compatibilism

[attofishpi]

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.

[phyllo]

The modern debate centers on a scientific understanding of determinism. If determinism is true—that is, if every state of the universe is determined from moment to moment entirely by the laws of nature (physics, chemistry, etc)—how is it possible that we could have free will? It is certainly true that we don’t have control of natural laws—I cannot change gravitation or electromagnetism simply by willing it. Thus, it seems obvious that I cannot have free will in a deterministic universe. It seems obvious then that compatibilism is false and incompatibilism is true.

Here is my view: I believe that genuine (“libertarian”) free will is real and that free will is logically incompatible with determinism in nature.

Where does he describe how libertarian free-will works within our universe?

The universe is not deterministic or something else?

[attofishpi]

Just to clarify, if I believe humans have free will in a determined universe does that make me a compatibilist?

[Flannel Jesus]

More high-larity for FJ...

HOW CAN MERE PRODUCTS OF NATURE HAVE FREE WILL?

Michael Egnor

I'm gonna be honest, I really don't care what that guy thinks. He doesn't even seem to have tried to grasp what emergence even is, which is why he says things like "there are no properties of the mind that have any overlap with the properties of brain. Thought and matter are not similar in any way." If he knew what emergence was, he would know that all of what he said is literally the implication of saying minds are emergent -- he's saying it like it's an argument against emergence, but he's just describing what emergentists think.

It's like saying "of course Jesus isn't the savior. If he died for our sins, that would mean he'd have to be, like, God's son or something". Is that a sensible argument against Christianity? Does that make sense to you?

This dude doesn't have it.

[henry quirk]

Just to clarify, if I believe humans have free will in a determined universe does that make me a compatibilist?

If you believe libertarian free will is reconcilable with necessitarianism, you're a compatlibilist, yes.

[henry quirk]

I'm gonna be honest, I really don't care what that guy thinks.

Not surprising.

[Flannel Jesus]

Just to clarify, if I believe humans have free will in a determined universe does that make me a compatibilist?

If you believe libertarian free will is reconcilable with necessitarianism, you're a compatlibilist, yes.

He didn't say the word 'libertarian'. You added that in. No idea why you added that in, as that would make the whole statement a non-starter. You can just write that sentence without the word 'libertarian' and it goes from oxymoronic to meaningful.

[Flannel Jesus]

Just to clarify, if I believe humans have free will in a determined universe does that make me a compatibilist?

Yes.

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.

You don't even have to be a determinist to be a compatibilist. If it was proven tomorrow that determinism definitely isn't the case in our universe, I would remain a compatibilist anyway.

[attofishpi]

Thanks Jesus.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm gonna be honest, I really don't care what that guy thinks.

Not surprising.

And then FJ went on to explain one of the reasons why he didn't care, given that the guy didn't have a grasp of the basic concepts he was using. The first sentence was his conclusion, then FJ supported it. You could criticize his justification for not caring or you could, as you did here, imply something about FJ. Or both, at least.

[attofishpi]

So, what do you chaps think would happen?

Boony’s Room

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him. The two copies of Boony, instantly appear facing each other from opposite corners of a white room that is 3 metres cubed, identical in all directions.

There are no causal effects differing in each of the Boony's slightly differing positions in spacetime. Nothing in this thought experiment regarding each version of David Boon once instantiated within the room is different in any way.

What happens next?
Do they both, at the same time, ask the exact same question of each other?
Do they end up arguing because they both keep attempting to interject at precisely the same time with precisely the same dialogue?

After five minutes, the pair hear a voice asking them to draw a picture of their favourite fruit on the wall and are told there is a pencil in their left pocket.

Do they both turn and draw on the same symmetrically opposite part of the wall?
Do they both draw identical images of the fruit?

[phyllo]

Just to clarify, if I believe humans have free will in a determined universe does that make me a compatibilist?

If you believe libertarian free will is reconcilable with necessitarianism, you're a compatlibilist, yes.

He didn't say the word 'libertarian'. You added that in. No idea why you added that in, as that would make the whole statement a non-starter. You can just write that sentence without the word 'libertarian' and it goes from oxymoronic to meaningful.

He also didn't say "necessitarianism", he said "determined" . Determinism and necessitarianism are not the same.

[Flannel Jesus]

He also didn't say "necessitarianism", he said "determined" . Determinism and necessitarianism are not the same.

I'm unfamiliar with the subtleties of the distinction there. I was just taking it at face value. Could you lay it out for me?

[phyllo]

Necessitarianism is a metaphysical principle that denies all mere possibility; there is exactly one way for the world to be.

It is the strongest member of a family of principles, including hard determinism, each of which deny libertarian free will, reasoning that human actions are predetermined by external or internal antecedents. Necessitarianism is stronger than hard determinism, because even the hard determinist would grant that the causal chain constituting the world might have been different as a whole, even though each member of that series could not have been different, given its antecedent causes.

The most famous defender of necessitarianism in the history of philosophy is Spinoza.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessitarianism

There is absolutely no possibility of variation in necessitarianism.

If one believes that god created the universe, then even god had no control over what was created.

If one believes that the universe came from the big bang without god, then there was no possibility that the initial conditions/state could have been different.

[Flannel Jesus]

I see. That does seem to be a more specific, extreme form of determinism