compatibilism

[henry quirk]

No, moron. We're talkin' about what bein' a meat machine (not bein' a free will, or, lacking free will) means.

No one cares about my fulminations or your assessment of my fulminations.

[iambiguous]

Let me offer this example :

As a kid , you were bitten by a snake.

Now as an adult, you make choices so that you avoid coming into contact with snakes.

There isn't some power in the universe that compels you to avoid snakes. Your brain thinks it's a good idea to avoid snakes.

And you may have a future experience which will change your ideas about snakes.

All of this fits in perfectly well with determinism. It is determinism.

Why don't you explain how free-will works in the case of the snake bite.

Jim is terrified of snakes. Joe hates Jim and locks him in a room filled with deadly vipers.

Now in terms of Jim's terror, Joe's hate, Joe locking Jim in the room, Jim's reaction to the snakes, our reaction to what Joe did, etc...how would those here distinguish between a world where everything we think, feel, say and do is an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world...or a world where "somehow" human brains acquired the capacity to think, feel, say and do things freely.

[iambiguous]

ME:

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.

Note to others:

With this fulminating fanatic objectivist -- "my" take on him -- I always come back to two points that -- click -- he ever and always avoids responding to:

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.

And...

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.

The rest is just him becoming Mr. Snippet. And that's just another way of becoming Mr. Wiggle, Wiggle, Wiggle.

If, of course, you are in possession of the autonomy needed to agree or disagree "on your own" with me here.

Though even that is but an existential manifestation of dasein.

HIM:

No, moron. We're talkin' about what bein' a meat machine (not bein' a free will, or, lacking free will) means.

No one cares about my fulminations or your assessment of my fulminations.

Click.

You'd think henry would cling to the possibility that he is not able to post anything other than what the laws of matter compel him to.

[henry quirk]

You're a moron.

[iambiguous]

You're a moron.

Proving yet again that Nature, like God, works in mysterious ways.

[henry quirk]

Moron.

[bahman]

And which ones are free?

You are either biased or not when you make a decision. Biased one is determined. Unbiased one is free.

Do you have references for this claim, or did you just make it up?

No, I can give you tons of examples for each type of decision.

[iambiguous]

How do we finally pin down if any comparison that we do make here is in fact made of our own volition or is in fact the only possible comparison that our material brains compel us to make?

What does volition have to do with correct reasoning and logic?

Or, how does human volition itself fit into this:

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.

Here we are as mere mortals reacting to things like abortion as a moral issue. All the conflicting assessments of what is reasonable or logical or epistemologically sound or ethical.

And yet you ask what does volition have to do with any of it?

Try yet again to explain to us how you connect the dots here. Offering up in turn your own empirical, experiential and experimental evidence to bolster your conclusions.

[iambiguous]

From ILP:

Compatibilism
David Agler

Critics of compatibilism will immediately reject the theory because:
• Freedom implies the capacity to act otherwise
• Determinism seems to exclude the capacity to act otherwise
• Therefore, compatibilism cannot be true.
Let's call this the Argument from the ability to do otherwise

There you go. If you are determined by the laws of matter to read these words then you lacked the capacity to opt not to read them. And if that is the case and another lacked the capacity to not insist that not reading them is immoral how could you be held morally responsible for not reading them other than because whoever holds you morally responsible was never able not to..

Easy.
Determinism does not matter for assessing culpability.

On the contrary, the truly hardcore determinists insist, there is absolutely nothing that we think, feel, say and do that is not wholly subsumed in a wholly determined universe.

What, assessing culpability is the one exception?

Thus from their point of view this...

When a person determinedly breaks a law with the full knowledge of breaking the law, he is judged for the person he is not the choice he has made, since he was determined to make that choice he is to be punished for being the sort of person who commits crimes.
This is why we have "correctional" facilities, so that the hardships of imprisonment or the advice of rehabilitating advice might change the nature of the person and so cause a beneficial change.

If determinism is not true then change is not possible and we ought to throw away the key or kill prisoners if they have free will to chose to commit as many crimes as the will.

...too is but one more inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world.

Or, sure, in regard to prisoners and our reaction to them, that too is an exception to the immutable laws of matter rule. One of the dominoes that get away.

As though when someone breaks the law in a determined universe their knowledge of what they do is, as well, "somehow" beyond the reach of material laws.

And, yeah, it might be.

But then this:

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.

[BigMike]

You are either biased or not when you make a decision. Biased one is determined. Unbiased one is free.

Do you have references for this claim, or did you just make it up?

No, I can give you tons of examples for each type of decision.

I believe that the commonly accepted definition of what it means for the will to be free differs from yours (that free will is unbiased will). How can I be sure that we are discussing the same thing if you define it differently?

[Sculptor]

From ILP:

Compatibilism
David Agler



There you go. If you are determined by the laws of matter to read these words then you lacked the capacity to opt not to read them. And if that is the case and another lacked the capacity to not insist that not reading them is immoral how could you be held morally responsible for not reading them other than because whoever holds you morally responsible was never able not to..

Easy.
Determinism does not matter for assessing culpability.

On the contrary, the truly hardcore determinists insist, there is absolutely nothing that we think, feel, say and do that is not wholly subsumed in a wholly determined universe.

What, assessing culpability is the one exception?

That is neither true nor relevant. If a person is determined to do wrong then he is culpable. And as change is always possible with determinism, then the penal system can make that change for the better.
Deterrence to the degree it can determine new outcomes is more effective than imagining that people can act freely regardless of consequence.

Thus from their point of view this...

When a person determinedly breaks a law with the full knowledge of breaking the law, he is judged for the person he is not the choice he has made, since he was determined to make that choice he is to be punished for being the sort of person who commits crimes.
This is why we have "correctional" facilities, so that the hardships of imprisonment or the advice of rehabilitating advice might change the nature of the person and so cause a beneficial change.

If determinism is not true then change is not possible and we ought to throw away the key or kill prisoners if they have free will to chose to commit as many crimes as the will.

...too is but one more inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world.

Or, sure, in regard to prisoners and our reaction to them, that too is an exception to the immutable laws of matter rule. One of the dominoes that get away.

As though when someone breaks the law in a determined universe their knowledge of what they do is, as well, "somehow" beyond the reach of material laws.

How the hell do you get there.
You are not getting it.

And, yeah, it might be.

But then this:

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.

You are just thrashing about here.

[bahman]

Do you have references for this claim, or did you just make it up?

No, I can give you tons of examples for each type of decision.

I believe that the commonly accepted definition of what it means for the will to be free differs from yours (that free will is unbiased will). How can I be sure that we are discussing the same thing if you define it differently?

A decision is either free or determined. There is no other option. This is the definition from Wikipedia: Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

[BigMike]

No, I can give you tons of examples for each type of decision.

I believe that the commonly accepted definition of what it means for the will to be free differs from yours (that free will is unbiased will). How can I be sure that we are discussing the same thing if you define it differently?

A decision is either free or determined. There is no other option. This is the definition from Wikipedia: Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

Does unimpeded mean the same as unbiased in your book?

[BigMike]

I have attempted to simplify my Hard Deterministic perspective on the lack of free will.

1. Free will does not exist.
2. As with other animals, humans are motivated by unmet needs.
3. Those who were the most adept at satisfying their needs had an evolutionary advantage.
4. People today have inherited a number of these survival-of-the-fittest traits.
5. The brain has evolved to respond to needs as efficiently as possible. That gave us an evolutionary advantage in environments that are constantly changing.
6. Thus, the primary function of the brain is to meet our needs in the best way possible.
7. Physical "switches" and "relays" within the brain's complex neural network determine what its logic machinery, with all of its limitations and flaws, finds to be the optimal response to the current situation.
8. Our brain transmits the optimal response to relevant muscles and glands, via the nervous system, which then take the appropriate action.
9. This process is perceived as our will, similar to how we perceive the color blue when cells in our retina are stimulated by light of wavelength 450 nanometers.
10. Note, however, that it was not our will that determined or even carried out the best course of action. The action was entirely controlled and directed by the hardwired logic of the brain.

[promethean75]

Solid, Mike.

"If a person is determined to do wrong then he is culpable." - sculptor

if you mean 'responsible' in its revised and simplified sense, i do agree. your body contributed to producing effects your behavior and actions resulted in. your foot kicked the ball, it rolled. your body isn't the sole cause, but a damn big part of it.

here, the question becomes confused because to assign blame, freewillests suppose an immaterial soul that is not causally dependent on the world like the body but nonetheless causes the body to act voluntarily, must exist in order to do do.

but you can still hold someone responsible without them having freewill. responsibility has only ever been logical in a legal, pragmatic sense, anyway. never in an ethical sense, because no, he didn't know any better and couldn't have done otherwise, etc., etc.