compatibilism

[Belinda]

The religious Doctrine of Free Will is not human freedom. In fact the religious Doctrine of Free Will opposes human autonomy. The religious Doctrine of Free Will rests on original sin that's to say Eve's sin of disobedience. The Doctrine of Free Will is instituted to endorse the power of religion and those kings that support religion.

The Doctrine of Free Will is essentially a punitive doctrine, which implies that it's a sin to contravene God's will.

Common defenses
Jewish philosophy stresses that free will is a product of the intrinsic human soul, using the word neshama (from the Hebrew root n.sh.m. or .נ.ש.מ meaning "breath"), but the ability to make a free choice is through Yechida (from Hebrew word "yachid", יחיד, singular), the part of the soul that is united with God,[citation needed] the only being that is not hindered by or dependent on cause and effect (thus, freedom of will does not belong to the realm of the physical reality, and inability of natural philosophy to account for it is expected).

Theology, Free Will, and the Skeptical Challenge from the Sciences
Aku Visala

[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.

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

Undoubtedly, it is a challenging question. But in your previous statement, you actually alluded to one of the factors that I believe may indicate a breakthrough. You stated, "the reason it chose this move and not that move was because it looked at both and rated this one higher." If evolution has conditioned us to "survival of the fittest," then we have no real choice, as the optimal option is optimal regardless of our preferences. It is not our will that makes the optimal solution optimal; rather, it is the optimal solution that becomes our will and decides for us.

[Flannel Jesus]

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

It's time to make a choice then...

[Flannel Jesus]

It is not our will that makes the optimal solution optimal; rather, it is the optimal solution that becomes our will and decides for us.

This is another point where I would place the identity somewhere else. That process, that's figuring out the optimal solution - that's our will. Perhaps it's not deciding for us, perhaps it's synonymous with "us deciding".

[BigMike]

It is not our will that makes the optimal solution optimal; rather, it is the optimal solution that becomes our will and decides for us.

This is another point where I would place the identity somewhere else. That process, that's figuring out the optimal solution - that's our will. Perhaps it's not deciding for us, perhaps it's synonymous with "us deciding".

I disagree. The optimal is always the maximal or the minimal of something. It is presented to us, and we cannot make it maximal nor minimal. It simply is as it is.

[Flannel Jesus]

The optimal is always the maximal or the minimal of something. It is presented to us, and we cannot make it maximal nor minimal. It simply is as it is.

But you and I will have different processes and values in deciding what we think is maximal or minimal, and we will make different choices given approximately the same circumstances. Those processes, that take my values and my wants, both current and long term, and weigh them up and output the best option for me at a given moment - those processes are a fundamental part of the definition of who I am. It's not something deciding for me, that's me!

[Iwannaplato]

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

It's time to make a choice then...

I managed to quickly apply to two jobs while posting here!!

Some of the causes of this were fear of the unemployment authoriity and insurance 'company', concerns about my ability to procrastinate, realizing that not enough jobs that actually fit me are out there, so it's time to send out a few applications despite not wanting the jobs in question, a preference for not having a lot of applications to make at the end of the month, the weather here being bad today, a great evening activity today and likely a whole host of factors I am not aware of.

Was this a free choice? Well, maybe in some way I am not capable of conceiving.
Was this utterly determined by past events and processes in me and outside me? Maybe.
Were there random factors? I don't know. It soft of feels like that though how much that quale is worth, I don't know.

Does it matter to me which of these are the case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?

I don't think so.

If you tell me today the perfect argument in favor of one position, I don't think it will change my job application process

AT ALL. (pardon the yelling)

[BigMike]

The optimal is always the maximal or the minimal of something. It is presented to us, and we cannot make it maximal nor minimal. It simply is as it is.

But you and I will have different processes and values in deciding what we think is maximal or minimal, and we will make different choices given approximately the same circumstances. Those processes, that take my values and my wants, both current and long term, and weigh them up and output the best option for me at a given moment - those processes are a fundamental part of the definition of who I am. It's not something deciding for me, that's me!

Yes, "those processes" are different in my brain and yours, because we are different. But that doesn't mean that we (my "me" and your "me") intervene in those processes. The processes operate independently of "us"; they are entirely governed by the architecture and general state of our brains, which have been shaped throughout our lives.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, "those processes" are different in my brain and yours, because we are different. But that doesn't mean that we (my "me" and your "me") intervene in those processes. The processes operate independently of "us"; they are entirely governed by the architecture and general state of our brains, which have been shaped throughout our lives.

I guess that's where you and I differ then. I don't feel the need to intervene in the process, because I identify with the process itself. I don't think it's operating independently from me, because it is me. It's what "me" means. I don't know what else "me" could possibly refer to.

[Flannel Jesus]

Was this a free choice? Well, maybe in some way I am not capable of conceiving.
Was this utterly determined by past events and processes in me and outside me? Maybe.
Were there random factors? I don't know. It soft of feels like that though how much that quale is worth, I don't know.

Does it matter to me which of these are the case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?

I don't think so.

If you tell me today the perfect argument in favor of one position, I don't think it will change my job application process

AT ALL. (pardon the yelling)

Pardoned.

I think that's correct. Some people do have psychological and behavioural changes in the face of determinism, others don't. I could never relate to that myself.

[Iwannaplato]

Was this a free choice? Well, maybe in some way I am not capable of conceiving.
Was this utterly determined by past events and processes in me and outside me? Maybe.
Were there random factors? I don't know. It soft of feels like that though how much that quale is worth, I don't know.

Does it matter to me which of these are the case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?

I don't think so.

If you tell me today the perfect argument in favor of one position, I don't think it will change my job application process

AT ALL. (pardon the yelling)

Pardoned.

I think that's correct. Some people do have psychological and behavioural changes in the face of determinism, others don't. I could never relate to that myself.

Or they think they do. Or think they would if they changed their minds, but they are incorrect. That it would change them. (and this holds for me too. I might also radically change if I was forced to admit one of them was true, period.)

[Flannel Jesus]

they think they do. Or think they would if they changed their minds, but they are incorrect. That it would change them. (and this holds for me too. I might also radically change if I was forced to admit one of them was true, period.)

There's been psychological experiments that show this happens at least at a small scale.

I've also spoken with thinkers who had panic attacks when they started considering determinism as a likely reality.

Again, I can't relate to it, but some people are affected by the concept

[BigMike]

Yes, "those processes" are different in my brain and yours, because we are different. But that doesn't mean that we (my "me" and your "me") intervene in those processes. The processes operate independently of "us"; they are entirely governed by the architecture and general state of our brains, which have been shaped throughout our lives.

I guess that's where you and I differ then. I don't feel the need to intervene in the process, because I identify with the process itself. I don't think it's operating independently from me, because it is me. It's what "me" means. I don't know what else "me" could possibly refer to.

To return to my previous statement, are you implying that if "me" is removed from the equation, your brain processes will come to a screeching halt?

[Flannel Jesus]

To return to my previous statement, are you implying that if "me" is removed from the equation, your mental processes will come to a screeching halt?

For me, "me" and "the process" are borderline synonymous, so it's not meaningful to remove "me" from the process.

[BigMike]

To return to my previous statement, are you implying that if "me" is removed from the equation, your mental processes will come to a screeching halt?

For me, "me" and "the process" are borderline synonymous, so it's not meaningful to remove "me" from the process.

By removing "me" from the equation, I mean to consider only the purely physical processes in the brain. You appear to assert that this is insufficient; something else, a "me," is required for it to function.