compatibilism

[BigMike]

Why “discuss”? Among the things Determinism insists are impossible are 1) changing anybody’s mind, 2) altering the inevitable outcome of anybody’s behaviour, and 3) actually making something different happen than would otherwise have happened, especially by immaterial means like altering a “mind.”

So why discuss anything? The whole “discussion,” according to Determinism, must merely be a phenomenon that is ultimately strictly material in nature, but which deludes the participants that their opinions “matter” in a way that Determinism itself insists they can’t possibly matter at all.

Everything that takes place is in fact inevitable. Human actions are included in everything. Our nervous system processes nerve signals before they manifest as muscle contractions or movements, all in accordance with the laws of physics. But the neural network is not merely a collection of neurons jumbled together arbitrarily; our genetic material has been optimized by evolution to enable the owner to respond optimally to their environment. This is the essence of the phrase "survival of the fittest".

And this is why, for instance, Stephen Hawking observed, "I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road." Experience has shown that this is optimal. We even teach this to our children. The fact that we are determined does not make us all mindless zombies.

We are not resigned to "wait and see what happens"; we can simulate potential outcomes in our minds prior to making the final, optimal decision. This final decision is optimal not because of our free will, but because our brain's logical inferences, with all their weaknesses and flaws, tell us that it is the best course of action.

We are not destined to completely accept whatever occurs without intervening. We are a part of the physical universe and can influence the outcome through the use of our innate logical abilities, which are also entirely physical, just like every other physical entity can influence us. The wisest among us learn how to take advantage of this incredible intelligence, which is physically embedded in the internal structure of our brains.

[Immanuel Can]

Why “discuss”? Among the things Determinism insists are impossible are 1) changing anybody’s mind, 2) altering the inevitable outcome of anybody’s behaviour, and 3) actually making something different happen than would otherwise have happened, especially by immaterial means like altering a “mind.”

So why discuss anything? The whole “discussion,” according to Determinism, must merely be a phenomenon that is ultimately strictly material in nature, but which deludes the participants that their opinions “matter” in a way that Determinism itself insists they can’t possibly matter at all.

Everything that takes place is in fact inevitable. Human actions are included in everything. Our nervous system processes nerve signals before they manifest as muscle contractions or movements, all in accordance with the laws of physics.

All you've done here is agree with what I just said about Determinism.

But the neural network is not merely a collection of neurons jumbled together arbitrarily; our genetic material has been optimized by evolution to enable the owner to respond optimally to their environment.

Even if we suppose that's so, and leaving all the questions hanging, a Determined being's so-called "response" is actually nothing but a cause-effect reaction. You just said so. You said, "Our nervous system processes nerve signals before they manifest as muscle contractions or movements, all in accordance with the laws of physics."

There's no more to be said, then. The reason people (appear to) choose to do X is simply that X is what was predetermined. The "mind" state of the doer is entirely unimportant, in that description. It can change absolutely nothing.

We are not destined to completely accept whatever occurs without intervening.

According to Determinism, the "we," that is, the cognitions "we" think we have, is no contributory part of the physical causal chain that makes things happen. Nor is the "accepting" or "non-accepting" at all consequential to the outcome that physics makes happen. And "we" cannot "intervene," because "intervene" implies the interruption of what otherwise would have happened. According to Determinism, it is not possible to "intervene" in physical processes at all; far less, by way of anything instituted by mental ones.

[BigMike]

Why “discuss”? Among the things Determinism insists are impossible are 1) changing anybody’s mind, 2) altering the inevitable outcome of anybody’s behaviour, and 3) actually making something different happen than would otherwise have happened, especially by immaterial means like altering a “mind.”

So why discuss anything? The whole “discussion,” according to Determinism, must merely be a phenomenon that is ultimately strictly material in nature, but which deludes the participants that their opinions “matter” in a way that Determinism itself insists they can’t possibly matter at all.

Everything that takes place is in fact inevitable. Human actions are included in everything. Our nervous system processes nerve signals before they manifest as muscle contractions or movements, all in accordance with the laws of physics.

All you've done here is agree with what I just said about Determinism.

But the neural network is not merely a collection of neurons jumbled together arbitrarily; our genetic material has been optimized by evolution to enable the owner to respond optimally to their environment.

Even if we suppose that's so, and leaving all the questions hanging, a Determined being's so-called "response" is actually nothing but a cause-effect reaction. You just said so. You said, "Our nervous system processes nerve signals before they manifest as muscle contractions or movements, all in accordance with the laws of physics."

There's no more to be said, then. The reason people (appear to) choose to do X is simply that X is what was predetermined. The "mind" state of the doer is entirely unimportant, in that description. It can change absolutely nothing.

We are not destined to completely accept whatever occurs without intervening.

According to Determinism, the "we," that is, the cognitions "we" think we have, is no contributory part of the physical causal chain that makes things happen. Nor is the "accepting" or "non-accepting" at all consequential to the outcome that physics makes happen. And "we" cannot "intervene," because "intervene" implies the interruption of what otherwise would have happened. According to Determinism, it is not possible to "intervene" in physical processes at all; far less, by way of anything instituted by mental ones.

As I said, "Everything that takes place is in fact inevitable." If that is what is "determined" we will stop there and stop talking about it. If not, we will keep talking about it.

[Immanuel Can]

Everything that takes place is in fact inevitable. Human actions are included in everything. Our nervous system processes nerve signals before they manifest as muscle contractions or movements, all in accordance with the laws of physics.

All you've done here is agree with what I just said about Determinism.

But the neural network is not merely a collection of neurons jumbled together arbitrarily; our genetic material has been optimized by evolution to enable the owner to respond optimally to their environment.

Even if we suppose that's so, and leaving all the questions hanging, a Determined being's so-called "response" is actually nothing but a cause-effect reaction. You just said so. You said, "Our nervous system processes nerve signals before they manifest as muscle contractions or movements, all in accordance with the laws of physics."

There's no more to be said, then. The reason people (appear to) choose to do X is simply that X is what was predetermined. The "mind" state of the doer is entirely unimportant, in that description. It can change absolutely nothing.

We are not destined to completely accept whatever occurs without intervening.

According to Determinism, the "we," that is, the cognitions "we" think we have, is no contributory part of the physical causal chain that makes things happen. Nor is the "accepting" or "non-accepting" at all consequential to the outcome that physics makes happen. And "we" cannot "intervene," because "intervene" implies the interruption of what otherwise would have happened. According to Determinism, it is not possible to "intervene" in physical processes at all; far less, by way of anything instituted by mental ones.

As I said, "Everything that takes place is in fact inevitable." If that is what is "determined" we will stop there and stop talking about it. If not, we will keep talking about it.

But you keep contradicting this, by acting as if, and even insisting, that things like debate or discussion or decision or choice can actually change anything. I'm just pointing out that that makes absolutely no sense at all. It's not possible, according to Determinism.

[BigMike]

As I said, "Everything that takes place is in fact inevitable." If that is what is "determined" we will stop there and stop talking about it. If not, we will keep talking about it.

But you keep contradicting this, by acting as if, and even insisting, that things like debate or discussion or decision or choice can actually change anything. I'm just pointing out that that makes absolutely no sense at all. It's not possible, according to Determinism.

If you have children, have you instructed them to attend school, or do you simply wait to see if they do so on their own? You seem to think that sharing experiences, thoughts, etc., and responding logically are not part of our physical universe. It is.

[Immanuel Can]

As I said, "Everything that takes place is in fact inevitable." If that is what is "determined" we will stop there and stop talking about it. If not, we will keep talking about it.

But you keep contradicting this, by acting as if, and even insisting, that things like debate or discussion or decision or choice can actually change anything. I'm just pointing out that that makes absolutely no sense at all. It's not possible, according to Determinism.

If you have children, have you instructed them to attend school, or do you simply wait to see if they do so on their own?

That's maybe a good question to ask a Determinist. I'm not one.

So ask it to yourself, not me.

[BigMike]

But you keep contradicting this, by acting as if, and even insisting, that things like debate or discussion or decision or choice can actually change anything. I'm just pointing out that that makes absolutely no sense at all. It's not possible, according to Determinism.

If you have children, have you instructed them to attend school, or do you simply wait to see if they do so on their own?

That's maybe a good question to ask a Determinist. I'm not one.

So ask it to yourself, not me.

I have children, and I have instructed them to attend school. I believe that sharing experiences, thoughts, and ideas is a fundamental aspect of our physical universe, and thus does not contradict determinism. My point is that determinism does not imply extreme fatalism or resignation in the face of future events, as you seem to suggest.

[Age]

There can be no substantial difference between anything in the world.
Of this I am convinced.

Truth is necessarily everywhere.

There is always a quantitative difference, never a qualitative one.

My dog, my chickens, even the annoying insects, are nothing other than me.

So, WHY do 'you', annoy 'you', as well as allow 'you', to be annoyed by 'you'?

WHY do this?

Because I'm not really myself yet.

That is, I am not.
I exist but I am not.

I was thrown into the world as a son.
I have thrown this son into the world as the Father.

There is me as the only begotten child and the world. And the world is the Father.

When I no longer exist I will return to being what I have always been: the Father.

'you' are nearly HERE.

When 'you' STOP confusing 'that one' with thee one and only True One, and STOP ASSUMING and BELIEVING what 'you' do here, then 'you' START be-coming 'thee One', which 'you' speak of here.

[Age]

Are you saying that since any false statement is truly false, it must be true? Or are you arguing that contradictory statements are both true simply because they have been made (because they exist)?

In our existence, the truth is never absolute.

ONCE AGAIN, this is just 'your truth', which does NOT necessarily align with thee 'absolute' or 'actual' Truth. These two things are VERY DIFFERENT things.

Because even if a certain truth is indisputable for us, in order to exist it needs to deny any possibility that would make it false.

Or, there JUST IS absolutely NOTHING that could possibly make 'it' false.

Also, 'indisputable' is VERY DIFFERENT from 'irrefutable'. These need to be taken into consideration when discussing this issue here.

The truth, in existence, is a negation of any possible falsification of it.

OR, there JUST IS absolutely NO possible falsification of 'it'.

While the absolute Truth is self-sufficient. It does not need to deny anything.

But ALL 'truth' does NOT 'need' to deny absolutely ANY thing. And, if there is absolutely NOTHING that does nor could 'deny' 'a truth', then 'that truth' BECOMES and IS 'thee absolute Truth', which is also just an IRREFUTABLE Truth.

It is negation of negation.

This is just your term, which I find completely unnecessary.

Also, will you provide an example of 'the absolute Truth', which is self-sufficient, and which does not need to deny anything, and, will you provide an example of 'a truth', which, supposedly, needs to deny any possibility or ANY thing that would make it false?

If no, then why not?

If you do, then this might make what you are explaining here easier and simpler for "others" to understand you.

The overcoming of the contradiction cannot take place in existence. Because existence is a continuous affirmation of the truth against all falsehoods.

Overcoming the contradiction can take place as
"coincidence of opposites" (Nicholas of Cusa). Which is Being, that is, the Truth.

If we can communicate, and existence is communication, it is only thanks to the absolute Truth.

Which is 'what', EXACTLY?

[Age]

If the soft determinists don't fully understand but the hard determinists do, how is this too not just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world?

How can some learn or care more than others -- about anything -- and it not be embedded in the same fated, destined world too?

It is "just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world". And it is "embedded in the same fated, destined world". That's why I said that "the hardcore determinists to whom you refer are, in my view, correct in their fundamental claims."

Okay, so you acknowledge that your own arguments here are just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world? That, in fact, all contributions to this thread -- all 88 pages, all 1,314 posts -- can inherently be connected back to whatever brought into existence "existence itself" with its laws of matter. No exceptions.

WHY do 'you', people, who have not one shred of evidence for 'the beginning' of 'Existence', Itself, continually refer back to, 'the beginning'.

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' occurs be-cause of 'a cause', which, in a sense, MEANS absolutely EVERY 'thing' is or was pre-determined. Therefore, the 'determined world' exists. However, 'free will' exists EQUALLY, and this has been to some, and will be to ALL, PROVED True, when what was pre-determined to come, that is; the 'Truly peaceful and harmonious world' comes-to-BE.

It will be SEEN through HOW 'this world' can and does come-to-be that ALL of these either/or topics of discussion are REALLY NOT either/or things AT ALL.

But...

Like all the rest of us, you are unable to propound a definitive explanation for where BigMike fits into this:

WHY do 'you' even 'try to' speak for 'us' "iambiguous". Just so 'you' become AWARE 'I' KNOW, EXACTLY, where 'I' and even 'you' fit, PERFECTLY, in ALL-OF-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.

If ANY one wants to LEARN and UNDERSTAND how ALL of this came-to-be, then all they have to do is just STOP assuming or believing that 'this' can NOT become KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD, that it all appears to hard and to complex, and just START becoming and being Truly CURIOS instead.

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.

[/quote]

The main reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, have been discussing and arguing/fighting over these, so-called, 'mysteries' is because of the Wrong use of definitions for words.

Fix that up, the rest just FALLS-INTO-PLACE.

So, as with all the rest of us, your argument falls somewhere between an educated guess and a wild-ass guess.

Again, speak for "yourself", "iambiguous". Some of us actually do have the actual PROOF and IRREFUTABLE Truth.

Is this understood by you?

And, compelled or not, you respond to all of this by noting...

Well, it's hard to answer many of the questions you raise above. We can't fully answer them yet. But let's put one brick on top of the other. I am confident we will eventually answer them all. Every day, we make huge strides in our understanding of consciousness.

The fact that we cannot answer all questions right now, however, does not mean that we should disregard everything we already know to be true: science. And any hypothesis that contradicts what we already know to be true, such as the notion that people have free will, must be rejected.

Again, how is this not an assessment that one would expect from a free will advocate?

Note to the libertarians among us:

How would you put this differently? Other than [for some] by insisting that it's easy to answer my questions...as you do.

Whereas some determinists might insist that the strides we'll make in understanding consciousness are no less a necessary manifestation of human brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

Here, scientists are just like all the rest of us, right? Wholly determined.

WHY do you even 'try to' put 'people' into 'this' OR 'that' categories?

When one moves PAST all of 'this', which is what is causing the CONFUSION here, then what is SEEN and KNOWN is that 'you', human beings, are NOT the labels that 'you' place and put on each other/"yourselves".

[Age]

WHY are 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, STILL arguing and disagreeing over the EXACT SAME thing that has been going on for thousands of years now about whether it is 'this' OR 'that'.

WHEN will 'you' WORK OUT and LEARN that it has NEVER been a case of being 'this' NOR 'that', as there IS Truth, and Falsehoods, in BOTH "sides"?

If, and WHEN, 'you' define the words 'determinism' AND 'free will' CORRECTLY, then 'you' WILL START SEEING thee ACTUAL Truth of things HERE.

This WHOLE discussion can be summed up, agreed up, and accepted with and by EVERY one, FOREVER MORE, in just a few short sentences. BUT, 'you', adult human beings, prefer to FIGHT and ARGUE over which one of 'you' has the correct and right knowledge instead. Thus, the countless number of centuries of completely UNNECESSARY 'disagreeing' and 'arguing'.

[iambiguous]

If the soft determinists don't fully understand but the hard determinists do, how is this too not just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world?

How can some learn or care more than others -- about anything -- and it not be embedded in the same fated, destined world too?

It is "just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world". And it is "embedded in the same fated, destined world". That's why I said that "the hardcore determinists to whom you refer are, in my view, correct in their fundamental claims."

Okay, so you acknowledge that your own arguments here are just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world? That, in fact, all contributions to this thread -- all 88 pages, all 1,314 posts -- can inherently be connected back to whatever brought into existence "existence itself" with its laws of matter. No exceptions.

WHY do 'you', people, who have not one shred of evidence for 'the beginning' of 'Existence', Itself, continually refer back to, 'the beginning'.

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' occurs be-cause of 'a cause', which, in a sense, MEANS absolutely EVERY 'thing' is or was pre-determined. Therefore, the 'determined world' exists. However, 'free will' exists EQUALLY, and this has been to some, and will be to ALL, PROVED True, when what was pre-determined to come, that is; the 'Truly peaceful and harmonious world' comes-to-BE.

It will be SEEN through HOW 'this world' can and does come-to-be that ALL of these either/or topics of discussion are REALLY NOT either/or things AT ALL.

But...

Like all the rest of us, you are unable to propound a definitive explanation for where BigMike fits into this:

WHY do 'you' even 'try to' speak for 'us' "iambiguous". Just so 'you' become AWARE 'I' KNOW, EXACTLY, where 'I' and even 'you' fit, PERFECTLY, in ALL-OF-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.

If ANY one wants to LEARN and UNDERSTAND how ALL of this came-to-be, then all they have to do is just STOP assuming or believing that 'this' can NOT become KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD, that it all appears to hard and to complex, and just START becoming and being Truly CURIOS instead.

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.

The main reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, have been discussing and arguing/fighting over these, so-called, 'mysteries' is because of the Wrong use of definitions for words.

Fix that up, the rest just FALLS-INTO-PLACE.

So, as with all the rest of us, your argument falls somewhere between an educated guess and a wild-ass guess.

Again, speak for "yourself", "iambiguous". Some of us actually do have the actual PROOF and IRREFUTABLE Truth.

Is this understood by you?

And, compelled or not, you respond to all of this by noting...

Well, it's hard to answer many of the questions you raise above. We can't fully answer them yet. But let's put one brick on top of the other. I am confident we will eventually answer them all. Every day, we make huge strides in our understanding of consciousness.

The fact that we cannot answer all questions right now, however, does not mean that we should disregard everything we already know to be true: science. And any hypothesis that contradicts what we already know to be true, such as the notion that people have free will, must be rejected.

Again, how is this not an assessment that one would expect from a free will advocate?

Note to the libertarians among us:

How would you put this differently? Other than [for some] by insisting that it's easy to answer my questions...as you do.

Whereas some determinists might insist that the strides we'll make in understanding consciousness are no less a necessary manifestation of human brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

Here, scientists are just like all the rest of us, right? Wholly determined.

WHY do you even 'try to' put 'people' into 'this' OR 'that' categories?

When one moves PAST all of 'this', which is what is causing the CONFUSION here, then what is SEEN and KNOWN is that 'you', human beings, are NOT the labels that 'you' place and put on each other/"yourselves".

Again, I don't read anything that AGE posts anymore. But if you still do and come upon something that you think might actually surprise me, by all means, pass it along.

[Age]

Okay, so you acknowledge that your own arguments here are just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world? That, in fact, all contributions to this thread -- all 88 pages, all 1,314 posts -- can inherently be connected back to whatever brought into existence "existence itself" with its laws of matter. No exceptions.

WHY do 'you', people, who have not one shred of evidence for 'the beginning' of 'Existence', Itself, continually refer back to, 'the beginning'.

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' occurs be-cause of 'a cause', which, in a sense, MEANS absolutely EVERY 'thing' is or was pre-determined. Therefore, the 'determined world' exists. However, 'free will' exists EQUALLY, and this has been to some, and will be to ALL, PROVED True, when what was pre-determined to come, that is; the 'Truly peaceful and harmonious world' comes-to-BE.

It will be SEEN through HOW 'this world' can and does come-to-be that ALL of these either/or topics of discussion are REALLY NOT either/or things AT ALL.

But...

Like all the rest of us, you are unable to propound a definitive explanation for where BigMike fits into this:

WHY do 'you' even 'try to' speak for 'us' "iambiguous". Just so 'you' become AWARE 'I' KNOW, EXACTLY, where 'I' and even 'you' fit, PERFECTLY, in ALL-OF-THIS.

If ANY one wants to LEARN and UNDERSTAND how ALL of this came-to-be, then all they have to do is just STOP assuming or believing that 'this' can NOT become KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD, that it all appears to hard and to complex, and just START becoming and being Truly CURIOS instead.

The main reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, have been discussing and arguing/fighting over these, so-called, 'mysteries' is because of the Wrong use of definitions for words.

Fix that up, the rest just FALLS-INTO-PLACE.

So, as with all the rest of us, your argument falls somewhere between an educated guess and a wild-ass guess.

Again, speak for "yourself", "iambiguous". Some of us actually do have the actual PROOF and IRREFUTABLE Truth.

Is this understood by you?

And, compelled or not, you respond to all of this by noting...



Again, how is this not an assessment that one would expect from a free will advocate?

Note to the libertarians among us:

How would you put this differently? Other than [for some] by insisting that it's easy to answer my questions...as you do.

Whereas some determinists might insist that the strides we'll make in understanding consciousness are no less a necessary manifestation of human brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

Here, scientists are just like all the rest of us, right? Wholly determined.

WHY do you even 'try to' put 'people' into 'this' OR 'that' categories?

When one moves PAST all of 'this', which is what is causing the CONFUSION here, then what is SEEN and KNOWN is that 'you', human beings, are NOT the labels that 'you' place and put on each other/"yourselves".

Again, I don't read anything that AGE posts anymore. But if you still do and come upon something that you think might actually surprise me, by all means, pass it along.

You got all 'uppity' when someone did not answer your questions, but you have already proven that you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of answering questions "yourself" "iambiguous".

[Immanuel Can]

If you have children, have you instructed them to attend school, or do you simply wait to see if they do so on their own?

That's maybe a good question to ask a Determinist. I'm not one.

So ask it to yourself, not me.

I have children, and I have instructed them to attend school.

According to Determinism, neither your decision nor their fear of you actually made them go. They were predestined to go anyway. So it changed nothing. You fooled yourself and they fooled themselves, but their mental state and yours did not affect the outcome of their bodily arrival at school. It was fated from before the Big Bang, by a causal chain of purely physical events.

Is that answer stupid? Yes. But that's a good reason for you to realize that Determinism is a crock. It has only stupid answers for such things.

[BigMike]

I have children, and I have instructed them to attend school.

According to Determinism, neither your decision nor their fear of you actually made them go. They were predestined to go anyway. So it changed nothing.
You fooled yourself and they fooled themselves, but their mental state and yours did not affect the outcome of their bodily arrival at school. It was fated from before the Big Bang, by a causal chain of purely physical events.

You say "They were predestined to go anyway." You're saying that if I hadn't told my children to go to school, another force in the universe would have intervened and forced them to go, because the universe decided at the big bang that they would go regardless?

Is that answer stupid? Yes. But that's a good reason for you to realize that Determinism is a crock. It has only stupid answers for such things.

I would not be so harsh as to say your answer is stupid. On the contrary, I find it somewhat clarifying. It clarifies to me that you don't fully comprehend that my decisions and actions fit nicely into the chain of events that made my kids go to school. If, hypothetically, my refusal to "participate" had disrupted that sequence of events, subsequent events would have been altered in at least some small way, possibly leaving my children uneducated. It all fits nicely into one comprehensive and elegant model.
I would appreciate it if you clarified what you meant when you said that "Determinism is a crock. It has only stupid answers for such things." Do you see a contradiction in determinism, some kind of reductio ad absurdum? I know I've asked this before, but I'm not sure if it was you: Are you a skeptic or a denier of science?