and there’s no external force that stops us from doing what we want to do, so that means we have free will.

Does this work for you? Okay, then how do you differentiate predetermined action rooted in science from predetermined action rooted in the laws of matter? How do you explain chemically and neurologically how the fact that you don't know what you are predetermined to do was not in turn something that you were never able to not know?

In other words, given Dennett's own understanding of compatibilism, was he ever able to freely opt for full-blown determinism or libertarian autonomy instead? Or, in the only possible reality, is he just like all the rest of us...convinced that "somehow" our waking world reality is different from our dream world reality.

Or...

Now, Daniel Dennett is a talented thinker, and he certainly understands the distinction between the two conceptions of free will. And I’m sure that within himself, he knows that compatibilist free will isn’t really free will. But he knows that it is very bleak to say, “There is no free will,” and he doesn’t want to sound like a total pessimist, so he makes an excuse and claims that compatibilist free will is still free will ……… even though within himself, he knows it isn’t.

Bingo!!

That's basically my own reaction to compatibilism. You somehow "trick" yourself into believing you are not in all respects a slave to nature, but you were never able not to.

And then of course I am back to "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule". Admitting that I might be completely wrong about all of this but not really having a clue as to how to determine that "once and for all".

[iambiguous]

...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.

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.

Compelled or not, let's just leave it at that.

[Immanuel Can]

Compelled or not, let's just leave it at that.

Thanks for the chat.

[iambiguous]

Compelled or not, let's just leave it at that.

Thanks for the chat.

Actually, thanks entirely to nature, that's what we're here for.

On the other hand, what does nature know about that?

Again, the staggering mystery that is mind itself. And those foolish enough to imagine that they have themselves grasped it.

All on their own as it were.

Well, with a little help from God no doubt.

[iambiguous]

Two Conceptions of Free Will
Matthew Gliatto
Published in ILLUMINATION

Compatibilist free will is like decaf coffee. Decaf coffee looks like coffee, tastes like coffee, smells like coffee, and has the word “coffee” in its name. But it won’t wake you up, because it has no caffeine. So in the end, it isn’t really coffee. In the same way, compatibilist free will has the phrase “free will” in its name, and it is presented as if it were free will. But under compatibilism, your choices have been pre-determined, so compatibilist free will is not really free will. It’s like decaf coffee. It’s like fool’s gold. It’s like an artificial Christmas tree. It’s just not the real thing.

Exactly!

Yet there they are: all those otherwise intelligent individuals still able to insist that Mary could not have not chosen to abort her unborn fetus...but is still morally responsible for doing so.

I just can't figure out how anyone can actually come to conclude that other than because given the laws of nature being applicable to all of our brains, they were never able not to.

One further difference between compatibilism and libertarianism is that only compatibilist free will can be proven to exist. If you define free will as simply the absence of obstacles, then no one can doubt that free will exists. Since people make choices every day (recall my above made-up conversation about the grilled cheese and the hamburger), then the existence of compatibilist free will is obvious. However, no one will ever prove or disprove the existence of libertarian free will. Does this “ghost in the machine” really make free choices? Does it really have the power to decide our course of action? We will never know. It can’t be proven either way.

How does this not get back to mere mortals somehow figuring out everything that there possibly is to know about the human brain. How -- why? -- it evolved out of lifeless/mindless matter. How precisely the chemical and neurological interactions intertwine into human autonomy. How the human condition itself somehow fits into why things exist at all.

How are people making choices to nature not as computers making choices are to us?

Yes, you can define free will "as simply the absence of obstacles", but how do you then demonstrate that you freely opted to define it that way?

Back again to how the choices we make in the waking world are just somehow different from the "choices" we make in our dreams. How do we prove that they are different...other than intuitively, viscerally insisting that we "just know" that they are.

As for proving or disproving the existence of a "ghost in the machine", you tell me.

[promethean75]

Most compatibalists are closet determinists tho. What happens is, they're smart enough to be embarrassed in the company of their contemporaries if they publicly claimed to believe in freewill.... but they're too afraid to face what might become the consequences of publicly stating that they don't believe in freewill. Ergo, they adopt an imaginary middle ground. Dennett is an example. He knows there's no freewill. Not even kinda sorta. But he's a jolly old intellectual hippy guy who doesn't want to have anything to do with a metaphysical revolution that he thinks might set the world on fire.

[attofishpi]

Determinism is bollocks when it gets to the point of conscious life.

I could be akin to "God" - create a computer, and code it. Within that code could be a random number generator. I could never determine the precise result of the generated number. Now, one could say, you could if you knew ALL the sub-atomic conditions present at the determining of the random number generation. But then, I will say that determining the conditions results in affecting the result as per the wave function collapse.

[Belinda]

Determinism is bollocks when it gets to the point of conscious life.

I could be akin to "God" - create a computer, and code it. Within that code could be a random number generator. I could never determine the precise result of the generated number. Now, one could say, you could if you knew ALL the sub-atomic conditions present at the determining of the random number generation. But then, I will say that determining the conditions results in affecting the result as per the wave function collapse.

The concept of determinism does not imply prediction is possible. The only being that can know the future is the fabled God.

[attofishpi]

Determinism is bollocks when it gets to the point of conscious life.

I could be akin to "God" - create a computer, and code it. Within that code could be a random number generator. I could never determine the precise result of the generated number. Now, one could say, you could if you knew ALL the sub-atomic conditions present at the determining of the random number generation. But then, I will say that determining the conditions results in affecting the result as per the wave function collapse.

The concept of determinism does not imply prediction is possible.

I know but perhaps you are not understanding what I am implying.

The only being that can know the future is the fabled God.

Only if God wills the future to be. (via control of intelligent minds)

[Belinda]

Determinism is bollocks when it gets to the point of conscious life.

I could be akin to "God" - create a computer, and code it. Within that code could be a random number generator. I could never determine the precise result of the generated number. Now, one could say, you could if you knew ALL the sub-atomic conditions present at the determining of the random number generation. But then, I will say that determining the conditions results in affecting the result as per the wave function collapse.

The concept of determinism does not imply prediction is possible.

I know but perhaps you are not understanding what I am implying.

The only being that can know the future is the fabled God.

Only if God wills the future to be. (via control of intelligent minds)

I wish I did understand you better. I am with Promethean and iambiguous as regards so-called 'Free Will'.

[attofishpi]

The concept of determinism does not imply prediction is possible.

I know but perhaps you are not understanding what I am implying.

The only being that can know the future is the fabled God.

Only if God wills the future to be. (via control of intelligent minds)

I wish I did understand you better. I am with Promethean and iambiguous as regards so-called 'Free Will'.

So you are agnostic atheist?

[attofishpi]

Determinism is bollocks when it gets to the point of conscious life.

I could be akin to "God" - create a computer, and code it. Within that code could be a random number generator. I could never determine the precise result of the generated number. Now, one could say, you could if you knew ALL the sub-atomic conditions present at the determining of the random number generation. But then, I will say that determining the conditions results in affecting the result as per the wave function collapse.

I wish I did understand you better. I am with Promethean and iambiguous as regards so-called 'Free Will'.

Ok, so I can't sleep so will try and elaborate, sorry for not doing so earlier but I have to admit, I wasn't certain myself as to what I was implying from the above that I came up with while having a shower this morning.

Gonna have to further apologise to atheists as I am going to need to bring God into the equation. From experience, it seems apparent to me that God is a key requirement for qualia experience for our consciousness itself. That to perceive anything requires this intelligence that permeates our being.
Causality is determined, that much I will agree with, however until the point of conscious experience. Still under debate, but for me the observer causes the wave function to collapse, is almost a reverse to what we normally observe as a result of causality. The observer and the object are intertwined by this 3rd party intelligence aka God. I actually believe something really deep is happening to permit qualia sensation, that perhaps we are consumers of the "light" which feed back to dark energy\matter.
Now if we didn't have free-will, God would not have bothered with 10 commandments!

Sorry to bring dickhead into the equation, but shit is real.

[Belinda]

Determinism is bollocks when it gets to the point of conscious life.

I could be akin to "God" - create a computer, and code it. Within that code could be a random number generator. I could never determine the precise result of the generated number. Now, one could say, you could if you knew ALL the sub-atomic conditions present at the determining of the random number generation. But then, I will say that determining the conditions results in affecting the result as per the wave function collapse.

I wish I did understand you better. I am with Promethean and iambiguous as regards so-called 'Free Will'.

Ok, so I can't sleep so will try and elaborate, sorry for not doing so earlier but I have to admit, I wasn't certain myself as to what I was implying from the above that I came up with while having a shower this morning.

Gonna have to further apologise to atheists as I am going to need to bring God into the equation. From experience, it seems apparent to me that God is a key requirement for qualia experience for our consciousness itself. That to perceive anything requires this intelligence that permeates our being.
Causality is determined, that much I will agree with, however until the point of conscious experience. Still under debate, but for me the observer causes the wave function to collapse, is almost a reverse to what we normally observe as a result of causality. The observer and the object are intertwined by this 3rd party intelligence aka God. I actually believe something really deep is happening to permit qualia sensation, that perhaps we are consumers of the "light" which feed back to dark energy\matter.
Now if we didn't have free-will, God would not have bothered with 10 commandments!

Sorry to bring dickhead into the equation, but shit is real.

But the way to freedom is power over ignorance. Get as much knowledge as you possibly can about what is likely to cause what and you will be as free as you can be.