compatibilism

[phyllo]

Because freedom expresses myself, my essence.
My action "is" myself.
So it would be strange that there is an alternative, if so I would be split.

It is odd or perhaps overly lyrical to assert that your deeds are you. Nonetheless, where is the liberty in that? You have no free will, whatever.

Yes I agree.

Free will does not exist.

But not because determinism is true.
Free will does not exist because there can be no unconditional origin of events.

This unconditional origin cannot exist because it would be Chaos!

The non-existence of free will does not mean that we are slaves.
We are not slaves at all.
We just ... we are not.

I've made the same point but using other words.


Someone with free-will would act exactly as someone without free-will because they would be reacting to the same environmental conditions. The alternative is that the person with free-will acts randomly for no reason.

[BigMike]

Because freedom expresses myself, my essence.
My action "is" myself.
So it would be strange that there is an alternative, if so I would be split.

It is odd or perhaps overly lyrical to assert that your deeds are you. Nonetheless, where is the liberty in that? You have no free will, whatever.

Yes I agree.

Free will does not exist.

But not because determinism is true.
Free will does not exist because there can be no unconditional origin of events.

This unconditional origin cannot exist because it would be Chaos!

The non-existence of free will does not mean that we are slaves.
We are not slaves at all.
We just ... we are not.

True and false. Obviously, the old notion of determinism is no longer valid. Heisenberg stabbed this literal interpretation of determinism in the heart. However, in a modern language, the conservation laws remain valid (even conservation of energy, which for a few years was in serious doubt). Determinism in its amended sense, conformity to conservation principles (which, by the way, are the basis of all physical laws), remains valid.

[BigMike]

Free will does not exist.

I've made the same point but using other words.

Someone with free-will would act exactly as someone without free-will because they would be reacting to the same environmental conditions. The alternative is that the person with free-will acts randomly for no reason.

How can you say there is no free will, and then claim that someone with free-will would act exactly as someone without free-will?

[phyllo]

Free will does not exist.

I've made the same point but using other words.

Someone with free-will would act exactly as someone without free-will because they would be reacting to the same environmental conditions. The alternative is that the person with free-will acts randomly for no reason.

How can you say there is no free will, and then claim that someone with free-will would act exactly as someone without free-will?

Do you understand when someone examines a hypothetical situations to see what conclusions one can draw from it?

[BigMike]

I've made the same point but using other words.

Someone with free-will would act exactly as someone without free-will because they would be reacting to the same environmental conditions. The alternative is that the person with free-will acts randomly for no reason.

How can you say there is no free will, and then claim that someone with free-will would act exactly as someone without free-will?

Do you understand when someone examines a hypothetical situations to see what conclusions one can draw from it?

If free will existed, its existence would have hindered the evolution of the species. We would have quickly perished. Instead of pursuing the principle of the survival of the fittest, our free will would have intervened and caused us to do something dumb, leading to our demise. We would not have done the same thing.

[phyllo]

Freedom implies the capacity to act otherwise
Determinism seems to exclude the capacity to act otherwise

This is a big deal in the argument.

But if you had free-will, why the hell would you act otherwise??

We split Mary into two ... free-will Mary and determined Mary.

They both have to decide about having an abortion.

They're both in the same environment and they have the same history.

Why would free-will Mary make a different decision than determined Mary?? She wouldn't.

The whole concept of "capacity to act otherwise" is illogical.

[phyllo]

How can you say there is no free will, and then claim that someone with free-will would act exactly as someone without free-will?

Do you understand when someone examines a hypothetical situations to see what conclusions one can draw from it?

If free will existed, its existence would have hindered the evolution of the species. We would have quickly perished. Instead of pursuing the principle of the survival of the fittest, our free will would have intervened and caused us to do something dumb, leading to our demise. We would not have done the same thing.

Correct.

[Iwannaplato]

If free will existed, its existence would have hindered the evolution of the species. We would have quickly perished. Instead of pursuing the principle of the survival of the fittest, our free will would have intervened and caused us to do something dumb, leading to our demise. We would not have done the same thing.

Humans did not follow the principle of the survival of the fittest. At least, we didn't and don't to a very large degree. We are social mammals. We protect each other to varying degrees. We take care of the weak to varying degrees, but vastly more so than komodo dragons. Individuals and even species do not follow that principle. Natural selection leads to survival of the most suited for niches. Whether free will would add to this not following the principle is another issue.

[phyllo]

If free will existed, its existence would have hindered the evolution of the species. We would have quickly perished. Instead of pursuing the principle of the survival of the fittest, our free will would have intervened and caused us to do something dumb, leading to our demise. We would not have done the same thing.

Humans did not follow the principle of the survival of the fittest. At least, we didn't and don't to a very large degree. We are social mammals. We protect each other to varying degrees. We take care of the weak to varying degrees, but vastly more so than komodo dragons. Individuals and even species do not follow that principle. Natural selection leads to survival of the most suited for niches. Whether free will would add to this not following the principle is another issue.

I think that his point is that survival requires responding to the environment. Free-will which does not do this, will be counterproductive.

[BigMike]

If free will existed, its existence would have hindered the evolution of the species. We would have quickly perished. Instead of pursuing the principle of the survival of the fittest, our free will would have intervened and caused us to do something dumb, leading to our demise. We would not have done the same thing.

Humans did not follow the principle of the survival of the fittest. At least, we didn't and don't to a very large degree. We are social mammals. We protect each other to varying degrees. We take care of the weak to varying degrees, but vastly more so than komodo dragons. Individuals and even species do not follow that principle. Natural selection leads to survival of the most suited for niches. Whether free will would add to this not following the principle is another issue.

All of these actions are motivated by needs (refer to Maslow), such as the desire to eat and stay warm, avoid being lonely, maintain mental stability, and procreate. Without satisfying these demands, we get ill, depressed, and may die. We meet these needs as efficiently as possible by sticking to the principle of survival of the fittest. There is nothing about social interaction that necessitates free will.

[BigMike]

I apologize for being abrupt and brief today. I lack the time to elaborate further. Possibly tomorrow, if that is necessary.

[popeye1945]

From Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue by Clifford Williams.

Frederick [Mr. Free Will]: Can you explain why in your sense a person can be both free and determined?

Carolyn [Ms. Compatibilist]: Yes. A person can be free and determined because what he does can be caused by something that goes on inside him even though he is not forced by some circumstances outside of him to act as he does. If he is not forced by circumstances outside of himself to act as he does, then he acts freely. Yet his action could nonetheless be caused by something inside him, such as an unconscious motive or a brain state.

Frederick: ...a person could have freedom in your sense even though he had no control over anything he does. Let me explain. If everything a person does is caused by unconscious motives, as you say, then he would have no control over anything that he does. Unknown to him, he would be buffeted about by the workings of his unconscious mind. Yet such a person would have freedom in your sense of freedom because no external circumstances would prevent him from doing what he consciously wants to do. That means your conception of freedom is a sham --- a person who has freedom in your sense does not have control over what he does.

Yep, that is basically my own reaction to compatibilism. We have "conceptual"/"theoretical" freedom, but, for all practical purposes, we have no control over what we do because "internal" and "external" are seamlessly intertwined re the laws of matter.

As Frederick notes...

"You can call that freedom if you want to, but it is a psuedofreedom."

And that, in my view, is often where the compatibilists go: letting it all revolve around what you call something, name something, define something. As though the inner "I" here was not the equivalent of all that is out in the world able to compel you to "choose" this instead of that.

Here I always come back to "I" in our dreams. The "freedom" we are convinced we have all the way up to the point when we wake up. The waking "I" no less a manifestation of the laws of matter. Only, far, far, far more inexplicably.

Iambiguous,

The whole concept is nonsense all organisms are reactionary creatures, one must be moved within before one can move without, the very idea of motivation spells reaction. Reaction is the bases of disease and apparent reality, it is the bases of evolutionary biology. The world as object is our cause as we cause within the world through our reactions. The myriad of historic motions like complex floating mixing colors dictate the present as the present contributes to this ever-moving complexity, which dictates the reaction of all organisms. There is no such thing as human action there is but human reaction and this is true of all organisms. Reaction is how we participate in a totality we deem our reality, Think about it, give one example of human action which is not in fact reaction. If you wish to understand others behaviors you must ask what is the other reacting to. Sometimes simple and immediate, sometimes complex and unknown in a complex history of experiences perhaps lost to the recesses of conscious memory.

[bobmax]

True and false. Obviously, the old notion of determinism is no longer valid. Heisenberg stabbed this literal interpretation of determinism in the heart. However, in a modern language, the conservation laws remain valid (even conservation of energy, which for a few years was in serious doubt). Determinism in its amended sense, conformity to conservation principles (which, by the way, are the basis of all physical laws), remains valid.

I said "determinism" because many use it.
But in my opinion it is a wrong term.

The correct term is "necessity", ie the law of cause and effect.

In fact, necessity includes both determinism and indeterminism.

What is excluded from necessity is chance.

Randomness is certainly indeterminable but we must consider it non-existent.
Its actual existence would result in the dissolution of the Cosmos!

However, we are children of Chaos ...

[bobmax]

Someone with free-will would act exactly as someone without free-will because they would be reacting to the same environmental conditions. The alternative is that the person with free-will acts randomly for no reason.

Yes, a person would not be a person.

But precisely for this reason that "person", distinct from the rest of the world, is in reality not true.

It is the Whole that speaks through what that person appears to be.

[popeye1945]

To assume free will one must assume human action without motivation which can never be, one must be moved from within in order to move without. One reacts to the physical world making one's reaction one's will to be fulfilled, and in which case it can never be pure altruism. There is no such thing as human action there is but reaction, and this is true of all organisms. Motivation spells reaction.