compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

If you're still trying to understand compatibilism, here's a recent article that's making the rounds and resonated with me a lot

https://benburgis.substack.com/p/slavoj ... patibilism

[iambiguous]

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.

What can I say. From my frame of mind, given determinism as I understand it [compelled or not], from the cradle to the grave everything that I thought, felt, said and did in the past, everything that I think, feel, say, and do in the present, and everything that I will think, feel, say and do in the future is an inherent -- fated/destined -- manifestation of the only possible world.

So, sure, if -- re God or Science -- I could know unequivocally that this is not the case and that I did/do/will have at least some measure of choice, yeah, that would be of fundamental importance to me.

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.

Or, I explained it well, but you are unable to understand it. Compelled or otherwise.

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?

Here, again, others seem intent on noting the same thing. So, sure, it may well be an important point that -- click -- I am unable to grasp.

Still...

First of all, in a determined world as I understand it, if she knows that aborting Jane is determined then the fact that she knows it is also determined. Nothing that any of us think, feel, say and do is not wholly compelled by material brains entirely in sync with the laws of matter.

But, if she is able to grasp that she has some measure of free will because, in fact, she does, then when the friend stops by to discuss the pregnancy with her, so does she. She can -- to the best of her ability -- weigh the pros and the cons of aborting Jane. She can then take that subjective, existential leap and Jane is either obliterated or is born into this world along with all the rest of us.

Whereas, the way things are now, neither science nor philosophy is able to in fact pin that down for her one way or the other. At least not to my knowledge.

Thus...

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, I don't even know if what I think I know here is a manifestation of free will. After all, how is anything that I think I know not predicated finally on my being able to pin 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.

...down? And I am certainly unable to.

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?

I've attempted to explain this. A number of times. We're clearly "stuck".

Thus...

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?

Again, for the truly hardcore determinists, nothing is not presupposed by a brain that is but more matter...another of nature's dominoes toppling over on cue. An inherent, necessary cause and effect relationship going back to the existence of existence itself.

The profoundest mystery of all: was existence itself caused to exist -- by what, God? -- or was it always around?

Is there actually anyone here who is convinced they can answer that question...ontologically?

Teleologically? Does existence itself have a meaning, a purpose?

Then back to Mary...

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.

Well, given the gap between what you think is important here and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself to grasp what really is of most important, maybe you're asking the wrong 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.

Note to others:

Please attempt to explain why you think that he thinks this is an important point.

My frame of mind: Jane would be/must be toast in a world where she was never able not to be aborted. But in a free will world she might not be toast if Mary's friend, of her own volition, talks Mary out of aborting her.

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

All I can do here is -- click -- suggest that you reread my attempts to explain that above.

On the other hand, around and around and around we go...

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?

Nature to iambiguous:

Pick one: https://www.google.com/search?q=head+ag ... =615&dpr=1

[Flannel Jesus]

Again, I don't even know if what I think I know here is a manifestation of free will. After all, how is anything that I think I know not predicated finally on my being able to pin 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.

...down? And I am certainly unable to.

It's certainly your right to stop thinking for the time being, until you have the answers to this pinned down. If that's what you think is the correct approach, do it.

[Iwannaplato]

What can I say. From my frame of mind, given determinism as I understand it [compelled or not], from the cradle to the grave everything that I thought, felt, said and did in the past, everything that I think, feel, say, and do in the present, and everything that I will think, feel, say and do in the future is an inherent -- fated/destined -- manifestation of the only possible world.

So, sure, if -- re God or Science -- I could know unequivocally that this is not the case and that I did/do/will have at least some measure of choice, yeah, that would be of fundamental importance to me.

OK, you described what determinism entails, again. And you said it was important. But you didn't say why it is important for you or us to know. I know what determinism entails and free will entails - the latter in vague way. What I don't know is why this is important to you. What changes knowing would lead to.

Or, I explained it well, but you are unable to understand it. Compelled or otherwise.

As far as I can tell you didn't explain why. You just described determinism and said it was important to know if it wasn't the case.

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?

Here, again, others seem intent on noting the same thing.

I am not sure what I noted. I asked you a question.

I've attempted to explain this. A number of times. We're clearly "stuck".

Yes, I think I have to agree.

Thank you for trying.

[BigMike]

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.

...down? And I am certainly unable to.

Consciousness is the subjective experience of awareness and thought. Some people believe that consciousness is linked to free will because it is the foundation of our subjective experience of making choices and taking action. However, in reality, consciousness is not essential for people to think, make decisions, and act. Therefore, it is confusing why you continue to raise the above question repeatedly, especially under this "Compatibilism" topic. Maybe it would be better to start a new discussion topic on "What is Consciousness?" instead.

[iambiguous]

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

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

https://youtu.be/lC2JaIyunVo

Note to IC:

Explain the God part to him.

[iambiguous]

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.

Fine, go exchange ideas with them instead. And, then, when you settle on the most technically sophisticated philosophical conclusions, bring them to Mary pondering how she can be held morally responsible for aborting Jane when she was never able not to abort her.

Start with Big Mike.

[iambiguous]

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.

Note to Mary [and possibly Jane]:

Click.

Hope this helped. Clearly, you either are or are not morally responsible for aborting Jane. Theoretically anyway.

[iambiguous]

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?

Okay back again to grappling with how you construe the meaning of determinism on this thread.

From my frame of mind, I almost never go a day without talking about Mary and Jane because my brain wholly in sync with laws of matter compels me to. Now, were you or were you not yourself able to opt not to post what you did above? And, one way or the other, how exactly would you go about demonstrating that beyond arguing in a "world of words" what "here and now" you have come to believe "in your head" is true?

And Mary and abortion is important to me in a free will world because my experience with Mary and John in college resulted in my eventually abandoning moral and political objectivism and embracing moral nihilism instead. Derived in large part from my understanding of dasein on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

[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?

Okay back again to grappling with how you construe the meaning of determinism on this thread.

From my frame of mind, I almost never go a day without talking about Mary and Jane because my brain wholly in sync with laws of matter compels me to. Now, were you or were you not yourself able to opt not to post what you did above?

No, of course not. At any given time I can do only one thing. That is trivial.

And, one way or the other, how exactly would you go about demonstrating that beyond arguing in a "world of words" what "here and now" you have come to believe "in your head" is true?

Because I belong to a physical world in which everything is governed by certain laws: the conservation laws of physics.

And Mary and abortion is important to me in a free will world because my experience with Mary and John in college resulted in my eventually abandoning moral and political objectivism and embracing moral nihilism instead.

Well, then you must be glad to learn that the free will world you are referring to is an illusion.

[iambiguous]

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.

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.

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?

No, even if scientifically you demonstrated these exact steps you haven't demonstrated that the demonstration itself is as a result of either a determined universe or in you having accomplished this of your own volition.

And that's because what first has to be demonstrated are the exact steps taken -- by God? by nature? -- such that lifeless matter evolved into biological matter evolved into conscious matter evolved into self-conscious matter. The part where "somehow" along the way biological matter acquired autonomy.

If you don't grasp that [let alone grasping how it all fits ontologically into the existence of existence itself] you don't grasp how to explain the human brain itself.

I mean, come on, aren't you part of the God world crowd here? Don't you yourself believe that the explanation for free will is God Himself?

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.

Note to others:

Tell me -- click -- is he to be taken seriously here? In a determined world [at least as I understand it] those aliens up in the free will part of the universe observing us down here in the determined part of the universe would, of their own volition, note that Mary is weighing the pros and the cons in order to assess what is in her own best interests. But, they note, it's really only her wholly determined brain creating the psychological illusion that she is doing this of her own free will. The bottom line is that Jane will be shredded into oblivion. That is fated/destined/determined to be in a world where everything unfolds only as it ever could have.

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.

https://youtu.be/V2f-MZ2HRHQ

Increasingly, I find myself more and more convinced that it's a "condition" at your end.

Compelled or not.

[Flannel Jesus]

And that's because what first has to be demonstrated are the exact steps taken -- by God? by nature? -- such that lifeless matter evolved into biological matter evolved into conscious matter evolved into self-conscious matter. The part where "somehow" along the way biological matter acquired autonomy.

If you don't grasp that [let alone grasping how it all fits ontologically into the existence of existence itself] you don't grasp how to explain the human brain itself.

It's already been made clear that those exact facts aren't established and aren't going to be established any time soon. If that's what you require in order to continue thinking, then you'll just have to withhold on thinking until you can receive that information from somewhere.

You've sought permission to stop thinking in 2 different ways now, any you have been given it. You have permission to stop thinking about this. You have permission from determinism, and you have permission from ignorance. If you want to stop thinking, you have all the permission you could ask for.

Phyllo and iwanna and I are all perfectly content with our ability to think and surmise and philosophise about how the world might be, with incomplete information about how the world actually is, and what caused it to be this way. We don't need concrete certainty about the Answers to your questions in order to continue thinking about the issues at hand here. We can think about the consequences of the world being deterministic, and the consequences of the world being indeterministic, without knowing with certainty what the actual case is.

If you cannot do that, you're under no obligation to continue trying.

[Iwannaplato]

Phyllo and iwanna and I are all perfectly content with our ability to think and surmise and philosophise about how the world might be, with incomplete information about how the world actually is, and what caused it to be this way.

Yes.
I have seen repeated responses where we are told that determinism entails that all our actions and thoughts and posts here are utterly, well, determined...etc. But I can't see where we've shown that we don't understand what determinism entails
Also, I think we tend to get a 'but we can't know, if you think you can prove it, do it now' response, when I don't think any of us thinks we can prove one or the other to all rational people, no less. I don't think I can, in any case.

It's sort of like, if you are not torn apart like I am, then you are either claiming determinism allows for free will including what we post here
or
you think you can prove to every rational person on earth which one is true.

Or, if you are asking why it is so important, then you don't understand determinism or you think you can prove one of them....

I don't see us saying or implying these things and I know I'm not.

There are some things I'd like to be certain about and I understand the desire. And I understand why the idea of determinism can be offputting or worse.

But here we are moving forward without complete certainty. And I have much bigger problems and obstacles than finding out whether we have free will or are determined. I'm not sure what certainty about that would do for me or change.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't see us saying or implying these things and I know I'm not.

I think part of the struggle for Biggy - and it's a worth while thing to struggle with - is the conflict between reductionism and emergent causality. Because this is what keeps coming up in my brain every time I read a post of his.

Like, how could it be true that my thoughts are the cause of the words I'm typing, if it's true that the laws of physics governing all the matter in my brain is the cause of the words in typing?

This conversation has actually had a lot of value for me because it has forced me to really deeply think about emergence, and if it makes sense to call weekly emergent phenomena "causal".

I've been thinking about emergence a lot, both because of this conservation about human minds in a deterministic system AND because of Veritas threads on the moon and truth, and I've come to the following tentative beliefs:

1. As I've always believed, there's most likely only weak emergence (at least in this universe), never strong emergence
2. Weak emergence of course implies that lower levels of causality are the root "explanation" for any physical event - even if we don't know how that lower level of casualty works. Lower meaning, less emergent, more fundamental
3. That despite 2 being the case, and despite the fact that any emergent phenomena existing in any given specific circumstance could also be "explained" fully, in principle, by a complete understanding of the low level phenomena, that it still makes sense to talk about high level emergent phenomena being causal, or "having causal power" - not as an exception to the lower level description of reality, but simultaneously to that

There's a certain tension between #2 and #3, and I believe it's this tension that's the source of a lot of the problems people have with the ideas at hand here. In particular I think that, though he hasn't and might not word it this way, it's what's at the center of Biggy's problems here.

How could WE be causing something, as thinking human beings, if humans are fully reducible to the matter that makes us up?

[Agent Smith]

I didn't know we could hold a position like that! Fabulous idea though. Go compatibilists go!