compatibilism

[phyllo]

Let me clue you in.

If we can't compare free-will Mary's reasons and determined Mary's reasons then there is no scope for discussion.

What could we be discussing?

[iambiguous]

Nope. D-Mary only has the illusion of choice-makin'. She's a meat machine.

And here's this guy again, asserting that others who don't think exactly as he does about the freedom to buy and to sell bazookas -- whether existentially or metaphysically -- are meat machines.

No, moron. I'm sayin' what you're sayin': if she has no free will, then she makes no choices...

But I'm not saying that Mary makes no choices in a wholly determined universe. I'm broaching the surreal assumption that any choices that she or any of us make [including buying and selling bazookas and typing and reading these words] were "somehow" inherently/necessarily embedded in the laws of matter "somehow" evolving into conscious human brains. To even speak of it is fraught with all manner of equally surreal explanations.

You're the one who connects these dots to libertarianism...then to a God, the God, the Deist God.

We just don't know if we are all off the hook for anything that we think, feel, say or do. Unless, of course, you do know. And, empirically, experientially and experimentally, can in fact demonstrate that you do.

And if he (and she) had no choice then we -- as meat machines -- have no choice. He couldn't do otherwise, she couldn't do otherwise, and we can't do otherwise.

If...

Now that's a good place to start in a discussion of this sort.

Now back to this...

On the other hand, he does admit that in the past he has been wrong about things like this. So, sure, by his own admission, he may well be wrong about this too.

Click.

That's still the case, right?

[iambiguous]

This bullshit just makes you look bad.

Fortunately, "here and now", I'm compelled to opine that I was compelled by the laws of matter to post it. So, like you, I'm off the hook.

Also, as though, in a free will world, you posting, "If you ask this, then there is nothing to discuss" to this...

Again, the assumption of some being that you were never able not to look for reasons other than as your brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compel you to. The assumption of others, however, being that "somehow" the human brain evolved into matter unlike any other -- re God perhaps? -- and you could have opted not to look for reasons at all or you could have opted to come up with reasons other than the ones you do "here and now".

Really, how does it make any sense at all to compare the "reasons" of a wholly determined Mary and the reasons of a free will Mary? What extraordinary insight of his am I missing here?

Uh, let's run it by Jane?



Oh, right, I forgot. The brain of the Mary above who thinks and feels and says and does things wholly in sync with the laws of matter is still able to opt to think that aborting Jane is a good thing. That's...different.

Note to others:

“You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing.” Arthur Schopenhauer

How, in a wholly determined or a free will universe as you understand it, might that be or not be applicable to Mary here?

...might well be construed as bullshit by some. And not just me.

More bullshit.

Those of you familiar with Larry from over at ILP, this doesn't surprise you, right?

Next up: Moe and Curly?

[henry quirk]

But I'm not saying that Mary makes no choices in a wholly determined universe. I'm broaching the surreal assumption that any choices that she or any of us make [including buying and selling bazookas and typing and reading these words] were "somehow" inherently/necessarily embedded in the laws of matter "somehow" evolving into conscious human brains. To even speak of it is fraught with all manner of equally surreal explanations.

A wordy way of sayin' Mary, Spittin' Guy, and me had no choice in abortin', spittin', or fulminatin'.

You can't have it both ways, moron: if we're not free wills, then we're meat machines.

[phyllo]

Fortunately, "here and now", I'm compelled to opine that I was compelled by the laws of matter to post it. So, like you, I'm off the hook.

Also, as though, in a free will world, you posting, "If you ask this, then there is nothing to discuss" to this...



...might well be construed as bullshit by some. And not just me.

More bullshit.

Those of you familiar with Larry from over at ILP, this doesn't surprise you, right?

Next up: Moe and Curly?

I'm not wasting my time on this.

[BigMike]

I have the impression that someone here understands intellectually that free will is a myth, yet does not fully comprehend how that can be on a personal level. Understanding that the human brain is a dynamic organ is essential to advancing one's understanding. If you remember anything which occurred yesterday, it indicates that your brain has changed; it has grown several new synaptic connections (axon terminals) since yesterday. This means that you do not necessarily want to repeat your actions from yesterday. You now have new information manifested as physical changes in the brain, which may influence your decisions today.
Applying this kind of deeper understanding may for example spur us to educate ourselves in certain areas, or otherwise expose us to certain kinds of experiences, to improve our own decisions in matters that matter to us. The absence of free will does not imply that we are "brainless" meat machines that do not know what is, with some measure of certainty, in our best interest. Obviously, we must first have this deeper understanding before we can consistently apply it successfully.

[henry quirk]

I have the impression that someone here understands intellectually that free will is a myth, yet does not fully comprehend how that can be on a personal level.

Yes, that's you in a nutshell. You say we're not free wills but you keep supposin' people can choose (to change, to reform a moral/legal system, etc.).

As I say: you can't have it both ways.

The absence of free will does not imply that we are "brainless" meat machines

Of course not: The absence of free will means we are "choiceless" meat machines.

[BigMike]

I have the impression that someone here understands intellectually that free will is a myth, yet does not fully comprehend how that can be on a personal level.

Yes, that's you in a nutshell. You say we're not free wills but you keep supposin' people can choose (to change, to reform a moral/legal system, etc.).

As I say: you can't have it both ways.

The absence of free will does not imply that we are "brainless" meat machines

Of course not: The absence of free will means we are "choiceless" meat machines.

Are you the one who insists that he does not possess free will, but is instead free will itself? Your false and somewhat immature claim that "You say we're not free wills" sounded familiar and piqued my interest. If so, mind you, I'm not really interested in hearing how you justify that position, so don't bother me with it.

I did not say "people can choose" but I did say that physical changes in the brain may lead to altered human behavior. People whose brains are wired so that they understand (remember long-term) that "practice makes perfect", for example, will tend to "practice" more because their brain's logic compels them to, not out of a free will or free choice. Others, lacking such comprehension, probably never will.

[Belinda]

I have the impression that someone here understands intellectually that free will is a myth, yet does not fully comprehend how that can be on a personal level.

Yes, that's you in a nutshell. You say we're not free wills but you keep supposin' people can choose (to change, to reform a moral/legal system, etc.).

As I say: you can't have it both ways.

The absence of free will does not imply that we are "brainless" meat machines

Of course not: The absence of free will means we are "choiceless" meat machines.

We can and must have it both ways . As metaphysicians and psychologists we know there is no such thing as 'Free Will'. However we must make our moral and practical choices as if we were free to choose, even when the choice is a gamble. Every day morality of a free people demands that we do choose as if we are free of authoritarian baggage.

[BigMike]

As metaphysicians and psychologists we know there is no such thing as 'Free Will'. However we must make our moral and practical choices as if we were free to choose, even when the choice is a gamble.

Someone will inevitably point out your position's apparent contradiction. So it might as well be me.

[Belinda]

As metaphysicians and psychologists we know there is no such thing as 'Free Will'. However we must make our moral and practical choices as if we were free to choose, even when the choice is a gamble.

Someone will inevitably point out your position's apparent contradiction.

One use of forums like this is answering objections forces me to think again and again.

Of course I know my stance is unsteady, and this causes me some discomfort, but not enough discomfort as to make me unhappy.

As a determinist I apply my belief to important choices such as trying not to blame people who do me a disservice, voting socialist, child rearing, and even in training my dogs. In smaller matters and established folk traditions I'm guided by such reasoning and sympathetic powers as I have.

[phyllo]

I did not say "people can choose" but I did say that physical changes in the brain may lead to altered human behavior. People whose brains are wired so that they understand (remember long-term) that "practice makes perfect", for example, will tend to "practice" more because their brain's logic compels them to, not out of a free will or free choice. Others, lacking such comprehension, probably never will.

You can't say "people can choose"? Why not?

Don't computer chess programs "choose" the moves that they play?

[BigMike]

I did not say "people can choose" but I did say that physical changes in the brain may lead to altered human behavior. People whose brains are wired so that they understand (remember long-term) that "practice makes perfect", for example, will tend to "practice" more because their brain's logic compels them to, not out of a free will or free choice. Others, lacking such comprehension, probably never will.

You can't say "people can choose"? Why not?

Don't computer chess programs "choose" the moves that they play?

As with humans, computers always choose the "best" option based on the context-specific definition of that term. As far as the human (and computer) is concerned, there is only a single "best" viable option, which is the "optimum" one. Perhaps overly simplistic, but there is no other "best" alternative to choose.

[bobmax]

Now that it has been determined that we lack free will, the obvious next question is: What now?

In my opinion, once free will is questioned, we should face the fear of truth.

Although it is very hard to face the truth.
Because the truth directly involves ourselves. It puts us in crisis.

Every observation we make of the world can only come back to ourselves.
And if we have faith in the Truth we can only turn our gaze right on ourselves.

But without seeing anything.

It would then seem that ours is just a vain search.

Except that... the evil of the world may perhaps bring forth compassion.
Compassion for this painful world, where there is not even free will...

But in that desert the son can perhaps perceive the Father.

[Belinda]

Now that it has been determined that we lack free will, the obvious next question is: What now?

In my opinion, once free will is questioned, we should face the fear of truth.

Although it is very hard to face the truth.
Because the truth directly involves ourselves. It puts us in crisis.

Every observation we make of the world can only come back to ourselves.
And if we have faith in the Truth we can only turn our gaze right on ourselves.

But without seeing anything.

It would then seem that ours is just a vain search.

Except that... the evil of the world may perhaps bring forth compassion.
Compassion for this painful world, where there is not even free will...

But in that desert the son can perhaps perceive the Father.

"The Father" is deterministic in the sense that truth/ reality is absolute. "The son" can't experience the absolute truth/reality however "the son" may use absolute truth/reality like a needle in a compass follows magnetic north. Human wisdom can develop only in consequence of a measure of pain.