compatibilism

[iambiguous]

Before Bruce Willis had dementia, his personality, his abilities, his charisma, his acting were the product of how his brain functioned.

The difference is that now his brain functions are considered negative while before they were considered positive. People remember the pre-dementia Willis and probably in his better moments he also remembers.

Again, compelled or not, your own brain has settled on this frame of mind for arguing that, what, the chemical/neurological "soup" in the old Bruce Willis brain and the new Bruce Willis brain...changes nothing at all? It's still a brain functioning. We don't know how or why the old or the new brain becomes mind becomes "I"...but so what?

He is both responsible and not responsible for anything he says and does? Like, say, Charles Whitman:

"What transformed this 25-year-old Eagle Scout and Marine into one of modern America's first and deadliest school shooters? His autopsy suggests one troubling explanation: Charles Whitman had a brain tumor pressing on his amygdala, a region of the brain crucial for emotion and behavioral control." scientific american article

His condition prompts him to do things that he would never have chosen to do before he was afflicted...but so what? As long as others can still remember when he would not have done these new negative things, the things he does now are merely what they are? His brain doing its new thing?

Thus if the new Bruce Willis guns down his children, the new brain explains that and he is not thought to be morally responsible? Unless, of course, the old and the new brains are interchangeable in a wholly determined universe as some construe it.

Ah, but then back to how that would be, could be demonstrated. After it is demonstrated in turn how and why lifeless/brainless matter "somehow" evolved into us.

But ultimately I am what I am. Warts and all.

Of course:

"Qué será, será
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
Qué será, será
What will be, will be"

Uh, our fate? Our destiny?

[Iwannaplato]

I don't see how or why free-will Mary would/could drop her motivations.

because free will means that you actions are not determined by what went before. Is this possible? I have no idea. I tend to think determinism makes more sense. But if we are saying Mary has free will, then she is not determined by her own prior states and external influences.

If you ask free-willers, they admit that they are reacting to the environment and to past experiences.

Some certainly do. And if you take polls of most people who believe in free will, they really mean that they will nto be forced by external causes to do things, if they choose to go against them. That kind of thing. But really, that all means that they are still determinists. Others do believe that they are truly free. They are rarer. They tend to have some philosophical background or their own autodidact thinking and they do realize that if your actions are caused by your temperment, motivations, desires, etc., then your actions are determined.

So I'm not sure what free-will Mary is actually doing. That's why I refer to her "magic mojo".

The best I can figure it out is that free-will Mary is deciding/acting on her ideal authentic self, while determined Mary is deciding on a limited physical brain. Some sort of Platonic idealism.

I don't know what she would be doing.

But if we accept for argument that there is a free will mary and this is not a determinist mary then the free will mary must have more options. I can't see why she would go against her own values and motivations, especially on something that is generally important to people like an abortion...but if free will not determined, then she must have some added freedom. Some versions of free will allow that the person can go against the laws of nature. I think a case can be made that this must be the case OR free will is not distinguishable from determinism.

[iambiguous]

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

Thanks. I'll explore it in depth on this thread.

[phyllo]

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?

I've been talking to him for more than a decade.

I've make made hundreds of posts in this thread and the 'Determinism' thread at ILP.

I've explicitly stated my position many times.

And the dimwit still doesn't know what my position is.

I don't use "dimwit" lightly.

[iambiguous]

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.

Click.

Come on, what do the Big Question/morality objectivists here among us insist? That others can stop thinking about these things because the objectivists themselves have already discovered or invented the optimal, essential truth.

All I'm asking instead is that that they take their intellectual contraption arguments pertaining to compatibilism down out of the philosophical clouds and note how they are relevant to Mary's unwanted pregnancy.

Given their own definitive understanding of determinism, is Mary morally responsible or not?

That, and demonstrating why we should think like they do regarding their own assessment 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.

Then, for some, back to this:

I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

I'm just the messenger here.

[BigMike]

I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

It is true that the pursuit of wisdom is a journey of a lifetime and that philosophers are constantly confronted with the limits of their knowledge. However, it is essential to recognize that our limited comprehension does not render the pursuit of wisdom futile. Instead, they should be viewed as obstacles to overcome and growth opportunities.

Noting that the gap between what we know and what there is to know is not unique to philosophy is also important. This void exists in all academic disciplines and all facets of human experience. No individual will ever be able to fully comprehend the complexity of existence.

Although some may feel disheartened by their lack of knowledge, this is not a reason to abandon philosophy entirely. Instead, we can continue philosophical inquiry while acknowledging our limited comprehension. Through continued study, reflection, and discussion, we can increase our understanding of the human condition and cultivate a life that is richer and more meaningful.

Moreover, philosophy's value is not contingent solely on its capacity to provide a comprehensive understanding of the world. Philosophy can assist us in elucidating our values, cultivating our critical thinking abilities, and engaging in meaningful dialogue with others. These advantages extend beyond the realm of philosophy and have the potential to enrich all facets of our lives.

Despite the difficulty and incompleteness of the pursuit of wisdom, it remains a valuable and worthwhile endeavor. By gaining a deeper understanding of ourselves, others, and the world around us through philosophy, we can live more fulfilling lives.

[Iwannaplato]

Ah, changed my mind. Or, it just changed. Pardon, post deleted.

[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.

Click.

Come on, what do the Big Question/morality objectivists here among us insist? That others can stop thinking about these things because the objectivists themselves have already discovered or invented the optimal, essential truth.

Who in the world said that? You're the one who suggested that you can't be confident in any of your thoughts without precise answers to those questions. I was just affirming what you said, I never said anything about having already discovered the optimal truth.

If you want to stop thinking about it because you don't have the answers to those questions, you have permission to do that. I'm not telling you to stop thinking, but I am inviting you to either (a) stop thinking, or (b) stop looking for permission to stop thinking. If you want permission, then you have it, just stop. If you don't want to stop thinking, looking for permission isn't doing anything for you.

[iambiguous]

Slavoj Zizek and the Case for Compatibilism
Philosophy for the People w/Ben Burgis

Compatibilists such as Daniel Dennett have an elegant solution to the incompatibilists’ complaints about determinism: when incompatibilists complain that our freedom cannot be combined with the fact that all our acts are part of the great chain of natural determinism, they secretly make an unwarranted ontological assumption: first, they assume that we (the Self, the free agent) somehow stand outside reality, then they go on to complain about how they feel oppressed by the notion that reality in its determinism controls them totally.

"Incompatibilism is the thesis that free will is incompatible with the truth of determinism. Incompatibilists divide into libertarianians, who deny that determinism is true and hard determinists who deny that we have free will." PhilPapershttps://philpapers.org

The "thesis". Of course.

What on earth does it mean to "secretly make an unwarranted ontological assumption" when all of the assumptions that you do make you make only because you were never able not to?

We become entangled here because once you assume that everything we think, feel, say do, we think, feel, say and do because we were never able not to think, feel, say and do them, nothing gets excluded. Nothing stands outside the entirely necessary reality embedded in the laws of matter. You may feel oppressed by this, but you were never able to freely opt not to.

But: the fact that matter evolved into human brains able to actually bring this up is easily one of the most profound mysteries of all pertaining to existence itself.

As though Dennett is himself the exception here?

This is what is wrong with the notion of us being “imprisoned” by the chains of natural determinism: we thereby obfuscate the fact that we are part of reality, that the (possible, local) conflict between our “free” striving and the external reality that resists it is a conflict inherent in reality itself.

For the hardcore determinists, how can anything at all be wrong if it was never able to be anything other than what it must be? Facts may be obfuscated by some but only because they were never able not to obfuscate them. One speaks of striving "freely" because the relationship between "I" and the world around me is but an inherent manifestation of nature itself.

It's just that no other matter that we are familiar with is even close to being as peculiar as brain matter. And most exasperating of all is that it is brain matter itself that has to explain it. Which explains why so many turn to God. The ultimate source for explaining...everything.

That is to say, there is nothing “oppressive” or “constraining” about the fact that our innermost strivings are (pre)determined: when we feel thwarted in our freedom by the pressure of external reality, there must be something in us, some desire or striving, which is thus thwarted, but where do such strivings come from if not this same reality?

Exactly. In a free will world we may not be able to accomplish a task or reach a goal because there are things in the external world thwarting us. We can feel oppressed and constrained by this. But in a wholly determined world 1] the obstacles were never not going to be there and 2] our feelings of "oppression" and "constraint" when confronting them are right on cue.

But [of course] all of this is explored up in the intellectual clouds:

Our “free will” does not in some mysterious way “disturb the natural course of things,” it is part and parcel of this course. For us to be “truly” and “radically” free would entail that there be no positive content involved in our free act—if we want nothing “external” and particular or given to determine our behavior, then “this would involve being free of every part of ourselves.”

Got that?

Okay, explain it to Mary above.

When a determinist claims that our free choice is “determined,” this does not mean that our free will is somehow constrained, that we are forced to act against our will—what is “determined” is the very thing that we want to do “freely,” that is, without being thwarted by external obstacles.

But what of those determinists who claim that our "free will" is but a psychological illusion emanating from a brain that compels us to think, feel, speak and act ever and always in accordance with the laws of matter. There is no internal and external reality. There is only the one ontological reality of what can ever only be.

Whatever "for all practical purposes" that means.

[BigMike]

Consider a single person, living in a vast and complex world. This person is driven by a set of basic needs, needs that are shared by all life on our planet.

There is the need for sustenance, for food and water to nourish the body and sustain life. Without these basic resources, the body cannot function, and the person would quickly perish.

There is the need for safety and security, the need to protect oneself from harm and danger. This drive for safety is what motivates us to seek out shelter, to build walls around us, and to form communities for mutual protection.

There is the need for social connection, the need to interact with others and form bonds of friendship and love. This drive for connection is what motivates us to seek out others, to form families and communities, and to build relationships that enrich our lives.

And there is the need for growth and self-actualization, the need to achieve one's full potential and pursue one's dreams. This drive for growth is what motivates us to learn, to explore, and to create, to push the boundaries of what is possible and to leave our mark on the world.

These basic needs, these fundamental drives, are what motivate us to act, to seek out the resources and experiences that we need to survive, thrive, and find meaning in our lives. They are the foundation upon which all human action is built, the driving force that propels us forward on our journey through life. Everything we do is driven by needs like these that aren't being met, not by "desires" that our minds just made up out of thin air and decided to act on.

Consider the miracle of the human brain, a complex and wondrous structure that allows us to experience the world around us in all its beauty and complexity.

At the core of this miracle are the sensory cells, billions of them, each tuned to respond to a specific type of stimulus, from light and sound to touch, taste, and smell. Every moment of our waking lives, these sensory cells are bombarded with a constant stream of information, an endless torrent of data that must be filtered, processed, and interpreted.

And so, this sensory input is passed along to the neural web of the brain, a vast and intricate network of neurons and synapses that work together to make sense of the world. Our remarkable logic machine, the brain, takes in data, processes it, and makes sense of it in the context of the organism's current needs and goals.

At every step of the way, the brain is engaged in a constant process of decision-making, evaluating the significance of the incoming data and determining the appropriate response. And so, the proper muscles are engaged, the body responds to the input, and the organism interacts with its surroundings in a way that is appropriate to the current needs and circumstances.

At the heart of the brain's remarkable ability to process sensory input lies the intricate dance between neurons and muscles, a dance that is essential to our ability to interact with the world around us.

When sensory input is received, it is passed along a network of neurons that work together to interpret the meaning of the data. This interpretation involves the comparison of the current input to past experiences and memories, as well as a consideration of the current needs and circumstances of the organism.

Once the appropriate response has been determined, the brain must then engage the proper muscles to execute the desired action. This process involves the release of a complex cascade of neurotransmitters and neuromuscular signals that travel along a network of nerves to the muscles themselves.

As these signals arrive at the muscle fibers, they cause a complex chain reaction that ultimately leads to the contraction of the muscle. This contraction is precisely calibrated to the needs of the organism, with different muscles engaged to achieve different tasks.

For example, if a person is walking through a forest and suddenly sees a snake on the path, the brain must quickly engage the muscles necessary to execute a response. The leg muscles may contract to jump out of harm's way, while the arm muscles may move to shield the body. The heart rate may increase, and the body may start to sweat as it prepares for the fight or flight response.

This remarkable dance between neurons and muscles is what allows us to respond to the world around us in a way that is appropriate to our current needs and circumstances. It is a testament to the incredible complexity and sophistication of the human brain, and a source of endless fascination and wonder for scientists and philosophers alike.

This process is so complex, so remarkable, that we are only beginning to scratch the surface of its mysteries. But as we continue to explore the frontiers of science and deepen our understanding of the brain, we may be able to unlock new insights into the nature of the mind, and the workings of the human "soul."

[attofishpi]

That was a nice post BigMike - a good read.

[Iwannaplato]

Slavoj Zizek and the Case for Compatibilism
Philosophy for the People w/Ben Burgis

Compatibilists such as Daniel Dennett have an elegant solution to the incompatibilists’ complaints about determinism: when incompatibilists complain that our freedom cannot be combined with the fact that all our acts are part of the great chain of natural determinism, they secretly make an unwarranted ontological assumption: first, they assume that we (the Self, the free agent) somehow stand outside reality, then they go on to complain about how they feel oppressed by the notion that reality in its determinism controls them totally.

"Incompatibilism is the thesis that free will is incompatible with the truth of determinism. Incompatibilists divide into libertarianians, who deny that determinism is true and hard determinists who deny that we have free will." PhilPapershttps://philpapers.org

The "thesis". Of course.

What on earth does it mean to "secretly make an unwarranted ontological assumption" when all of the assumptions that you do make you make only because you were never able not to?

We become entangled here because once you assume that everything we think, feel, say do, we think, feel, say and do because we were never able not to think, feel, say and do them, nothing gets excluded. Nothing stands outside the entirely necessary reality embedded in the laws of matter. You may feel oppressed by this, but you were never able to freely opt not to.

But: the fact that matter evolved into human brains able to actually bring this up is easily one of the most profound mysteries of all pertaining to existence itself.

As though Dennett is himself the exception here?

This is what is wrong with the notion of us being “imprisoned” by the chains of natural determinism: we thereby obfuscate the fact that we are part of reality, that the (possible, local) conflict between our “free” striving and the external reality that resists it is a conflict inherent in reality itself.

For the hardcore determinists, how can anything at all be wrong if it was never able to be anything other than what it must be? Facts may be obfuscated by some but only because they were never able not to obfuscate them. One speaks of striving "freely" because the relationship between "I" and the world around me is but an inherent manifestation of nature itself.

It's just that no other matter that we are familiar with is even close to being as peculiar as brain matter. And most exasperating of all is that it is brain matter itself that has to explain it. Which explains why so many turn to God. The ultimate source for explaining...everything.

That is to say, there is nothing “oppressive” or “constraining” about the fact that our innermost strivings are (pre)determined: when we feel thwarted in our freedom by the pressure of external reality, there must be something in us, some desire or striving, which is thus thwarted, but where do such strivings come from if not this same reality?

Exactly. In a free will world we may not be able to accomplish a task or reach a goal because there are things in the external world thwarting us. We can feel oppressed and constrained by this. But in a wholly determined world 1] the obstacles were never not going to be there and 2] our feelings of "oppression" and "constraint" when confronting them are right on cue.

But [of course] all of this is explored up in the intellectual clouds:

Our “free will” does not in some mysterious way “disturb the natural course of things,” it is part and parcel of this course. For us to be “truly” and “radically” free would entail that there be no positive content involved in our free act—if we want nothing “external” and particular or given to determine our behavior, then “this would involve being free of every part of ourselves.”

Got that?

Okay, explain it to Mary above.

When a determinist claims that our free choice is “determined,” this does not mean that our free will is somehow constrained, that we are forced to act against our will—what is “determined” is the very thing that we want to do “freely,” that is, without being thwarted by external obstacles.

But what of those determinists who claim that our "free will" is but a psychological illusion emanating from a brain that compels us to think, feel, speak and act ever and always in accordance with the laws of matter. There is no internal and external reality. There is only the one ontological reality of what can ever only be.

Whatever "for all practical purposes" that means.

I think your state of uncertainty is great at least for philosophical discussion. If determinists judge your positions using logic or 'logic' such as in the assessment of an unwarranted ontological assumption, you can respond that no one can be wrong in a determinist world AND use logic to indicate their potential wrongness. If you were committed to determinism, you couldn't really do this, since then you would be doing what you are criticizing them for doing: saying someone is wrong. But since you are not committed to determinism OR free will, you can criticize both positions and request that they demonstrate their positions. If they are committed to free will, you can be skeptical about that and consider them wrong, since, again, you are not committed to determinism so you are allowed to judge others as having failed in argument.

IOW not having a full committment to either position results in both free will advocates and determinists bearing the onus of proof (when they are communicating with you). So, any discussion puts them in the position of convincing you and since you are not committed to either position you are free to argue however you like. And since the criterion you generally put forward is for them to demonstrate they are correct such that all rational people must agree and you are a rational person, you have the upper hand any discussion. One can always continue to be less than fully convinced. And absolutely nothing in a philosophical discussion necessarily removes doubt.

And since you doubt that this will be solved in your lifetime or ever for that matter, you'll never be in a position to demonstrate anything. Well, I some of your arguments could be judged as wrong by the free will camp, but then you can throw determinism at them. They'd have to demonstrate you could have done differently.

I know uncertainty on this has a downside for you. But one should acknowledge the upside also, even if it is dwarfed but the downside.

[BigMike]

IOW not having a full committment to either position results in both free will advocates and determinists bearing the onus of proof (when they are communicating with you). So, any discussion puts them in the position of convincing you and since you are not committed to either position you are free to argue however you like. And since the criterion you generally put forward is for them to demonstrate they are correct such that all rational people must agree and you are a rational person, you have the upper hand any discussion. One can always without being convinced, at least completely.

Consider for a moment the question of free will versus determinism. It is true that those who do not fully commit to either position may find themselves requiring proponents of each side to bear the burden of proof in discussions. But let us not be fooled into thinking that a lack of commitment gives us the "upper hand" in debates.

When engaging in discussions on this matter, it is crucial to approach the topic with an open mind and to thoughtfully consider the arguments and evidence presented by both sides. Rather than seeking to triumph over our opponents, let us strive to gain a deeper understanding of the issue at hand and learn from the perspectives of others.

Furthermore, we must not forget the importance of critical evaluation when assessing the arguments put forth by each side. Even if we remain unconvinced of either position, it is essential to consider the implications of both perspectives in order to fully appreciate the complexity of the question at hand.

In the end, we may find that there is no definitive answer that satisfies all rational people. But by engaging in respectful and constructive dialogue, we can broaden our understanding of the world and cultivate a greater appreciation for the nuances of this enduring philosophical question.

[Iwannaplato]

Consider for a moment the question of free will versus determinism. It is true that those who do not fully commit to either position may find themselves requiring proponents of each side to bear the burden of proof in discussions. But let us not be fooled into thinking that a lack of commitment gives us the "upper hand" in debates.

That would depend on one's goal, and I should also say, I was being ironic. Which is as sad a thing to say as 'I was making a joke.' Not a good one clearly. My post was meant ironically. Which doesn't mean it isn't in some ways also true, but I certainly do not hold the main position.

When engaging in discussions on this matter, it is crucial to approach the topic with an open mind and to thoughtfully consider the arguments and evidence presented by both sides. Rather than seeking to triumph over our opponents, let us strive to gain a deeper understanding of the issue at hand and learn from the perspectives of others.

Of course. And perhaps also to find a way to talk about the issue.

Furthermore, we must not forget the importance of critical evaluation when assessing the arguments put forth by each side. Even if we remain unconvinced of either position, it is essential to consider the implications of both perspectives in order to fully appreciate the complexity of the question at hand.

Well, I think we do this, each in our own way here.

In the end, we may find that there is no definitive answer that satisfies all rational people.

I don't think that's a useful criterion. And just imagine how hard that would be to demonstrate to be true. IOW the assertion 'Something should be accepted as true only if all rational people believe it to be true' fails its own criterion. At least, I think I am rational and I don't agree with it. I doubt I am alone.

But by engaging in respectful and constructive dialogue, we can broaden our understanding of the world and cultivate a greater appreciation for the nuances of this enduring philosophical question.

Sure.

[BigMike]

In the end, we may find that there is no definitive answer that satisfies all rational people.

I don't think that's a useful criterion. And just imagine how hard that would be to demonstrate to be true. IOW the assertion 'Something should be accepted as true only if all rational people believe it to be true' fails its own criterion. At least, I think I am rational and I don't agree with it. I doubt I am alone.

You are correct that "something should be accepted as true only if all rational people believe it to be true" may not be a practical or useful criterion for determining the truth of a statement or belief. Luckily, I never said that.

As Carl Sagan once famously said, "The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true."

In other words, the truth cannot be determined solely by what we want to be true or by the consensus of rational people. The truth must be based on evidence, logical reasoning, and empirical observation, which are the foundations of scientific inquiry.

While it is important to listen to different viewpoints and opinions, ultimately, what is true is not determined by a democratic vote or the opinions of the majority. As Sagan said, "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Therefore, when evaluating statements and beliefs, we should look beyond consensus and consider the evidence and reasoning behind them. This is the best way to approach the truth and to make sound, informed decisions based on the best available information.