compatibilism

[BigMike]

... one needs to be motivated from the outside to fulfill a desire or need, and motivation spells reaction not action, for action infers independence of the will.

The notion that every action has an equal and opposite reaction is somewhat dated, as is the notion of force. Today, scientists tend to prefer the term interactions. There is no action that is followed by a reaction. Instead, when two things interact, each of them causes the other to react. The process could be run backwards in time and still make sense from a physical point of view. Neither action nor reaction “infers independence of the will.” Free will can not instigate anything at all; that's an illusion.

[popeye1945]

... one needs to be motivated from the outside to fulfill a desire or need, and motivation spells reaction not action, for action infers independence of the will.

The notion that every action has an equal and opposite reaction is somewhat dated, as is the notion of force. Today, scientists tend to prefer the term interactions. There is no action that is followed by a reaction. Instead, when two things interact, each of them causes the other to react. The process could be run backwards in time and still make sense from a physical point of view. Neither action nor reaction “infers independence of the will.” Free will can not instigate anything at all; that's an illusion.

BigMike.

Different terminology meaning the same thing. I stated there were reciprocal causations which of course involve reciprocal reactions. There is no action, there is but cause and effect, the effect being reaction. I never stated that my explanation supported free will, in fact it makes it quite impossible. Do you have difficulty with the idea that organisms are reactive creatures or that diseases are a reactionary response to invasive elements chemical, organic or injury? Do you have difficulty with the fact that the physical world is cause to all reactive organisms? You are stating that this interaction is instantaneous, if so, it does not change the process, when brought together both are cause to the other's reaction. Although I might question how anything can be instantaneous and still be process, time is necessarily involved. Something to ponder further at any rate. You mention instigate, which would normally be termed action and there is really no such thing for reactive creatures or for inanimate objects. Being is cause to other beings and to the world at large, behaviors are reactions.

[BigMike]

BigMike.

Different terminology meaning the same thing. I stated there were reciprocal causations which of course involve reciprocal reactions. There is no action, there is but cause and effect, the effect being reaction. I never stated that my explanation supported free will, in fact it makes it quite impossible. Do you have difficulty with the idea that organisms are reactive creatures or that diseases are a reactionary response to invasive elements chemical, organic or injury? Do you have difficulty with the fact that the physical world is cause to all reactive organisms? You are stating that this interaction is instantaneous, if so, it does not change the process, when brought together both are cause to the other's reaction. Although I might question how anything can be instantaneous and still be process, time is necessarily involved. Something to ponder further at any rate. You mention instigate, which would normally be termed action and there is really no such thing for reactive creatures or for inanimate objects. Being is cause to other beings and to the world at large, behaviors are reactions.

We could be nitpicking here. We probably agree on most of it. Here's how I explained my stance here about three months ago.

Let me first say that is doesn't matter what will is; if it is nonphysical it can not control your actions. Period.

In speculating, I would compare it (our will) to the blueness of the sky, or the greenness of grass. It is the perception of a physical sensation. Take the will to eat, for instance. When the body's energy reserves are sufficiently depleted the stomach will produce a hormone (ghrelin) signaling a sense of pain or discomfort: hunger. As children, after being fed, the pain went away. We quickly learned that at the first sign of hunger pain, we should start looking for something to eat. Our will to eat is "forced" upon us, by necessity, otherwise we die.

Similarly, all of our basic needs (air, water, shelter, etc. ref Maslow's pyramid of needs, for example) get worse and worse unless they are met. If ignored, they will all lead to death. Similarly, safety needs, social needs, etc. drive us to eliminate the pain and suffering associated with each of them. Unmet, they may lead to serious illness, mental disorder, suicide, etc. The basic needs are the source of our will, as I see it. Unmet needs are what motivate us to act; our drive to meet them becomes our "will".

But then again, it really doesn't matter what a will is with respect to the free will question; it is not and cannot be free.

[popeye1945]

BigMike.

Different terminology meaning the same thing. I stated there were reciprocal causations which of course involve reciprocal reactions. There is no action, there is but cause and effect, the effect being reaction. I never stated that my explanation supported free will, in fact it makes it quite impossible. Do you have difficulty with the idea that organisms are reactive creatures or that diseases are a reactionary response to invasive elements chemical, organic or injury? Do you have difficulty with the fact that the physical world is cause to all reactive organisms? You are stating that this interaction is instantaneous, if so, it does not change the process, when brought together both are cause to the other's reaction. Although I might question how anything can be instantaneous and still be process, time is necessarily involved. Something to ponder further at any rate. You mention instigate, which would normally be termed action and there is really no such thing for reactive creatures or for inanimate objects. Being is cause to other beings and to the world at large, behaviors are reactions.

We could be nitpicking here. We probably agree on most of it. Here's how I explained my stance here about three months ago.

Let me first say that is doesn't matter what will is; if it is nonphysical it can not control your actions. Period.

In speculating, I would compare it (our will) to the blueness of the sky, or the greenness of grass. It is the perception of a physical sensation. Take the will to eat, for instance. When the body's energy reserves are sufficiently depleted the stomach will produce a hormone (ghrelin) signaling a sense of pain or discomfort: hunger. As children, after being fed, the pain went away. We quickly learned that at the first sign of hunger pain, we should start looking for something to eat. Our will to eat is "forced" upon us, by necessity, otherwise we die.

Similarly, all of our basic needs (air, water, shelter, etc. ref Maslow's pyramid of needs, for example) get worse and worse unless they are met. If ignored, they will all lead to death. Similarly, safety needs, social needs, etc. drive us to eliminate the pain and suffering associated with each of them. Unmet, they may lead to serious illness, mental disorder, suicide, etc. The basic needs are the source of our will, as I see it. Unmet needs are what motivate us to act; our drive to meet them becomes our "will". But then again, it really doesn't matter what a will is with respect to the free will question; it is not and cannot be free.

BigMike,

Excellent, we are definitely on the same page. Most helpful, I would not have expressed it that way myself but it's a bonus. THANKS!

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=557163 time=1643147252 user_id=9431]But [i]"how"[/i] is the problem. How does anything that was once entirely composes of "mindless matter" suddenly generate a "mind"? That sure looks like the kind of explanation that badly needs some filling-in...or is a complete bluff.[/quote]

How? is a question for science, not philosophy, and because it's an immensely complex subject, we don't have a good answer for it, after only a couple centuries having rigorous science. Nothing i just said is mysterious or requires any particular level of validation to be real. Life is complicated. That doesn't imply imaginary things are real.

The brain is an evolved organ of cognitive complexity and mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. It's simple.

[iambiguous]

Compatibilism
Michael Lacewin

Objection

But we can object that this is too weak a notion of free will. It is not enough to say that I would have acted differently if I had chosen differently. We also need to say that I could have chosen differently. Someone may choose to act as they do, but be motivated by a compulsion or addiction. For example, if I am addicted to smoking, there may be times when I feel I have to have a cigarette – I can’t chose not to. Yet it would still be true, that if I did chose not to, then I wouldn’t. But I’m not free to chose not to have a cigarette.

All of this does get tricky because it depends on how far back you take determinism. What if your compulsion and your addiction themselves were no more than an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

Indeed, some argue that even in regard to how far back you do take it, this too is just another necessary component of a wholly determined universe.

It can get maddening. Why? Because we just don't know how the human condition fits into the nature of existence itself. The ineffable reality of the brain grappling to explain itself. So, what some do here is [compelled or not] to conjure up God. At least then there is an entity that we can turn to explain, well, everything, right? Unless perhaps this too is completely beyond our control.

Another example: suppose that someone has inserted a chip into my brain and is able to cause me to choose to act in a particular way. It is true that if I had chosen differently, I would have acted differently. But I couldn’t have chosen differently, because someone is controlling what I choose. In both examples, what I choose determines what I do, yet I could not choose anything else, so in what sense are my choices free?

Back to Schopenhauer, right? What many compatibilists seem to focus in on is the fact that we do choose things. We're not like rocks and mountains and rivers and forests and other facets of nature that are completely mindless. Tropical storm Nicole will hit the East coast of Florida as a category 1 hurricane. But it's not like it chooses to do this. But human beings do choose to live on the coasts...in the path of these [at times] extremely dangerous storms. Ian for example.

So, what's the difference?

And what if, as mind-boggling as it seems, there isn't one?

[phyllo]

Objection

But we can object that this is too weak a notion of free will. It is not enough to say that I would have acted differently if I had chosen differently. We also need to say that I could have chosen differently. Someone may choose to act as they do, but be motivated by a compulsion or addiction. For example, if I am addicted to smoking, there may be times when I feel I have to have a cigarette – I can’t chose not to. Yet it would still be true, that if I did chose not to, then I wouldn’t. But I’m not free to chose not to have a cigarette.

And how do you know that "can't choose not to have a cigarette"?
Because you look back after you have had the cigarette and you write a narrative around it.

But it's really this : "I can't choose not to have it because I chose not to have it."

Stupid but innocuous. A mess of past, present and future.

It gets bad when people start telling you that you can't choose and that you don't have control. Then you start believing that you can't choose in the present/future and you start limiting your choices.

What are your limits now? What is determined for you today?

You won't know until after you have acted.

[iambiguous]

Objection

But we can object that this is too weak a notion of free will. It is not enough to say that I would have acted differently if I had chosen differently. We also need to say that I could have chosen differently. Someone may choose to act as they do, but be motivated by a compulsion or addiction. For example, if I am addicted to smoking, there may be times when I feel I have to have a cigarette – I can’t chose not to. Yet it would still be true, that if I did chose not to, then I wouldn’t. But I’m not free to chose not to have a cigarette.

And how do you know that "can't choose not to have a cigarette"?
Because you look back after you have had the cigarette and you write a narrative around it.

But it's really this : "I can't choose not to have it because I chose not to have it."

Stupid but innocuous. A mess of past, present and future.

It gets bad when people start telling you that you can't choose and that you don't have control. Then you start believing that you can't choose in the present/future and you start limiting your choices.

What are your limits now? What is determined for you today?

You won't know until after you have acted.

And how do you know that anything you know you had opted freely to know? Same with your behaviors.

Then the part where some here simply ignore this great mystery...

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.

...because they were never able not to ignore it.

Letting them off the hook of course.

[phyllo]

And how do you know that anything you know you had opted freely to know? Same with your behaviors.

I didn't opt "freely to know" because I opted to know in response to what is. I acted in response to what is.

It would be silly for me to act in response to what isn't. It would be silly for me to not act in response to what is.

[iambiguous]

And how do you know that anything you know you had opted freely to know? Same with your behaviors.

I didn't opt "freely to know" because I opted to know in response to what is. I acted in response to what is.

It would be silly for me to act in response to what isn't. It would be silly for me to not act in response to what is.

And, of course, what is here or is not here you merely presume to know freely because you were never able not to presume it. Then back to simply ignoring what scientists and philosophers have been grappling with now for thousands of years: a way to explain human brain matter.

Ontologically?
Teleologically?
Deontologically?

Or, in fact, are you able to demonstrate to us that what you think you know about it encompasses all three?

I'll be waiting for the NOVA documentary.

Someone might note that you are acting silly. But you were never able to act other than as you must. The "choice" to act as you do is but the psychological illusion of autonomy. Why? Because human psychology itself is but another inherent, necessary manifestation of the human brain. And others call it silly because they were never able to not call it silly. Some then conclude nothing that we think, feel, say, or do is not wholly determined by a human brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter. But is this too but another intrinsic component of the only possible reality?

Again, why on earth do you suppose, even in a free will world, so many come back to God here? Because He and only He can explain, well, everything, right?

[phyllo]

And, of course, what is here or is not here you merely presume to know freely because you were never able not to presume it.

FFS, I don't claim to know anything freely.

Everything that I know came from some existing state. Somebody told me something or I observed it in the world. Even my errors are either wrong statements that I believed or some combination of wrong observation and wrong reasoning.

Or genetic knowledge. Like how to suck a nipple or how to acquire language. Etc. But we're not going there.

Ontologically?
Teleologically?
Deontologically?

In the clouds.

You never find me using *ologically words.

The "choice" to act as you do is but the psychological illusion of autonomy. Why?

How can I have the "psychological illusion of autonomy" when I admit that I am responding to something specific?

Seriously. As soon as I respond, then I am not free in the deterministic sense. I'm could only be free if I don't respond or if my response does not address the post or question in any way.

[Age]

... one needs to be motivated from the outside to fulfill a desire or need, and motivation spells reaction not action, for action infers independence of the will.

The notion that every action has an equal and opposite reaction is somewhat dated, as is the notion of force. Today, scientists tend to prefer the term interactions. There is no action that is followed by a reaction. Instead, when two things interact, each of them causes the other to react.

So, in other words, the action of interaction just causes a reaction, ANYWAY.

The process could be run backwards in time and still make sense from a physical point of view. Neither action nor reaction “infers independence of the will.” Free will can not instigate anything at all; that's an illusion.

Talk about providing a great example of saying just about anything in order to 'try to' back up and support one's previously HELD BELIEFS.

[Belinda]

And, of course, what is here or is not here you merely presume to know freely because you were never able not to presume it.

FFS, I don't claim to know anything freely.

Everything that I know came from some existing state. Somebody told me something or I observed it in the world. Even my errors are either wrong statements that I believed or some combination of wrong observation and wrong reasoning.

Or genetic knowledge. Like how to suck a nipple or how to acquire language. Etc. But we're not going there.

Ontologically?
Teleologically?
Deontologically?

In the clouds.

You never find me using *ologically words.

The "choice" to act as you do is but the psychological illusion of autonomy. Why?

How can I have the "psychological illusion of autonomy" when I admit that I am responding to something specific?

Seriously. As soon as I respond, then I am not free in the deterministic sense. I'm could only be free if I don't respond or if my response does not address the post or question in any way.

I like all you say and I like the way you said it but I wish I knew how you manage to do philosophy without long jargon words.

[iambiguous]

And, of course, what is here or is not here you merely presume to know freely because you were never able not to presume it.

FFS, I don't claim to know anything freely.

Everything that I know came from some existing state. Somebody told me something or I observed it in the world. Even my errors are either wrong statements that I believed or some combination of wrong observation and wrong reasoning.

Or genetic knowledge. Like how to suck a nipple or how to acquire language. Etc. But we're not going there.

Okay, if you don't have free will as some understand it, then your "FFS" emotional reaction here is no less embedded in the only possible reality. And somebody could have not told you what they did and you could have not observed anything other than what your brain wholly in sync with laws of matter compelled you to observe. There can be no true errors as the libertarians encompass them because there can be no wrong observation and wrong reasoning. At least not in the sense that they are wrong because you did have the option to get them right but fucked up.

Are we [compelled or not] on the same page here in regard to that? Or are you another "free will determinist" like BigMike?

Ontologically?
Teleologically?
Deontologically?

You never find me using *ologically words.

Come on, phyllo, some of us may not use those words but almost all of us are familiar with them in regard to our own lives.

Ontological: I exist out in a particular world understood in a particular way. But how does that fit into the reason existence itself exists?
Teleological: does my individual existence have any essential, ultimate meaning and purpose?
Deontological: is there a way for me to know how I ought to behave when interacting with others?

The "choice" to act as you do is but the psychological illusion of autonomy. Why? Because human psychology itself is but another inherent, necessary manifestation of the human brain. And others call it silly because they were never able to not call it silly. Some then conclude nothing that we think, feel, say, or do is not wholly determined by a human brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter. But is this too but another intrinsic component of the only possible reality?

Again, why on earth do you suppose, even in a free will world, so many come back to God here? Because He and only He can explain, well, everything, right?

How can I have the "psychological illusion of autonomy" when I admit that I am responding to something specific?

Seriously. As soon as I respond, then I am not free in the deterministic sense. I'm could only be free if I don't respond or if my response does not address the post or question in any way.

Note to others:

What on earth, given a particular context, do you suppose this means here given that he himself "for fuck sakes" doesn't claim to know anything freely?

From my frame of mind, given how I understand determinism, whether he responds, how he responds or if he does not respond to the post is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the only possible reality.

It's just that, given how none of us seem able to resolve 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.

...none of us are really able to demonstrate why what we do think explains it is that which all rational men and women are obligated to embrace in turn.

Then the surreal part where even this post itself is but another inherent component of the one and the only fated and destined Reality.

[phyllo]

Okay, if you don't have free will as some understand it, then your "FFS" emotional reaction here is no less embedded in the only possible reality. And somebody could have not told you what they did and you could have not observed anything other than what your brain wholly in sync with laws of matter compelled you to observe. There can be no true errors as the libertarians encompass them because there can be no wrong observation and wrong reasoning. At least not in the sense that they are wrong because you did have the option to get them right but fucked up.

Are we [compelled or not] on the same page here in regard to that? Or are you another "free will determinist" like BigMike?

That "libertarian" standard for right/wrong doesn't make sense because even people with free-will could not be wrong.

If a person with free-will has the option to select between right or wrong answers then he will always select the right one unless he is being deliberately deceptive. But in fact, he does not have the option because he doesn't know what the right answer is.

Here is an example for you:

Joe has free-will but he doesn't know how to multiply numbers. He thinks 6x7=43.

Therefore when asked to answer what is 6x7? he replies with 43.

He does not have the option of answering with the correct answer 42 because he cannot do the math.

He is in the same position as determinist Andy who also thinks 6x7=43. Joe is equally limited by this ability and experience.

This shows that right and wrong cannot be based on the option to "get it right".

In this example, right and wrong is based on being consistent with the mathematical system.

Ontological: I exist out in a particular world understood in a particular way. But how does that fit into the reason existence itself exists?
Teleological: does my individual existence have any essential, ultimate meaning and purpose?
Deontological: is there a way for me to know how I ought to behave when interacting with others?

Find someone who wants to go down that path. It's not me.