compatibilism

[Belinda]

Iambiguous wrote , "He " is Immanuel Can:

He insists that in fact the Christian God does exist. And thus human autonomy begins in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve and the Serpent and the Tree of Knowledge and the advent of Evil and then the Fall.

A myth is a fable that places a constant and unremitting circumstance within time.

Remember that gardens, for most of history, are not amenity places for beauty but are sequestered places wrung from the wilderness, guarded, and cultivated to produce food.

Human Free Will figures in the story of the Expulsion from Eden. The Garden of Eden is gardenlike because, in the Garden, all is the will of God without the intrusion of weeds or weather. The story continues that men are outcast from this protected safety by reason of Eve's disobeying the rule of the Gardener. She can't have her cake and eat it. Therefore she and Adam must bear the burden of that which in Eden is solely the prerogative of the Gardener-----Free Will.
Some people believe it's good to be safe as a tame creature of the Gardener. I side with Eve who chose autonomy : Immanuel likes the Rule and believes the Rule makes him free.

Eve can't be both subservient and rebellious. Therefore compatibilism is impossible.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's like me saying, "okay, I don't know whether my brain compels me to type these words and then post them but -- click -- I'll assume that I do have free will and 'somehow' opted to."

Who is the you your brain is compelling? Why does your model have this as two entities?

This is a fantastic question, similar to ones I find myself asking in this conversations.

"My brain is forcing me" - wait wait, what do you think "me" means?

[BigMike]

It's like me saying, "okay, I don't know whether my brain compels me to type these words and then post them but -- click -- I'll assume that I do have free will and 'somehow' opted to."

Who is the you your brain is compelling? Why does your model have this as two entities?

This is a fantastic question, similar to ones I find myself asking in this conversations.

"My brain is forcing me" - wait wait, what do you think "me" means?

It's easy. Just take "me" out of the equation. The solution to the task or challenge at hand does not require any direct involvement or contribution from "me". Instead, the brain is capable of handling the situation on its own, without the conscious effort or interference of any "me's".
Your brain is capable of doing everything that needs to be done on its own. It has the necessary skills, knowledge, and resources to solve the problem or complete the task without any additional input from "you". The brain is a powerful tool that can work efficiently and effectively without conscious control or direction. There is nothing for "me" to do.

[Flannel Jesus]

lIt's easy. Just take "me" out of the equation. The solution to the task or challenge at hand does not require any direct involvement or contribution from "me". Instead, the brain is capable of handling the situation on its own, without the conscious effort or interference of any "me's".
Your brain is capable of doing everything that needs to be done on its own. It has the necessary skills, knowledge, and resources to solve the problem or complete the task without any additional input from "you". The brain is a powerful tool that can work efficiently and effectively without conscious control or direction. There is nothing for "me" to do.

This is definitely something I do not jive with.

Your brain just caused your hands to write things about consciousness. If your brain is doing everything without any connection to consciousness, why would your brain ever be compelled to write the word "consciousness" whatsoever?

Maybe most of the operations of the brain could happen without consciousness, but certainly not all of them.

[BigMike]

lIt's easy. Just take "me" out of the equation. The solution to the task or challenge at hand does not require any direct involvement or contribution from "me". Instead, the brain is capable of handling the situation on its own, without the conscious effort or interference of any "me's".
Your brain is capable of doing everything that needs to be done on its own. It has the necessary skills, knowledge, and resources to solve the problem or complete the task without any additional input from "you". The brain is a powerful tool that can work efficiently and effectively without conscious control or direction. There is nothing for "me" to do.

This is definitely something I do not jive with.

Your brain just caused your hands to write things about consciousness. If your brain is doing everything without any connection to consciousness, why would your brain ever be compelled to write the word "consciousness" whatsoever?

Maybe most of the operations of the brain could happen without consciousness, but certainly not all of them.

Name one operation of the brain that requires conscious intervention by a non-material, non-physical "me", or whatever you want to call it.

[Flannel Jesus]

I never said non physical or non material

[BigMike]

I never said non physical or non material

So what do you mean by "me" or "consciousness", then? Your physical brain?

[Flannel Jesus]

Consciousness is the hard problem, right? I don't have a complete answer, nobody does. I think it's probably an emergent aspect of our brain, or the processes of our brain, or something like that.

Whatever it is, it has some sort of "effect" - even if that effect itself is fundamentally reducible to physical events.

I suppose it's possible that consciousness is "fundamental" rather than emergent, I hear that idea being thrown about lately, but I lean towards emergent.

[Iwannaplato]

It's like me saying, "okay, I don't know whether my brain compels me to type these words and then post them but -- click -- I'll assume that I do have free will and 'somehow' opted to."

Who is the you your brain is compelling? Why does your model have this as two entities?

This is a fantastic question, similar to ones I find myself asking in this conversations.

"My brain is forcing me" - wait wait, what do you think "me" means?

Yes. And Iambiguous could merely be sliding into common usage. It can be misleading trying to talk about these things. He might easily rewrite what I quoted and leave this out.

But I think the wording is not just coincidental. I think it fits with a kind of victim stance in relation to determinism being the case, or more on topic between him and me, may affect how important he views the issue.

He expressed incredulity, earlier, in a post to me that finding out anything at all could be more important than finding out whether we are determined or have free will.

I think every day I find out things that are more important: mostly around practical matters. Where to find that damn Yoghurt my wife likes is more important. Now that may be my personal attitude, values are involved.

But frankly I wake up tomorrow as a steel hard determinist or I wake up tomorrow as a true believing free will...and I don't see my day changing. Shoult it? Should all rational people (an expression he often uses when asking for answers) find an extremely importance difference between the me that finds it's FW vs. the me that finds out it D?

I don't know why.

Let's say I knew person B who had the perfect proof. I read it and realize this person can convince 90% of the people that determinism is the case. It's a one sheet, non-technical argument of perfection.

Well, I don't know the effects. People might get depressed about it. Perhaps people would end up being more sympathetic to criminals, etc. like I think Big Mike believes. I don't know. People react in many ways.

But Iambiguous worded it being important, not merely important to him.

I just don't find it that important. It's interesting. It might be important, but in any case I can't see it changing how I go about my day. Nor that it should. Perhaps I'll be convinced otherwise.

Unfortunately when I ask him he thinks I am assuming he knows the answer. I really have completely understood that he doesn't know. But he does seem to know it is important to know. Hopefully he can understand what I am asking and tell me why in concrete terms.

Statements like...
Determinism entails ALL OUR ACTIONS are determined in advance even my answer to you now. How could that not be important?

Is not understanding my request. I do understand what determinism entails.

What I want to know is 'Why is it so important to resolve the question?' Can he really not imagine other things that are more important to people, even himself?

I've asked Big Mike this also.

[BigMike]

Consciousness is the hard problem, right? I don't have a complete answer, nobody does. I think it's probably an emergent aspect of our brain, or the processes of our brain, or something like that.

Whatever it is, it has some sort of "effect" - even if that effect itself is fundamentally reducible to physical events.

I suppose it's possible that consciousness is "fundamental" rather than emergent, I hear that idea being thrown about lately, but I lean towards emergent.

But something that has emerged is typically caused by the interactions between its constituent parts.

"Emergent" refers to the emergence of a new property or behavior that arises from the interactions of a collection of simpler components or entities. This emergent property is not present in any of the individual components, but rather emerges from the way they interact with each other. Emergent properties are often seen in complex systems, such as in the behavior of flocks of birds or swarms of insects, where the collective behavior of the group emerges from the interactions between individual members. Heat is another example of an emergent property, but its essence is atomic kinetic energy. It is the other atoms, not the heat, that push the atoms around.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, I don't think I disagree with what you've said about emergence there.

[BigMike]

Yes, I don't think I disagree with what you've said about emergence there.

But if consciousness is emergent, it has no physical effect on the brain, no more than heat pushes atoms around.

[Flannel Jesus]

Statements like...
Determinism entails ALL OUR ACTIONS are determined in advance even my answer to you now. How could that not be important?

Is not understanding my request. I do understand what determinism entails.

What I want to know is 'Why is it so important to resolve the question?' Can he really not imagine other things that are more important to people, even himself?

For me, I get the intuition that the question is important, but then when I look at the implications of each possibility in detail, the implications are actually not different. That's why I say "randomness doesn't give us anything" - finding out determinism isn't true doesn't have any moral implication whatsoever that I can see

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, I don't think I disagree with what you've said about emergence there.

But if consciousness is emergent, it has no physical effect on the brain, no more than heat pushes atoms around.

I see what you're saying, but I guess I view it differently.

Consider a chess program. You've programmed it to rate various possible future moves according to some position scoring algorithm, and then select the best move.

Now on one hand, you could say that the fact that the chess program is considering all these moves doesn't have an effect, because all that conceptual processing is really just emergent and really it's only electrons flowing around a bunch of metal parts inside of the computer.

But.... I just don't think that's the only meaningful way to view it. I think emergent stuff can be useful to talk about, as having causal influence, even if it can be reduced to the physical stuff underneath it. Yes, the chess program is really just electrons flowing in the metal, but it's ALSO true, simultaneously, that the reason it chose this move and not that move was because it looked at both and rated this one higher. They're both true at the same time, one doesn't contradict the other

It's definitely a tricky question I'm struggling with, but I'm not sold on the idea that emergence means acausal.

It definitely doesn't mean causal OUTSIDE OF the laws of physics, though. I'm not suggesting it's an exception to the rule. I'm more suggesting the idea of abstract layers of casualty.

Casualty itself conceptually is probably emergent

[Iwannaplato]

For me, I get the intuition that the question is important, but then when I look at the implications of each possibility in detail, the implications are actually not different. That's why I say "randomness doesn't give us anything" - finding out determinism isn't true doesn't have any moral implication whatsoever that I can see

Yes, randomness offers little. I can't really see what free will offers either.

I decided to do it not based on my desires, values, interests, love. At any time I can choose to do something utterly unaffected by who I am and what I care about. Well, ok, great. But why would you want to???

Random, determined, free. They're all ugly or useless as far as I can tell. (not an evaluation of the truth)

I've still got to apply for a job today and I'm putting it off.