compatibilism

[Age]

There can be no individual responsibility, for the simple reason that there is no one.

It's not because there are no people that no one is responsible. To be responsible for an act or inaction, one must have at least been able to have acted differently. It makes no sense to hold someone responsible for something they could not have avoided. We do not absolve individuals of responsibility by denying their existence. You must attempt to eliminate that ridiculous notion from your mind.

It's not that the bodies do not exist. It's not like Jane Doe does not exist. But in a deterministic universe there are no separate individuals. You simply have an inevitable unfolding of the entire mass of the universe. There are no separate things, just all of this mass moving forward in time. It's like a petal of a flower thinking it is some isolated entity, when it is merely part of the bloom, of the flower, of the field of the earth, of the universe unfolding. It makes no individual decisions, nor do we. It has all been decided in advance.

And then, given that we are made of matter, Ship of Thebes issues also come in and destroy the notion of a persistant self.

The self is an illusion given modern physicalism.

Of course the 'self' is an illusion. But as obvious is the fact that the 'Self' is REAL, and thus NOT an illusion.

But it's not like Mike isn't there. Like that part of the whole mass is not there as one portion of the unfolding mass.

[Lacewing]

If all is ONE...
unfolding and expanding in all directions...
why couldn't each of the parts of the one be unfolding and expanding in all directions too...
like fractals...
yet doing so dynamically...
not simply based on a single or particular equation or direction or set of parameters...
but rather, exploring creative potential in all directions...
and each part -- including what we think of as human selves -- could affect the unfolding and expanding of the whole?

None of this has to be pre-determined. Every part of nature, including humans, can be a sensing part that explores potential -- on behalf of the continual creative unfoldment experienced and explored through all of the parts for the one.

Yes? No?

[bobmax]

There can be no individual responsibility, for the simple reason that there is no one.

Click.

You lose me here.

However, compassion reveals a different and total responsibility.

Because it is not you who have compassion, but compassion takes you.
And so you find yourself at the origin of all things.

Here I'm really lost. It's as though compassion itself is an entity taking control. Of what...your brain?

Is there a God in here somewhere? Or the pantheistic equivalent of the universe itself as God?

Either way, if Mary is compelled to abort Jane*, her unborn fetus, Jane is never around to weigh in on all this. Whereas if Mary has free will, she may well be around.

* Why Jane?

Because the Mary/John debacle is based on a true experience that I had. John wanted Mary to give birth. If it was a girl, he wanted to call her Jane. But Mary aborted the fetus.

In my opinion we need to focus on the non-existence of free will.
Leaving determinism alone.

Determinism can help you come to the conclusion that there is no free will, but then it's best to leave it alone.
Because determinism is not truth.
In fact, the law of cause and effect itself is questionable.

There are other and more valid reasons why free will is an illusion.
The most important in my opinion is ethics.

In fact, evil is absolutely unacceptable.
However, there is evil.

He wanted a daughter and call her Jane, but Mary had an abortion.
Here is the suffering, the evil.

It could have been different and Jane would have been born.
But Mary has no free will...
There is no free will and things don't go as they should...

Forget about determinism! Focus on tragedy.

And in this tragedy the protagonists exist, and yet they are not, they have no essence of their own...

Here you can be seized with compassion.
Compassion is pure love.

And true love makes no distinction.
Nor could it do it, because there is no one in particular to love.
There is only the beloved.
Which transpires in the tragedy itself.

It may then happen that this compassion finally turns to yourself as well. You too have no free will.
So you also exist, but you are not yet.

Compassion brings out who you truly are.

[Age]

If all is ONE...
unfolding and expanding in all directions...

But thee One is NOT 'expanding'. Although it could be said and argued, It is 'unfolding' into Self-awareness, or just evolving into coming to KNOW thy Self.

When the question, 'Who am 'I'?' was answered properly and correctly, then this is when this 'unfolded'.

why couldn't each of the parts of the one be unfolding and expanding in all directions too...
like fractals...
yet doing so dynamically...
not simply based on a single or particular equation or direction or set of parameters...
but rather, exploring creative potential in all directions...

'Creative potential' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY, do you envision "lacewing"?

and each part -- including what we think of as human selves -- could affect the unfolding and expanding of the whole?

The 'whole' could only come-to-KNOW Itself through 'intelligence', itself, and a species with the ability to gather and store an unlimited amount of knowledge. This is where the human being came into play. 'you' were able to devise and create ways to store and hold the information and knowledge that 'you' are continually collecting, along the way.

None of this has to be pre-determined. [/quote]

No it does not. But, because of the way the Universe, Itself, works or 'behaves', then how this was ALL pre-determined becomes crystal clear. Which, by the way, the 'free will' within human beings also plays a completely necessary part in ALL-OF-THIS.

Every part of nature,

When you say, "Every part of nature" here, then does this imply that there is some 'thing' that is NOT natural, or is unnatural in some way or another?

If yes, then what would that 'thing' or 'part' be, EXACTLY?

including humans, can be a sensing part that explores potential -- on behalf of the continual creative unfoldment experienced and explored through all of the parts for the one.

Yes? No?

Just like EVERY part of the human body can be a sensing part that explores 'potential', for the one, human being, 'self', so to EVERY part of the Universe can be a sensing part that explores 'potential', for thee One, 'Self'.

And, which, by the way, is how thee One, 'whole', 'Self' actually came to KNOW 'I', or thy Self.

[BigMike]

I will grant you that. I was unnecessarily and unjustly harsh, as well as in error. My attempt at moderation, "Even if they don't have a choice..." was insufficient to not be hurtful. I believe, however, that my subsequent comments have elucidated what I believed and continue to believe about the subject.

[Age]

Not sure what this means. So, what I do is to bring all of this "philosophical/intellectual" stuff "down to earth" and explore it in regard to Mary aborting her unborn fetus.

Now, the compatibilists seem to argue -- at least to the extent I understand them -- that even though Mary was never able not to abort her fetus, she was still morally responsible for doing so. Which only makes sense to me if we are all compelled to make sense of things per the laws of matter in a wholly determined universe.

Once the non-existence of free will is taken for granted, in the face of Mary having an abortion we can only feel compassion.

Given how many hardcore determinists are compelled to think [and sometimes I'm one of them and sometimes I'm not], human emotion is not the exception here. We can only feel compassion or not because we can only feel compassion or not. It's not an option that we choose freely.

Because once we understand that free will is an illusion, the painful world can only arouse compassion in us.

Again, though, it's not like we freely choose to understand anything here. Same with compassion. You sound to me here like one of those free will determinists i.e. compatibilists. Free will is an illusion except when it comes to arousing compassion. That we can do of our own volition

There can be no individual responsibility, for the simple reason that there is no one.

Click.

You lose me here.

However, compassion reveals a different and total responsibility.

Because it is not you who have compassion, but compassion takes you.
And so you find yourself at the origin of all things.

Here I'm really lost. It's as though compassion itself is an entity taking control. Of what...your brain?

Is there a God in here somewhere? Or the pantheistic equivalent of the universe itself as God?

Either way, if Mary is compelled to abort Jane*, her unborn fetus, Jane is never around to weigh in on all this. Whereas if Mary has free will, she may well be around.

* Why Jane?

Because the Mary/John debacle is based on a true experience that I had. John wanted Mary to give birth. If it was a girl, he wanted to call her Jane. But Mary aborted the fetus.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of WHERE the CONFUSION LAYS with the 'free will' term, or phrase.

To you, did "mary" abort the fetus because "mary" had 'free will'?

[BigMike]

There can be no individual responsibility, for the simple reason that there is no one.

It's not because there are no people that no one is responsible. To be responsible for an act or inaction, one must have at least been able to have acted differently. It makes no sense to hold someone responsible for something they could not have avoided. We do not absolve individuals of responsibility by denying their existence. You must attempt to eliminate that ridiculous notion from your mind.

It's not that the bodies do not exist. It's not like Jane Doe does not exist. But in a deterministic universe there are no separate individuals. You simply have an inevitable unfolding of the entire mass of the universe. There are no separate things, just all of this mass moving forward in time. It's like a petal of a flower thinking it is some isolated entity, when it is merely part of the bloom, of the flower, of the field of the earth, of the universe unfolding. It makes no individual decisions, nor do we. It has all been decided in advance.

And then, given that we are made of matter, Ship of Thebes issues also come in and destroy the notion of a persistant self.

The self is an illusion given modern physicalism.

But it's not like Mike isn't there. Like that part of the whole mass is not there as one portion of the unfolding mass.

Here, I disagree. The existence of a set does not preclude the existence of all its subsets.

[BigMike]

There can be no individual responsibility, for the simple reason that there is no one.

It's not because there are no people that no one is responsible. To be responsible for an act or inaction, one must have at least been able to have acted differently. It makes no sense to hold someone responsible for something they could not have avoided. We do not absolve individuals of responsibility by denying their existence. You must attempt to eliminate that ridiculous notion from your mind.

In my opinion you have not yet elaborated enough on the implications of the non-existence of free will.
Perhaps because you are too conditioned by the determinism that you consider indisputable "truth".

I may not yet have "elaborated enough on the implications of the non-existence of free will". I have therefore solicited a discussion regarding these ramifications and what we must do to adapt. The forthcoming challenging changes cannot, of course, be interpreted as proof that "therefore free will must exist". I will not respond to the remainder of your post, which contains religious overtones that are unfounded and, dare I say, silly.

The non-existence of free will has other and more important reasons.

Focus on what the non-existence of free will really means.
And then you can see how there is no thing for itself.
No one thing is distinct from the other.

All is One.

[bobmax]

I will not respond to the remainder of your post, which contains religious overtones that are unfounded and, dare I say, silly.

There is nothing religious there.
It is philosophy, the only authentic philosophy of all time.
It is enough to read the great philosophers...

It seems to me that you still don't make up your mind to go on.
Yes, it is not easy. Maybe it's painful.
But yet it must.

[Iwannaplato]

I will grant you that. I was unnecessarily and unjustly harsh, as well as in error. My attempt at moderation, "Even if they don't have a choice..." was insufficient to not be hurtful. I believe, however, that my subsequent comments have elucidated what I believed and continue to believe about the subject.

[Age]

There can be no individual responsibility, for the simple reason that there is no one.

Click.

You lose me here.

However, compassion reveals a different and total responsibility.

Because it is not you who have compassion, but compassion takes you.
And so you find yourself at the origin of all things.

Here I'm really lost. It's as though compassion itself is an entity taking control. Of what...your brain?

Is there a God in here somewhere? Or the pantheistic equivalent of the universe itself as God?

Either way, if Mary is compelled to abort Jane*, her unborn fetus, Jane is never around to weigh in on all this. Whereas if Mary has free will, she may well be around.

* Why Jane?

Because the Mary/John debacle is based on a true experience that I had. John wanted Mary to give birth. If it was a girl, he wanted to call her Jane. But Mary aborted the fetus.

In my opinion we need to focus on the non-existence of free will.
Leaving determinism alone.

WHY?

To me, this seems like the VERY OPPOSITE of 'philosophy'. To me, you seem to be saying; I BELIEVE some 'thing' is true, so if we just focused on the opposite being NON-EXISTENT, then you will SEE that what I BELIEVE is true, is true.

Determinism can help you come to the conclusion that there is no free will, but then it's best to leave it alone.
Because determinism is not truth.

What ACTUAL PROOF do you have for this VERY STRONG CLAIM here?

In fact, the law of cause and effect itself is questionable.

HOW and WHY?

There are other and more valid reasons why free will is an illusion.

If 'determinism' is NOT 'truth' AND 'free will' is AN 'illusion', then 'what' is, ACTUALLY 'true' AND 'real'?

The most important in my opinion is ethics.

But which, to me, has NOTHING AT ALL to do with what you just wrote and said.

In fact, evil is absolutely unacceptable.

'unacceptable' to who?

LOTS of 'you', human beings, spend a LOT of time creating 'evil', and then watching 'it'.

However, there is evil.

There is ALSO 'determinism' AND 'free will, 'nature' AND 'nurture', 'creation' AND 'evolution', but SO WHAT?

He wanted a daughter and call her Jane, but Mary had an abortion.
Here is the suffering, the evil.

WHERE, EXACTLY, is the SUPPOSED and ALLEGED 'suffering', the so-called 'evil'?

It could have been different and Jane would have been born.

OF COURSE 'it' could have been DIFFERENT. Or, could it?

That IS the QUESTION, and PROPOSITION, being asked and talked about, within this thread.

But Mary has no free will...
There is no free will and things don't go as they should...

So, to you, 'free will' makes things go as they 'should be', or were 'determined to be', correct?

Forget about determinism! Focus on tragedy.

WHY?

And in this tragedy the protagonists exist, and yet they are not, they have no essence of their own...

WHERE, EXACTLY, is the SUPPOSED and ALLEGED 'tragedy'?

Here you can be seized with compassion.
Compassion is pure love.

'Compassion' is compassion, whereas, 'love' is love. And, 'pure love' IS pure love.

'Compassion' is NOT 'pure love', just like 'pure love' is NOT 'compassion'.

And true love makes no distinction.

'No distinction' in regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

Nor could it do it, because there is no one in particular to love.
There is only the beloved.
Which transpires in the tragedy itself.

It may then happen that this compassion finally turns to yourself as well. You too have no free will.
So you also exist, but you are not yet.

Compassion brings out who you truly are.

Are you aware that very rarely does one of your sentences logically follow on from the preceding one?

[Age]

I will grant you that. I was unnecessarily and unjustly harsh, as well as in error. My attempt at moderation, "Even if they don't have a choice..." was insufficient to not be hurtful. I believe, however, that my subsequent comments have elucidated what I believed and continue to believe about the subject.

Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for what you BELIEVE and continue TO BELIEVE?

[Belinda]

If all is ONE...
unfolding and expanding in all directions...
why couldn't each of the parts of the one be unfolding and expanding in all directions too...
like fractals...
yet doing so dynamically...
not simply based on a single or particular equation or direction or set of parameters...
but rather, exploring creative potential in all directions...
and each part -- including what we think of as human selves -- could affect the unfolding and expanding of the whole?

None of this has to be pre-determined. Every part of nature, including humans, can be a sensing part that explores potential -- on behalf of the continual creative unfoldment experienced and explored through all of the parts for the one.

Yes? No?

The living parts of the one can't evolve chaotically because their evolution is limited by their struggles for existence, and also by random mutations.

The inanimate parts of the one can't evolve chaotically because there are laws of nature(or of science if you prefer, or of God (if you prefer) that determine the parts' possibilities.

[BigMike]

I will grant you that. I was unnecessarily and unjustly harsh, as well as in error. My attempt at moderation, "Even if they don't have a choice..." was insufficient to not be hurtful. I believe, however, that my subsequent comments have elucidated what I believed and continue to believe about the subject.

Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for what you BELIEVE and continue TO BELIEVE?

Are you requesting evidence that the six conservation laws of physics and the four fundamental forces of nature are valid?

In fact, I view Amalie Emmy Noether's beautiful connection between the physical conservation laws (of energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc.) and particular mathematical symmetries as conclusive evidence, in addition to careful experiments and observations, of course, of the conservation laws. Regarding gravity and the other three forces, I will refer to the Standard Model and the General Theory of Relativity.

Now, it would be intriguing to hear your counterargument.

[Age]

I will grant you that. I was unnecessarily and unjustly harsh, as well as in error. My attempt at moderation, "Even if they don't have a choice..." was insufficient to not be hurtful. I believe, however, that my subsequent comments have elucidated what I believed and continue to believe about the subject.

Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for what you BELIEVE and continue TO BELIEVE?

Are you requesting evidence that the six conservation laws of physics and the four fundamental forces of nature are valid?

NO. I am just seeking a Truly OPEN and Honest answer, to the actual question I asked you.

In fact, I view Amalie Emmy Noether's beautiful connection between the physical conservation laws (of energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc.) and particular mathematical symmetries as conclusive evidence, in addition to careful experiments and observations, of course, of the conservation laws. Regarding gravity and the other three forces, I will refer to the Standard Model and the General Theory of Relativity.

Now, it would be intriguing to hear your counterargument.

Counterargument to 'what', EXACTLY?