compatibilism

[iambiguous]

I would be glad to.

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

Optimally? How is this different from wholly determined? As in...

You were never able to not post words here that you were never able to not type that you were never able to not think that I was never able to not read and never able to not react to other than as compelled to by a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

The distinction between "optimally" and "wholly determined" is subtle, possibly too subtle for some.

What does subtle mean to brains wholly compelled to think, feel, say and do everything only as the laws of matter compel them? And if some get the distinction while others do not how is that not in turn wholly in sync with the only possible reality?

Then [from my frame of mind, compelled or not] back again to conveying what inevitably must unfold as though your particular spin on it here may actually be an exception...

I had already stated that "Everything that takes place is, in fact, inevitable". But there is more to be said on the subject. By injecting the adverb "optimally" in the continuation of my response, I wanted to draw the reader's attention to the fact that, in addition to being inevitable, the response is also self-serving for genetic survival-of-the-fittest purposes. Natural selection is the determinate factor that drove our evolution to its current state and still does.

Note to others:

You tell me how you imagine that he imagines that he is not a free will determinist.

[iambiguous]

This is the reason we even have a brain. It performs the optimization; it solves the optimization problem, if you will, for us. And it is hardwired to do so. As a side note, I would like to mention that the "optimization problem" is always occupied with meeting unmet needs in the Maslow sense.

Of course this raises questions that revolve around teleology.

No it doesn't. Only a confused mind could make that association. Only a mind in disarray would make that connection.

Click.

Come on, once you start in on "the reason we have a brain" how can it not get around to what ultimately this means? There are only three main options:

1] God
2] Pantheism
3] the brute facticity of an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence

Then "infinitesimally tiny specks of existence" like you and I, groping about to close the gap between what we think we know here and now and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself.

I merely hazard a guess that only a complete fool would imagine that what he or she thinks the "whole truth" here is, actually is.

What or who brought into existence existence itself? What or who is "behind" the evolution of matter into "us"?

I just clarified this above, or rather, Charles Darwin answered this question.

Right, read Darwin and there isn't a single question that philosophers have groped about now for centuries to answer -- https://gizmodo.com/8-great-philosophic ... ve-5945801 -- that won't be completely resolved.

You've read Darwin, right?

Okay, one by one, answer all 8 questions.

What or who is finally able to explain 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.

Does what we call the "human condition" have any ultimate meaning and purpose?

Of course not. Nature is indifferent, and there is no cosmic Father figure with a plan for everything. Let us abandon these infantile ideologies that we call religion. We have no other parents besides our biological parents. We are by ourselves. Let's grow up and forge our own paths through life. Yes, optimally and for our own benefit.

And of course if you don't entirely agree with these completely unsubstantiated assertions you are...

WRONG!!!

Even though he will probably be the first to insist that you were never able not to disagree with him.

Or however his own fanatical/fantastical understanding of free will determinism is understood "in his head".

[BigMike]

What does subtle mean to brains wholly compelled to think, feel, say and do everything only as the laws of matter compel them?

What other types of brains are there?

And if some get the distinction while others do not how is that not in turn wholly in sync with the only possible reality?

I cannot recall ever saying that it is not in sync with the only possible reality. In fact, I stated that "Everything that takes place is, in fact, inevitable."

[bobmax]

Note to others:

You tell me how you imagine that he imagines that he is not a free will determinist.

He has grasped something about the non-existence of free will.
But he continues to reason as if free will existed.

This happens because he evaluates the thing only from the physical point of view, which he considers absolute.
As a stranger to himself.
And he still does not see the desert of values.

He says that existence has no meaning, but he does not live what it claims.
In fact, he has not yet come to consider the consequences for himself.
Nor does he see the ethical implications.

I believe that, albeit unknowingly, he does not want to see them.
And so he is in contradiction, between affirming the non-existence of free will and reasoning as if it existed.

[Immanuel Can]

Note to others:

You tell me how you imagine that he imagines that he is not a free will determinist.

It's simpler than that. He's just being irrational and inconsistent. He has no grasp of what Determinism entails, and you can tell because he continually talks about what we can and should do about things he ought to believe, as a Determinist, we can't possibly change anyway.

He's out of his depth and over his head at the moment. That's all.

Of course, there's no such thing as a "free-will Determinist." There's only rational and irrational.

[BigMike]

People cannot perform actions that never cross their minds. What crosses their minds depends on what they have experienced in their life. By advising someone to perform a certain action when a certain event occurs, that action may cross their mind when they need it the most, even if it wouldn't have occurred to them otherwise. That is perfectly consistent with determinism. There is no contradiction between suggesting what people could or should do and determinism. Tell your kids to look both ways before crossing the street.

[Belinda]

People cannot perform actions that never cross their minds. What crosses their minds depends on what they have experienced in their life. By advising someone to perform a certain action when a certain event occurs, that action may cross their mind when they need it the most, even if it wouldn't have occurred to them otherwise. That is perfectly consistent with determinism. There is no contradiction between suggesting what people could or should do and determinism. Tell your kids to look both ways before crossing the street.

Does your idea imply that God or nature is strongly deterministic, but that we who must live within sequential time have to act as if Free Will exists?

[BigMike]

People cannot perform actions that never cross their minds. What crosses their minds depends on what they have experienced in their life. By advising someone to perform a certain action when a certain event occurs, that action may cross their mind when they need it the most, even if it wouldn't have occurred to them otherwise. That is perfectly consistent with determinism. There is no contradiction between suggesting what people could or should do and determinism. Tell your kids to look both ways before crossing the street.

Does your idea imply that God or nature is strongly deterministic, but that we who must live within sequential time have to act as if Free Will exists?

In the sense that it adheres to and never deviates from the conservation laws, nature is highly deterministic. There is no reason to act as though Free Will exists, since it does not.

[bobmax]

There is no contradiction between suggesting what people could or should do and determinism.

Yes, there is no contradiction here.
Because the contradiction is not about the logical process itself.

The contradiction runs deeper.
It's about awareness.

Once you are certain that free will does not exist, if you were consequent you should conclude that there is none. Not even yourself.

But at this point, are you okay with it?
Is this world the world it must necessarily be, that is, a pure nothing?
Do you therefore accept not to be?

Or is it not good for you?
Because there is evil in the world. And evil, any evil is absolutely unacceptable.
It is the world you question!

And you can only do this by appealing to your authentic being.

The contradiction is in wanting to continue to believe that you are even though you are not.

While you have now reached the crossroads:
To be or not to be?

[BigMike]

There is no contradiction between suggesting what people could or should do and determinism.

Yes, there is no contradiction here.
Because the contradiction is not about the logical process itself.

The contradiction runs deeper.
It's about awareness.

Once you are certain that free will does not exist, if you were consequent you should conclude that there is none. Not even yourself.

But at this point, are you okay with it?
Is this world the world it must necessarily be, that is, a pure nothing?
Do you therefore accept not to be?

Or is it not good for you?
Because there is evil in the world. And evil, any evil is absolutely unacceptable.
It is the world you question!

And you can only do this by appealing to your authentic being.

The contradiction is in wanting to continue to believe that you are even though you are not.

While you have now reached the crossroads:
To be or not to be?

I like it! I really do appreciate your questions above. You are raising some essential questions here. But, of course, whether or not I like how the world really is, is irrelevant. I had no say in its creation.

But, as I said about a week ago:

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.

Having established that there is no free will, we should step back and ask ourselves: So, what do we do now? What is our best response to that revelation?
My response to you all would be this:

1. First, we have to accept that we are not some kind of spirit, soul, chi, or whatever word we want to use to describe how we all intuitively see our deepest selves. This is hard to do, but it will be easier and make more sense once we understand the next few things on this list.
2. To answer moral questions, we first need to know what motivates us since free will is no longer a reason.
   1. We all agree that we need to breathe, eat, and drink to live, which are driving forces. But there are many more basic needs, like the need to feel safe, to belong, to be loved, and so on. Abraham Maslow tried to figure out which ones were the most important. He might not have gotten it exactly right, but that's not important here. What's important is that we have something physical that drives us.
   2. Recognize that other people have the same needs as you.
3. Being moral, to me, is to help people who can't meet their basic needs, as long as they're willing to accept my help and it doesn't get in the way of meeting my own basic needs.

But as Thomas Hobbes pointed out, we could instead just steal food and drink from our neighbors. We could just kill them and rape their daughters. But he warned that life in such a world would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Instead, he recommended that we all “sign up” to a social contract that basically says “person A gives up his/her right to kill person B if person B does the same.” Such an arrangement would make sense because compared to the “law of the jungle” we would live much longer; living the social contract and moral lives would be optimal. Needless to say, the social contract is more elaborate than what I described above, it is its idea that matters, and its details are up for debate.

[bobmax]

But, of course, whether or not I like how the world really is, is irrelevant. I had no say in its creation.

Are you sure?

[Belinda]

People cannot perform actions that never cross their minds. What crosses their minds depends on what they have experienced in their life. By advising someone to perform a certain action when a certain event occurs, that action may cross their mind when they need it the most, even if it wouldn't have occurred to them otherwise. That is perfectly consistent with determinism. There is no contradiction between suggesting what people could or should do and determinism. Tell your kids to look both ways before crossing the street.

Does your idea imply that God or nature is strongly deterministic, but that we who must live within sequential time have to act as if Free Will exists?

In the sense that it adheres to and never deviates from the conservation laws, nature is highly deterministic. There is no reason to act as though Free Will exists, since it does not.

I don't know how you get out of bed when you wake up, but I have decisions to make. I even have duties such as feeding the dog who will be hungry.There is no way to make decisions unless I believe I can.

I do make mistakes about the best way to act during the morning, of course. We all do as we do not live 'within' eternal time let alone eternal truth

[BigMike]

I don't know how you get out of bed when you wake up, but I have decisions to make. I even have duties such as feeding the dog who will be hungry. There is no way to make decisions unless I believe I can.

We all have choices to make. But none of them are made freely; they are motivated by some "problem". If you skip breakfast in the morning, you can expect to suffer hunger pain later on. Therefore you decide to have breakfast. Similarly, unless you feed your loving dog, you will indirectly cause it pain or even death.

[BigMike]

But, of course, whether or not I like how the world really is, is irrelevant. I had no say in its creation.

Are you sure?

Very.

[bobmax]

But, of course, whether or not I like how the world really is, is irrelevant. I had no say in its creation.

Are you sure?

Very.

If you have nothing to do with what the world is like, who are you then?