iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 11:55 pm
Reconciling Determinism and Free Will: A Compatibilist Perspective
Innocent Ociti
For compatibilists, the key to freedom is the ability to act by our internal motivations, rather than being forced or coerced to act in a particular way by external factors. This means that freedom does not depend on the absence of determinism or the presence of indeterminism, but rather on the ability to act by our internal motivations and values.
Again, as though when mindless matter evolved into biological matter evolved into brain matter evolved into us, the brains of human beings "somehow" bifurcated "internally" into autonomous motivations and values...as opposed to all other matter that is entirely
compelled by the laws of matter. Then back to that crucial distinction between merely believing this is true philosophically and demonstrating that it is in fact true scientifically.
That's more or less where scientists are at with consciousness. Dead, unthinking unaware matter and...complexity.... then more complexity and lo, consciousness emerges. (I think they're wrong, not that I can prove that, but I see the trends in what gets called conscious and it's an expanding set).
But my point in bringing up consciousness is, well, yeah, that's almost the consensus opinion. Something wasn't there, then a certain level of complexity and bang, it's there. (I'm more of a panpsychist, but that's me. I think we're very biased toward ourselves.
Oh, we so special).
But anyway, perhaps you find that weird also. That dead matter if bouncing in complext enough patterns suddenly becomes aware. Consciousness emerges out of the world of objects. If you find that weird, well then it's another one of those. If you don't find that explanation of consciousness weird, you could mull over why not? I mean, if you think it's not so strange the idea that, sure, once it gets complex enough things start being aware, then perhaps the 'things somehow get free at a certainly level of complexity, isn't so weird (to you) in light of the consciousness issue)
But regardless - that was all a digression - that guy is not saying that humans are not determined. Let me say that again:
that guy is not saying humans have some kind of undetermined free will. ( he mentions freedom)
It's right there in the words:
it does not depend on the absence of determinism,
he says. And that's one compatibilist position.
The other clue about what he does mean in when he mentions 'external factors.' What's left if those aren't controlling someone? Internal factors. They are still factors, they are still determined. He is really quite clear there that determinism is not avoided somehow.
He is defining freedom unlike how some free will advocates would.
I can only expect the usual intellectual contraption accusation - still a funny one in a philosophy forum. But the kind of pure free will one finds not well flushed out in some religious people and others, where your actions have no causes at all, is a kind of pyrric victory. I mean, that means you can do things that you don't want to do, that don't fit your desires and goals. What kind of freedom is that and why would one want it. Oh, yay, I am completely free from the influence of INTERNAL factors. Yay.
I am not sure why that's good. Don't we want to do what we want? Do we really want to choose butterscotch ice cream even though we hate it?
So, this guy is viewing freedom as not being controlled by external factors such that I cannot pursue my goals, express what I want to express, try to get what I desire, try to avoid what I hate experiencing.
There are other compatiblist positions.
Not counting those who posit a God, the God, their God. Or, sure, counting them if they can actually demonstrate that their God really does exist.
Woh, that came out of nowhere.
Overall, freedom from a compatibilist perspective emphasizes the importance of internal factors such as beliefs, desires, and values in the decision-making process, and argues that even if our actions are determined by prior causes, we can still act freely and take responsibility for our actions if they reflect our internal motivations and values.
Oh, lookie, the next paragraph fits what I was saying. Real Yay: yay.
Here of course it comes down to exactly what is meant by "determined by prior causes". In other words, the extent to which what we think and feel and say and do is simply not determined by them in the manner in which all other matter is.
As usual generalized speech as if you were talking for us all. It doesn't come down to that, but perhaps that's what it comes down to FOR YOU. It's amazing how much you argue there are no universal values and yet you write as if there are and you know them. Anyway, yeah, he thinks they are determined. It's back there in the first quote.
And why isn't what you wrote in this post a bunch of intellectual contraptions. Why the fuck do you get to write intellectual contraptions but if other people write abstract stuff, oh, that's bad? [rhetorical question]
The profound mystery of mind itself. Minds of matter able to contemplate minds as matter when the only thing that is explaining it is the mind itself. The mind explaining itself while utterly oblivious regarding the explanation for the existence of existence itself.
How very odd. You say a universe beyond grasping itself and then link to information that a part of the universe has grasped about the universe. Are you upset that we don't know everything yet? I am sure it would be cool to know more, yes.
Those links seem to be a kind of 'Oh, the universe is so weird.*
Compared to what?
Or is it just a throwing up of hands?
Oh,well never know stuff.
For someone who talks a lot about potentially changing morals and opinions, you are one of the most consistant posters I have ever seen. Not just beliefs don't change, but strategy in posts, the mood of the posts.
I mean, I've seen VA's posts about as long as I've seen yours. VA, he became and antirealist in the last couple of years. He's going places.
