compatibilism

[henry quirk]

What makes you believe in free will? Seems to me your argument is kind of "since the earth looks flat, it must be".

As I say, Dom: many (most, all?) of my decisions are founded on what I hope to cause tomorrow. Those choices, those intentions, have no roots in yesterday. I'm not pushed from behind by what happened, but am enticed forward by what I imagine I can make happen. And, yep, it, my argument, is that simple (so simple I don't have to write a book about it).

But hasn't everything you've learned and remembered strengthened relevant synapses in your brain? And haven't all of these changes in your brain added up over time, making you in some ways a product of your past? And doesn't everything you do today come from your brain, which has changed over time and tells your muscles to do this or that by the nerve signals it's sending? Or do you think that your will exists independent of your brain?

Well, I never said any of us is dis-embedded from our histories. What I say is none of that determines any of us.

And, no, I don't think mind and brain are synonymous. The work of guys like Wilder Penfield definitely point in the direction that mind is sumthin' other than brain processes (it does not seem to me, however, that mind and brain are independent of one another; each requires the other).

[BigMike]

As I say, Dom: many (most, all?) of my decisions are founded on what I hope to cause tomorrow. Those choices, those intentions, have no roots in yesterday. I'm not pushed from behind by what happened, but am enticed forward by what I imagine I can make happen. And, yep, it, my argument, is that simple (so simple I don't have to write a book about it).

But hasn't everything you've learned and remembered strengthened relevant synapses in your brain? And haven't all of these changes in your brain added up over time, making you in some ways a product of your past? And doesn't everything you do today come from your brain, which has changed over time and tells your muscles to do this or that by the nerve signals it's sending? Or do you think that your will exists independent of your brain?

Well, I never said any of us is dis-embedded from our histories. What I say is none of that determines any of us.

And, no, I don't think mind and brain are synonymous. The work of guys like Wilder Penfield definitely point in the direction that mind is sumthin' other than brain processes (it does not seem to me, however, that mind and brain are independent of one another; each requires the other).

So if your mind is not independent of your brain, how can your will be free and independent of the laws of physics? If your physical brain affects how your "mind" works, then of course its decisions are governed by the laws of physics. Or what say you?

[henry quirk]

But hasn't everything you've learned and remembered strengthened relevant synapses in your brain? And haven't all of these changes in your brain added up over time, making you in some ways a product of your past? And doesn't everything you do today come from your brain, which has changed over time and tells your muscles to do this or that by the nerve signals it's sending? Or do you think that your will exists independent of your brain?

Well, I never said any of us is dis-embedded from our histories. What I say is none of that determines any of us.

And, no, I don't think mind and brain are synonymous. The work of guys like Wilder Penfield definitely point in the direction that mind is sumthin' other than brain processes (it does not seem to me, however, that mind and brain are independent of one another; each requires the other).

So if your mind is not independent of your brain, how can your will be free and independent of the laws of physics? If your physical brain affects how your "mind" works, then of course its decisions are governed by the laws of physics. Or what say you?

Oh, the brain certainly affects the mind, thru constraint. Like a faucet: water flows thru it, is certainly affected by it, but the faucet is not the true source of the water. And even though constrained by the faucet, water still does what it does once it exits.

[BigMike]

Well, I never said any of us is dis-embedded from our histories. What I say is none of that determines any of us.

And, no, I don't think mind and brain are synonymous. The work of guys like Wilder Penfield definitely point in the direction that mind is sumthin' other than brain processes (it does not seem to me, however, that mind and brain are independent of one another; each requires the other).

So if your mind is not independent of your brain, how can your will be free and independent of the laws of physics? If your physical brain affects how your "mind" works, then of course its decisions are governed by the laws of physics. Or what say you?

Oh, the brain certainly affects the mind, thru constraint. Like a faucet: water flows thru it, is certainly affected by it, but the faucet is not the true source of the water. And even though constrained by the faucet, water still does what it does once it exits.

Indeed. Water flows according to the Navier-Stokes Equations. Water has no other choice, no freedom whatsoever. I recommend Domenic Halvah's book: "No Free Will: But So Much More".

[henry quirk]

So if your mind is not independent of your brain, how can your will be free and independent of the laws of physics? If your physical brain affects how your "mind" works, then of course its decisions are governed by the laws of physics. Or what say you?

Oh, the brain certainly affects the mind, thru constraint. Like a faucet: water flows thru it, is certainly affected by it, but the faucet is not the true source of the water. And even though constrained by the faucet, water still does what it does once it exits.

Indeed. Water flows according to the Navier-Stokes Equations. Water has no other choice, no freedom whatsoever. I recommend Domenic Halvah's book: "No Free Will: But So Much More".

Yeah, don't confuse the metaphor with the reality, and, I ain't readin' your book, Dom.

[henry quirk]

As I say, up-thread: it's remarkable to me when folks like yourself argue you're robots with no natural claim to yourself.

[BigMike]

As I say, up-thread: it's remarkable to me when folks like yourself argue you're robots with no natural claim to yourself.

As I said: Read Halvah's book. You need to be brought down a bit from your high place. You clearly seem to believe that you are some kind of spirit or ghost or something equally nonsensical. People like you, intellectually dishonest, refusing to see facts are hard to deal with, and a waste of my time. Read the damn book and then we'll talk.

[henry quirk]

As I said: Read Halvah's book.

No.

*

You need to be brought down a bit from your high place.

And you, Dom, need to bootstrap yourself up.

*

You clearly seem to believe that you are some kind of spirit or ghost or something equally nonsensical.

And you believe you are a toaster.

*

intellectually dishonest

I don't think you know what that means.

[BigMike]

Even though they don't have a choice, people who believe they have free will are intrinsically evil. Some younger free-will believers can be saved, but rarely can older ones. The faster they go, the better for everyone else.

[henry quirk]

Even though they don't have a choice, people who believe they have free will are intrinsically evil. Some younger free-will believers can be saved, but rarely can older ones. The faster they go, the better for everyone else.

Just for that, I'm gonna stick around for another 59 years (so my EVIL can deepen, widen, and consume more hapless souls)...

714AF403-9323-4805-9265-E498B316FDAD.gif

[Iwannaplato]

Even though they don't have a choice, people who believe they have free will are intrinsically evil.

This would mean that 82% of Americans are evil
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... (30.77%25).
Convincing people, even temporarily, that they are wrong about free will, leads to more anti-social behavior....
https://theconversation.com/the-psychol ... will-97193

But maybe you're just playing around.

[BigMike]

Even though they don't have a choice, people who believe they have free will are intrinsically evil.

This would mean that 82% of Americans are evil
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... (30.77%25).
Convincing people, even temporarily, that they are wrong about free will, leads to more anti-social behavior....
https://theconversation.com/the-psychol ... will-97193

But maybe you're just playing around.

I'm not kidding, Iwannaplato. I am very aware that the majority of Americans and, I suspect, people of most nationalities, believe in free will. Indeed, there is no lack of evil in the world. But I do not think that the truth should be decided by popular belief or by voting. The truth should be based on facts and evidence. Unfortunately, there are many who reject the facts in favor of their preferred and preconceived views, a phenomenon known as "motivated reasoning". There is absolutely no evidence of free will. As Daniel Dennett said regarding people's belief in free will: "Everyday folks mean something demonstrably preposterous."
I also know about the study that showed students who read articles that didn't believe in free will were more likely to cheat than those who read articles that did. But the problem with those studies is that the cheating students weren't told what they had instead of free will. They were left with no idea what to do without free will. Once the fallacy of free will was proven, no one knew what to do about it. People had no direction. But Halvah explains the whole story, fills in the gap so to speak, in his book. I wish people would care.

[henry quirk]

Unfortunately, there are many who reject the facts in favor of their preferred and preconceived views, a phenomenon known as "motivated reasoning".

sez the toaster

There is absolutely no evidence of free will.

there ya go, reject(ing) the facts in favor of (your) preferred and preconceived view

question is: why do you prefer bein' a toaster?

[Iwannaplato]

But I do not think that the truth should be decided by popular belief or by voting.

I certainly didn't make that argument. I am being critical of your statement that if you believe in free will you are evil. Care to back that up?

The truth should be based on facts and evidence.

Fine. What are your facts and evidence that 82 percent of americans are evil? Or even Henry, for that matter?

Unfortunately, there are many who reject the facts in favor of their preferred and preconceived views, a phenomenon known as "motivated reasoning".

Yes, I can imagine that is coming into play in your conclusion about people necessarily being evil if they believe in free will.

[BigMike]

The truth should be based on facts and evidence.

Fine. What are your facts and evidence that 82 percent of americans are evil? Or even Henry, for that matter?

Libertarians and compatibilists (L&C) believe that people should be punished for their actions, even if they had no other choice. For example, when a baby poops in its diaper, a good parent does not punish it. Instead, good parents teach their children to go potty. Because the child could not have behaved differently, parents who beat the child or, even worse, kill it because of this are committing a heinous act. Such punishment is entirely unjustified.

Due to a lack of free will, all individuals receiving retributive punishment for unavoidable actions are equally unworthy of punishment. Therefore, I believe that all retributive punishment ("because they deserve it") is evil. Moreover, such cruel responses are logically consistent with a false belief in free will; such beliefs are inherently evil, and their adherents are eager to carry out evil deeds. Acts of evil follow logically from the falsehood of free will. This is known as "Ex Falso Quodlibet" or the explosion principle, “from falsehood, anything [follows]”.

As I stated in a previous comment, people who believe they have free will are inherently evil, even if they have no choice. That was what I meant. My opinion is that L&Cs who refuse to hear any counterargument or even attempt to ridicule it, perhaps out of a fear of being proven wrong, exhibit an innate desire to continue their evil practices. In my opinion, they should follow the advice of the English mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Clifford, who stated that we should only believe things supported by sufficient evidence. "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to ignore evidence that is relevant to his beliefs, or to dismiss relevant evidence in a facile way," he said. The evidence shows that the laws of physics explain everything that goes on in our brains; no one has ever found even an atom in our brain start moving unless acted upon by a force. There is no spooky "ghost in the machine", to quote the British philosopher Gilbert Ryle.