compatibilism

[BigMike]

I ask libertarians and compatibilists: Which of the four existing forces is involved in executing your free will?

Compatibilists don't believe in free-will.

However, they claim that free will and determinism are compatible, so they should be able to answer the question.

[phyllo]

Compatibilists don't believe in free-will.

However, they claim that free will and determinism are compatible, so they should be able to answer the question.

It's compatible in the sense that people are agents with a will. It's not a free-will which is independent of antecedents. It's not a free-will which is independent of physical processes.

[BigMike]

Common to each is that they are interactions between physical objects. There is no force or interaction between "free will" and atoms. People who believe they can make things happen through their own non-physical free will, i.e., move particles in their brains and thus initiate nerve signals through non-physical "willpower," are, therefore, mistaken. Despite these fundamental truths, I have noticed that most people believe they possess such psychokinetic powers when they do not. But it is not the job of physics to explain why people are so delusional.

I think it's important to note that free-will is already 'thinking' and 'deciding' independent of a brain or some other physical organ.

So it's not just a question of making something move once your free-will wills it to move. It's a question of how can free-will function in the first place.

If free will cannot lead to action or thoughts by stimulating neural activity, then it is completely ineffective and irrelevant; a red herring. Otherwise, please answer my question.

[BigMike]

Compatibilists don't believe in free-will.

However, they claim that free will and determinism are compatible, so they should be able to answer the question.

It's compatible in the sense that people are agents with a will. It's not a free-will which is independent of antecedents. It's not a free-will which is independent of physical processes.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/: "Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism."

Just answer the damn question!

[phyllo]

However, they claim that free will and determinism are compatible, so they should be able to answer the question.

It's compatible in the sense that people are agents with a will. It's not a free-will which is independent of antecedents. It's not a free-will which is independent of physical processes.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/: "Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism."

Just answer the damn question!

I just explained some of the reasoning behind compatibilism.

But sure, reduce it completely to one sentence composed of 11 words and ignore everything that I wrote.

[BigMike]

It's compatible in the sense that people are agents with a will. It's not a free-will which is independent of antecedents. It's not a free-will which is independent of physical processes.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/: "Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism."

Just answer the damn question!

I just explained some of the reasoning behind compatibilism.

But sure, reduce it completely to one sentence composed of 11 words and ignore everything that I wrote.

Does that mean you don't know which force among the four is involved? Or are you stating that no force is involved? Or are you saying that there is no free will?

[phyllo]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/: "Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism."

Just answer the damn question!

I just explained some of the reasoning behind compatibilism.

But sure, reduce it completely to one sentence composed of 11 words and ignore everything that I wrote.

Does that mean you don't know which force among the four is involved? Or are you stating that no force is involved?

Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem today?

[BigMike]

I just explained some of the reasoning behind compatibilism.

But sure, reduce it completely to one sentence composed of 11 words and ignore everything that I wrote.

Does that mean you don't know which force among the four is involved? Or are you stating that no force is involved?

Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem today?

I'm just waiting for an answer to my question. Which of the four existing forces is involved in executing your free will? This question is clear, fair, factual, and crucial to the discussion at hand. So please do not seek refuge in a confusing labyrinth of consciousness or compatibilism gobbledygook.

[phyllo]

Every day is like starting on page 1.

People either don't read the posts or don't understand the posts.

They either have not read the previous posts or they don't remember the points that were made.

Each day they get on the soapbox and preach the same sermon.

There is no progress here whatsoever.

[BigMike]

Every day is like starting on page 1.

People either don't read the posts or don't understand the posts.

They either have not read the previous posts or they don't remember the points that were made.

Each day they get on the soapbox and preach the same sermon.

There is no progress here whatsoever.

... says he who refuses to answer uncomfortable questions. Which of the four existing forces is involved in executing your free will?

[promethean75]

The strong and weak descartesomagnetic forces.

[bahman]

Every day is like starting on page 1.

People either don't read the posts or don't understand the posts.

They either have not read the previous posts or they don't remember the points that were made.

Each day they get on the soapbox and preach the same sermon.

There is no progress here whatsoever.

... says he who refuses to answer uncomfortable questions. Which of the four existing forces is involved in executing your free will?

The four forces are the result of the existence of mind that is free.

[Immanuel Can]

It doesn't concern me that "determinism" cannot explain why people think they have control over their actions when they do not.

It ought to. That the existential experience of "will," "volition," "logic," "choice" and so on is entirely universal should be a serious signal that your ideology is flawed. To fail to provide an adequate explanation for a universal phenomenon -- indeed, of an existential necessity as well as a universal sociological observation -- is a serious failing in any theory. If it doesn't trouble somebody, it means his ideology has eaten his brain.

But that's not the worst of it.

Physics says that something that is not physical cannot have an effect on something that is.

Physics does NOT, in fact, "say" this. Physics itself says absolutely nothing on the subject. That's an ideological claim, a total presupposition by those who don't understand what "physics" actually entails.

Physics is a practical discipline that is, in itself, uninterested in the questions of its own parameters. Those are defined either methodologically, by what "works" within physics itself, or assumptively, by people who want to believe certain things about it. That there is nothing outside of physics is pure assumption. And what forces are capable of mobilizing physics is also a matter of assumption. Neither has anything to do with physics itself.

Physics, for its part, with regard to matters beyond its methods to analyze, is simply silent. For to say anything more is ideology, not physics.

[BigMike]

I have the highest hopes that everyone will be able to see through the illogic that these people are demonstrating in their line of reasoning and that they will be able to see through it. Everything about it, from the very beginning all the way to the very end, is total and utter nonsensical nonsense. Nothing but a total and massive waste of one's time; there is no other way to put it. It is evident that they do not possess even a single argument that can be used to support the position that they are taking in this debate, and it is very clear why this is the case. One might wonder how they could believe anything when they have no idea how or why they arrived at that belief in the first place. They are completely devoid of any substance. They resort to ridiculous answers in an attempt to make themselves appear humorous as a last ditch effort to save face.

[BigMike]

Physics says that something that is not physical cannot have an effect on something that is. Even a single atom needs a force to move this way instead of that. This is the first law of motion from Newton.

Fortunately, there are only four possible forces in the whole universe:

1. gravity,
2. electromagnetism,
3. the weak nuclear force,
4. and the strong nuclear force.

Common to each is that they are interactions between physical objects. There is no force or interaction between "free will" and atoms. People who believe they can make things happen through their own non-physical free will, i.e., move particles in their brains and thus initiate nerve signals through non-physical "willpower," are, therefore, mistaken. Despite these fundamental truths, I have noticed that most people believe they possess such psychokinetic powers when they do not. But it is not the job of physics to explain why people are so delusional.

I ask libertarians and compatibilists: Which of the four existing forces is involved in executing your free will? This question is clear, fair, factual, and crucial to the discussion at hand. So please do not seek refuge in a confusing labyrinth of consciousness gobbledygook. Just answer the question.