compatibilism

[iambiguous]

First of all, you can feel all of that inside. You can feel yourself thinking about ideas, considering them, and apparently "choosing" to type the words that in some way correspond to your thoughts.

Yo, gib!

Like our emotions are "somehow" different from our thoughts when brainless matter "somehow" evolved into biological life "somehow" evolved in conscious life "somehow" evolved into self-conscious life.

Like you don't feel intense emotions in your dreams and then wake up thinking, "wow, I didn't really feel those emotions at all...it was just my brain creating them chemically and neurologically while I was actually sound asleep.

Science can not prove that, because at the moment science doesn't have direct access to your thoughts. But you don't need science to prove it, because you've just experienced it internally. You can prove it to yourself.

Oh, I see. Because you really, really, reallly, really believe that what you feel you feel autonomously...that makes it true.

In any event, let's keep it all up in the intellectual contraption clouds:

So, knowing that, ask yourself the question: so what if it's determined or not? What in the world could adding randomness to that whole process possibly do for me? Would randomness make my mind somehow BETTER at processing information and considering the ideas?

Note to Mary:

You tell me. What you feel this time.

All of this avoidance tells me one thing: you have no idea what the alternative to determinism actually is. You haven't thought about it. You don't want to think about it

You keep going on circles with everyone because you aren't engaging honestly. You'll keep going in circles.

Right. All of my avoidance!



Though, sure, if I do keep going around and around in circles, that pertains largely to the profound mystery embedded in human consciousness itself in connecting the dots between mind and matter when Mary does ponder her moral responsibility in aborting Jane.

Whereas, in my view, your own "up in intellectual clouds" approach to all of this revolves more around your own rendition of this:

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Given this: click.

[BigMike]

Why not just ask the question, "am I morally reprehensible period?" Right? Why is determinism a central part of this question to you? Determinism can be described as just a complete absence of randomness, so when you talk about determinism, randomness is implicitly part of the conversation too. When you say "morality is impossible in Determinism," theres this implicit idea that you think morality is only possible with randomness. Why?

Again, in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, everything and anything comprised of matter unfolds in interacting with other matter only as the laws of matter compel it to.

Yes, and in a non-wholly determined universe, everything unfolds as the law of matter compel it to, except for a little bit of randomness. Where, specifically, does the randomness come into the picture to produce moral responsibility?

The conservation laws of physics are fundamental principles that are based on empirical observations and are considered to be extremely well-established. They are widely accepted and have been extensively tested in a variety of contexts. However, there have been some phenomena that initially appeared to contradict the conservation laws, but upon further investigation, were found to be consistent with the laws of physics.

For example, in the early 20th century, it was observed that the decay of certain radioactive particles seemed to violate the law of conservation of energy. However, it was later discovered that this apparent violation was due to the fact that energy was being carried away by previously unknown particles called neutrinos. The existence of neutrinos was later confirmed experimentally, and they are now understood to be an important part of the standard model of particle physics.

Another example is the discovery of dark matter, which appears to violate the law of conservation of momentum. However, it is now believed that dark matter interacts only through gravity and does not participate in other interactions that would conserve momentum. This means that while dark matter does not obey the conservation of momentum, it does not actually violate it.

Overall, while there have been some cases where phenomena appeared to contradict the conservation laws of physics, these cases were eventually explained by new discoveries or more detailed understanding of the underlying physics. The conservation laws remain an essential part of our understanding of the universe and its behavior.

So, which phenomena are you referring to that are non-wholly determined?

[Belinda]

If I behave that I have enough control to shoulder responsibility, then I have that control.

Then you believe in the power of choice. You believe in your own responsibility, which you can "shoulder." You believe in will.

Please stop using the word 'choice' when you obviously mean free choice.

No, the word "choice" is more apt than "free choice": because people who don't understand Determinism or choice tend to zing off the word "free," as if somebody believes there's such a thing as a person who makes decisions without reference to any circumstances, causes, contributing factors, and physical realities. And that's just stupid -- because NOBODY believes that.

So let's avoid that straw-man fallacy, and just keep saying, "choice." After all, in Determinism, nobody has any "choice" of any kind.

The individual has a multitude of choices of just how he/she will react, the only choice not available to him/her is that of not reacting to one's environment, for even a considered lack of directed reaction is still reacting to one's environment. The momentum of this dialogue is the pace of the reactions of the participants, the posting of the topic is a reaction to a desire for dialogue. If someone, anyone can give me a solid example of human action rather than reaction, I would most appreciate the gesture.

In the context of action v reaction, these relate to each other as poles of the same spectrum. We can't objectively quantify the proportions but some outstanding examples of action do exist. Jesus on the Cross. Patriots under torture refusing to give in to the torturers. Self sacrifice for a cause while in a state of reasoning awareness. The Biblical Good Samaritan. Satan rebelling against God.

[Flannel Jesus]

So, which phenomena are you referring to that are non-wholly determined?

If it's anywhere, it's in quantum phenomena. Bells Theorem, and the experiments that prove it, show that hidden variable explanations of quantum phenomena aren't a feasible explanation - meaning the Heisenberg uncertainty principle isn't just a matter of human ignorance, but rather a real part of the systems quantum physicists are studying.

[phyllo]

Radioactive decay is random and spontaneous.

[BigMike]

So, which phenomena are you referring to that are non-wholly determined?

If it's anywhere, it's in quantum phenomena. Bells Theorem, and the experiments that prove it, show that hidden variable explanations of quantum phenomena aren't a feasible explanation - meaning the Heisenberg uncertainty principle isn't just a matter of human ignorance, but rather a real part of the systems quantum physicists are studying.

The conservation laws of physics hold true in the context of quantum mechanics, just as they do in classical physics. In fact, the conservation laws play an important role in quantum mechanics, helping to determine the allowed interactions and the possible outcomes of experiments.

In quantum mechanics, the conservation laws take the form of conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, and charge. These laws are derived from the symmetries of physical systems, and they are expressed mathematically in the form of conservation equations, which state that the total amount of a conserved quantity (such as energy or momentum) in a closed system is constant over time.

The conservation laws in quantum mechanics have been extensively tested and are known to be highly accurate. For example, the conservation of energy is crucial in determining the allowed energy levels of atoms, while the conservation of momentum is essential in understanding the behavior of particles in accelerators and in the scattering of particles in high-energy physics experiments.

It is worth noting that quantum mechanics introduces some new phenomena, such as the uncertainty principle, which states that the more precisely the position of a particle is known, the less precisely its momentum can be known. However, these phenomena do not invalidate the conservation laws, but rather they provide new insights into the behavior of physical systems and the limitations of our ability to measure their properties.

In summary, conservation laws are fundamental principles that hold true in both classical and quantum mechanics, and they play an essential role in determining the behavior of physical systems at all scales.

[Flannel Jesus]

You're saying a lot about conservation laws, and I don't know why. I'm not arguing against it, I don't see what it has to do with what I said.

[BigMike]

You're saying a lot about conservation laws, and I don't know why. I'm not arguing against it, I don't see what it has to do with what I said.

I prefer to discuss interactions in terms of conservation rather than as forces exerted by objects through action and reaction in the old school Newtonian manner since this is the preferred way to describe interactions in the modern era. If you don't see what it has to do with what you said, I'm afraid I can't help you.

[Flannel Jesus]

You said it yourself, quantum mechanics breaks no conservation laws. And yet quantum mechanics has "truly" random events - I put "truly" in quotes because there are some interesting and unintuitive ways to have randomness, while also... not, somehow.

In any case, I don't believe your implications that conservation laws are contrary to any form of real randomness in qm (if I'm interpreting those implications in the way you mean) are correct.

[BigMike]

In any case, I don't believe your implications that conservation laws are contrary to any form of real randomness in qm (if I'm interpreting those implications in the way you mean) are correct.

I did not imply that at all. In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known with arbitrary precision. More specifically, the principle states that the product of the uncertainties in position and momentum of a particle cannot be smaller than a certain value, known as Planck's constant.

This has important implications for the conservation of momentum in quantum mechanics, because it means that the precise momentum of a particle cannot be known with complete certainty. In particular, if the position of a particle is measured with high precision, its momentum will become less certain, and vice versa. This is because the act of measuring one property disturbs the other, making it impossible to know both with arbitrary precision.

However, it is important to note that while the uncertainty principle places limits on the precision with which the position and momentum of a particle can be known, it does not affect the overall conservation of momentum. In other words, the total momentum of a closed quantum system is still conserved, even if the precise momentum of individual particles cannot be known with complete certainty.

This is because the conservation of momentum is a fundamental principle of physics that is based on the symmetries of physical systems, and it applies to all physical systems, including those described by quantum mechanics. The uncertainty principle places limits on our ability to know the precise values of certain physical properties, but it does not contradict or violate the conservation of momentum.

[Flannel Jesus]

I agree, quantum randomness does not contradict conservation of momentum.

[BigMike]

I agree, quantum randomness does not contradict conservation of momentum.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm not playing clueless or something. I understand that universe with free will being the case and one with determinism being the case can elicit a wide range of strong emotions. I can understand being very curious about the answer. I could understand either answer eliciting strong reactions, postive or negative.

But you couldn't imagine anything being more important that knowing. And I wonder is what way.

And hey, it was a remark in a long post. Perhaps it doesn't represent your view. You can just let me know, but if you stand by it, then I don't think you've explained it in your responses.

Great so tell me if you were with Mary how suddenly being sure of determinism or free will would make important changes in your behavior?

Well, if you were pregnant and didn't want to be, and someone was able to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt scientifically that you were in fact free to either abort or not to abort your unborn baby, you'd at least have that to fall back on.

How does her knowing everything is determined or knowing that she has free will change the day for her? You think it is very important to pin down. Why? How does it change that day for Mary that she knows one or the other is the case?

On the other hand, if science was able to pin down definitively that any "choice" you made was one that you were never able not to make...what then? But how to even discuss that when that discussion itself would be no less embedded in the only possible reality.

OK. How do you know that knowing which is true is so important?

Again: Assuming that it was possible to know one way or another if in fact we do have free will [God comes down and tells us, science figures it all out, philosophers deduce the answer a priori] would that not be of fundamental importance to you? It certainly would be to me

Why?

but explain in concrete terms what finding out would do that is important.

Well, I addressed this above. It's important only if in fact it can be determined.

Obviously. That is presupposed by my question AND by your assertion that is it very important to know which is the case. To pin that down. So, why?

If it could be determined [re God or science or philosophy] that Mary's friend did talk her into not aborting Jane in a bona fide free will world, then Jane could be among us contributing to this discussion. But if everything revolving around Mary's pregnancy unfolds in the only possible world -- and Jane is toast -- she could never have been.

That's not understanding the question. Jane could be toast in a free will world, since one could choose to abort and Jane could be toast in a determined world.

Why is it important for you to pin down which is true?

Well, I tried to explain that above.

I appreciate that. But you didn't really address the question. Here you are not knowing and you have stated that it is really important (either for you or for everyone) to pin down whether free will is the case or determinism is the case? Why is that important to pin down? What changes will knowing lead to in you or all of us that are important?

Note to others:

How would you explain it.

That's fine if they want to try and I have asked Big Mike.
But your answer may not be the same as others' answers.

Why is it important for you to know? I mean, you phrased it as objective. It is important. But perhaps you meant 'important for you'. How so?

[Iwannaplato]

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

Well, it could be because "I" am indeed just another domino in Nature's repertoire...able to "self"-consciously type these words even though I was never able not to type them; or "somehow" re God or Nature its ain matter did evolve into the most extraordinary matter of all...matter that really did acquire a measure of autonomy.

I asked who, and we can extend that to what - who or what is your brain compelling to do things? Why do you see two entities?
1) the brain
2) the you that is not your brain, whatever or whoever that is.

So...what is this entity that is not your brain or body that your brain is compelling to do things?

(your answer above is a 'because' answer. I didn't ask a why question. I asked a who question?

Who did you see at the party?
Because....

That's not answering the question.

And I do understand that these may not be easy to answer. Our language has grooves that my not be helpful.

[Flannel Jesus]

I saw this watch today, it's name made me think of you brother.

https://humism.com/collections/philosop ... U13Sfr1cxU