compatibilism

[iambiguous]

Still utterly ridiculous.

Just ask Jane.

This is some kind of appeal to emotion which doesn't even make sense as an appeal to emotion.

Click.

Oh, I see. Emotions. So, when it comes to 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.

...emotions are just completely different from thoughts?

Is that a God thing?

Try this...

1] fall asleep tonight
2] dream
3] try to remember what you thought and felt in the dream
4] then when you wake up and acknowledge that both your thinking and your feeling in the dream was entirely created chemically and neurologically by your brain, think that through and come up with your own best argument to explain how the wide-awake brain is just "somehow" different.

Maybe God again?

Also, you might want to run your Soul by IC. It could need saving, you know.

[iambiguous]

Somehow you guys have convinced yourselves that determinism means that people don't respond to new situations ... that they ignore what's happening.

No, but some [compelled or not] are convinced that whatever they convince themselves of they were never able not to be convinced of it.

Same with responding and ignoring.

When determinism means that.

Ask henry. I'm compelled to admit he is on the right track here in regard to the determinists among us who champion determinism all the way up to but not including their own arguments.

[phyllo]

Still utterly ridiculous.

Just ask Jane.

This is some kind of appeal to emotion which doesn't even make sense as an appeal to emotion.

Click.

Oh, I see. Emotions. So, when it comes to 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.

...emotions are just completely different from thoughts?

Is that a God thing?

Try this...

1] fall asleep tonight
2] dream
3] try to remember what you thought and felt in the dream
4] then when wake up and acknowledge that both your thinking and your feeling in the dream was entirely created chemically and neurologically by your brain, think that through and come up with your own best argument to explain how the wide-awake brain is just "somehow" different.

Maybe God again?

Also, you might want to run your Soul by IC. It could need saving, you know.

If I'm talking to Jane, then her mother didn't get an abortion. Determinism and free-will is irrelevant in that situation. There is nothing to ask her about anything to do with her mother's thoughts regarding an abortion.

Dreams are not real, movies are not real, your imagined "if my life had been different, I would be arguing something different" is not real.

God's got nothing to do with it.

[iambiguous]

If I'm talking to Jane, then her mother didn't get an abortion. Determinism and free-will is irrelevant in that situation. There is nothing to ask her about anything to do with her mother's thoughts regarding an abortion.

Click.

Seriously, folks, someone please explain how this makes any sense at all. He's talking to Jane because in a free-will world Susan convinced Mary not to shred her into oblivion. In a world where Mary was never able to opt not to abort, Jane is on her way back to star-stuff.

Convince me he is not channeling Ecmandu here.

Dreams are not real, movies are not real, your imagined "if my life had been different, I would be arguing something different" is not real.

Please. The same brain creating the thoughts and the emotions in the dream is there creating them in the wide-awake world. Only the wide awake brain creates the psychological illusion of freely choosing them.

If in fact that is the case. But no one that I am aware of is able to note...

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 finally resolve this centuries old conundrum once and for all.

Only, as with henry, and IC and BM, phyllo inflects this arrogant certainty that how he understands all this really, really, really does encompass it.

For example...

God's got nothing to do with it.

On the other hand, I'll need to hear that from Him first.

And I can't help but wonder if the whole shtick here might be him just putting us all on with posts that he knows are ridiculous but for whatever reason, he just enjoys stringing us along.

Like, oh, I don't know...Meno?

[bobmax]

It seems to me, BigMike, that you have come to see the non-existence of free will, but you have not yet perceived its inevitable consequences.

Well, I cannot really comment on what I don't see. I may not have perceived every consequence. However, I do perceive some consequences, some of which I believe could be earth-shattering. I have enumerated a few of them below, using words in their current contemporary sense, fully aware that we may redefine some of them in the future to conform to a new worldview.

• I can't imagine how any religion could survive the rejection of free will.
• Assigning moral responsibility is futile, because it doesn't exist.
• Free speech makes no sense.
• Imagining free democratic voting is difficult.
• Reward, including CEO's compensations, and punishment must be redefined, especially in terms of justification.

However, I believe you nailed it with your above response. Couldn't have done it better myself.

These considerations of yours can certainly be shared, but only at first glance.

Because they actually contain a fundamental contradiction.

That is, they do not consider that the non-existence of free will is total!

Yet these considerations are not free.

Instead we imagine ourselves outside to consider "freely" what to do...

The thought of the non-existence of free will kills itself.
But since it does not want to die it contradicts itself.

Truth implies suffering.
Breaking the shell that has enclosed you until now requires effort and desperation

[BigMike]

Explain how in a wholly determined world where Jane is flushed down the toilet, that is, what, interchangeable with a world where Jane is around to contribute of her own volition her own thoughts on the matter?

Those two worlds are not interchangeable. Should they be?

[BigMike]

These considerations of yours can certainly be shared, but only at first glance.

Because they actually contain a fundamental contradiction.

That is, they do not consider that the non-existence of free will is total!

Don't they?

Yet these considerations are not free.

Should they be?

Instead we imagine ourselves outside to consider "freely" what to do...

Who are "we"?

The thought of the non-existence of free will kills itself.

Really?

But since it does not want to die it contradicts itself.

U-huh?

Truth implies suffering.

That's sad.

Breaking the shell that has enclosed you until now requires effort and desperation

I do not feel enclosed in a shell.

Albert Camus, a French philosopher, coined the phrase "philosophical suicide." This is a way to deal with the fact that you wish your life had a purpose, but it doesn't seem to. It troubles me to see how people are committing something close to collective philosophical suicide because they won't let their belief in free will go. Life has no purpose; it is wonderful. There is no reason to fear the consequences of not having a free will, it just requires of us that we accept it and adapt accordingly. That is the debate I am really looking forward to. We just need to get rid of the big lie about free will first.

[bobmax]

Albert Camus, a French philosopher, coined the phrase "philosophical suicide." This is a way to deal with the fact that you wish your life had a purpose, but it doesn't seem to. It troubles me to see how people are committing something close to collective philosophical suicide because they won't let their belief in free will go. Life has no purpose; it is wonderful. There is no reason to fear the consequences of not having a free will, it just requires of us that we accept it and adapt accordingly. That is the debate I am really looking forward to. We just need to get rid of the big lie about free will first.

Albert Camus can be useful, but as a step to overcome.

His "The plague" brings you in front of the meaningless of life.
But at the end of the novel I would like to shout at the good doctor: "Don't stop! That's not the Truth! The Truth needs you."

If you delve into the lack of free will, you may perhaps feel that no one lives.
For the simple reason that there is no one at all.

But there you are, as long as you are there.
And you are the meaning.

Only you can say what really matters.
Only begotten son.

[BigMike]

Albert Camus, a French philosopher, coined the phrase "philosophical suicide." This is a way to deal with the fact that you wish your life had a purpose, but it doesn't seem to. It troubles me to see how people are committing something close to collective philosophical suicide because they won't let their belief in free will go. Life has no purpose; it is wonderful. There is no reason to fear the consequences of not having a free will, it just requires of us that we accept it and adapt accordingly. That is the debate I am really looking forward to. We just need to get rid of the big lie about free will first.

If you delve into the lack of free will, you may perhaps feel that no one lives.

No, I do not believe that nobody lives.

For the simple reason that there is no one at all.

Nobody lives?

But there you are, as long as you are there.
And you are the meaning.

Only you can say what really matters.
Only begotten son.

This sounds way too biblical for me to investigate further.

[Belinda]

Albert Camus, a French philosopher, coined the phrase "philosophical suicide." This is a way to deal with the fact that you wish your life had a purpose, but it doesn't seem to. It troubles me to see how people are committing something close to collective philosophical suicide because they won't let their belief in free will go. Life has no purpose; it is wonderful. There is no reason to fear the consequences of not having a free will, it just requires of us that we accept it and adapt accordingly. That is the debate I am really looking forward to. We just need to get rid of the big lie about free will first.

Albert Camus can be useful, but as a step to overcome.

His "The plague" brings you in front of the meaningless of life.
But at the end of the novel I would like to shout at the good doctor: "Don't stop! That's not the Truth! The Truth needs you."

If you delve into the lack of free will, you may perhaps feel that no one lives.
For the simple reason that there is no one at all.

But there you are, as long as you are there.
And you are the meaning.

Only you can say what really matters.
Only begotten son.

As a matter of fact there is " no one at all". The self is a construct. It is a psychologically necessary construct that is constructed from fear of loss of power, and consequent death ; a fear which is biologically common to all creatures with memories.

Men are worse off than other animals in that we know that death and suffering are inevitable. However we are better off than other animals because we can use often use our reason to ameliorate and defer suffering and death. It is reason, not so-called Free Will or self, that lets us be as free as we can be.
.

[phyllo]

Seriously, folks, someone please explain how this makes any sense at all. He's talking to Jane because in a free-will world Susan convinced Mary not to shred her into oblivion. In a world where Mary was never able to opt not to abort, Jane is on her way back to star-stuff.

You wrote it that way without any reasons for why it has to happen that way.

Since Mary has the same history, the same motivations, in both worlds, it's reasonable to think that both Marys would come to the same decision. Either both to abort or both to give birth.

But you never even consider those cases.

Here is another opportunity for you. How does Mary's 'free-will mojo' make her decide something different than her identical determined twin? What thought pops into her head that produces a change?

Please. The same brain creating the thoughts and the emotions in the dream is there creating them in the wide-awake world. Only the wide awake brain creates the psychological illusion of freely choosing them.

Your dreaming brain also produces sensations (sights, sounds, smells, tastes) which are not there. It's not real.

I see no reason to discuss dreaming in a thread about free-will, determinism, or compatibilism.

Only, as with henry, and IC and BM, phyllo inflects this arrogant certainty that how he understands all this really, really, really does encompass it.

If I'm discussing something in a philosophy forum(or elsewhere), I take a position and I give reasons for it.

If you disagree, you state your reasons for why you disagree, why my reasons are faulty.

Then I reply with more reasons about what you wrote/said.

And it goes on, back and forth.

Taking a position on an issue is not "arrogant certainty".

Nobody has to preface every statement with "I might be wrong".

[bobmax]

As a matter of fact there is " no one at all". The self is a construct. It is a psychologically necessary construct that is constructed from fear of loss of power, and consequent death ; a fear which is biologically common to all creatures with memories.

Men are worse off than other animals in that we know that death and suffering are inevitable. However we are better off than other animals because we can use often use our reason to ameliorate and defer suffering and death. It is reason, not so-called Free Will or self, that lets us be as free as we can be.

I don't think there is really awareness in humans and not in animals.
Perhaps there is greater clarity.

But it doesn't always benefit humans.
I have seen animals more sensitive than many men...

I think true freedom is real and absolute.
That is, what we truly are is absolutely free.
Since Being = Truth = Freedom.

The non-existence of individual free will shows our actual freedom.
And this can be understood when we are taken by compassion.

[BigMike]

I don't think there is really awareness in humans and not in animals.
Perhaps there is greater clarity.

But it doesn't always benefit humans.
I have seen animals more sensitive than many men...

I think true freedom is real and absolute.
That is, what we truly are is absolutely free.
Since Being = Truth = Freedom.

The non-existence of individual free will shows our actual freedom.
And this can be understood when we are taken by compassion.

Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe."

The adjective "free" indicates that the decisions and actions in question are the result of a "primus motor," or "first mover" modifying the universe's state. But the universe's state can be altered only by adding or removing energy, momentum, electric charge, or angular momentum from the system.
I believe that your definition of "free" differs from the commonly accepted one, and that you are therefore referring to an entirely different concept. Would you like to expand or specify? Your claim that "Being = Truth = Freedom" is not particularly illuminating.

[Belinda]

As a matter of fact there is " no one at all". The self is a construct. It is a psychologically necessary construct that is constructed from fear of loss of power, and consequent death ; a fear which is biologically common to all creatures with memories.

Men are worse off than other animals in that we know that death and suffering are inevitable. However we are better off than other animals because we can use often use our reason to ameliorate and defer suffering and death. It is reason, not so-called Free Will or self, that lets us be as free as we can be.

I don't think there is really awareness in humans and not in animals.
Perhaps there is greater clarity.

But it doesn't always benefit humans.
I have seen animals more sensitive than many men...

I think true freedom is real and absolute.
That is, what we truly are is absolutely free.
Since Being = Truth = Freedom.

The non-existence of individual free will shows our actual freedom.
And this can be understood when we are taken by compassion.

Humans, as far as is known, are the only animals that can use symbolic language to abstract ideas from experiences, and subsequently create new ideas.

[BigMike]

As a matter of fact there is " no one at all". The self is a construct. It is a psychologically necessary construct that is constructed from fear of loss of power, and consequent death ; a fear which is biologically common to all creatures with memories.

Men are worse off than other animals in that we know that death and suffering are inevitable. However we are better off than other animals because we can use often use our reason to ameliorate and defer suffering and death. It is reason, not so-called Free Will or self, that lets us be as free as we can be.

I don't think there is really awareness in humans and not in animals.
Perhaps there is greater clarity.

But it doesn't always benefit humans.
I have seen animals more sensitive than many men...

I think true freedom is real and absolute.
That is, what we truly are is absolutely free.
Since Being = Truth = Freedom.

The non-existence of individual free will shows our actual freedom.
And this can be understood when we are taken by compassion.

Humans, as far as is known, are the only animals that can use symbolic language to abstract ideas from experiences, and subsequently create new ideas.

Washoe was the first non-human to learn American Sign Language. She was a common chimpanzee.