compatibilism

[iambiguous]

He is.

Okay, but objectively?

A guy walks into a party and bumps into his friend or perhaps 'friend' Jack.
They greet.
The guy says things are going well.
Jack, gives the guy a smug, skeptical look and says 'Are they?' and also aims this look at others.

Later the guy mentions to people what Jack believes about him, that he's supposedly not doing well.
Jack says 'I never asserted anything.'

'Uh, huh, Jack. Whatever' the guys says.

Click.

Huh?!



Note to Larry and Curly:

No, seriously, what the hell does that have to do with, well, anything?

[Flannel Jesus]

Click.

Click click click.

Note to Captain underpants:

Click click.

[Iwannaplato]

Note to Captain underpants:

And the question is even more pressing with old CU: is he making choices. He was hypnotized into being by children, for goodness sakes. A superhero who may not be in the least free.....

[iambiguous]

Free will & Moral responsibility
AQA Ethics

Sam Harris is a determinist who argues for justification for punishment consistent with determinism.

And of course "somehow" Harris himself acquired the capacity to embrace "free will determinism". In other words, such that his own arguments are, what, the exception to the rule? His own brain is matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter...but he is still able to convince himself that his own views on punishment are more reasonable than those determinists who suggest instead that just as criminals are unable not to break the law, those who punish them are unable not to punish them.

Consider the situation of a bear wandering into an area that humans are living in and attacking them. We do not need to think the bear has free will in order to justify tranquilizing it and locking it up if we can or shooting and killing it if we have to.

Of course both bears and human beings are mammals. Over millions of years the first brains became bear brains became our brains. But bear brains are rooted almost entirely in genes [biological imperatives] whereas our brains evolved to encompass memes [social, political and economic narratives] as well. Memes then evolved into morality. And philosophy. And science.

Still, how did our brains come to acquire autonomy? If in fact we possess it at all. It's not what we think about tranquilizing bears some determinists argue but whether or not what we do think about them we were ever able to freely choose not to. To, instead, think something else. It's the difference between bears killing us and other human beings killing us. Unless, perhaps, there is no difference?

We could regard human beings in this way too. Putting them in prison or even killing them doesn’t have to be justified as a ‘deserved punishment’, it could simply be justified as necessary for the defence of society.

Back to Schopenhauer:

"Man can do what he wants, but man can't want what he wants." It was Arthur Schopenhauer who wrote: “Man does at all times only what he wills, and yet he does this necessarily." the philosopher's shirt

In regard to morality, different things are justified by different people. But if all of their justifications are rooted in the only possible reality, how are they all not basically interchangeable as justifications?

Should we run this by the bears?

In any event, I'm still willing to acknowledge I am not understanding Harris correctly. And all I can do is -- click -- bump into someone able to explain him better.



Next up:

The clown car.

[Iwannaplato]

And of course "somehow" Harris himself acquired the capacity to embrace "free will determinism".

Did he? Did he embrace free will determinism? I thought he was simply a determinist.

Consider the situation of a bear wandering into an area that humans are living in and attacking them. We do not need to think the bear has free will in order to justify tranquilizing it and locking it up if we can or shooting and killing it if we have to.

Of course both bears and human beings are mammals. Over millions of years the first brains became bear brains became our brains. But bear brains are rooted almost entirely in genes [biological imperatives] whereas our brains evolved to encompass memes [social, political and economic narratives] as well. Memes then evolved into morality. And philosophy. And science.

Still, how did our brains come to acquire autonomy?

Did Harris say our brains have acquired autonomy?

Do you think determinism means we should let the bear run free in an area where humans live and kill them?

How do you see the free will/determinism issue as changing how we ought to view that issue?

In any event, I'm still willing to acknowledge I am not understanding Harris correctly. And all I can do is -- click -- bump into someone able to explain him better.

Well, hey, if he said somewhere he believes in free will determinism, then you certainly got that part right. I could only find him saying determinism. If he's only saying determinism, then your understanding of Harris could be improved by avoiding saying he embraced free will determinism. That could be a tiny start.

Then you could explain how if you were convinced there was free will tomorrow, utterly and finally, or you were convinced determinism was the case utterly tomorrow these certainties would change/affect your opinion about what to do about the bear.

And, of course, you could read his book on the subject. I haven't. That could certainly give at least a better sense of his position.

Heck, you could try to contact him:
https://www.samharris.org/contact
It might take some work to get past assistents, but you don't seem writing averse.
Ask interesting questions or make interesting suggestions and one can often get past the gatekeepers of the famous.

Or you can deal with people here guessing about what Sam Harris means.

[iambiguous]

Ah, the Stooge configures back to his, uh, serious philosopher persona?

And of course "somehow" Harris himself acquired the capacity to embrace "free will determinism".

Did he? Did he embrace free will determinism? I thought he was simply a determinist.

Again, the point some determinists make is this: that it's not what you thought about Harris or what Harris thought about punishment, but whether either one of you was able to opt freely to think something else instead.

Consider the situation of a bear wandering into an area that humans are living in and attacking them. We do not need to think the bear has free will in order to justify tranquilizing it and locking it up if we can or shooting and killing it if we have to.

Of course both bears and human beings are mammals. Over millions of years the first brains became bear brains became our brains. But bear brains are rooted almost entirely in genes [biological imperatives] whereas our brains evolved to encompass memes [social, political and economic narratives] as well. Memes then evolved into morality. And philosophy. And science.

Still, how did our brains come to acquire autonomy?

Did Harris say our brains have acquired autonomy?

Well, if he believes that he lacks autonomy, why doesn't he note that his own argument itself is but another inherent, necessary manifestation of the only possible reality? Instead, from my frame of mind, he seems to opine on punishment in the same manner that the libertarians do. He's arguing that it is reconcilable with determinism...suggesting [to me] that those determinists who argue that it is not are...wrong?

Do you think determinism means we should let the bear run free in an area where humans live and kill them?

No, determinism as I understand it "here and now" suggests that both bears and human beings do only what they are never able not to do. It's just that bear brains are more...primitive? And that "somehow" when their brains evolved into ape brains evolved into our brains, autonomy came to be a part of our own reality. How? Why? Even the hard guys and gals -- brain scientists -- don't have the answer to that. Meanwhile, here in this philosophy forum, it's arguments themselves -- worlds of words -- that "settle" things.

How do you see the free will/determinism issue as changing how we ought to view that issue?

What on Earth does it mean to say we ought to do this instead of that when everything that we do we do becasue we are never able not to?

Then back to Mary and Jane. If Mary is wholly determined by her brain to abort Jane, how is it reasonable for compatibilists to argue that she still ought to be held morally responsible for doing what she could never have not done?

We could regard human beings in this way too. Putting them in prison or even killing them doesn’t have to be justified as a ‘deserved punishment’, it could simply be justified as necessary for the defence of society.

Back to Schopenhauer:

"Man can do what he wants, but man can't want what he wants." It was Arthur Schopenhauer who wrote: “Man does at all times only what he wills, and yet he does this necessarily." the philosopher's shirt

In regard to morality, different things are justified by different people. But if all of their justifications are rooted in the only possible reality, how are they all not basically interchangeable as justifications?

Should we run this by the bears?

In any event, I'm still willing to acknowledge I am not understanding Harris correctly. And all I can do is -- click -- bump into someone able to explain him better.

Well, hey, if he said somewhere he believes in free will determinism, then you certainly got that part right. I could only find him saying determinism. If he's only saying determinism, then your understanding of Harris could be improved by avoiding saying he embraced free will determinism. That could be a tiny start.

All I can do -- click -- is to repeat the point I noted above:

..."somehow" Harris himself acquired the capacity to embrace "free will determinism". In other words, such that his own arguments are, what, the exception to the rule? His own brain is matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter...but he is still able to convince himself that his own views on punishment are more reasonable than those determinists who suggest instead that just as criminals are unable not to break the law, those who punish them are unable not to punish them.

Then you could explain how if you were convinced there was free will tomorrow, utterly and finally, or you were convinced determinism was the case utterly tomorrow these certainties would change/affect your opinion about what to do about the bear.

Well, if I have free will then it really is my opinion. And if I don't then it is only the psychological illusion of free will.

Then the part where in regard to bears in a free will world, the discussion shifts from objective facts about them to rooted existentially in dasein subjective opinions about them. For example, is it moral or immoral to put bears in zoos or in circuses? Is it moral or immoral to hunt them...either for food or for trophies?

Then the "Grizzly Man" controversy. Some see Timothy Treadwell as the hero for trying to protect the bears while others see him as the villian for encouraging bears to feel comfortable around human beings. And thus endangering them.

[Iwannaplato]

If it bothers you that people focus on you, well, you'll have to decide whether you hold them responsible for that behavior. I think it's pretty clear you do hold them responsible, but I'm not sure if you've noticed. How you managed to do that might help you in understanding Sam Harris non-free will determinism.

Again, the point some determinists make is this: that it's not what you thought about Harris or what Harris thought about punishment, but whether either one of you was able to opt freely to think something else instead.

Ah, ok, so it doesn't matter to you if you make up stuff about someone you claim to want to understand. Got it.

Consider the situation of a bear wandering into an area that humans are living in and attacking them. We do not need to think the bear has free will in order to justify tranquilizing it and locking it up if we can or shooting and killing it if we have to.

Of course both bears and human beings are mammals. Over millions of years the first brains became bear brains became our brains. But bear brains are rooted almost entirely in genes [biological imperatives] whereas our brains evolved to encompass memes [social, political and economic narratives] as well. Memes then evolved into morality. And philosophy. And science.

Still, how did our brains come to acquire autonomy?

Did Harris say our brains have acquired autonomy?

Well, if he believes that he lacks autonomy, why doesn't he note that his own argument itself is but another inherent, necessary manifestation of the only possible reality? Instead, from my frame of mind, he seems to opine on punishment in the same manner that the libertarians do. He's arguing that it is reconcilable with determinism...suggesting [to me] that those determinists who argue that it is not are...wrong?

OK, so it doesn't matter to you if you present his position as he does, and yet you want to understand his position. One might wonder if you will every define autonomy. But then that wondering, if expressed, would be rather optimistic about the dialogue.

And yes, it seems to be precisly his point: that determinism does not entail what you think it does. That doesn't mean he believes in free will.

And perhaps reading his book on the subject might help you.

You assume his position entails that actually he believes in free will. You never try to demonstrate this. But you present him this way to others.

Do you think determinism means we should let the bear run free in an area where humans live and kill them?

No, determinism as I understand it "here and now" suggests that both bears and human beings do only what they are never able not to do. It's just that bear brains are more...primitive? And that "somehow" when their brains evolved into ape brains evolved into our brains, autonomy came to be a part of our own reality. How? Why?

Then you don't understand determinism nor are you presenting Sam Harris' position. That much can be found out on the internet. He doesn't believe in free will and you seem to be attributing free will to his position.

How do you see the free will/determinism issue as changing how we ought to view that issue?

What on Earth does it mean to say we ought to do this instead of that when everything that we do we do becasue we are never able not to?

You presented it as if what he was saying did not make sense to you unless human brains had autonomy.

Then back to Mary and Jane. If Mary is wholly determined by her brain to abort Jane, how is it reasonable for compatibilists to argue that she still ought to be held morally responsible for doing what she could never have not done?

So, you think she cannot be held responsible if determinism is the case. OK.

A guy walks into a party and bumps into his friend or perhaps 'friend' Jack.
They greet.
The guy says things are going well.
Jack, gives the guy a smug, skeptical look and says 'Are they?' and also aims this look at others.

Later the guy mentions to people what Jack believes about him, that he's supposedly not doing well.
Jack says 'I never asserted anything.'

'Uh, huh, Jack. Whatever,' the guys says.

Well, hey, if he said somewhere he believes in free will determinism, then you certainly got that part right. I could only find him saying determinism. If he's only saying determinism, then your understanding of Harris could be improved by avoiding saying he embraced free will determinism. That could be a tiny start.

All I can do -- click -- is to repeat the point I noted above:

.."somehow" Harris himself acquired the capacity to embrace "free will determinism".

Yes, it seems that's all you can do. Repeat things you make up.

You assume free will MUST be the case for someone to be held responsible, so you conclude that 'really' Sam Harris believes in free will determinism. You don't actually read his arguments. You don't actually try to demonstrate that his arguments are wrong. You just keep repeating what seems obvious to you, and attribute things to Harris he never said.

You don't demonstrate that his position must entail human brain 'autonomy'. You state that it does, but never justify this. You expect others to justify positions, but you don't justify yours. You present it as self-evident and attribute a free will determinism to Sam Harris, when this is misrepresenting his position. You state that he is somehow claiming that human brains have an autonomy other matter does not, but you do not demonstrate that he has said this or that it is entailed.

If you want to understand his position, one recommendation, don't misrepresent it.

If you are sure, as you seem to be, that he is a free will determinist, demonstrate this. If you are sure he must believe in his autonomy, define the term and then demonstrate this.

This is basic stuff. So, when we find a pattern of basic stuff problems AND it seems a great reluctance to admit things when they are pointed out, and the same pattern happens over and over, yes, you get made the issue. And probably by the people who have tried the hardest to point out this basid stuff.

You can always ignore us when we make you the issue.

Then you could explain how if you were convinced there was free will tomorrow, utterly and finally, or you were convinced determinism was the case utterly tomorrow these certainties would change/affect your opinion about what to do about the bear.

Well, if I have free will then it really is my opinion. And if I don't then it is only the psychological illusion of free will.

Wow, so much information about what you would do differently about the bears. And why what seems obvious to you is the case.

Then the part where in regard to bears in a free will world, the discussion shifts from objective facts about them to rooted existentially in dasein subjective opinions about them. For example, is it moral or immoral to put bears in zoos or in circuses? Is it moral or immoral to hunt them...either for food or for trophies?

So, instead of addressing the issue of the beat killing people, you raise other issues.

Then the "Grizzly Man" controversy. Some see Timothy Treadwell as the hero for trying to protect the bears while others see him as the villian for encouraging bears to feel comfortable around human beings. And thus endangering them.

And then move even farther afield.

Yup. It's back to making fun of you in future posts.

[Flannel Jesus]

As a Sam Harris fan, I know for a fact he would, and does, say he doesn't believe in free will.

That being said, many of us Sam Harris fans consider him essentially a "compatibilist" who just doesn't like the wording of compatibilism or free will.

[Iwannaplato]

As a Sam Harris fan, I know for a fact he would, and does, say he doesn't believe in free will.

That being said, many of us Sam Harris fans consider him essentially a "compatibilist" who just doesn't like the wording of compatibilism or free will.

Oh, now you've done it. Iamb will go right on saying 'free will determinist'. I'll bet big money that Sam Harris never says that at some stage in evolution human brains gained autonomy. Nor does he say that moral responsibility is based on this autonomy or on free will. In fact, I think the whole point of this position, as far as I can see online, is that he finds holding people responsible fits perfectly fine with determinism. And in fact the bear example is meant to show this.

Since Iambiguous is incapable of justifying a position critical to that, he simply talks about other things until he lands, as usual, on Mary's abortion.

If we shoot the bear killing humans, then somehow we are going to punish Mary.

If we hold that bear responsible and not one roaming Alaskan woods far away from human settlement, this means we believe in free will.

If we put a rapist in prison, this means we believe in free will.

If we don't believe in free will then we would by hypocrites if we shot that bear or captured it, unfairly, and released it far from humans.

If we don't believe in free will then putting a rapist in prison is hypocritical.

Anyone holding their breath until Iamb gives a justification for this to Iambigous self-evident positions will die - if they can override the autonomic breathing response to a lack of oxygen.

Maybe that's what he means by autonomy. Who knows?

[phyllo]

Iambiguous' concept of determinism : a train on tracks. 'You' are inside for the ride. 'You' go wherever the tracks are laid.

Typical determinist and compatibilist concept of determinism : You are in a jungle with a machete. You look around. You decide where the best place is to cut. The decision is based on the environment, your ability, your goals, your tools. The path is created by your cutting. It wasn't there before you cut it. When you look back, you say "Yeah, that path was determined. I would not cut anything differently. I thought that it was the best cut to make at that time and place. "

[Iwannaplato]

Iambiguous' concept of determinism : a train on tracks. 'You' are inside for the ride. 'You' go wherever the tracks are laid.

Typical determinist and compatibilist concept of determinism : You are in a jungle with a machete. You look around. You decide where the best place is to cut. The decision is based on the environment, your ability, your goals, your tools. The path is created by your cutting. It wasn't there before you cut it. When you look back, you say "Yeah, that path was determined. I would not cut anything differently. I thought that it was the best cut to make at that time and place. "

I think that one way Iambiguous frames the issue, you, FJ and I have all pointed out. His brain forces him to do things. He doesn't identify with his body, when framing the issue. Which is an odd dualism, given the range of his positions and skepticism. Regardless of how many times this is pointed out and in the variety of ways the three of us respond to it, he continues to frame it this way.

More importantly: he never quite responds to this issue. He usually jumps to asking how we know that we are free to think something else. Or jumps to Mary. Or jumps to 'what made human brains autonomous unlike other matter' kinds of responses, which are not relevant to this point.

I don't think this issue changes his central point of view. But it is rather amazing how many times he's managed to be completely impervious to having this pointed out AND managed not to respond.

[henry quirk]

You are in a jungle with a machete. You look around. You decide where the best place is to cut. The decision is based on the environment, your ability, your goals, your tools. The path is created by your cutting. It wasn't there before you cut it. When you look back, you say "Yeah, that path was determined. I would not cut anything differently. I thought that it was the best cut to make at that time and place. "

See, that to me, sounds like libertarian free will, not compatibilism or necessitarianism. I decide where to cut, I imagine, I assess, I prepare, I do, I determine, I cause. Not my history or the bump & grind of particles in motion, or my genes, or my brain chemicals, or...

[phyllo]

Your genes produce your body. Your strength comes from our body. A strong person can cut a path that a weak person cannot. The decision where to cut will be different in at least some cases.

Your history/ experience tells you how to cut the vegetation, which vegetation is easy to cut, which vegetation will give you other problems.
Then there is terrain and animals and bugs to consider. Someone with jungle experience will not cut the same path as a newbie.

You really can't escape from history and biology.

[Flannel Jesus]

You are in a jungle with a machete. You look around. You decide where the best place is to cut. The decision is based on the environment, your ability, your goals, your tools. The path is created by your cutting. It wasn't there before you cut it. When you look back, you say "Yeah, that path was determined. I would not cut anything differently. I thought that it was the best cut to make at that time and place. "

See, that to me, sounds like libertarian free will, not compatibilism or necessitarianism. I decide where to cut, I imagine, I assess, I prepare, I do, I determine, I cause. Not my history or the bump & grind of particles in motion, or my genes, or my brain chemicals, or...

Well I have told you in the past, your beliefs around free will sound a lot like compatibilism. I'm not surprised you think what he says sounds like what you believe.

[phyllo]

I think HQ understands and accepts the reasoning but he bails out at the last minute.