compatibilism

[henry quirk]

That is a good idea but that idea doesn't solve the problem of where the information originates, or to put it another way, where the info is generated.

Well, it's no more, or less, a problem than sayin' man is nuthin' but matter but bein' unable to explain how matter originates consciousness, self-consciousness, personhood, etc.

[iambiguous]

Compatibilism: Can free will and determinism co-exist?
Stanford philosophy professor takes the side of a beleaguered theory – that predetermination and free will are not mutually exclusive.
BY MAX MCCLURE at Stanford News

Weak theory of ability

Perry's preferred position – also based on a suggestion from Hume – rests on a clarification of how the word "can" is used.

"If you want," he said, "you can take that pen, turn it upside-down, jam it up your nose and bleed out all over the table."

But I didn't stick the pen in my nose – and an incompatibilist would say that, because of that, I can't do it at all. If we rewind the universe and play through the scene again, I will continually refrain from injuring myself, in a way that suggests I have no choice in the matter.

This is sort of the nitty gritty of it all, isn't it?

Right here, right now, I am typing these words. Then after I "submit" them in a post here, I can sit back and grapple with what I will do next. And the more I attempt to "think through" whether or not whatever I do choose to do I did or did not do of my own volition, I am never really able to feel anything along the lines of an absolute certainty. Or I feel absolutely certain about it but haven't a clue as to how to actually demonstrate it to the world.

Is that just me, though? Do others feel this certainty that if they decide to make themselves a sandwich or to masturbate or to murder their much loathed next door neighbor, it was entirely their own option to choose this thing rather than another.

It's sort of like looking at yourself in the mirror and trying to pin down I. Is it all embodied in the eyes? Is that where the "soul" resides too?

Perry, however, thinks that's a strange way of using the word "can." Here, the word should refer to the "repertoire of actions" that a person is physically able to perform.

"Assuming you're a relatively normal individual, I'm virtually certain that you're not going to do it. But there's a difference between you and someone who can't move their arms at all."

Of course that goes without saying. Even if we do possess free will we can't do things we are physically unable to do. Or, in regard to morality, we won't do things we have been indoctrinated or taught ourselves are wrong to do. The bit about being hypnotized and refusing to do what is commanded if doing it is against your "moral code". Our will and dasein.

In essence, Perry argues that having an ability "doesn't mean as much as people think it does." It simply means that a person could intentionally do something, even if her own desires prevent her from doing it.

"Why invent a notion of 'can' that includes what you 'want' to do?" he asked.

This approach, which he calls the "weak theory of abilities," decouples "won't" from "can't" – and suggests that incompatibilism is "about the abuse of language by other philosophers."

"I think there are certain properties that have been recognized by human beings and animals long before language," he explained. "The idea of 'can' is one of them." Animals are able to intuitively base their behaviors on what they can or can't physically do, Perry said.

"And then philosophers came along and decided to define 'can' in terms of 'possible,'" he said. "That just doesn't follow."

So, compelled or not, think through how this is all applicable to your own life. Things you are capable of doing physically but won't. Things you aren't capable of doing physically but want to. Things you are capable of doing and do. But than others insist that you ought not to have done them.

[Immanuel Can]

I admit Immanuel seems to be set in his ways as do you.

There are two reasons for a person to be set in his ways: one is that he is stubborn. The other is that he actually knows something. And they are not mutually exclusive options.

The best part of knowledge is the knowledge that your knowledge is limited.

Actually, it's not. A good thing is to know your knowledge is limited. It conduces to humility. But it's not enough. It's merely negative.

The point of knowledge is not to find out how stupid you are, but rather to approximate or find truth. Nobody sets out on a journey unless they expect to arrive somewhere. Nobody throws their money or time after an investment from which they expect no returns. A person who says they are "learning" but never arrive at any conclusions isn't "learning" anything at all. They've gone on a fools' errand...looking for things that they already should know they cannot have.

So is we stop at "knowledge is limited," as if that were the totality of the facts, that's utterly anti-intellectual. It really means there's no point in trying to find out anything at all.

[Iwannaplato]

The best part of knowledge is the knowledge that your knowledge is limited.

I guess I would say, thinking, sometimes, that your knowledge is limited or you might be wrong in this case or my biases may be affecting me right now (and at other times) and similar thoughs, is generally positive. I think when we talk about beliefs (and I consider it practical to talk about knowledge as a kind of belief, one rigorously arrived at) it is often as if our minds have an official document with our beliefs on it. And we are always guided by this internal list. When, it seems to me, we belief different things, especially at this meta-level, at different times and to different degrees of certainty at different times.

Sure, I will start sentences with 'I believe...' but I notice over time that often there are other times when I do not or I doubt more or I might start the same sentence with 'I know....' or 'I am pretty sure that....'

So, I think the thought you mentioned is a good one in the mix over time.

[RCSaunders]

So if we stop at "knowledge is limited," as if that were the totality of the facts, that's utterly anti-intellectual. It really means there's no point in trying to find out anything at all.

Wow! That's a surprise.

It was not so long ago you were assuring me no knowledge was certain, that the nearest to knowledge one could get was only statistically likely. If you've changed your mind about that you've made real progress.

Do you remember writing these:

Again, there is no certainty there: only proximity between the concepts, discerned probabilistically by each of us.

I'm still saying it's right. Empirical knowledge is probabilistic. And now we can add that linguistic communication is an uncertain business too.

But you know that: it's how miscommunication is possible. The words we use do not relate unambiguously to unique and specific items in the real world.

in practice, our knowledge is not true-or-false to the point of certainty. Again, we are, at best, only highly-confident that proposition X or Y is true or false. We do not know for sure.

If that last were true, Belinda would be right, all knowledge would be limited.

Fotunately she is not right and there are endless things we know without limit or doubt.

[Immanuel Can]

So if we stop at "knowledge is limited," as if that were the totality of the facts, that's utterly anti-intellectual. It really means there's no point in trying to find out anything at all.

Wow! That's a surprise.

It was not so long ago you were assuring me no knowledge was certain, that the nearest to knowledge one could get was only statistically likely. If you've changed your mind about that you've made real progress.

I didn't say that good knowledge is not probabilistic. It is.

There is nothing we know with absolute certainty, except that which is within a closed system of symbols like mathematics. That does not mean we have nothing that merits the term "knowledge." Empirical knowledge IS knowledge. The fact that it's probabilistic rather than absolute does not make it wrong, nor does it make it "not-knowledge."

In fact, it makes it most likely to be right.

But your list of things you think you know is not plausible at all. Let's just take the first few:

What you are currently experiencing.
What you are currently doing.
Where you currently are.
What you are seeing.
What you are hearing.
What you are feeling.
What you are tasting.
What you are smelling.
That you are reading.
That you are thinking.
That you are awake....

If you have a dream, you think you "know" all of these things. But you are 100% wrong about all of them. So they're not even close to being cases of 100% certain knowledge.

[Belinda]

That is a good idea but that idea doesn't solve the problem of where the information originates, or to put it another way, where the info is generated.

Well, it's no more, or less, a problem than sayin' man is nuthin' but matter but bein' unable to explain how matter originates consciousness, self-consciousness, personhood, etc.

Some people would turn that on its head and say "Well, it's no more, or less, a problem than sayin' man is nuthin' but consciousness, but bein' unable to explain how consciousness originates matter."

[henry quirk]

Some people would turn that on its head and say "Well, it's no more, or less, a problem than sayin' man is nuthin' but consciousness, but bein' unable to explain how consciousness originates matter."

Indeed. Fortunately for me, consciousness originates matter ain't my assertion so I don't have to defend it or explain it. I have my hands full with substance dualism.

[RCSaunders]

So if we stop at "knowledge is limited," as if that were the totality of the facts, that's utterly anti-intellectual. It really means there's no point in trying to find out anything at all.

Wow! That's a surprise.

It was not so long ago you were assuring me no knowledge was certain, that the nearest to knowledge one could get was only statistically likely. If you've changed your mind about that you've made real progress.

I didn't say that good knowledge is not probabilistic. It is.

There is nothing we know with absolute certainty, except that which is within a closed system of symbols like mathematics. That does not mean we have nothing that merits the term "knowledge." Empirical knowledge IS knowledge. The fact that it's probabilistic rather than absolute does not make it wrong, nor does it make it "not-knowledge."

In fact, it makes it most likely to be right.

But your list of things you think you know is not plausible at all. Let's just take the first few:

What you are currently experiencing.
What you are currently doing.
Where you currently are.
What you are seeing.
What you are hearing.
What you are feeling.
What you are tasting.
What you are smelling.
That you are reading.
That you are thinking.
That you are awake....

If you have a dream, you think you "know" all of these things. But you are 100% wrong about all of them. So they're not even close to being cases of 100% certain knowledge.

So you remain an incurable skeptic, after all, and don't know anything for certain. It's all probably just some terrible nightmare, because you never know whether you are asleep or awake?

But you're certain you are going to heaven and almost everyone else is going to hell and you know exactly what everyone else ought to believe and how they ought to live their lives. How sad!

[Belinda]

There are two reasons for a person to be set in his ways: one is that he is stubborn. The other is that he actually knows something. And they are not mutually exclusive options.

The best part of knowledge is the knowledge that your knowledge is limited.

Actually, it's not. A good thing is to know your knowledge is limited. It conduces to humility. But it's not enough. It's merely negative.

The point of knowledge is not to find out how stupid you are, but rather to approximate or find truth. Nobody sets out on a journey unless they expect to arrive somewhere. Nobody throws their money or time after an investment from which they expect no returns. A person who says they are "learning" but never arrive at any conclusions isn't "learning" anything at all. They've gone on a fools' errand...looking for things that they already should know they cannot have.

So is we stop at "knowledge is limited," as if that were the totality of the facts, that's utterly anti-intellectual. It really means there's no point in trying to find out anything at all.

The point of knowledge is not to find out how stupid you are, but rather to approximate or find the most probable solution to a problem. Nobody sets out on a journey unless they have a reasonable level of hope to arrive somewhere. Nobody throws their money or time after an investment from which they expect no returns but sometimes people have faith in lost causes. A person who says they are "learning" but never arrive at any conclusions isn't "learning" anything eternally true at all. They've not gone on a fools' errand...looking for things that they already should know they cannot have, but are trying to get as close as they can to what is good, true, or beautiful.
Our defence against lies, cheating, and gullibility is based on the sceptical attitude.

[Belinda]

Some people would turn that on its head and say "Well, it's no more, or less, a problem than sayin' man is nuthin' but consciousness, but bein' unable to explain how consciousness originates matter."

Indeed. Fortunately for me, consciousness originates matter ain't my assertion so I don't have to defend it or explain it. I have my hands full with substance dualism.

Abandon substance dualism.

There is only one substance which is either God or Nature.

[henry quirk]

Abandon substance dualism.

Nope.

[Immanuel Can]

So you remain an incurable skeptic, after all,

Not at all.

I'm not skeptical that knowledge is possible and valuable. I'm just pointing out the obvious fact, conceded by all significant epistemologists, that human knowledge is probabilistic, not absolute, in empirical matters.

That's not even a controversial claim in epistemology, actually.

But you're certain you are going to heaven and almost everyone else is going to hell and you know exactly what everyone else ought to believe and how they ought to live their lives.

No, I don't. I merely say that God does.

And if you believed God exists,-- any version of God -- then that point wouldn't be controversial with you, either: even if you believed in a different Supreme Being, then you would still believe that that Surpreme Being would, by definition, know these things.

[Immanuel Can]

There is only one substance which is either God or Nature.

Which is it, B?

[Immanuel Can]

Our defence against lies, cheating, and gullibility is based on the sceptical attitude.

Again, only partly.

The problem with the skeptical attitude, as Descartes showed, is that a person who is ONLY skeptical ends up being able to believe in nothing at all. Descartes thought maybe he could believe in his own existence, because there has to be somebody "there" to doubt or be skeptical; but later critics of Descartes have even questioned that he had a right to that much certainty.

Skepticism needs more. It needs added to it some positive willingness to believe, provided the evidence is sufficiently strong. If it does not have that, it's a eunuch, a dead stick, an epistemological gelding.