compatibilism

[BigMike]

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?

Should I interpret your response as total agreement with me and acceptance that I "have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for what (I) BELIEVE and continue TO BELIEVE?"

[phyllo]

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.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Are you saying that there are separate individuals in a free-will universe but not in a deterministic universe?

Surely, the separation of individuals and objects is something that the brain/mind does. We choose how and when we do it. We can consider something to be a whole and then the next minute separate it into parts. It's neither right nor wrong, it's useful.

The Ship of Theseus, would also seem to apply to free-will unless a person believes in a completely unchanging soul. This would be on top of a changing body and changing mind. So it would only one component of a self unless this soul is the 'true self' and body and mind are what? something else? not really you?

And on a side note, it might be good idea not to think of oneself as a isolated entity, given the problems this planet is facing. Connectedness is useful now.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Are you saying that there are separate individuals in a free-will universe but not in a deterministic universe?

I would have said that if that's what I was saying. I don't know what a universe with free will is. I don't know what ontological properties people have in such a universe. I am writing about what I think is entailed by determinism.

Surely, the separation of individuals and objects is something that the brain/mind does. We choose how and when we do it. We can consider something to be a whole and then the next minute separate it into parts. It's neither right nor wrong, it's useful.

Yes, the brain/mind conceives of things that way. If you take a purely pragmatic approach to truth, then yes, it seems to describe experiences to talk about separate individuals and selves. If you take other approaches to what true statements mean, then it might not hold.

The Ship of Theseus, would also seem to apply to free-will unless a person believes in a completely unchanging soul. This would be on top of a changing body and changing mind. So it would only one component of a self unless this soul is the 'true self' and body and mind are what? something else? not really you?

I am not setting out my thinking on what free will entails because I don't know the ontology.

And on a side note, it might be good idea not to think of oneself as a isolated entity, given the problems this planet is facing. Connectedness is useful now.

Something that is distinct from other parts of the whole could be also connected. And, sure, I agree with the sentiment here.

[bobmax]

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?

And folding and imploding... to return to the peace of the One.

[iambiguous]

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.

This is all tongue in cheek, right?

If not, I'll be moving on to others.

Compelled to or otherwise.

[iambiguous]

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.

Are you going to lock up a serial killer for doing what he did?

If yes, then you are holding him responsible for his acts.

Why would you treat Mary any differently? You hold her responsible for her acts as well.

You again!

Really, you are either making a truly important point here that I -- click -- keep missing or you are hopelessly deluded.

In a determined universe as some understand it, a serial killer could never not be a serial killer any more than the authorities could never not lock him up.

NOTHING that any of us think, feel, say and do is not fated/destined to unfold in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

That includes Mary aborting Jane and the free will folks and the compatibilists holding her morally responsible for doing so.

That includes me typing these words in my here and now and you reading them in yours.

If it's matter it follows the laws of matter.

Then back to the part, however, where, sure, the human brain may well be like no other matter there has ever been.

Thank God?

In the interim, I'm sticking with the part where neither you nor I nor anyone else here can grasp 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.

...and actually be able to pin down, going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself, how the human condition itself fits into existence ontologically. And teleologically?

Go ahead, though, give it a shot.

[iambiguous]

Of course, simpler still is the argument that you too are no less compelled by your brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to post what you do.

That you too are no less included in regard to those who are unable to definitively resolve this deep, deep mystery

Instead, your brain has compelled you to posit the Christian God. Only it has [so far] not been able to compel you much beyond "the videos", to demonstrate why all rational men and women are obligated to view them and conclude in turn that they prove the Christian God does in fact exist.

Prompting my brain to compel me to suspect that you too may have a "condition".

That perhaps you belong on a Christian discussion forum and not here at the Philosophy Now forum given your hopelessly circular premise that...

1] The Christian God must exist because it says so in the New Testament of the Christian Bible
2] The New Testament of the Christian Bible must be true because it is the word of the Christian God

Ain't a "mystery," and ain't "deep." It's just untrue.

Sorry. It's just self-contradictory. That's not the same as being subtle, wise or profound. In fact, it's the opposite.

Again, if you're not embarrassed to keep posting these endless "my way or the highway" assertions regarding all of this, then I'm not embarrassed to keep reminding you that you ought to be.

This is a philosophy forum, not a Sunday School Christian forum.

Though it's just my luck that determinism is in fact a component of the human condition and you are completely off the hook.

[phyllo]

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.

Are you going to lock up a serial killer for doing what he did?

If yes, then you are holding him responsible for his acts.

Why would you treat Mary any differently? You hold her responsible for her acts as well.

You again!

Really, you are either making a truly important point here that I -- click -- keep missing or you are hopelessly deluded.

In a determined universe as some understand it, a serial killer could never not be a serial killer any more than the authorities could never not lock him up.

NOTHING that any of us think, feel, say and do is not fated/destined to unfold in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

That includes Mary aborting Jane and the free will folks and the compatibilists holding her morally responsible for doing so.

That includes me typing these words in my here and now and you reading them in yours.

If it's matter it follows the laws of matter.

Then back to the part, however, where, sure, the human brain may well be like no other matter there has ever been.

Thank God?

In the interim, I'm sticking with the part where neither you nor I nor anyone else here can grasp 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.

...and actually be able to pin down, going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself, how the human condition itself fits into existence ontologically. And teleologically?

Go ahead, though, give it a shot.

What does this have to do with how responsibility is assigned in a situation?

Or why responsibility is assigned?

Do you understand why a serial killer goes to jail? And why that happens whether we are talking about determinism or free-will? Why he can't get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card?

[Age]

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?

Should I interpret your response as total agreement with me and acceptance that I "have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for what (I) BELIEVE and continue TO BELIEVE?"

NO.

I just asked you a VERY SIMPLE question, AND I am STILL WAITING for your answer.

So, if I was you, I would NOT interpret absolutely ANY thing. I would, instead, just answer the question posed to me.

If you do not want to answer the question, posed to you, then so be it. However, if you would like to be UNDERSTOOD, then I suggest you just CLARIFY.

[Age]

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.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Are you saying that there are separate individuals in a free-will universe but not in a deterministic universe?

Surely, the separation of individuals and objects is something that the brain/mind does. We choose how and when we do it. We can consider something to be a whole and then the next minute separate it into parts. It's neither right nor wrong, it's useful.

Actually, without the brain being able to construct an appearance of 'separation', with the ability to label ALL those 'separated' things, human beings would NOT be able to come to KNOW and UNDERSTAND 'the world/the Universe' in which they have found "themselves" WITHIN.

The Ship of Theseus, would also seem to apply to free-will unless a person believes in a completely unchanging soul. This would be on top of a changing body and changing mind. So it would only one component of a self unless this soul is the 'true self' and body and mind are what? something else? not really you?

When, what the words 'determinism', 'free will', 'mind', 'body', 'soul', 'you', 'self', to name but just a few, are defined correctly and properly, or in other words in A WAY, which UNIFIES ALL 'things' into one PERFECTLY FITTING and FORMED WHOLE, or One, without ANY inconsistency NOR contradiction, then ALL of these DISPUTES that 'you', human beings, have been having, hitherto when this is being written, will just completely and utterly DIMINISH.

And on a side note, it might be good idea not to think of oneself as a isolated entity, given the problems this planet is facing. Connectedness is useful now.

'Connectedness' is just what IS. It is inescapable.

'Separation', however, was useful, and was actually necessary, in understanding and making sense of 'the world' in which we find "ourselves" IN.

[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?

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.

Humans are the ones who judge it as chaotic, yes? The path of evolution is continually changeable based on varying contributions and circumstances. Can't we see perfection in that if we step back from ourselves? Can we only imagine that 'order' results from being pre-determined? Isn't it possible that there's a cooperatively creative flow that makes perfect sense while also continually evolving?

[bobmax]

This is all tongue in cheek, right?

If not, I'll be moving on to others.

Compelled to or otherwise.

If there is no free will, your individual self is an illusion.
As well as the self of any other.

So there is life that takes place, where everything happens, but where there is no one.

It's very simple. And for this very reason it is so difficult.

Good luck.

[BigMike]

Some people who, in my opinion, do not believe in psychokinesis — the idea that you can move things, even atoms, with your mind — still do so because they do not comprehend how life began. I find this perplexing.

[bobmax]

Some people who, in my opinion, do not believe in psychokinesis — the idea that you can move things, even atoms, with your mind — still do so because they do not comprehend how life began. I find this perplexing.

This reasoning is highly disconcerting to me.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

Are you going to lock up a serial killer for doing what he did?

If yes, then you are holding him responsible for his acts.

Why would you treat Mary any differently? You hold her responsible for her acts as well.

You again!

Really, you are either making a truly important point here that I -- click -- keep missing or you are hopelessly deluded.

In a determined universe as some understand it, a serial killer could never not be a serial killer any more than the authorities could never not lock him up.

NOTHING that any of us think, feel, say and do is not fated/destined to unfold in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

That includes Mary aborting Jane and the free will folks and the compatibilists holding her morally responsible for doing so.

That includes me typing these words in my here and now and you reading them in yours.

If it's matter it follows the laws of matter.

Then back to the part, however, where, sure, the human brain may well be like no other matter there has ever been.

Thank God?

In the interim, I'm sticking with the part where neither you nor I nor anyone else here can grasp 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.

...and actually be able to pin down, going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself, how the human condition itself fits into existence ontologically. And teleologically?

Go ahead, though, give it a shot.

Let's say science proved that determinism is the case.
You, personally, read about the police catching serial killer. Would you argue, based now on the fact that determinsm is the case, that we should not incarcerate the serial killer`?
Please at least start with a clear yes or no. It would just be your opinion, but what would it be?

Because one could want this person behind bars, even though he could not help it. In fact people who think animals have no choice but to go through their garbage, sting them, bite them when they have rabies, take measures to make sure the animals cannot repeat this act.

Would it be morally wrong to take measures, like incarceration, to see to it the serial killer can't do it again?
Could one also hope that this act, would be a cause, that might inhibit others from murder?

What is it about determinism that means that one cannot take action to prevernt certain actions?

I can see how believing in determinism might ameliorate certain kinds of moral judgment. I can see how believing in determinism might lead at leat to some feelings of sympathy for criminals that others with extreme free will positions might be less likely to feel. I could see using other words for what a court is deciding about the person. But I see no reason to say one cannot take measures in relation to that person without being a hypocrite while believing in determinism.

Responsible is a complex word. In a deterministic universe the serial killer would not be the ultimate original cause. However....

2.
being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

In practical terms, person X could be credited with the acts. and it would not be unscientific to say that doing this and taking measures to restrict person X would lead to him not repeating the act.