compatibilism

[phyllo]

Back to Mary and Jane. In a free will world, Mary decides of her own volition to change her mind and not to abort Jane because a friend of her own volition talks her out of it it.

Jane is around today to talk about it.

In a wholly determined world where Mary aborts Jane, every material variable/factor comes together only as it must...resulting in Jane being aborted only as she must be.

Jane is not around day to talk about it. Ask her about the difference.

Then how we [compelled or not] think about that differently.

Only I'm not insisting that how I think about is more reasonable than how you or others think about it. Why? Because I'm still stumped in being unable to explain this:

You write this story.

As if simply writing it makes it true.

I suggest that in a determined world, Mary does not have to get an abortion and in a free-will world, Mary may get an abortion.

Huh? Joe having free will resulted in Jim still being around. Like Jane. For Jim, of course, the solution was free will.

Same here. You write a story and act as if it is true.

What, you think I'm suggesting that, even given free will, I can demonstrate when free will "kicked in" in the human brain when lifeless matter "somehow" evolved into living matter "somehow" evolved into conscious matter "somehow" evolved into us?

When does free-will kick in during everyday events? Because it doesn't seem to do anything when faced with the task of solving a math problem. OTOH, it does something when he decides to "master math".

For determinists, it's the laws of matter -- nature.

Those laws are not conscious. They don't have intentions.

Are you forced to go change direction when you come to a fence. Sure, but you're not being directed, as an actor is being directed.

[iambiguous]

Back to Mary and Jane. In a free will world, Mary decides of her own volition to change her mind and not to abort Jane because a friend of her own volition talks her out of it it.

Jane is around today to talk about it.

In a wholly determined world where Mary aborts Jane, every material variable/factor comes together only as it must...resulting in Jane being aborted only as she must be.

Jane is not around day to talk about it. Ask her about the difference.

Then how we [compelled or not] think about that differently.

Only I'm not insisting that how I think about is more reasonable than how you or others think about it. Why? Because I'm still stumped in being unable to explain this:

You write this story.

As if simply writing it makes it true.

I suggest that in a determined world, Mary does not have to get an abortion and in a free-will world, Mary may get an abortion.

Of course! A parallel universe!!

Though, sure, this determined universe may have unfolded such that the only possible reality was Mary not aborting Jane. And in this free will universe Mary may have not changed her mind and went ahead with the abortion.

Right. Joe, of his own volition in a free will world, figured that mastering arithmetic might be a valuable skill to acquire in regard to his interactions with others. So, having chosen to master it, he knows for certain that if he is to receive 7 shipments of 7 gold bars from Jim over the course of the next 7 days, he will end up with 49 gold bars. But if he had decided of his own free will not to master Arithmetic and thinks that 7 X 7 = 51, he counts 49 gold bars, thinks Jim is ripping him off and blows Jim away.

If, however, he had chosen to master arithmetic, Jim would still be around.

Whereas the wholly determined Joe...from the cradle to the grave...figures only what his wholly determined brain compels him to figure. So, if he does shoot Jim, Jim was always -- fated? destined? -- to be a goner.

Same here. You write a story and act as if it is true.

No, I argue that given those sets of circumstances, Joe having free will results in Jim still being around. Like Jane if Mary does. Whereas, you seem to be wobbling in the general direction of parallel universes where one Jane/Jim survives and the other ones don't. Or however you piece the components together in your head. Compelled or not...I don't know.

What, you think I'm suggesting that, even given free will, I can demonstrate when free will "kicked in" in the human brain when lifeless matter "somehow" evolved into living matter "somehow" evolved into conscious matter "somehow" evolved into us?

When does free-will kick in during everyday events? Because it doesn't seem to do anything when faced with the task of solving a math problem. OTOH, it does something when he decides to "master math".

Note to others:

You tell me how this pertains to the point that I raise.

I don't know definitively whether, in thinking, feeling, saying and doing things, we have free will or are wholly determined by the laws of matter. Let alone if we do how and when and why it "kicked in". Let alone how it all pertains to facing math problems.

Any other speculations [perhaps] regarding the points I raised above about Joe and Jim and the gold bars?

Oh, yeah: click.

For the hard determinists, the past, the present and the future are no less intertwined in the only possible reality. One solves all problems like actors in a movie do. By doing exactly what they are told to do by the director. Only the director is no less scripted by the laws of matter themselves, right?

What director? Who? Who is making them do stuff?

Well, for some here it's God, of course. And, miraculously enough, they are even able to "somehow" reconcile God's omniscience with human autonomy.

Then those pantheist who make the universe itself God. Whatever that means...teleologically?

For determinists, it's the laws of matter -- nature.

Though, again, come on, whatever that means, right?

Those laws are not conscious. They don't have intentions.

Oh, so you do have a definitive explanation for how the laws of matter governing the universe going back to the Big Bang did manage to evolve over billions of years into living matter here on Earth in possession of conscious minds...evolving further into matter with self-conscious minds?

Matter in possession of motivation and intention? That ever elusive teleological component that most attribute to God. Maybe yours, maybe not?

Are you forced to go change direction when you come to a fence. Sure, but you're not being directed, as an actor is being directed.

Please. If my brain is but more matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter then I was compelled -- directed -- to come to the fence and then compelled -- directed -- to change directions when I did. Or, perhaps, compelled -- directed -- to take an axe to it?

[Belinda]

Iambiguous wrote:

In a free will world, Mary decides of her own volition to change her mind and not to abort Jane because a friend of her own volition talks her out of it.

Jane is around today to talk about it.

In a wholly determined world where Mary aborts Jane, every material variable/factor comes together only as it must...resulting in Jane being aborted only as she must be.

Jane is not around today to talk about it. Ask her about the difference.

Then how we [compelled or not] think about that differently.

Only I'm not insisting that how I think about is more reasonable than how you or others think about it. Why? Because I'm still stumped in being unable 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.

In the case where every happening necessarily happens , a)Jane dies before she is born, or(exclusive) alternatively b)Mary's friend persuades Mary not to abort Jane.
It's increasingly probable there are multiple universes, and we don't know whether or not we are in a) or b). We will find out after the event whichever event turn out to be.

It's unbelievable that Mary and/or Mary's friend has the godlike power to originate a juncture or a universe that develops from a juncture.

[phyllo]

Of course! A parallel universe!!

Though, sure, this determined universe may have unfolded such that the only possible reality was Mary not aborting Jane. And in this free will universe Mary may have not changed her mind and went ahead with the abortion.

It has nothing to do with parallel universes.

I'm setting two identical situations with one difference. In one situation Mary has free-will and in the other she does not.

I do this in order to try to get some insight as to how free-will/determinism would alter what Mary does. IOW, what's the practical difference between free-will and determinism?

And when I think about Mary's encounter with her friend, I reach the conclusion that if free-will Mary finds her friend's argument persuasive, then determined Mary would also find it persuasive. After all, they both have the same life history ... the same motivations.

Now, as I read your posts, you seem to believe that determined Mary will not change her mind no matter what her friend says. You seem to have no reason for this other than that the abortion is predetermined.
Yet free-will Mary can somehow think about what her friend says and she changes her mind. What's the basis for the change? No explanation that I can see other than that's what you believe and write.

What, you think I'm suggesting that, even given free will, I can demonstrate when free will "kicked in" in the human brain when lifeless matter "somehow" evolved into living matter "somehow" evolved into conscious matter "somehow" evolved into us?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 6:07 pm
When does free-will kick in during everyday events? Because it doesn't seem to do anything when faced with the task of solving a math problem. OTOH, it does something when he decides to "master math".

Note to others:

You tell me how this pertains to the point that I raise.

I don't know definitively whether, in thinking, feeling, saying and doing things, we have free will or are wholly determined by the laws of matter. Let alone if we do how and when and why it "kicked in". Let alone how it all pertains to facing math problems.

It doesn't pertain to your point because your point didn't pertain to my original point.

You completely misunderstood my point. And now that I have explained it, you still misunderstand it.

Please. If my brain is but more matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter then I was compelled -- directed -- to come to the fence and then compelled -- directed -- to change directions when I did. Or, perhaps, compelled -- directed -- to take an axe to it?

Yup, that's how you think about it.

[Belinda]

Phyllo wrote:

And when I think about Mary's encounter with her friend, I reach the conclusion that if free-will Mary finds her friend's argument persuasive, then determined Mary would also find it persuasive. After all, they both have the same life history ... the same motivations.

A persuasive argument is a circumstance that contributes to a choice. Freewill Mary can originate her choice therefore no argument will contribute to her choice.

Freewill Mary and determinism Mary may choose to act the same and this sameness would happen by chance.

If there were two identical Freewill Marys they would choose differently unless there was a chance coincidence.

Two identical determinism Marys would be much more likely to coincide in their choices, as the determinism Marys would be amenable to an argument.

[phyllo]

Phyllo wrote:

And when I think about Mary's encounter with her friend, I reach the conclusion that if free-will Mary finds her friend's argument persuasive, then determined Mary would also find it persuasive. After all, they both have the same life history ... the same motivations.

A persuasive argument is a circumstance that contributes to a choice. Freewill Mary can originate her choice therefore no argument will contribute to her choice.

Freewill Mary and determinism Mary may choose to act the same and this sameness would happen by chance.

If there were two identical Freewill Marys they would choose differently unless there was a chance coincidence.

Two identical determinism Marys would be much more likely to coincide in their choices, as the determinism Marys would be amenable to an argument.

Yes, those are interesting points.

It's not clear how Free-will Mary would make a decision.

I suppose that she would have be choosing based on some internal state within her, which is separate from her physical brain. Her soul?

Would two Free-will Marys make the same or different decision?

I don't see how they would not make the same decision.

But if it's the same decision, then isn't it "compelled" in some way?

[Belinda]

Phyllo wrote:

And when I think about Mary's encounter with her friend, I reach the conclusion that if free-will Mary finds her friend's argument persuasive, then determined Mary would also find it persuasive. After all, they both have the same life history ... the same motivations.

A persuasive argument is a circumstance that contributes to a choice. Freewill Mary can originate her choice therefore no argument will contribute to her choice.

Freewill Mary and determinism Mary may choose to act the same and this sameness would happen by chance.

If there were two identical Freewill Marys they would choose differently unless there was a chance coincidence.

Two identical determinism Marys would be much more likely to coincide in their choices, as the determinism Marys would be amenable to an argument.

Yes, those are interesting points.

It's not clear how Free-will Mary would make a decision.

I suppose that she would have be choosing based on some internal state within her, which is separate from her physical brain. Her soul?

Would two Free-will Marys make the same or different decision?

I don't see how they would not make the same decision.



But if it's the same decision, then isn't it "compelled" in some way?

It's not clear how Free-will Mary would make a decision.

I suppose that she would have be choosing based on some internal state within her, which is separate from her physical brain. Her soul?

Phyllo wrote:

Determinist Marys can choose a according to "some internal state within her----Her soul?" It's definitive of determinist Marys they're caused to choose.

It's definitive of freewill Marys they are not caused to choose or else they would be determinist Marys. This is what it means to say freewill Marys originate their choices. In other words Marys choices are either caused by circumstances or else their choices are uncaused by circumstances, but not both.

You could have intermittent free will so that you are sometimes an originator and sometimes not an originator , this could happen only if a supernatural originator intervened in your life and shared its power.

[iambiguous]

From ILP:

Or is that just the part your brain compels you not to be interested in "philosophically"?

It is this question that shows that you will never understand this problem, nor understand yourself.

There is no distinction between "you" and the "compulsion of your brain"; they are just descriptive aspects of the same thing.

When you understand this you might be able to unpack your absurd notions concerning the topic of free will and determinism.

If you are still confused, try and understand the concept of a disabling dualism. Because this is what you are suffering from.

There he goes again: pontificating.

The actual topic of discussion can be anything -- God, politics, determinism.

It's not what he argues...it's the contempt he shows for those who refuse to argue exactly as he does.

Even in regard to a question like this...an intellectual/existential conundrum that has both fascinated and baffled philosophers and scientists "down through the ages". Nope, there's nothing he does not fully grasp.

And what does he throw at us here? This thing...

"There is no distinction between 'you' and the 'compulsion of your brain'; they are just descriptive aspects of the same thing."

A "general description intellectual contraption" if there ever was one!

So...

If Mary's brain compels her to abort Jane then, when she says "I aborted my unborn baby", that's just her brain compelling her to say that too? Everything that she thinks, feels, says and does some argue is just her brain doing its bit in being wholly in sync with the laws of matter. Jane was toast going all the way back to how [no doubt] Sculptor can explain to us why something exists instead of nothing. And why this something instead of something else.

Go ahead, ask him. Oh, and ask him to connect the dots between "disabling dualism" and the chemical and neurological interactions in his brain.

On the other hand, if, "somehow", non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became self-conscious matter became us on planet Earth, then "somehow", sure, it might have acquired autonomy and Mary might of her own volition changed her mind and not aborted Jane.

But which one it is is of particular importance to Jane.

Now, we know the crucial factor here can't be God. Why? Because Sculptor has already "proved" He doesn't exist. How? Through the arguments his brained compelled him to "think up" in his head and post here.

Or, sure, however he pontificates about that.

[Sculptor]

From ILP:

Or is that just the part your brain compels you not to be interested in "philosophically"?

It is this question that shows that you will never understand this problem, nor understand yourself.

There is no distinction between "you" and the "compulsion of your brain"; they are just descriptive aspects of the same thing.

When you understand this you might be able to unpack your absurd notions concerning the topic of free will and determinism.

If you are still confused, try and understand the concept of a disabling dualism. Because this is what you are suffering from.

There he goes again: pontificating.

The actual topic of discussion can be anything -- God, politics, determinism.

It's not what he argues...it's the contempt he shows for those who refuse to argue exactly as he does.

Even in regard to a question like this...an intellectual/existential conundrum that has both fascinated and baffled philosophers and scientists "down through the ages". Nope, there's nothing he does not fully grasp.

And what does he throw at us here? This thing...

"There is no distinction between 'you' and the 'compulsion of your brain'; they are just descriptive aspects of the same thing."

A "general description intellectual contraption" if there ever was one!

So...

If Mary's brain compels her to abort Jane then, when she says "I aborted my unborn baby", that's just her brain compelling her to say that too? Everything that she thinks, feels, says and does some argue is just her brain doing its bit in being wholly in sync with the laws of matter. Jane was toast going all the way back to how [no doubt] Sculptor can explain to us why something exists instead of nothing. And why this something instead of something else.

Go ahead, ask him. Oh, and ask him to connect the dots between "disabling dualism" and the chemical and neurological interactions in his brain.

On the other hand, if, "somehow", non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became self-conscious matter became us on planet Earth, then "somehow", sure, it might have acquired autonomy and Mary might of her own volition changed her mind and not aborted Jane.

But which one it is is of particular importance to Jane.

Now, we know the crucial factor here can't be God. Why? Because Sculptor has already "proved" He doesn't exist. How? Through the arguments his brained compelled him to "think up" in his head and post here.

Or, sure, however he pontificates about that.

Translation.
Mr ambiguity sticks his fingers in his ears and gos la la la la la

[phyllo]

One can't help noticing that Biggus doesn't explain how 'you' is distinct from what 'your brain' is thinking and deciding.

So let's do it for him:

'You' are an immortal soul. Your body and 'your brain' are just some baggage you are forced to carry around in this physical life. Your brain executes the instructions that the soul gives it and passes information back to the soul. Why? Because the soul can't interact directly with a physical world.

Carry on.

PS. In the case of determinism, the physical brain makes you, the soul, do things that it doesn't want to do.

In the case of free-will, the soul has complete control of the brain.

[iambiguous]

Of course! A parallel universe!!

Though, sure, this determined universe may have unfolded such that the only possible reality was Mary not aborting Jane. And in this free will universe Mary may have not changed her mind and went ahead with the abortion.

It has nothing to do with parallel universes.

I'm setting two identical situations with one difference. In one situation Mary has free-will and in the other she does not.

I do this in order to try to get some insight as to how free-will/determinism would alter what Mary does. IOW, what's the practical difference between free-will and determinism?

Well, one of them would be that Jane is destined, fated to be shredded into oblivion or Jane is now among us here pitching in with her own two cents.

Then the part where you intertwine "setting two identical situations" here with all that you are not able to grasp regarding how that came about given all that you are unable to grasp about 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.

All that stuff you are not interested in "philosophically". Let alone "for all practical purposes".

And when I think about Mary's encounter with her friend, I reach the conclusion that if free-will Mary finds her friend's argument persuasive, then determined Mary would also find it persuasive. After all, they both have the same life history ... the same motivations.

And when you think about thinking about it itself...same thing, right? As you would no doubt explain it to...Jane? The free will world Jane.

Now, as I read your posts, you seem to believe that determined Mary will not change her mind no matter what her friend says. You seem to have no reason for this other than that the abortion is predetermined.

Again, the only way I note my own thinking here is to imagine the universe divided up between wholly determined regions and free will regions...for matter like us. "Somehow" in other words.

Now, hovering above Earth in a free will sector, aliens note that Mary "chose" to abort Jane. But they note that she was never able not to. Like we note what ants do. Just as her friend "chose" to argue her out of it but was never able to succeed. Nothing that unfolds on Earth can ever unfold other than as it must. Same with our exchange. We are "choosing" to post what we do. But the aliens try to imagine what it must be like to think that you are posting something freely when in fact you are not. Human psychology itself being just another inherent component of the human brain doing its thing in sync with the laws of nature. Only human beings down here on Earth have no capacity -- scientifically or philosophically -- to grasp that. The Flatland Syndrome.

Yet free-will Mary can somehow think about what her friend says and she changes her mind. What's the basis for the change? No explanation that I can see other than that's what you believe and write.

Well -- click -- we'd have to hear the actual arguments her friend makes. We'd have to be apprised of Mary's "situation". Out in her particular world understood in her own particular way. Then the arguments here that I make about dasein.

My own friend "Mary" all those years ago had practiced safe sex because she didn't want to become pregnant because she was smack dab in the middle of her college education. But the contraceptive failed and she was pregnant. And had my friend "John" been able to change her mind, Jane [if it was a girl, Jake if a boy] might be out here living her/his life as we [all the other non-aborted fetuses] are.

What, you think I'm suggesting that, even given free will, I can demonstrate when free will "kicked in" in the human brain when lifeless matter "somehow" evolved into living matter "somehow" evolved into conscious matter "somehow" evolved into us?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 6:07 pm
When does free-will kick in during everyday events? Because it doesn't seem to do anything when faced with the task of solving a math problem. OTOH, it does something when he decides to "master math".

Note to others:

You tell me how this pertains to the point that I raise.

I don't know definitively whether, in thinking, feeling, saying and doing things, we have free will or are wholly determined by the laws of matter. Let alone if we do [have free will] how and when and why it "kicked in". Let alone how it all pertains to facing math problems.

It doesn't pertain to your point because your point didn't pertain to my original point.

You completely misunderstood my point. And now that I have explained it, you still misunderstand it.

It pertains to whether my brain and your brain either are or are not able to choose what we think things pertain to. My point being that we do not seem to have the capacity "here and now" to grasp this ontologically.

And then the extent to which our respective brains take words like that to be crucial [philosophically or otherwise] in grappling with things like abortion.

Same thing with understanding or not understanding what we post here.

Please. If my brain is but more matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter then I was compelled -- directed -- to come to the fence and then compelled -- directed -- to change directions when I did. Or, perhaps, compelled -- directed -- to take an axe to it?

Yup, that's how you think about it.

Thanks for telling my brain what it was never able to not already know.

[BigMike]

Your brain executes the instructions that the soul gives it and passes information back to the soul. Why? Because the soul can't interact directly with a physical world.

If the soul does not "interact directly with a physical world" then how can it give information to or receive information from your brain, which is a part of the physical world? Face it: There is no soul!

[iambiguous]

From ILP:

It is this question that shows that you will never understand this problem, nor understand yourself.

There is no distinction between "you" and the "compulsion of your brain"; they are just descriptive aspects of the same thing.

When you understand this you might be able to unpack your absurd notions concerning the topic of free will and determinism.

If you are still confused, try and understand the concept of a disabling dualism. Because this is what you are suffering from.

There he goes again: pontificating.

The actual topic of discussion can be anything -- God, politics, determinism.

It's not what he argues...it's the contempt he shows for those who refuse to argue exactly as he does.

Even in regard to a question like this...an intellectual/existential conundrum that has both fascinated and baffled philosophers and scientists "down through the ages". Nope, there's nothing he does not fully grasp.

And what does he throw at us here? This thing...

"There is no distinction between 'you' and the 'compulsion of your brain'; they are just descriptive aspects of the same thing."

A "general description intellectual contraption" if there ever was one!

So...

If Mary's brain compels her to abort Jane then, when she says "I aborted my unborn baby", that's just her brain compelling her to say that too? Everything that she thinks, feels, says and does some argue is just her brain doing its bit in being wholly in sync with the laws of matter. Jane was toast going all the way back to how [no doubt] Sculptor can explain to us why something exists instead of nothing. And why this something instead of something else.

Go ahead, ask him. Oh, and ask him to connect the dots between "disabling dualism" and the chemical and neurological interactions in his brain.

On the other hand, if, "somehow", non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became self-conscious matter became us on planet Earth, then "somehow", sure, it might have acquired autonomy and Mary might of her own volition changed her mind and not aborted Jane.

But which one it is is of particular importance to Jane.

Now, we know the crucial factor here can't be God. Why? Because Sculptor has already "proved" He doesn't exist. How? Through the arguments his brained compelled him to "think up" in his head and post here.

Or, sure, however he pontificates about that.

Translation.
Mr ambiguity sticks his fingers in his ears and gos la la la la la

That I am able to reduce "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontificators of his ilk down to pinhead posts of this sort? Sure, I'd like to believe I accomplished it of my own free will.

[Sculptor]

From ILP:



There he goes again: pontificating.

The actual topic of discussion can be anything -- God, politics, determinism.

It's not what he argues...it's the contempt he shows for those who refuse to argue exactly as he does.

Even in regard to a question like this...an intellectual/existential conundrum that has both fascinated and baffled philosophers and scientists "down through the ages". Nope, there's nothing he does not fully grasp.

And what does he throw at us here? This thing...

"There is no distinction between 'you' and the 'compulsion of your brain'; they are just descriptive aspects of the same thing."

A "general description intellectual contraption" if there ever was one!

So...

If Mary's brain compels her to abort Jane then, when she says "I aborted my unborn baby", that's just her brain compelling her to say that too? Everything that she thinks, feels, says and does some argue is just her brain doing its bit in being wholly in sync with the laws of matter. Jane was toast going all the way back to how [no doubt] Sculptor can explain to us why something exists instead of nothing. And why this something instead of something else.

Go ahead, ask him. Oh, and ask him to connect the dots between "disabling dualism" and the chemical and neurological interactions in his brain.

On the other hand, if, "somehow", non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became self-conscious matter became us on planet Earth, then "somehow", sure, it might have acquired autonomy and Mary might of her own volition changed her mind and not aborted Jane.

But which one it is is of particular importance to Jane.

Now, we know the crucial factor here can't be God. Why? Because Sculptor has already "proved" He doesn't exist. How? Through the arguments his brained compelled him to "think up" in his head and post here.

Or, sure, however he pontificates about that.

Translation.
Mr ambiguity sticks his fingers in his ears and gos la la la la la

That I am able to reduce "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontificators of his ilk down to pinhead posts of this sort? Sure, I'd like to believe I accomplished it of my own free will.

Translation.
Mr ambiguity sticks his fingers in his ears and gos la la la la la

[Belinda]

One can't help noticing that Biggus doesn't explain how 'you' is distinct from what 'your brain' is thinking and deciding.

So let's do it for him:

'You' are an immortal soul. Your body and 'your brain' are just some baggage you are forced to carry around in this physical life. Your brain executes the instructions that the soul gives it and passes information back to the soul. Why? Because the soul can't interact directly with a physical world.

Carry on.

PS. In the case of determinism, the physical brain makes you, the soul, do things that it doesn't want to do.

In the case of free-will, the soul has complete control of the brain.

Do you believe, Phyllo, the souls are different ontic substances from minds, substances which, unlike minds, survive bodily and mental death?