compatibilism

[iambiguous]

Do you really think you can demonstrate that in fact what I think about what you understand about determinists I either was or was not able to think autonomously of my own volition?

Which is where we are all still stuck.

We? I think you mean you. It's where you're stuck.

Click.

Right. Like you can demonstrate -- empirically, experimentally, scientifically etc. -- anything that you believe about combatibilism!

Hell, I can't even get you to come down out of the clouds and explain to Mary how your own theoretical contraptions are applicable to her and Jane.

I've figured out why you keep bringing this up. It's a thought stopping device.

Perfect!!

Thoughts. Thoughts. Thoughts. That's all these discussions ever are for you.

And my points aren't about stopping thoughts but of recognizing the obvious: that beyond thoughts there is not a philosopher or a scientist among us who can link us to a demonstrable argument that gets down to the bottom of 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.

Go ahead though, I dare you to give it a shot.

You keep bringing up this idea that determinism gives you permission to not change your mind, because you WANT permission to not change your mind. You want permission to stop thinking about it.

Determinism as I understand it doesn't need my permission or your persmission for anything that our brains compel us to think, feel, say or do.

I merely pull back far enough to recognize just how preposterous it is to insist that all other rational men and women are obligated to think that way as well. How on earth would I myself go about demonstrating it?!

Then the rest is just you making this all about me.

[Flannel Jesus]

I merely pull back far enough to recognize just how preposterous it is to insist that all other rational men and women are obligated to think that way as well. How on earth would I myself go about demonstrating it?!

Who says you're obligated to? I don't know a single person you've been speaking to who says you're obligated to. Everyone else is just talking ideas.

You're not obligated to do anything. In general, you're not even obligated to be correct. You can be incorrect about most philosophical problems for your entire life with probably no, or very little, negative consequence to yourself and others.

So if the reason you keep bringing up the thought stopping device is to get out of obligation, then.... you're correct again! You did it. You have no obligation. That's right. That's true whether determinism is the case or not. You have no obligation whatsoever, and nobody here is telling you you do.

[BigMike]

When analyzing or studying something, it's essential to consider both necessary and sufficient evidence to draw accurate conclusions. Necessary evidence is the bare minimum required to support a claim or argument. Think of necessary evidence as being “just enough”. In contrast, sufficient evidence is strong enough to support a claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Think of sufficient evidence as being “more than enough.”

However, it's important to note that having too much evidence (as in sufficient evidence) can sometimes obscure the main point of an explanation or argument. For example, the physical workings of the human nervous system provide necessary evidence for understanding human behavior, as it's responsible for processing and transmitting information throughout the body. In addition, the structure and function of the nervous system provide essential insights into the biological underpinnings of human behavior.

On the other hand, consciousness is not considered part of the necessary evidence for understanding human behavior from a scientific perspective because it's not directly observable or measurable. Instead, scientists focus on observable and measurable aspects of the nervous system to gain insights into the biological underpinnings of behavior.

One way to tell if a body of evidence is necessary is to see if the conclusion falls apart if some of that evidence is taken away.

Consciousness can be a complex and divisive topic, particularly when it comes to discussions about free will and human behavior. Consciousness, which is the subjective experience of awareness and thought, is sometimes thought to play a role in free will, as it is the basis of our subjective experience of making choices and acting on them.

However, discussions about consciousness and free will can become mired in debates over the nature of consciousness, the validity of subjective experience, and the role of consciousness in behavior. These debates can become quite heated and polarized, and can prevent progress by derailing the discussion and preventing individuals from finding common ground.

Therefore, it is recommended to consider only the necessary parts of the explanation to move the discussion forward. The discussion can then focus on whether the necessary components explain everything and, if not, on identifying missing components.

[phyllo]

What is your fate? What is Mary's fate?

It is what you have already done. One can't say what your future fate is.

Why is it that even the best billiard players can't reliably plan combination shots (shots where the cue ball hits another ball which in turn hits yet another ball and so on) that have three or four ball collisions? Wouldn't it be possible to simply calculate the required angles of the collisions and then as a world-class professional execute the shot with precision?

In the world of mathematical billiards (billiards where balls don't have mass) this would be possible. However, when playing real billiards you have to take into account all the uncertainties around us. The initial direction of the cue ball might be off by just a tiny fraction. But since this error gets amplified with each collision, the direction of the last ball might be something completely unexpected. The small imperfections of our billiard table have to be also taken into account.

Let's say we replace our human player with a robot. This robot has mechanical arms that are significantly more reliable at shooting the cue ball compared to our human player. We also find a better billiard table with less imperfections. Finally we bring in a computer that allows us to input different data about our environment and then calculate the initial trajectory of the cue ball.

There are quite a lot of equipment and people around our table. We have the robot and the computer. There are engineers and scientists in white lab coats fine-tuning the robot and entering data into the computer. The human player is still in the room, curious to see if the robot can beat her.

At which point do we have to take into account the gravitational forces of all these people and equipment? The answer is after the sixth or seventh ball collision. The limits of our abilities to predict the events on the table are much lower than we might have guessed.

In fact, if you want to predict the movement of an oxygen molecule reliably after roughly 50 collisions, you have to take into account the gravitational effect of a single electron located at the edge of our universe.

These calculations are based on mathematical physicist Michael Berry's work. You can read his interview about predictability and chaos taken from the book A Passion for Science here. I first came across Berry in Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book The Black Swan.

Why do you need to care about the predictability of billiard shots? The point of this story is to help us notice the existence of uncertainties around us; even the smallest unknowns will start to affect our predictions dramatically as the chain of interactions grows longer. The mathematical world is unfortunately a fantasy.

https://www.flashover.blog/posts/billia ... ictability

[Iwannaplato]

I merely pull back far enough to recognize just how preposterous it is to insist that all other rational men and women are obligated to think that way as well. How on earth would I myself go about demonstrating it?!

Who says you're obligated to? I don't know a single person you've been speaking to who says you're obligated to. Everyone else is just talking ideas.

You're not obligated to do anything. In general, you're not even obligated to be correct. You can be incorrect about most philosophical problems for your entire life with probably no, or very little, negative consequence to yourself and others.

So if the reason you keep bringing up the thought stopping device is to get out of obligation, then.... you're correct again! You did it. You have no obligation. That's right. That's true whether determinism is the case or not. You have no obligation whatsoever, and nobody here is telling you you do.

I'm not sure what a word like 'obligated' means in either free will or determinism.
In free will universes no one is obligated to do anything.
In a determinist world you're only obligated to do whatever you are compelled to do.

I am not sure what rational means in a deterministic universe. A rational person. We'd all be compelled at the atomic level to have whatever position we have. That's like saying a set of lined up dominos is rational.

[Flannel Jesus]

I am not sure what rational means in a deterministic universe. A rational person. We'd all be compelled at the atomic level to have whatever position we have. That's like saying a set of lined up dominos is rational.

No piece of my intuition tells me "rational" means something different with indeterminism

[phyllo]

I am not sure what rational means in a deterministic universe. A rational person. We'd all be compelled at the atomic level to have whatever position we have. That's like saying a set of lined up dominos is rational.

No piece of my intuition tells me "rational" means something different with indeterminism

There are rules to reasoning, logic, mathematics ...

Just because a person doesn't know the correct answer to 2+2, does not invalidate the rules.

If he was compelled( ) to think 2+2=5 ... that doesn't make his answer correct. It doesn't make every answer correct. It doesn't mean we can't know the correct answer.

[Iwannaplato]

No piece of my intuition tells me "rational" means something different with indeterminism

I agree, rationality would also not be rational with indeterminism. The end of the row of dominos has two dominos equidistant from the one before them in the chain. In some universes it will hit the one on the left first causing a sign with the answer 'capitalism' to slide into a slot. In other universes chance will lead to the right last domino to fall and the answer communism will slide into the slot. And so some person, thinking they are being rational, votes, with this guideline in mind. They think they made the rational choice. They had a bunch of arguments in their head with themselves and other people, but....dominos of atoms falling, with a little jiggle of randomness at every step.

[Flannel Jesus]

No piece of my intuition tells me "rational" means something different with indeterminism

I agree, rationality would also not be rational with indeterminism. The end of the row of dominos has two dominos equidistant from the one before them in the chain. In some universes it will hit the one on the left first causing a sign with the answer 'capitalism' to slide into a slot. In other universes chance will lead to the right last domino to fall and the answer communism will slide into the slot. And so some person, thinking they are being rational, votes, with this guideline in mind. They think they made the rational choice. They had a bunch of arguments in their head with themselves and other people, but....dominos of atoms falling, with a little jiggle of randomness at every step.

None of these words stops me from being able to classify thinking patterns as 'rational' or 'irrational'.

Maybe I'm not understanding your position. It seems like -- tell me if this is incorrect here -- it seems like if I take your position here seriously, I also should consider your position not rational.

[Iwannaplato]

None of these words stops me from being able to classify thinking patterns as 'rational' or 'irrational'.

No, I certainly can't stop you. (I know what you mean, but since it kinda fits the topic, I go with literal first)

Maybe I'm not understanding your position. It seems like -- tell me if this is incorrect here -- it seems like if I take your position here seriously, I also should consider your position not rational.

Yes.

I am being polemical. But I think determinism and indeterminism while they do not preclude having a system that makes decisions that are correct, preclude us from knowing we are correct in our reasoning, and also necessitate processes that really don't fit with what we think of as rational.

I don't think it makes sense to think of my calculator (I actually have an old solar powered one) is rational. Yes, I am pretty sure it comes up with correct answers. But I don't think it's rational. It is more or less a sequences of falling dominos. If determinism is the case. Then we are complicated versions of those. Again, this doesn't preclude us coming up with right answers. It doesn't preclude one person coming up with correct ones more often. It just doesn't seem like what rationality entails. We are very complicated machines churning out inevitable conclusions: or sounds and words.

Indetermism would be the same or worse.

I suppose I might say that I am not rational, but the process that happens is effective.

It's something in the semantics of the word 'rational' that I don't think fits with my atoms follow a pattern that inevitably produces a correct answer.

In practical terms I am not sure what difference this makes, I am questioning rational being applied to one machine that spits out wrong answers as opposed to one that spits out correct ones. Rationality seems to me includes some sense of agency.

[Flannel Jesus]

In practical terms I am not sure what difference this makes, I am questioning rational being applied to one machine that spits out wrong answers as opposed to one that spits out correct ones. Rationality seems to me includes some sense of agency.

Why should 'rational', as a category, be different than, say, categorizing chess algorithms. Some chess algorithms are categorically better than others, some chess algorithms apply one strategy or "thought pattern" and others apply other stragies and thought patterns. If we can categorize chess programs, why can't we categorize the types of strategies minds use to find "truth", whatever that may mean?

Calling some of those strategies 'rationality' doesn't seem fundamentally different from categorizing chess algorithms.

Just an example of how one could categorise chess algorithms : https://medium.com/@SereneBiologist/the ... 2087d0d565

[iambiguous]

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.

That would require a perfect prediction of the future ... always 100% correct.

But telling you what is in the future would alter the future. Unless fatalism is the reality.

Whatever that has to do with my point.

My point: Mary would know that she really is able to choose to abort or not to abort Jane of her own volition. That she could weigh the pros and cons and decide "then and there" what she construed to be the "right thing to do" given what in turn "then and there" she construed to be in her own best interest. All rooted existentially on dasein.

But "then and there" in a free will world others might decide that abortion is immoral and pass laws making it a crime. They arrest her, try her and send her to prison.

Thus...

And further, in my view, in a No God world, there does not appear to be a way for philosophers or ethicists to advise you on the most rational and virtuous decision.

Okay, let's say that the "most rational and virtuous decision" is revealed to you.

What prevents you from choosing not to be the most rational or the most virtuous?

If you are told that giving birth is "optimal", you can still have an abortion.

Again, the part rooted existentially in dasein given free will. But: Who exactly would be revealing this? The pro-life folks or the pro-choice folks? The crucial point is that both sides are making arguments they were never able to not make. The crucial point is that in a determined universe whatever Mary and all of those around her think, feel, say and do, they were never able to not think, feel, say and do. Like me typing these words and you reading them.

Then back to those who claim to be determinists but still insist that Mary is morally responsible for what she was never able not to do. In other words, claiming this because in a wholly determined universe they were themselves never able not to.

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.

That's really easy to determine. If Mary gave birth then her friend did talk her out of aborting.

Yeah, but only because her friend freely opted to talk her out of it. Whereas in a No Free Will universe where Mary was never able to not abort Jane her friend was no less fated/destined/determined to fail to talk her out of it.

Note to others:

Again, what crucial point is he making here over and over and over and over and over and over again in his exchanges with me that I keep missing?

Given a free will world.

But if everything revolving around Mary's pregnancy unfolds in the only possible world -- and Jane is toast -- she could never have been.

Jane is only "toast" after an abortion is performed.

Or: Jane was never not going to be "toast" because the abortion itself was never not going to be performed.

[iambiguous]

OK, thanks for the answer. I am not sure I fully understand click. But let me see if a question or two more makes it clearer.

Who is the you 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 itself, human brain matter did evolve into the most extraordinary matter of all...matter that really did acquire a measure of autonomy.

Then back to...what exactly?

Notice that the duality remains unaddressed.

There is apparently a Biggus entity which has thoughts, motivations and desires which are different from Biggus' brain.

But this entity can't do what it wants to do because Biggus' brain prevents it.

Click.

Right, like any of us here can pinpoint precisely where and when and how and why the human brain ends and the human mind -- "I" -- begins.

Start here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

Then, after reading that, Google "dualism in philosophy" -- https://www.google.com/search?q=dualism ... s-wiz-serp

Read a whole bunch more about it and then get back to us on what philosophers have definitively concluded here.

Then take this objective assessment and note how it is applicable to Mary aborting Jane...is she or is she not morally responsible for doing so?

[BigMike]

You almost never go a day without talking about Mary and Jane, and the things you have to say about them are incredibly trivial. What is the big deal that has you so engrossed?

[phyllo]

Whatever that has to do with my point.

You wrote this : "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"

The only way to scientifically demonstrate that is to lay out the exact unavoidable steps from present to the abortion or the birth.

How else could you demonstrate that you are not free to do something?

That she could weigh the pros and cons and decide "then and there" what she construed to be the "right thing to do" given what in turn "then and there" she construed to be in her own best interest.

In a determined world, Mary also weights the pros and cons, and acts in her own best interest.

But "then and there" in a free will world others might decide that abortion is immoral and pass laws making it a crime. They arrest her, try her and send her to prison.

That also happens in a determined world. It's part of her decision.

But: Who exactly would be revealing this?

It doesn't matter.

I'm going with your hypothetical case ... the most rational and virtuous decision is known. Context set.

Mary can still decide to choose something else.

Then back to those who claim to be determinists but still insist that Mary is morally responsible for what she was never able not to do.

Three of us in this thread have tackled responsibility in a determined world. You have ignored all of us.

Yeah, but only because her friend freely opted to talk her out of it. Whereas in a No Free Will universe where Mary was never able to not abort Jane her friend was no less fated/destined/determined to fail to talk her out of it.

That just shifts "freely opting" from Mary to her friend. Which changes nothing, makes no progress on the problem and says nothing.

Or: Jane was never not going to be "toast" because the abortion itself was never not going to be performed.

This is not reasoning. This is saying the same thing over and over.

Why is it that "the abortion itself was never not going to be performed"?

You don't have an answer for that, do you?