compatibilism

[iambiguous]

Some philosophers also argue that determinism is compatible with the idea of "self-determination," where a person's actions are determined by their character and values, rather than external factors. In this sense, a person's actions can be considered free if they are the result of their own autonomous choices, even if those choices are determined by their internal factors.

Back to the bifurcated brain. The brain parts that are wholly determined by the laws of matter and the brain parts revolving instead around character and values. "Somehow" here matter managed to reconfigure into autonomy. This mysterious "internal"/"external" argument that in a wholly determined universe as some are compelled to understand it is no less an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

Could you link to a place where a compatibilist talks about bifurcated brains, please? Of if that's your term for what they said, where a compatibilist talks about 2 different parts or branches of brains, one determined one not, a link or quote from a compatibilist talking about two different parts of the brain and one is determine and one is not.

In any case I don't see two brain parts in what you quoted.

Well, I broached my own understanding of it above in regard to Anton Chigurh:

Yet again, this sort of thinking simply baffles me. It encompasses the "free will determinism" I come upon here time and again in which someone argues for determinism but only as someone seemingly convinced that the argument itself is "somehow" of their own volition. The car that hits Chigurh could never have not hit him. And whether one calls it a manifestation of chance or of necessity one calls it that because in turn one was never able to call it anything other than what the brain compels one to call it. No free will and all plans are rational from the perspective of Nature. But the mystery then revolves around whether Nature itself has a perspective. With God, teleology is built right into the relationship between I and Thou. But of Nature itself in a No God universe?

And...

When Chigurh tells the gas station proprietor that he married into his position in life, he meant that his marrying and living in that house was not an act of will. Just the opposite, it was not reflected upon; he just happened to be there by the act of marriage.

Okay, but when Chigurh points this out it is not in a matter-of-fact manner. The inflection clearly suggests some measure of scorn. As though to note the distinction between himself as the Uberman and the gas station proprietor as the Last Man. Whereas, again, in a wholly determined universe as some understand it the two are entirely interchangeable in the only possible reality.

From my own frame of mind., it is as though some compatibilists here nod their heads and accept determinism...yet only in regard to all those "external factors". When it comes to certain "internal factors" like "character and values" then their brain is "somehow" actually in their own command.

And then the part here where I suggest that...

Yes, and that's when I muddy up the waters philosophically by suggesting that in regard to value judgments in a free will [or compatibilist] world this revolves more around dasein than deontology.

[Iwannaplato]

From my own frame of mind., it is as though some compatibilists here nod their heads and accept determinism...yet only in regard to all those "external factors". When it comes to certain "internal factors" like "character and values" then their brain is "somehow" actually in their own command.

OK, so there's nothing so far I can see about bifurcated brains in what you quoted from a compatibilist. Or?

I also pointed out how they were not saying that internal factors were not determined, or part of a chain of causes. I could show that in the quote.

So, where is this bifurcated brain idea coming from. I didn't see it in the No Country For Old Men story.

[iambiguous]

From my own frame of mind., it is as though some compatibilists here nod their heads and accept determinism...yet only in regard to all those "external factors". When it comes to certain "internal factors" like "character and values" then their brain is "somehow" actually in their own command.

OK, so there's nothing so far I can see about bifurcated brains in what you quoted from a compatibilist. Or?

I also pointed out how they were not saying that internal factors were not determined, or part of a chain of causes. I could show that in the quote.

So, where is this bifurcated brain idea coming from. I didn't see it in the No Country For Old Men story.

https://youtu.be/V2f-MZ2HRHQ

And I thought that, given free will, I had explained it so well!

[Iwannaplato]

https://youtu.be/V2f-MZ2HRHQ

And I thought that, given free will, I had explained it so well!

I asked you to link me to a compatibilist who talks about different brain parts or talks about bifuricated brains with one part free and the other determined.

You quoted yourself. You're not a compatibilist. You quoted the NCFOLM mulling, but that doesn't contain anything about bifurcated brains, or parts of brains that are free will-ish and others that are determined.

Do you have a compatibilist that talks about bifuricated brains in this way?

[iambiguous]

Reconciling Determinism and Free Will: A Compatibilist Perspective
Innocent Ociti

Free Will and the Problem of Causal Determinism

The problem of causal determinism is a philosophical issue that arises in discussions of free will. Causal determinism is the idea that all events, including human actions, are determined by prior causes and are thus inevitable. If causal determinism is true, it would seem to undermine the possibility of free will, as our actions would be predetermined and we would have no control over them.

Bingo!

Only here [for some of us] there seems to be a rub: how far to take this? In other words, is every single thing that we ever thought, felt, said or did in the past, and every single thing that we think, feel, say and do in the present and every single thing that we ever will think, feel, say and do in the future entirely determined in the only possible reality going back to what we actually do not fully grasp at all regarding matter and its laws given the existence of existence itself. And when matter evolved into biological organisms evolved into us here on Earth, did our brains "somehow" acquire the capacity to be autonomous?

Or not?

No, not completely free to do anything and everything that we wanted, want and will want, but able at least to freely will some aspects of our lives. Like me typing these words in my now instead of, say, going to the food store and you reading these words in your now instead of, say, plotting a murder.

Okay, Mr. Philosopher and Mr. Neuroscientist, get together, figure that out and get back to us. Unless, of course, Mr. Theologian has the better answer.

The problem of causal determinism has been a central issue in debates about free will, with some philosophers arguing that free will is incompatible with causal determinism, while others argue that the two can coexist. Those who argue that free will and causal determinism are incompatible are known as incompatibilists, while those who argue that the two can coexist are known as compatibilists.

And let's not forget this...

That this discussion and debate has been ongoing now for literally thousands of years. Going all the way back to the pre-Socratics in the West and, well, however far back it went in the East.

So, what is the final, most rational, most ontologically and teleologically sound resolution?

Do we or don't we?

And, in regard to my own main interest here...moral responsibility...if Mary aborts Jane because she was never, ever at all able not to abort her, is she still morally responsible for doing so?

Yes?

Explain that please.

[Flannel Jesus]

OK, so there's nothing so far I can see about bifurcated brains in what you quoted from a compatibilist. Or?

I'd like to know which compatibilists actually think like that as well. In all I've read by compatibilists, I have not come across any who take a position like that.

[iambiguous]

OK, so there's nothing so far I can see about bifurcated brains in what you quoted from a compatibilist. Or?

I'd like to know which compatibilists actually think like that as well. In all I've read by compatibilists, I have not come across any who take a position like that.

At least you can take comfort in the fact that you were never able not to think this. Unless, of course, you are able to. And that's the part I'm counting on in a free will world.

[Flannel Jesus]

You have provided me with a healthy chuckle, haha. We both would like to know now, where is this idea coming from? What compatibilists are saying this?

[iambiguous]

You have provided me with a healthy chuckle, haha. We both would like to know now, where is this idea coming from? What compatibilists are saying this?

Note to nature:

You tell him.

[Iwannaplato]

You have provided me with a healthy chuckle, haha. We both would like to know now, where is this idea coming from? What compatibilists are saying this?

Well, Flannel, it seems like he made up that thing about compatiblists claiming there is a bifuricated brain.

He has thrown some kind of argument against compatibilism in general and I suppose that is supposed to justify makign something up and then getting mocking when this is pointed out.

Sometimes people have a problem with conceding points.

[Flannel Jesus]

You have provided me with a healthy chuckle, haha. We both would like to know now, where is this idea coming from? What compatibilists are saying this?

Well, Flannel, it seems like he made up that thing about compatiblists claiming there is a bifuricated brain.

He has thrown some kind of argument against compatibilism in general and I suppose that is supposed to justify makign something up and then getting mocking when this is pointed out.

Sometimes people have a problem with conceding points.

I don't even understand the mocking. It's a very straight forward question. You say compatibilists say this, so where are the compatibilists that say this? Where did you get this from? Why are you saying this? There's no need for passive aggressive responses to all this, just an answer would be nice.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't even understand the mocking. It's a very straight forward question. You say compatibilists say this, so where are the compatibilists that say this? Where did you get this from? Why are you saying this? There's no need for passive aggressive responses to all this, just an answer would be nice.

Yes, at least something like. OK, they don't say that specifically. My sense is that their position entails a bifuficated brain with some parts free to do whatever and other parts utterly determined. Let me show you how what they say entails that.

Perhaps that's what he was doing, or trying to do, with the In The Country of Old Men argument.

But since he never mentions different parts of brains in that argument, at the very least it's not justifying his conclusion about brain parts.

It all comes off as....well, I showed you that compatibilism is silly, so I'm not going to concede some 'detail'. But who knows. One is left guessing and mocked with points ignored.

[Iwannaplato]

If we thought back to my The Rhetoric of PN, which he assumed was all about him, he wanted his rhetorical strategies pointed out. Well, here's one. Instead of directly addressing the question, we get repetitions (long) of things that do not directly address the question/request. Then mocking.

[Flannel Jesus]

I would like to show, by example, what a post without any passive aggressiveness or other toxic rhetorical techniques looks like, which I will do in my next post. My next post will consist of my honest thoughts, laid bare as plainly as I can. I will just say what I think about the issue and why.

I would hope that iamb will respond in a similar fashion.

[Flannel Jesus]

The reason why I am focused on this is because this understanding of compatibilism runs exactly opposite to what I think compatibilism means at its root.

Iamb has said, in a number of different ways in various posts, over many months, that compatibilists seem to think humans, or human behaviour, or human brains are somehow an exception to deterministic physics. That for compatibilists, all of physics is deterministic except the physics involved in producing human decisions. The most recent phrasing of this idea is in the "bifurcated brain" idea presented in the last page.

Why I disagree:

The root word of compatibilism is compatible. Of the 13 letters in compatibilism, the first 10 are exactly the same, and in the same order, as compatible. Compatibilism is, at its root, about a compatibility - if it wasn't, it would be a terrible misnomer. Compatibility between what? Free will and determinism, of course (or at least some specific notions of free will).

If a compatibilist feels the need to make an exception to determinism, specifically in a human brain, in order for free will to exist to that compatibilist, then that says one thing clearly: that compatibilist does not believe free will and determinism are compatible.

If you need to make an exception to determinism in order to allow for free will, then you cannot be a compatibilist, because you do not believe the two things are compatible.

If you do believe they are compatible, you don't need to make an exception. Determinism could be the case everywhere, all the time, including in every part of a human brain, and a compatibilist would still believe that free will was there.

This is why I personally push back against this notion that compatibilists are making these arbitrary exceptions for human brains. It seems to me that that goes against what compatibilism means at its very roots. I've read plenty of literature by compatibilists and I feel confident in saying that, at least for the most part, published works by actual compatibilists conforms to what I've said above: that determinism and free will are fully compatible, and there is no need to make any exceptions for human brains or human behaviour whatsoever.