compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

On the other "other hand", however, compatibilism still makes absolutely no sense to me.

Libertarians: you chose to do that. You might have done something else. The future was not determined. You are responsible because despite being utterly free and the future utterly undetermined you did a bad thing. You are bad.
Compatiblists: You did that. What you did was caused and inevitable. The future was not indeterminate. You were always going to do that. However, we still treat you as the person who raped. Why? Because you are someone who rapes. You desired to rape. You did not feel enough compassion for the person you raped to not rape. You are that person, the one who rapes. You have those desires. We see you as a person who rapes.We need to deal with that.

Now compatibilists may vary on the specifics of how they 'hold that rapist responsible' and what their goals are. Incarceration could be primarily to keep the rapist away from potential victims. It could be an added deterrent: In a society where nothing is done to rapists, they have no extra reason not to rape. So they rape. But if rapists are punished severely, perhaps their rapists peers will, now that there is another cause in the game, suppress their urge to rape.

If I have a toaster that starts a fire with my bread each time, I will, at least in a sense, hold that toaster responsible for the fires. I will consider it a bad and dangerous toaster. Yes, I may sue the company or at least ask for another. But I will still view that toaster as a bad toaster. I am going to throw that toaster out and use the one that doesn't start a fire. I don't think the toaster could have done something else at that time, but I still deal with the problem and focus responsibility for the fire on the toaster. Repairing the toaster, should I or we have the skills, could be another option, perhaps analagous to rehabilitation or therapy (to get at the roots of my toaster's rage at women...I mean, at bread)

Yes, believing in compatibilism might lead many to have a 'there but for the grace of god or the right genes or the right childhood go I.' But in certain basic ways compatibilists still hold people responsible for their actions. These see those people as being a problem to be dealt with, even if that person's actions were determined long ago.

If the problem with understanding all this is that this is all unfair. and He couldn't help but be a rapist. I think in the main this misses the point. We still need (or at least generally want) to do something about this guy. Do we put all the women in prison, so he can't get at them? We could hold them responsible for solving the problem. But that's not a great or practical idea. And we dislike him as an agent in society. We dislike him just like I dislike my fire hazard toaster. It's a bad toaster. I know my toaster can't help it, but I am going to treat it in certain ways because of its behavior.

I don't think of mosquitos as morally responsible but I sure as shit slap them dead. I could go and yell at God for creating them and making them bloodsuckers or I could find some mosquito DNA under a microscope lens and yell at it or put it in a freezer. But hey, that doesn't solve anything. I want that mosquito that landed on my arm to not have a chance to get more of my blood or more of its irritant spittle in my body.

Let's acknowledge: holding someone responsible may not mean exactly the same thing in compatibilism and other belief systems. Nevertheless for me the word can cover the various senses fairly well and there is overlap, including in how one responds.

The qualities in the rapist that lead to the rape are a part of who/what he is. Perhaps he can change, but I hold him responsible and deal with him as the source of the problem. He's a guy who likes to rape women. He's not a mere victim of happenstance. If someone hijacks his brain or sticks a chip in his brain adn controls him for an hour and he rapes someone, then really, he lacks the internal compulsions that lead to rape, but given the control of a rapist by proxy, his body did things he would not normally do. I am happy to have him free in society, once the chip is removed. It doesn't make sense to hold him responsible. His nature is not that of a rapist. If someone puts soap in my soup, I don't blame the soup. I don't stop eating soup.

I might, in addition, take measures in relation to misogyny in general. IOW I might not hold him solely responsible, but I will take steps to restrict someone who wants to rape enough to have done it. A compatibilist, like determinists in general, I would guess, see a wider range of causes in specific human actions. They might think of a number of things, including the rapist, as responsible. But he is the gut that desires to rape and puts this into action. If my kid had a doll that cut my kid's hands I will treat it differently and consider it causal in harm. The doll that is better made, I will treat differently and not consider it a bad doll.

"Compatibilism, on the other hand, places a greater emphasis on the idea that we are responsible for our actions because they are in line with our desires and motivations, even if those desires and motivations are themselves determined by prior causes."

Those "internal" -- intuitive -- factors that come into play for human beings that "deep down inside" convince them [including me] that they have free will. Even though these desires and motivations are themselves determined by prior causes?

And the compatibilist knows, it is inherent in the compatibilist position, that those desires and motivations are determined by prior causes. Well, it says it right there. They might well agree that these lead to the 'I have free will' qualia. Or what we think of that way.

[iambiguous]

An Argument For Compatibilism
From the Specter of Reason website

Compatibilism is the idea that there is no conflict between determinism and free will. Incompatibilism is the idea that free will cannot exist in a deterministic universe. There's been a lot of discussion over which view is correct. What's remarkable about the debate isn't so much the stubbornness or passion which has been exhibited by this or that party, but the fact that the very terms of the debate are controversial.

Most controversial of all perhaps is that the controversy may well be unfolding itself in the only possible world. And no matter how each of us reacts to that, those reactions too are no less an inherent component of the only possible reality. And if some do get passionate in insisting that how they construe the human condition here is the one and the only way in which all rational men and women are obligated to think about it...same thing?

From the perspective of particular determinists, passionate emotions encompassed in outbursts and rational thoughts expressed after long deliberation are interchangeable. Our brains merely programmed us to react to them [and intuitions] in such a way that we think we are doing it autonomously and not autonomically.

There is a great deal of confusion about what the key issues in the debate are and how we should be talking about them.

Yes, and in my view that always comes back to 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.

Of course we are confused. Since we don't know how or why something instead of nothing exists, or how or why it is this something and not something else, or if there is or is not a Creator, or how and why biological life managed to evolve into us. That is precisely why many philosophers among us are so keen on keeping their own conclusions ensconced in the realm of "ideas".

What could possibly be more controversial than mindless matter "somehow" evolving into...us. Whatever that means?

As a result, there is a meta-debate within the debate itself. You cannot engage in the debate without also engaging in a debate about the debate--about what issues are at stake and about how the issues should be framed.

Exactly. Here we here discussing and debating the existence of free will in the human species on Earth. What I basically do then is to shift the exchange further away from what we think we know and believe about compatibilism and focus instead more on how as individuals we came to think and to feel and to intuit what we do about it. The existential variables rooted in all historical and cultural contexts and those more suited to particular lives.

What can be conveyed to us by philosophers as right or wrong objectively? In a No God world.

[iambiguous]

On the other "other hand", however, compatibilism still makes absolutely no sense to me. Well, other than because my brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compels me to be flummoxed when contemplating it only as [up until now] I only ever could have been.

Now, the libertarians may well be right here. But they are no less just like all the rest of us in being unable to explain "scientifically" or "philosophically" [other than up in the intellectual clouds] how, when, biologically, life began to evolve here on planet Earth, it "somehow" evolved into autonomous human beings. It just...happened.

And most libertarians that I have met simply shrug off the points I raise regarding the role that dasein plays in predisposing mere mortals in a No God world to embrace particular sets of political prejudices. Biases rooted existentially in particular historical, cultural and personal interactions.

Libertarians: you chose to do that. You might have done something else. The future was not determined. You are responsible because despite being utterly free and the future utterly undetermined you did a bad thing. You are bad.

Sure, intellectually, philosophically, some merely aver this to be the case. They are unable -- scientifically, neurologically, chemically, etc., -- to explain how this unfolded when matter evolved into us. But it just did. God or No God.

Compatiblists: You did that. What you did was caused and inevitable. The future was not indeterminate. You were always going to do that. However, we still treat you as the person who raped. Why? Because you are someone who rapes. You desired to rape. You did not feel enough compassion for the person you raped to not rape. You are that person, the one who rapes. You have those desires. We see you as a person who rapes. We need to deal with that.

Right, like how we treat the rapist isn't also wholly determined by our own brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter. As though "mysteriously enough" our emotions and intuitions -- desires and motivations -- are just somehow "different".

The rapist not only wanted to rape but he wanted to want to rape as well. But "somehow" the desires some have to punish the rapist really are their own "autonomous" reactions. Same material brains...but not really the same at all.

Somehow.

If the problem with understanding all this is that this is all unfair. and He couldn't help but be a rapist. I think in the main this misses the point. We still need (or at least generally want) to do something about this guy. Do we put all the women in prison, so he can't get at them? We could hold them responsible for solving the problem. But that's not a great or practical idea. And we dislike him as an agent in society. We dislike him just like I dislike my fire hazard toaster. It's a bad toaster. I know my toaster can't help it, but I am going to treat it in certain ways because of its behavior.

And around and around we go. The rapist could not have not raped. But we can choose how we react to the rapist ourselves? And all Iwannaplato and I are doing here is exchanging posts that could never have been other than what they must be in the only possible reality.

Sure, you can argue that we are different from the rapist in that the rapist could never have not raped but we can choose "freely" what to do about him...but how exactly beyond a world of words is this demonstrated by, say, the neuroscientists?

Let's acknowledge: holding someone responsible may not mean exactly the same thing in compatibilism and other belief systems. Nevertheless for me the word can cover the various senses fairly well and there is overlap, including in how one responds.

Again, the assumption being that "somehow" in explaining what the word "covers" means to him above, he was able of his own free will to opt to explain it differently?

Those "internal" -- intuitive -- factors that come into play for human beings that "deep down inside" convince them [including me] that they have free will. Even though these desires and motivations are themselves determined by prior causes?

And the compatibilist knows, it is inherent in the compatibilist position, that those desires and motivations are determined by prior causes. Well, it says it right there. They might well agree that these lead to the 'I have free will' qualia. Or what we think of that way.

Again, what libertarians and determinists and compatibilist know about rape and reacting to it are all derived from the same human brain. And this brain either wholly compels everything that we think and feel and say and do or "somehow" in ways that the hard guys and gals don't fully grasp yet -- let alone philosophers -- autonomy became a component of the human brain.

If the rapist must rape but we may or may not react to the rape as others do -- some are enraged by it while others are fully aroused -- how does that work inside the human brain itself? What explains the difference?

[Iwannaplato]

Right, like how we treat the rapist isn't also wholly determined by our own brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter. As though "mysteriously enough" our emotions and intuitions -- desires and motivations -- are just somehow "different".

I said nothing about that. That's where you add in something.

The rapist not only wanted to rape but he wanted to want to rape as well. But "somehow" the desires some have to punish the rapist really are their own "autonomous" reactions. Same material brains...but not really the same at all.

No, a compatibilist would assert that both their brains and the rapist brains are not undetermined. They are not asserting that their brains are undetermined or different from the rapists' brains, as far as free will and determinism.

You're adding assertions/ideas to what I wrote and to compatibilism.

And around and around we go. The rapist could not have not raped. But we can choose how we react to the rapist ourselves?

Never asserted that. You're adding assertions/ideas to what I wrote and to compatibilism.

And all Iwannaplato and I are doing here is exchanging posts that could never have been other than what they must be in the only possible reality.

Sure, you can argue that we are different from the rapist in that the rapist could never have not raped but we can choose "freely" what to do about him...but how exactly beyond a world of words is this demonstrated by, say, the neuroscientists?

Never argued that. The compatibilist does not believe that. You're adding assertions/ideas to what I wrote and to compatibilism.

Let's acknowledge: holding someone responsible may not mean exactly the same thing in compatibilism and other belief systems. Nevertheless for me the word can cover the various senses fairly well and there is overlap, including in how one responds.

Again, the assumption being that "somehow" in explaining what the word "covers" means to him above, he was able of his own free will to opt to explain it differently?

Nope never asserted that.

Again, what libertarians and determinists and compatibilist know about rape and reacting to it are all derived from the same human brain. And this brain either wholly compels everything that we think and feel and say and do or "somehow" in ways that the hard guys and gals don't fully grasp yet -- let alone philosophers -- autonomy became a component of the human brain.

If the rapist must rape but we may or may not react to the rape as others do -- some are enraged by it while others are fully aroused -- how does that work inside the human brain itself? What explains the difference?

Nope, everyone is determined.

You're adding things to the compatibilist position that it does not have.

I'm not sure what is happening for you when you read accounts of compalitiblism and add in these assertions about exceptions. Also compatibilism is not softer than other compatibilism. (you mentioned the hard guys, which I assumed is coming from the idea of hard determinism and your sense that compatibilism is and or must be soft. There is not less determinism in compatibilism. And the compatibilists themselves are not exceptions, in some way, to deteminism. No one is asserting that.

Those are your additions. Perhaps some compatibilist asserted that, though I doubt Flannel Jesus did. In any case the argument most compatibilists make is not that determinism has some slack or that they or humans or some humans are exceptions to determinism. They do not believe that.

So, you came to my post with those assumptions in place., I think.

Because you just responded as if I asserted those things and I did not.

Consider the possbility that you are assuming what people must mean, rather than reading what they say.

In any case I gave it my shot.

Carry on.

[iambiguous]

Right, like how we treat the rapist isn't also wholly determined by our own brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter. As though "mysteriously enough" our emotions and intuitions -- desires and motivations -- are just somehow "different".

I said nothing about that. That's where you add in something.

More to the point [for some], were you ever able to say anything other than what your brain compelled you to say? Are your own desires and motivations here autonomous? How would you go about determining that?

The rapist not only wanted to rape but he wanted to want to rape as well. But "somehow" the desires some have to punish the rapist really are their own "autonomous" reactions. Same material brains...but not really the same at all.

No, a compatibilist would assert that both their brains and the rapist brains are not undetermined. They are not asserting that their brains are undetermined or different from the rapists' brains, as far as free will and determinism.

You're adding assertions/ideas to what I wrote and to compatibilism.

No, I'm ever and always trying to grasp how one can argue that Mike was never able not to rape Maria, but is still morally responsibile for doing so. Other than because one argues that he is morally responsible for doing so only because in turn one was never able not to argue otherwise. It's not what compatibilists assert [about anything] but whether they are free to opt to asssert otherwise.

Maybe [God or No God] and maybe not. We just don't know for sure. Not only that but philosophers often broach, explore, encompass and "resolve" it only in a world of words. The arguments -- accumulating definitions and deductions -- themselves become the "proof".

And around and around we go. The rapist could not have not raped. But we can choose how we react to the rapist ourselves?

Never asserted that. You're adding assertions/ideas to what I wrote and to compatibilism.

Okay, let's try to be clearer. For the compatibilists among us, what are you saying by way of reacting to Mike raping Maria? Do you agree that the rape was fated or destined to be, but that you yourself are not fated or destined to react to it as you do? How is Mike's brain different from your brain here?

And all Iwannaplato and I are doing here is exchanging posts that could never have been other than what they must be in the only possible reality.

Sure, you can argue that we are different from the rapist in that the rapist could never have not raped but we can choose "freely" what to do about him...but how exactly beyond a world of words is this demonstrated by, say, the neuroscientists?

Never argued that. The compatibilist does not believe that. You're adding assertions/ideas to what I wrote and to compatibilism.

And around and around and around we go. You asserting only that which you were never freely able not to assert and me adding only that which I was never able not to add?

Let's acknowledge: holding someone responsible may not mean exactly the same thing in compatibilism and other belief systems. Nevertheless for me the word can cover the various senses fairly well and there is overlap, including in how one responds.

Again, the assumption being that "somehow" in explaining what the word "covers" means to him above, he was able of his own free will to opt to explain it differently?

Nope never asserted that.

Instead, you asserted only that which you were never able not to assert?

Again, what libertarians and determinists and compatibilist know about rape and reacting to it are all derived from the same human brain. And this brain either wholly compels everything that we think and feel and say and do or "somehow" in ways that the hard guys and gals don't fully grasp yet -- let alone philosophers -- autonomy became a component of the human brain.

If the rapist must rape but we may or may not react to the rape as others do -- some are enraged by it while others are fully aroused -- how does that work inside the human brain itself? What explains the difference?

Nope, everyone is determined.

Yeah, that's the assumption "here and now" that I make. Mike is wholly determined to rape. The rest of us are wholly determined to react to it only as we must. Some are wholly determined to be outraged by it, others wholly determined to be aroused by it. Some are compelled to want the rapist punished, others are compelled to want to rape someone themselves. But nothing unfolds as anything less than the only possible manner in which things could ever have unfolded.

You're adding things to the compatibilist position that it does not have.

Or I'm adding only that which I was never able to freely opt not to add.

I'm not sure what is happening for you when you read accounts of compalitiblism and add in these assertions about exceptions. Also compatibilism is not softer than other compatibilism. (you mentioned the hard guys, which I assumed is coming from the idea of hard determinism and your sense that compatibilism is and or must be soft. There is not less determinism in compatibilism. And the compatibilists themselves are not exceptions, in some way, to deteminism. No one is asserting that.

More abstract philosophical speculation. And I get that because even if we do possess at least some measure of free will, in not being brain scientists ourselves, most of us have little more to offer than intellectual contraption arguments..."worlds of words".

Those are your additions. Perhaps some compatibilist asserted that, though I doubt Flannel Jesus did. In any case the argument most compatibilists make is not that determinism has some slack or that they or humans or some humans are exceptions to determinism. They do not believe that.

Again, if all of us believe only what our material brains compel us to believe what "for all practical purposes" does it matter what we believe? Mike is still compelled to rape Maria as he must and we are still compelled to react to the rape as we must.

Consider the possbility that you are assuming what people must mean, rather than reading what they say.

Consider that possibility yourself.

What I'm interested in is noting what the compatibilists would say to Mike and Maria in a world where Mike is compelled to rape her and the rest of us are compelled to react to it in the only possible reality.

[Iwannaplato]

More to the point [for some], were you ever able to say anything other than what your brain compelled you to say? Are your own desires and motivations here autonomous? How would you go about determining that?

I believe a compatibilist would say that I was never going to say anything else. In fact I alread said that.....

Compatiblists: You did that. What you did was caused and inevitable. The future was not indeterminate. You were always going to do that. However, we still treat you as the person who raped. Why? Because you are someone who rapes. You desired to rape. You did not feel enough compassion for the person you raped to not rape. You are that person, the one who rapes. You have those desires. We see you as a person who rapes.We need to deal with that.

The rapist not only wanted to rape but he wanted to want to rape as well. But "somehow" the desires some have to punish the rapist really are their own "autonomous" reactions. Same material brains...but not really the same at all.

No, I'm ever and always trying to grasp how one can argue that Mike was never able not to rape Maria,

Fine, but you said that the compatibilist is saying that their brains are somehow free of determinism. You said that a few times. But they aren't saying that and I didn't say they said that.

but is still morally responsibile for doing so. Other than because one argues that he is morally responsible for doing so only because in turn one was never able not to argue otherwise. It's not what compatibilists assert [about anything] but whether they are free to opt to asssert otherwise.

I made it clear that they were always going to assert as they asserted. I also explained how the responsibility has to do with the nature of the perpetrator not his, in the case of the rapist, possibility for having done something else.

Maybe [God or No God] and maybe not. We just don't know for sure. Not only that but philosophers often broach, explore, encompass and "resolve" it only in a world of words. The arguments -- accumulating definitions and deductions -- themselves become the "proof".

I don't think I have proven anything, nor did I say I proved something, nor do I think compatibilists have proven anything. Proofs, if anywhere, are for things like math problems and symbolic logic.

And around and around we go. The rapist could not have not raped. But we can choose how we react to the rapist ourselves?

Never asserted that. You're adding assertions/ideas to what I wrote and to compatibilism.

Okay, let's try to be clearer. For the compatibilists among us, what are you saying by way of reacting to Mike raping Maria? Do you agree that the rape was fated or destined to be, but that you yourself are not fated or destined to react to it as you do? How is Mike's brain different from your brain here?

I made it clear that all the brains involved were always gonig to react as they did. It's there in my self-quote above.

And all Iwannaplato and I are doing here is exchanging posts that could never have been other than what they must be in the only possible reality.

Obviously, if compatiblism or any other determinism is the case, this is true.

Never argued that. The compatibilist does not believe that. You're adding assertions/ideas to what I wrote and to compatibilism.

And around and around and around we go. You asserting only that which you were never freely able not to assert and me adding only that which I was never able not to add?

OK. But even with determinism it is possible to learn. I assert something. You tell me that I asserted something else. I say 'I never asserted that.' Some people can go and check and see. Then they realize 'Oh, he didn't assert that.' They learn that they made a mistake. Yes, if you can't or won't do that, that just like the people who do learn, is something that was always going to happen. But if you can't learn when things that are fairly easy to check are pointed out to you, then you become, for many people a less interesting conversation partner. Yes, given your nature, you were always going to not learn when certain things are pointed out. But given that not everyone is like that, some people are doing to choose not to interact. And according to a compatibilist all this was always what was going to happen.

So, can you manage to admit that I never asserted that compatibilist brains were free in some way from determinism?

If you can't, fine. And yes, that inability, in this moment, was always going to be the outcome of this exchange.

Let's acknowledge: holding someone responsible may not mean exactly the same thing in compatibilism and other belief systems. Nevertheless for me the word can cover the various senses fairly well and there is overlap, including in how one responds.

Again, the assumption being that "somehow" in explaining what the word "covers" means to him above, he was able of his own free will to opt to explain it differently?

No, no assumption of that.

Nope never asserted that.

Instead, you asserted only that which you were never able not to assert?

Yes. In a compatibilist view, it was always going to end up as it did.

Again, what libertarians and determinists and compatibilist know about rape and reacting to it are all derived from the same human brain. And this brain either wholly compels everything that we think and feel and say and do or "somehow" in ways that the hard guys and gals don't fully grasp yet -- let alone philosophers -- autonomy became a component of the human brain.

If the rapist must rape but we may or may not react to the rape as others do -- some are enraged by it while others are fully aroused -- how does that work inside the human brain itself? What explains the difference?

Nope, everyone is determined.

Yeah, that's the assumption "here and now" that I make. Mike is wholly determined to rape. The rest of us are wholly determined to react to it only as we must. Some are wholly determined to be outraged by it, others wholly determined to be aroused by it. Some are compelled to want the rapist punished, others are compelled to want to rape someone themselves. But nothing unfolds as anything less than the only possible manner in which things could ever have unfolded.

And including that many assign responsibility to the rapist for the reasons I gave in the original post. Reasons you haven't responded to.

It seems like your position is : if it was inevitable for him to have raped, we cannot give him responsibility. You haven't justified that position. Nor have you responded to the reasons why I don't think that argument holds.

You're adding things to the compatibilist position that it does not have.

Or I'm adding only that which I was never able to freely opt not to add.

Those are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure what is happening for you when you read accounts of compalitiblism and add in these assertions about exceptions. Also compatibilism is not softer than other compatibilism. (you mentioned the hard guys, which I assumed is coming from the idea of hard determinism and your sense that compatibilism is and or must be soft. There is not less determinism in compatibilism. And the compatibilists themselves are not exceptions, in some way, to deteminism. No one is asserting that.

More abstract philosophical speculation.

In response to a false abstract assertion on your part.

And I get that because even if we do possess at least some measure of free will, in not being brain scientists ourselves, most of us have little more to offer than intellectual contraption arguments..."worlds of words".

Then I don't understand what you are doing.

This is a discussion forum. You posted a thread here. If you think only brain scientists could possibly have a valid point about the issue and you will respond to everyone else by saying they asserted things they did not and dismiss their points because they are not brain scientists, you should probably put 'BRAIN SCIENTISTS RESPONSES ONLY' in the title.

Again, if all of us believe only what our material brains compel us to believe what "for all practical purposes" does it matter what we believe? Mike is still compelled to rape Maria as he must and we are still compelled to react to the rape as we must.

Of course.

I black box the issue, myself. It seemed like you were trying to understand how compatibilists could assign respnosibility to, for example, criminals, given that the criminals, in determinism, were always going to act that way. I explained their justification for that above. if you're not interested in that justification and I misread your interest here, well, my bad.

Consider the possbility that you are assuming what people must mean, rather than reading what they say.

Consider that possibility yourself.

What I'm interested in is noting what the compatibilists would say to Mike and Maria in a world where Mike is compelled to rape her and the rest of us are compelled to react to it in the only possible reality.

I already answered that. Take my remarks which are in the third person and change them to the second person. Yes, you're acts were determined and inevitable, but you are a person who rapes. You are a person who lacks compassion and are a danger. and so on.

You haven't really responded to what I wrote specifically on that issue. Or the analogies I used. You never really countered the points I made specifically on how one can assign responsibility, in the compatibilist view, to someone who like everyone else, was only going to do what they did.

And yes, you were always going to react this way.

But now I understand that you really only would respect a brain scientists input. And I have learned once again that you don't really respond to posts - in my potentially fallible and possibly inevitable analysis - you are content to repeat things you have said often hundreds of times, to avoid responding to the central points mad by other poeple, to accuse people of going things (speculating abstractly) that you do and where it is an appropriate response to your abstract speculation and so on. And yes, if the compatibilists and other determinists are right, you couldn't help but do anything else.

I'm neither a determinist of any king nor am I a free will person. it seems to me a compatibilist is not being a hypocrite if they hold someone responsible for their actions, for reasons given back in the first post of this latest exchange. You opted not to respond to those. You the informed me that my not being a brain scientist meant that what I had to say could not possibly be useful.

OK, that seems a bit rude and implicitly ad hom. I know, I know. From your perspective I am suddenly and unjustifiably making this about you, perhaps even rising to the level of 'being a stooge'.

From my persepective you were rude, did not respond to the central point I made and repeatedly responded as if I had asserted something I had not. When this is pointed out, instead of checking to see if I had asserted it you told me that we were always going to have this exchange. Great, think of that as my defense of including some comments about you. You obviously have no trouble assigning responsibility to people for 'making this about you' but for some reason you think determinism should let the rapist off since they were always going to rape. Your own behavior might let you know how a compatibilist could hold someone responsible despite their belief that that person's behavior was inevitable.

[Flannel Jesus]

This may not even be worth stating, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway:

One need not be a determinist to be a compatibilist.

In fact I would go as far as to say that if it were proven tomorrow that no flavour of determinism is the case in the universe, I would probably remain a compatibilist myself.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/ ... inism_are/

Compatibilism just means free will and determinism are compatible - one could be an indeterminist but still think they're compatible concepts.

[iambiguous]

More to the point [for some], were you ever able to say anything other than what your brain compelled you to say? Are your own desires and motivations here autonomous? How would you go about determining that?

I believe a compatibilist would say that I was never going to say anything else. In fact I alread said that.....

Compatiblists: You did that. What you did was caused and inevitable. The future was not indeterminate. You were always going to do that. However, we still treat you as the person who raped. Why? Because you are someone who rapes. You desired to rape. You did not feel enough compassion for the person you raped to not rape. You are that person, the one who rapes. You have those desires. We see you as a person who rapes. We need to deal with that.

The rapist not only wanted to rape but he wanted to want to rape as well. But "somehow" the desires some have to punish the rapist really are their own "autonomous" reactions. Same material brains...but not really the same at all.

No, I'm ever and always trying to grasp how one can argue that Mike was never able not to rape Maria,

Fine, but you said that the compatibilist is saying that their brains are somehow free of determinism. You said that a few times. But they aren't saying that and I didn't say they said that.

What difference does it make what they say about anything when everything that they do say they say only because they were never able to freely opt not to say it? Then back to the compatibilists among us here explaining how they are still responsible for saying it. Back to them explaining how, given their own understanding of determinism, Mary is still morally responsible for aborting Jane and Mike is still morally responsible for raping Maria.

To wit...

...but is still morally responsibile for doing so. Other than because one argues that he is morally responsible for doing so only because in turn one was never able not to argue otherwise. It's not what compatibilists assert [about anything] but whether they are free to opt to asssert otherwise.

I made it clear that they were always going to assert as they asserted. I also explained how the responsibility has to do with the nature of the perpetrator not his, in the case of the rapist, possibility for having done something else.

Same thing. How "for all practical purposes" is this applicable to Mary and Mike? They are compelled to abort and to rape by "nature" -- the laws of matter -- and could never of their own free will have opted not to. Just as you and I are compelled by our brains to react as we must to abortion and rape. The part I root existentially, subjectively, subjunctively in dasein. So, even if we do have free will in a No God world it doesn't make the Benjamin Button Syndrome any less applicable in regard to human interactions that are judged morally and politically. At least --click -- given the arguments I make in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Maybe [God or No God] and maybe not. We just don't know for sure. Not only that but philosophers often broach, explore, encompass and "resolve" it only in a world of words. The arguments -- accumulating definitions and deductions -- themselves become the "proof".

I don't think I have proven anything, nor did I say I proved something, nor do I think compatibilists have proven anything. Proofs, if anywhere, are for things like math problems and symbolic logic.

Yes, proofs revolve around human interactions in the either/or world. Human interactions that "somehow" encompass free will. Mary either aborts Jane or she doesn't. Mike either rapes Maria or he doesn't. And you and I "here and now" react to abortion and rape as we do. Again, the part I root existentially in moral nihilism and dasein, the part others here root in God or in ideology or in genes or in deontology.

And around and around we go. The rapist could not have not raped. But we can choose how we react to the rapist ourselves?

Never asserted that. You're adding assertions/ideas to what I wrote and to compatibilism.

Okay, let's try to be clearer. For the compatibilists among us, what are you saying by way of reacting to Mike raping Maria? Do you agree that the rape was fated or destined to be, but that you yourself are not fated or destined to react to it as you do? How is Mike's brain different from your brain here?

I made it clear that all the brains involved were always gonig to react as they did. It's there in my self-quote above.

"As they did". How then is that the same or different from "as they must"?

And all Iwannaplato and I are doing here is exchanging posts that could never have been other than what they must be in the only possible reality.

Obviously, if compatiblism or any other determinism is the case, this is true.

Wait. From my frame of mind --- click -- compatibilists [as I understand them] reconcile determinism and moral responsibility. And the only way that makes sense to me is if the reconciliation itself is also an inherent component of the only possible reality. Mike and Mary are determined -- fated, destined -- to abort and rape. You and I are determined -- fated, destined -- to react to abortion and rape as we do. Nothing composed of matter is not wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

It's just that the human brain is matter like no other matter around. Then cue "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule". All the things here in which this...

"...but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

...is applicable. And not just in regard to the war in Iraq.

Never argued that. The compatibilist does not believe that. You're adding assertions/ideas to what I wrote and to compatibilism.

And around and around and around we go. You asserting only that which you were never freely able not to assert and me adding only that which I was never able not to add?

OK. But even with determinism it is possible to learn. I assert something. You tell me that I asserted something else. I say 'I never asserted that.' Some people can go and check and see.

Note to others:

Okay, assuming that we have "somehow" acquired free will given the evolution of biological matter here on planet Earth, note some examples from above of what he is referring to here.

And with determinism as some understand it, it's not that we learn but that what we do learn is the only thing that we ever could have learned.

Thus, in regard to this...

Then they realize 'Oh, he didn't assert that.' They learn that they made a mistake. Yes, if you can't or won't do that, that just like the people who do learn, is something that was always going to happen. But if you can't learn when things that are fairly easy to check are pointed out to you, then you become, for many people a less interesting conversation partner. Yes, given your nature, you were always going to not learn when certain things are pointed out. But given that not everyone is like that, some people are doing to choose not to interact. And according to a compatibilist all this was always what was going to happen.

...the assumption [from my frame of mind] is that all of this is unfolding in the only possible manner it ever could have unfolded. So, if some here are compelled by their brains to stop interacting with me, where does the part about responsibility come into play?

So, can you manage to admit that I never asserted that compatibilist brains were free in some way from determinism?

This is basically how the libertarians react. Their assumption is that I can freely opt to think all of this through again and finally admit that you or others are right about me. Why? Because from their frame of mind, human brains are indeed fundamentally different from all other matter. I can of my own volition begin to grasp your point and come around to it. Whereas your rendition of compatibilism [as I understand or misunderstand it] is nothing at all like mine is.

Let's acknowledge: holding someone responsible may not mean exactly the same thing in compatibilism and other belief systems. Nevertheless for me the word can cover the various senses fairly well and there is overlap, including in how one responds.

Again, the assumption being that "somehow" in explaining what the word "covers" means to him above, he was able of his own free will to opt to explain it differently?

No, no assumption of that.

Then we are clearly stuck here regarding how we understand/misunderstand each other.

Nope never asserted that.

Instead, you asserted only that which you were never able not to assert?

Yes. In a compatibilist view, it was always going to end up as it did.

Yet you are still responsible for how it does end up. The part that still makes no sense to me.

Again, what libertarians and determinists and compatibilist know about rape and reacting to it are all derived from the same human brain. And this brain either wholly compels everything that we think and feel and say and do or "somehow" in ways that the hard guys and gals don't fully grasp yet -- let alone philosophers -- autonomy became a component of the human brain.

If the rapist must rape but we may or may not react to the rape as others do -- some are enraged by it while others are fully aroused -- how does that work inside the human brain itself? What explains the difference?

Nope, everyone is determined.

Yeah, that's the assumption "here and now" that I make. Mike is wholly determined to rape. The rest of us are wholly determined to react to it only as we must. Some are wholly determined to be outraged by it, others wholly determined to be aroused by it. Some are compelled to want the rapist punished, others are compelled to want to rape someone themselves. But nothing unfolds as anything less than the only possible manner in which things could ever have unfolded.

And including that many assign responsibility to the rapist for the reasons I gave in the original post. Reasons you haven't responded to.

Again, if I responded to you only as my brain compelled me to respond to you, and you are reacting to that only as your brain compels you to, how does responsibility factor into it?

Look, I'm more than willing to acknowledge that your argument here is more reasonable than mine...given a capacity on our part to opt among alternative arguments. But I clearly understand determinism differently from how I think you think you understand it in regard to compatibilism and moral responsibility.

It seems like your position is : if it was inevitable for him to have raped, we cannot give him responsibility. You haven't justified that position. Nor have you responded to the reasons why I don't think that argument holds.

Typical libertarian/free will frame of mind? Mike wasn't compelled to rape. He chose to of his own free will. And that is precisely why of our own free will we can hold him responsible. If Mike was wholly determined/fated/destined to rape as he must and we are wholly determined/fated/destined to react to this rape as we must, responsibility [to me here and now] is no less a manifestation of the illusion of free will.

Again, it's like Mike raped someone in his dream. Or you and I held someone responsible for a rape in our dreams. Then we all wake up and recognize it that it was our brains -- and our brains alone -- that created -- this "reality".

And I get that because even if we do possess at least some measure of free will, in not being brain scientists ourselves, most of us have little more to offer than intellectual contraption arguments..."worlds of words".

Then I don't understand what you are doing.

This is a discussion forum. You posted a thread here. If you think only brain scientists could possibly have a valid point about the issue and you will respond to everyone else by saying they asserted things they did not and dismiss their points because they are not brain scientists, you should probably put 'BRAIN SCIENTISTS RESPONSES ONLY' in the title.

Come on, if I created this thread as an objectivist, I would be insisting that how I understand determinism, free will and compatibilism is the most rational manner in which they can be understood. But -- click -- I flat out admit that is not the case at all. Sure, maybe there is a philosophical argument that resolves it. That's what I'm doing here. Attempting to understand how, given the manner in which some compatibilists reconcile their own understanding of determinism with moral responsibility, they rationalize this.

Again, if all of us believe only what our material brains compel us to believe what "for all practical purposes" does it matter what we believe? Mike is still compelled to rape Maria as he must and we are still compelled to react to the rape as we must.

Of course.

I black box the issue, myself. It seemed like you were trying to understand how compatibilists could assign respnosibility to, for example, criminals, given that the criminals, in determinism, were always going to act that way. I explained their justification for that above. if you're not interested in that justification and I misread your interest here, well, my bad.

Sigh...

You explained it in the only manner in which you were ever able to explain it. But the compatibilists are compelled themselves to hold you responsible for explaining it in the only way you were ever able to explain it?

Got it. Not.

Consider the possbility that you are assuming what people must mean, rather than reading what they say.

Consider that possibility yourself.

What I'm interested in is noting what the compatibilists would say to Mike and Maria in a world where Mike is compelled to rape her and the rest of us are compelled to react to it in the only possible reality.

I already answered that. Take my remarks which are in the third person and change them to the second person. Yes, you're acts were determined and inevitable, but you are a person who rapes. You are a person who lacks compassion and are a danger. and so on.

Or Mike is a person with a brain that never enabled him to feel compassion...a brain that left him no choice [as libertarians understand the act of choosing freely] not to rape. And yes he is a danger to women. But how does this make him morally responsible? If you are a schizophrenic or are afflicted with a brain tumor and these medical conditions principate behaviors that harm others, yes, you are the one "choosing" the behaviors. But not really. Some behaviors simply become "beyond your control".

Thus you note this...

You haven't really responded to what I wrote specifically on that issue. Or the analogies I used. You never really countered the points I made specifically on how one can assign responsibility, in the compatibilist view, to someone who like everyone else, was only going to do what they did.

But then take me -- and Mike and Mary? -- off the hook...

And yes, you were always going to react this way.

This makes sense to you. It doesn't to me.

Then -- click? -- yep: back to Stooge mode: It's all about me.

I'm neither a determinist of any king nor am I a free will person. it seems to me a compatibilist is not being a hypocrite if they hold someone responsible for their actions, for reasons given back in the first post of this latest exchange. You opted not to respond to those. You the informed me that my not being a brain scientist meant that what I had to say could not possibly be useful.

OK, that seems a bit rude and implicitly ad hom. I know, I know. From your perspective I am suddenly and unjustifiably making this about you, perhaps even rising to the level of 'being a stooge'.

From my persepective you were rude, did not respond to the central point I made and repeatedly responded as if I had asserted something I had not. When this is pointed out, instead of checking to see if I had asserted it you told me that we were always going to have this exchange. Great, think of that as my defense of including some comments about you. You obviously have no trouble assigning responsibility to people for 'making this about you' but for some reason you think determinism should let the rapist off since they were always going to rape. Your own behavior might let you know how a compatibilist could hold someone responsible despite their belief that that person's behavior was inevitable.

[Iwannaplato]

What difference does it make what they say about anything when everything that they do say they say only because they were never able to freely opt not to say it?

IOW you can attribute whatever you want to compatibilists, since it doesn't matter. You didn't say here: but this is what say. You didn't say here: OK, they don't say that. In a discussion you say: it doesn't matter what they say. Which means, I don't care if they said it or not. I get to attribute whatever to them. OK, fine. You're not interested in what they say and feel free to attribute whatever to them. Not a discussion.

Then back to the compatibilists among us here explaining how they are still responsible for saying it. Back to them explaining how, given their own understanding of determinism, Mary is still morally responsible for aborting Jane and Mike is still morally responsible for raping Maria.

I used to the rape scenario and did explain their position on this.

Same thing. How "for all practical purposes" is this applicable to Mary and Mike? They are compelled to abort and to rape by "nature" -- the laws of matter -- and could never of their own free will have opted not to. Just as you and I are compelled by our brains to react as we must to abortion and rape. The part I root existentially, subjectively, subjunctively in dasein. So, even if we do have free will in a No God world it doesn't make the Benjamin Button Syndrome any less applicable in regard to human interactions that are judged morally and politically. At least --click -- given the arguments I make in the OPs here:

Not responding to what I wrote on the compatibilist justification for holding them responsible. Repeating things you have said.

Yes, proofs revolve around human interactions in the either/or world. Human interactions that "somehow" encompass free will. Mary either aborts Jane or she doesn't. Mike either rapes Maria or he doesn't. And you and I "here and now" react to abortion and rape as we do. Again, the part I root existentially in moral nihilism and dasein, the part others here root in God or in ideology or in genes or in deontology.

Not responding to what I wrote on the compatibilist justification for holding them responsible. Repeating things you have said.

And around and around we go. The rapist could not have not raped. But we can choose how we react to the rapist ourselves?

Never said that. Not responding to what I wrote on the compatibilist justification for holding them responsible. Repeating things you have said.

Wait. From my frame of mind --- click -- compatibilists [as I understand them] reconcile determinism and moral responsibility.

Yes.

And the only way that makes sense to me is if the reconciliation itself is also an inherent component of the only possible reality. Mike and Mary are determined -- fated, destined -- to abort and rape. You and I are determined -- fated, destined -- to react to abortion and rape as we do. Nothing composed of matter is not wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

Yes, I have asserted this several times.

It's just that the human brain is matter like no other matter around.

It is not an exception to determinism.

Then cue "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule". All the things here in which this...

"...but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

...is applicable. And not just in regard to the war in Iraq.

Not relevant. Not responding to what I wrote on the compatibilist justification for holding them responsible. Repeating things you have said.

Never argued that. The compatibilist does not believe that. You're adding assertions/ideas to what I wrote and to compatibilism.

And around and around and around we go. You asserting only that which you were never freely able not to assert and me adding only that which I was never able not to add?

OK. But even with determinism it is possible to learn. I assert something. You tell me that I asserted something else. I say 'I never asserted that.' Some people can go and check and see.

Note to others:

Okay, assuming that we have "somehow" acquired free will given the evolution of biological matter here on planet Earth, note some examples from above of what he is referring to here.

Really. You haven't noticed people learning things? And others who do not learn those same things?
You've never encountered someone who was given information by someone else and changed their minds. And other people who stick with their ideas despite being informed or even shown?
Odd.

And with determinism as some understand it, it's not that we learn but that what we do learn is the only thing that we ever could have learned.

Yup, that's determinism.

Thus, in regard to this...

Then they realize 'Oh, he didn't assert that.' They learn that they made a mistake. Yes, if you can't or won't do that, that just like the people who do learn, is something that was always going to happen. But if you can't learn when things that are fairly easy to check are pointed out to you, then you become, for many people a less interesting conversation partner. Yes, given your nature, you were always going to not learn when certain things are pointed out. But given that not everyone is like that, some people are doing to choose not to interact. And according to a compatibilist all this was always what was going to happen.

...the assumption [from my frame of mind] is that all of this is unfolding in the only possible manner it ever could have unfolded. So, if some here are compelled by their brains to stop interacting with me, where does the part about responsibility come into play?

Look at what I said about rapists above and why the compatibilist holds them responsible. And now their justification is not the same as the libertarians. It's right there in the begginning of the first post in this latest interactions and you have still not even commented directly on that justification.

So, can you manage to admit that I never asserted that compatibilist brains were free in some way from determinism?

This is basically how the libertarians react. Their assumption is that I can freely opt to think all of this through again and finally admit that you or others are right about me. Why? Because from their frame of mind, human brains are indeed fundamentally different from all other matter. I can of my own volition begin to grasp your point and come around to it. Whereas your rendition of compatibilism [as I understand or misunderstand it] is nothing at all like mine is.

Sure, there are gonig to be overlaps between the behaviors of litertarians and compatibilists. This doesnT' mean they are the same or that their beliefs are the same or their reasons for attributing responsibility are exactly the same. But you're not interested it seems in responded to the differences I presented back in my first post, it seems.

Let's acknowledge: holding someone responsible may not mean exactly the same thing in compatibilism and other belief systems. Nevertheless for me the word can cover the various senses fairly well and there is overlap, including in how one responds.

Again, the assumption being that "somehow" in explaining what the word "covers" means to him above, he was able of his own free will to opt to explain it differently?

I did not say that. Again you are addding in that I am assuming something. And as I said, I am not a determinist nor a compatibilist so even if I was asserting free will whatever that would mean, it wouldn't be a contradiction. And you still haven't managed to respond to what I wrote was the justification for compatibilists assigning responsibility to people for their acts. I actually did it a few times in a few different ways None of them have you responded to.

No, no assumption of that.

Then we are clearly stuck here regarding how we understand/misunderstand each other.

Sure, seems that way.

Nope never asserted that.

Instead, you asserted only that which you were never able not to assert?

Yup. If compatiblism is the case, if determinism is the case.

Yes. In a compatibilist view, it was always going to end up as it did.

Yet you are still responsible for how it does end up. The part that still makes no sense to me.

I know. But you haven't responded to the parts where I specifically addressed the justification for doing that.

Yeah, sorry, I don't want to continue.

Some posters, even if we disagree, actually manage to respond to what I say about what they claim they are interested in or what is the topic being discussed.

What has happened here instead is you 1) attributing things to my explanation that I never said. When this is pointed out, you say it doesn't matter if I said it or not. 2) Never responding to those parts.

Yes, you were only ever going to do that. I hold you responsible because it is you who have that tendency. Not Flannel Jesus, say. Obviously this in nothing on the order of rape. My holding you responsible, just as you hold people you call Stooges responsible and call them out or insult them through the label, leads to, well, ignoring you again. I understand, you don't think it's possible that it would make sense to attribute responsibility to someone if you were a compatibilist. And this leads you to the conclusion that it's fine to attribute things to my posts that I did not say and to ignore the parts of my posts where I actually address justifying that. OK. You believe those things.

And so, perhaps my not being interested in communicating with you might even make sense to you. You've said that it doesn't matter what I say, now in a couple of ways. I'm not a brain scientist and given determinism, it doesn't matter if you correctly attribute things to me or not.

OK, I hear you. I think some kind of warning label on the thread would be nice. And yes, you are likely compelled to ignore that suggestion as I will now, again, ignore you. I won't for example hold Flannel Jesus responsible for your behavior. I won't ignore him.

[Iwannaplato]

This may not even be worth stating, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway:

One need not be a determinist to be a compatibilist.

In fact I would go as far as to say that if it were proven tomorrow that no flavour of determinism is the case in the universe, I would probably remain a compatibilist myself.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/ ... inism_are/

Compatibilism just means free will and determinism are compatible - one could be an indeterminist but still think they're compatible concepts.

IOW it is not necessarily a position on what kind of ontology is the case, but rather a position on whether the determinism and free could be compatibile if determinism were the case.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yeah

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah

[Flannel Jesus]

[Atla]

And this is why we look at the psychology, life circumstances etc. of the person who made a choice, to establish whether or not that person could have chosen otherwise. We don't turn to some stupid free will/determinism issue. But this could be a foreign concept to a butthurt autist with an agenda.

[Iwannaplato]

And this is why we look at the psychology, life circumstances etc. of the person who made a choice, to establish whether or not that person could have chosen otherwise. We don't turn to some stupid free will/determinism issue. But this could be a foreign concept to a butthurt autist with an agenda.

Here you are asserting that your brain, unlike rapists, is free from determinism.
(sorry, I just wanted to see what it's like to make up what other people 'have said.' I guess I see the appeal.)
Anyway, it doesn't matter what you say, because you were always going to say it. I.m not sure why I started a thread where I think the only people who could say anything on the topic are brain scientists and that nothing anyone says makes any difference. But I can always say I had to start the thread.

Yeah, it's kinda satisfying. I can dismiss anyone's thoughts, unless they are brain scientists who can prove free will is the case. I can attribute ideas to other people they don't have cause I can't help but do that and it also doesn't matter.

This is freedom!