compatibilism

[bobmax]

I don't think it is "knowledge", rather it is an observation that is very difficult to complete.

There are too many things that we simply don't know for us to say to what extent we do or don't have free will. Our perceived experience when we excercise what feels like freewill is undoubtedly misleading to some extent, but we can only guess at what is really going on.

And we have epistemological problems if we claim to know we are determined.

All my thoughts and actions are determined.

Well, then how would you know that the conclusions you've reached you reached rationally? You might be right, but your own process would be utterly opaque to you, since you would be compelled to experience the 'that made sense' quale in reaction to whatever your though process was.

It is not a rational conclusion.

Because rationality must stop when it reaches the limit of the understandable.

But we can resist on the edge, without denying its presence as we usually do.

Trusting in our own faith in the Truth, we can follow the rational process, without backing down.
This process shows traces where something is wrong, of what we take for granted.

If we resist, we get involved in the first person, "Who am I?"

Because the absence of free will is total!
So that it is not even missing. Whose free will?

Paradoxically, the total absence of individual free will confirms the possibility of true absolute freedom!

When I am sure that free will is an illusion, the ego vanishes.
And in those rare moments it is as if you are at the origin of all things.
Great is compassion.

[Belinda]

The argument against the existence of Free Will is empirical. We see plenty of evidence that all events were caused and with ample hindsight we see events could not be otherwise than they were.
We extrapolate from that observation that what we humans do and intend to do is caused by the vast mesh of causes that contains the rest of nature.

Determinists don't concede that there is a supernatural cause that intrudes into nature like Free Will is reputed to do.

[bobmax]

Yes you are right.
Only an idiot can give himself such gifts.

But the One can be anything, even an idiot.
Isn't it the One source of infinite possibilities?

There is joy, there is pain, there is hope and despair. Happy stories and sad stories.
But what matters is that once the curtain fell, evil never happened.

The gift idea seems to be flawed in my opinion. A gift implies two, a giver and reciever.

As ONE-ness ... the very idea that this ONE is also the infinite many, could only be the illusion of Oneness itself.

Why would Oneness ever have the need or the necessity to gift itself, without creating the illusion of a SELF who is both a giver and a reciever...giving to itself....WHY would it need to do that? ..except as a pretense, or as a dream that never happened?

Why would what is already 'Whole' need to gift itself anything at all, since the very idea of ''Wholeness'' already implies it is Everything.

Also, if the gift idea is valid, then this Wholeness/One... could gift itself some intelligence. But what I would like to know bobmax is would that 'Intelligence' gift itself a Holocaust?....Hmm,something feels very off about this...perhaps you bobmax, could explain things better for me, shed some intelligent rational thinking on the matter....make your point really count, rather than just speculate your own ideas as if you knew exactly what is absolutely true and real....or you could just admit you do not know, and that you are just making it all up, as you imagine things to be.

I would like to openly straight talk with you about what you think you are talking about when you infer 'the gift idea' into life......so lets just try and see if we can make proper sense of what it is we are both trying to show each other using words..ok?

Hi Dontaskme,
the idea of ​​the gift has come to me lately.
When I finally faced the horror that has accompanied me all my life.

It attacks me suddenly, even after a long period of tranquility.
And I could only exorcise it by trying to think of something else.

Difficult to describe it, if not as a horror of absolute Nothingness.

This concrete being of ours, this reassuring reality of ours, suddenly becomes uncertain.
The Nothing shines through as the only truth.
Everything I love can at any moment turn out to be pure nothing!

Only recently I have, perhaps, realized the sense of this horror. It is a message that shows me what reality could be at any moment: Nothing.

Accepted this, everything is slowly falling into place.
Although nothing is really certain...

I am the only begotten child, as are you and everyone else (he is the One!).
I was thrown into the world, and the world is God.
When I stop being a son, I will return to the Father, who I am.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" for the simple reason that it is yourself.

[Iwannaplato]

It is not a rational conclusion.

Because rationality must stop when it reaches the limit of the understandable.

But we can resist on the edge, without denying its presence as we usually do.

Trusting in our own faith in the Truth, we can follow the rational process, without backing down.
This process shows traces where something is wrong, of what we take for granted.

If we resist, we get involved in the first person, "Who am I?"

Because the absence of free will is total!
So that it is not even missing. Whose free will?

Paradoxically, the total absence of individual free will confirms the possibility of true absolute freedom!

When I am sure that free will is an illusion, the ego vanishes.
And in those rare moments it is as if you are at the origin of all things.
Great is compassion.

I am not sure what you mean in parts of this, but I will respond as if I do. Just making clear there may be communication problems.
I am not arguing one should abandon rationality. I am nto saying one should believe in free will. I am not saying one should not believe in determinism or use it as a working hypothesis.

I am saying that if one is certain and argues it is the case, there is a problem entailed with that certainty given the very nature of what one believes. what is entailed by determinism. It does put a vast asterisk next to any conclusions, especially things that are hard to test or complicated. And frankly I see no reason to decide whether free will or determinism or indeterminisms that are not free will or anything else is the case.

[phyllo]

Determinists don't concede that there is a supernatural cause that intrudes into nature like Free Will is reputed to do.

Yes. Where is the component of free-will which allows decisions independent of the current state of world and the person?

[Dontaskme]

Yes you are right.
Only an idiot can give himself such gifts.

But the One can be anything, even an idiot.
Isn't it the One source of infinite possibilities?

There is joy, there is pain, there is hope and despair. Happy stories and sad stories.
But what matters is that once the curtain fell, evil never happened.

The gift idea seems to be flawed in my opinion. A gift implies two, a giver and reciever.

As ONE-ness ... the very idea that this ONE is also the infinite many, could only be the illusion of Oneness itself.

Why would Oneness ever have the need or the necessity to gift itself, without creating the illusion of a SELF who is both a giver and a reciever...giving to itself....WHY would it need to do that? ..except as a pretense, or as a dream that never happened?

Why would what is already 'Whole' need to gift itself anything at all, since the very idea of ''Wholeness'' already implies it is Everything.

Also, if the gift idea is valid, then this Wholeness/One... could gift itself some intelligence. But what I would like to know bobmax is would that 'Intelligence' gift itself a Holocaust?....Hmm,something feels very off about this...perhaps you bobmax, could explain things better for me, shed some intelligent rational thinking on the matter....make your point really count, rather than just speculate your own ideas as if you knew exactly what is absolutely true and real....or you could just admit you do not know, and that you are just making it all up, as you imagine things to be.

I would like to openly straight talk with you about what you think you are talking about when you infer 'the gift idea' into life......so lets just try and see if we can make proper sense of what it is we are both trying to show each other using words..ok?

Hi Dontaskme,
the idea of ​​the gift has come to me lately.
When I finally faced the horror that has accompanied me all my life.

It attacks me suddenly, even after a long period of tranquility.
And I could only exorcise it by trying to think of something else.

Difficult to describe it, if not as a horror of absolute Nothingness.

This concrete being of ours, this reassuring reality of ours, suddenly becomes uncertain.
The Nothing shines through as the only truth.
Everything I love can at any moment turn out to be pure nothing!

Only recently I have, perhaps, realized the sense of this horror. It is a message that shows me what reality could be at any moment: Nothing.

Accepted this, everything is slowly falling into place.
Although nothing is really certain...

I am the only begotten child, as are you and everyone else (he is the One!).
I was thrown into the world, and the world is God.
When I stop being a son, I will return to the Father, who I am.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" for the simple reason that it is yourself.

It’s not that the nothingness is the horror - the horror is the conscious awareness of knowing you are a feeling sentient being…of being consciously aware of pain and all the horror that is the agony of pain….that’s the horror.

Again, I ask you what intelligent God would subscribe to such a horror of being aware of itself as a thinking feeling sentient being?

[bobmax]

The argument against the existence of Free Will is empirical. We see plenty of evidence that all events were caused and with ample hindsight we see events could not be otherwise than they were.
We extrapolate from that observation that what we humans do and intend to do is caused by the vast mesh of causes that contains the rest of nature.

Determinists don't concede that there is a supernatural cause that intrudes into nature like Free Will is reputed to do.

It is precisely the presence of a supernatural cause that does not allow free will.

Transcendence freely wants. There can be no other free will. For the simple reason that it is the One.

Determinism is just a way to start wondering about the meaning of the world.
But there are other reasons why free will cannot exist.
For me the most important reason is ethical.

[bobmax]

It is not a rational conclusion.

Because rationality must stop when it reaches the limit of the understandable.

But we can resist on the edge, without denying its presence as we usually do.

Trusting in our own faith in the Truth, we can follow the rational process, without backing down.
This process shows traces where something is wrong, of what we take for granted.

If we resist, we get involved in the first person, "Who am I?"

Because the absence of free will is total!
So that it is not even missing. Whose free will?

Paradoxically, the total absence of individual free will confirms the possibility of true absolute freedom!

When I am sure that free will is an illusion, the ego vanishes.
And in those rare moments it is as if you are at the origin of all things.
Great is compassion.

I am not sure what you mean in parts of this, but I will respond as if I do. Just making clear there may be communication problems.
I am not arguing one should abandon rationality. I am nto saying one should believe in free will. I am not saying one should not believe in determinism or use it as a working hypothesis.

I am saying that if one is certain and argues it is the case, there is a problem entailed with that certainty given the very nature of what one believes. what is entailed by determinism. It does put a vast asterisk next to any conclusions, especially things that are hard to test or complicated. And frankly I see no reason to decide whether free will or determinism or indeterminisms that are not free will or anything else is the case.

Belief is indispensable in our every thought or action.
We are so used to considering true only what can be proven, that we have forgotten that all evidence is based on a faith.

What you described about your father is in my opinion a clear example of a man of faith.
And faith has nothing to do with religious belief.

Science itself is founded on assumptions that are acts of faith.

However, one may very well believe in something wrong.
And when does it prove wrong?

When it contradicts what we believe even more firmly true.
It is always a question of faith.

Why did I come to the conclusion that free will is an illusion?

Because free will confirms the reality of evil.
That is, the real possibility of doing evil freely.
Which is therefore metaphysical evil!

As faith in the Good grew in me, the actual reality of free will was no longer acceptable.
So I now believe that free will is an illusion in the name of my belief in the Good.

Accepting within me that I have no free will implies my own necessary annihilation.
Always only sketchy, but that will ultimately be inevitable.

[bobmax]

It’s not that the nothingness is the horror - the horror is the conscious awareness of knowing you are a feeling sentient being…of being consciously aware of pain and all the horror that is the agony of pain….that’s the horror.

Again, I ask you what intelligent God would subscribe to such a horror of being aware of itself as a thinking feeling sentient being?

What you describe is the horror of existence.
Existence can be truly awful, but it is still existence.
It is an unacceptable being there.
To experience this horror, knowledge is indeed required.

But the horror of Nothingness is of a completely different kind.
It does not involve any knowledge.
It occurs before any thought. In fact, even just thinking the horror dissolves.
What I'm talking about is metaphysical horror!
Regardless of being there, as bad as you want.

Regarding your question, which intelligent God would generate such a horror, the answer can only be one.

That intelligent God is you.

Maybe you already feel it.
But I think you reject it.

Yet who else but you?
Only begotten son?

And so do I.
Only begotten son.

But it's not like we share the responsibility with this...

It is, we are, the One.

[iambiguous]

Yo, henry! You're up!!

Been there, done that: beginning on page 6 of this thread.

Ah, this "intellectual contraption"...

free will -- libertarian agent causation -- is reality

man is not mired in causal chains: he bends them, begins them, ends them

man is a composite being, spirit and material (or mind and body, if you prefer) as one; he is reason, conscience, free will, and causal/creative power

man is a person, not an animal

everyone readin' this knows this is true

...where you merely assert what "man is" as though in asserting it that makes it true. As though in asserting it, that makes the points I raise here...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

Which one?

...just go away.

Or, perhaps, in a wholly determined universe you are off the hook [like all the rest of us] because you were never able not to post anything other than what the laws of matter compel you to.

Spooky stuff to say the least.

[Dontaskme]

That intelligent God is you.

Maybe you already feel it.
But I think you reject it.

Yet who else but you?
Only begotten son?

And so do I.
Only begotten son.

But it's not like we share the responsibility with this...

It is, we are, the One.

I used to pretend I knew things.

But recently I’ve come clean with myself - I’ve stopped pretending I know, and just accepted that the only thing I can know is nothing.

And that I am this nothing appearing as something.


Everything else is just a fantasy, or it’s a mirage. Just an ocean of empty words. Comparable to a dream. A dream where I am lucid and can only wish for things to happen and not have any power to make them happen….things only happen if they are meant to happen.


What I would like to happen has never existed….so it’s like what’s the point in this dream.

Might as well return to the nothingness that I have always been, and stop dreaming of things that are never going to exist anyway.

.

[henry quirk]

like, five minutes of thread review netted me...

Biggy,

aside from just believing this...and then asserting it to others here as though anyone who does not believe the same is inherently/necessarily wrong, how would you go about demonstrating/verifying it...?

first, I don't assert others are wrong: flat out, I say anyone claimin' they're not a free will is lyin' or nuts

second, I don't have to demonstrate or verify diddly: every person readin' these words, and the billions who never will, demonstrate agency, causal power, free will all the damned time

we can argue about why and how man is a free will, but there's no argument to be had that man is anything other than, or less than, a free will

What are your own conclusions regarding how and why the "human condition" itself fits into a definitive understanding of existence?

I got no clue what you're askin'...so I'll take a guess and wing it (but I'll avoid bein' preachy): Reality is not a rudderless affair; there is a moral dimension; man is not just a hopped-up, turbo-charged, monkey

This to me is a classic example of the "general description intellectual contraption" that revolves around the assumption that "by definition" it is true because only your own definitions are allowed to be considered.

and -- to me -- the anti-free will position is a denial of what is apparent; liars deny free will cuz -- heaven forbid! -- they should be responsible for themselves, so they work hard to redefine man as appliance; nutjobs -- driven nutty by too much philosophy -- schizophrenically choose to be appliances

either way: it's for crap

But the words aren't connected to the world. To a particular context.

yeah, no...I'm not talkin' about some isolated thing, some quality or abstract: I'm talkin' about man...I'm talkin' about you and me and him and her...I'm talkin' about the nearly 8 billion agents on the planet

They merely presume that if Mary aborts her unborn fetus she is morally responsible because "by definition" -- your own -- she has free will.

oh, when mary aborts, for no other reason than she been inconvenienced, she's a friggin murderer

here's why...

that human life she offs isn't hers: lil fetus person belongs to himself

*

Biggy,

What actual hard evidence do you have that explains human autonomy?

A rather large evidence of free will is you, writin' posts in a forum, wherein you choose your topic, you choose your approach to the topic, you choose your tone, you choose the words to communicate meaning.

Either you choose (are a free will, have causal power) or you're a Rhomba.

As I say: we can argue about why and how man is a free will, but there's no argument to be had that man is anything other than, or less than, a free will.

-----

Mannie,

Now, now, iambiguous...that's *a cheap shot

*meh...just a sparrowfart, like most of the post...not worth the mention.

*

A compatibilist would hold that science — specifically neuroscience — could fully explain the process by which a person makes a decision and does something.

The promissory materialist: Yeah, I know materialism can't explain the mind. I know the work of gentlemen like Wilder Penfield seems to say materialism can't explain the mind (becuz it appears mind and brain aren't the same thing). But I promise you, when science does more work in the future, they’ll prove I’m right.

Okay. Best quit jawin', then, and get to work.

*

biggy: The words aren't connected to the world in the manner in which neuroscientists attempt to grapple with human consciousness experientially/experimentally re the "scientific method".

-----

There are many men of differing disciplines who can use of these data, whether they find it reasonable to at­tempt to fit them into the hypothesis that the brain ex­plains the mind, or whether they conclude, as I have done, that the mind is a separate but related element. One of these two "improbabilities" must be chosen. Taken either way, the nature of the mind presents the fundamental problem, perhaps the most difficult and most important of all problems. For myself, after a professional lifetime spent in trying to discover how the brain accounts for the mind, it comes as a surprise now to discover, dur­ing this final examination of the evidence, that the dualist hypothesis seems the more reasonable of the two possible explanations. -Wilder Penfield

-----

We regard promissory materialism as superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and the mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists...who often confuse their religion with their science. -John Eccles & Daniel Robinson

-----

Shall I continue quotin' neuroscientists who've grappled with human consciousness experientially/experimentally re the "scientific method"?

*

And if someone here has come across one that indicates human brain matter has in fact acquired the capacity to reason autonomously, please link me to it.

biggy: The words aren't connected to the world in the manner in which neuroscientists attempt to grapple with human consciousness experientially/experimentally re the "scientific method".

-----

82750DA1-E937-48C3-A6C4-17F319D28C52.jpeg

There are many men of differing disciplines who can use of these data, whether they find it reasonable to at­tempt to fit them into the hypothesis that the brain ex­plains the mind, or whether they conclude, as I have done, that the mind is a separate but related element. One of these two "improbabilities" must be chosen. Taken either way, the nature of the mind presents the fundamental problem, perhaps the most difficult and most important of all problems. For myself, after a professional lifetime spent in trying to discover how the brain accounts for the mind, it comes as a surprise now to discover, dur­ing this final examination of the evidence, that the dualist hypothesis seems the more reasonable of the two possible explanations. -Wilder Penfield

-----

588EDA18-97F6-4F96-AEA4-0004AD31F7E1.jpeg

We regard promissory materialism as superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and the mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists...who often confuse their religion with their science. -John Eccles & Daniel Robinson

-----

Shall I continue quotin' neuroscientists who've grappled with human consciousness experientially/experimentally re the "scientific method"?

.....five minutes, biggy

-----

the book covers didn't quote right...I guess you'll have to use the lil blue arrow to see 'em in the original post...if you can muster the will

[iambiguous]

aside from just believing this...and then asserting it to others here as though anyone who does not believe the same is inherently/necessarily wrong, how would you go about demonstrating/verifying it...?

first, I don't assert others are wrong: flat out, I say anyone claimin' they're not a free will is lyin' or nuts

Ah, they're liars or mentally ill...but not wrong. And how is this assertion not just another example of where you avoid altogether the points I raise here:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

Of course: with another flat-out assertion:

second, I don't have to demonstrate or verify diddly: every person readin' these words, and the billions who never will, demonstrate agency, causal power, free will all the damned time

we can argue about why and how man is a free will, but there's no argument to be had that man is anything other than, or less than, a free will

Note to others:

Again: how does he not project here as the caricature of the authoritarian objectivist?

The "cartoon character" blowhard I spoke of elsewhere:

"I said it, that settles it!!"

Guns, abortions, free will...everything.

What are your own conclusions regarding how and why the "human condition" itself fits into a definitive understanding of existence?

I got no clue what you're askin'...so I'll take a guess and wing it (but I'll avoid bein' preachy): Reality is not a rudderless affair; there is a moral dimension; man is not just a hopped-up, turbo-charged, monkey

This in forum derived from Philosophy Now magazine! And it embarrasses him not in the least to post things like this.

This to me is a classic example of the "general description intellectual contraption" that revolves around the assumption that "by definition" it is true because only your own definitions are allowed to be considered.

and -- to me -- the anti-free will position is a denial of what is apparent; liars deny free will cuz -- heaven forbid! -- they should be responsible for themselves, so they work hard to redefine man as appliance; nutjobs -- driven nutty by too much philosophy -- schizophrenically choose to be appliances

either way: it's for crap

More, uh, hyperbole? Though, sure, technically, let's try to pin down the exact definition and meaning of the word "crap". Let's then connect it to the world such that there can be no doubt that in regard to guns and abortions and free will other points of view either are or are not crap.

They merely presume that if Mary aborts her unborn fetus she is morally responsible because "by definition" -- your own -- she has free will.

oh, when mary aborts, for no other reason than she been inconvenienced, she's a friggin murderer

One thing for sure: That ain't crap!

here's why...

that human life she offs isn't hers: lil fetus person belongs to himself

Again, he said it! That settles it!! The perfect philosophy!!!

What actual hard evidence do you have that explains human autonomy?

A rather large evidence of free will is you, writin' posts in a forum, wherein you choose your topic, you choose your approach to the topic, you choose your tone, you choose the words to communicate meaning.

Either you choose (are a free will, have causal power) or you're a Rhomba.

As I say: we can argue about why and how man is a free will, but there's no argument to be had that man is anything other than, or less than, a free will.

Back again to this part:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

The stuff those silly brain scientists trivally concern themselves with.

As for them...

The words aren't connected to the world in the manner in which neuroscientists attempt to grapple with human consciousness experientially/experimentally re the "scientific method".

There are many men of differing disciplines who can use of these data, whether they find it reasonable to at­tempt to fit them into the hypothesis that the brain ex­plains the mind, or whether they conclude, as I have done, that the mind is a separate but related element. One of these two "improbabilities" must be chosen. Taken either way, the nature of the mind presents the fundamental problem, perhaps the most difficult and most important of all problems. For myself, after a professional lifetime spent in trying to discover how the brain accounts for the mind, it comes as a surprise now to discover, dur­ing this final examination of the evidence, that the dualist hypothesis seems the more reasonable of the two possible explanations. -Wilder Penfield

-----

We regard promissory materialism as superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and the mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists...who often confuse their religion with their science. -John Eccles & Daniel Robinson

-----

Shall I continue quotin' neuroscientists who've grappled with human consciousness experientially/experimentally re the "scientific method"?

Sure, the determinists have their experts, the libertarians their own. Just Google it. But here's the thing: nothing in the way of that Big Breakthrough such that the media around the globe are splashing those big bold headlines about the "free will question" finally being resolved:

"Deist God Proven To Have Implanted Free Will In Human Souls"

[henry quirk]

they're liars or mentally ill...but not wrong

To be wrong is to be in honest error, so no: they're not wrong. One lies (deceives), the other is a turnip (incapable).

"I said it, that settles it!!"

Yep. Just. Like. You. (do you read your own posts?)

it embarrasses him not in the least to post things like this

Do you read your own posts?

let's try to pin down the exact definition and meaning of the word "crap".

It comes out of your butt. It stinks. No one sensibly wants to touch it.

The perfect philosophy!!!

As an ethic: recognizin' and respectin' natural rights is perfect.

Just Google it.

Yes, do that. Ask are mind and brain the same? or are mind and brain two different things? .

[henry quirk]

"Deist God Proven To Have Implanted Free Will In Human Souls"

5225D752-FBEE-4D0D-9D84-A03E8B37468B.jpeg