compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

Now, if Mary had free will, there was the possibility that John or others of their own free will might have been successful in changing her mind about aborting Jane.

If Mary had free will, perhaps that's what led her to abort. Perhaps she wanted that baby. Perhaps in a determined world her friend's speech would have convinced her, it was so compelling and presented an understanding of Mary so well, if causes led inevitable to effects, Mary would not have aborted, but because this was a free will universe, she was free to ignore all causes and even her own desires and she aborted it.

If we really don't know if this is a free will world or a determined world, then we don't know if her aborting the fetus was only possible because of free will or if it was determined.

Not a single word of that explains what you mean when you say "tell that to Jane". Not a single word of that explains how one of us might be expected to tell Jane anything at all

...from FJ.

And the "blistering critique" comment was meant to be ironic from my frame of mind. That and reflecting the manner in which from time to time I am inclined to play the polemicist here. Or as with Prom75 -- remember him? -- the smart-ass.

I actually thought that his/her post above was ludicrous. Only I admit it may well be my own reasoning here that is ludicrous.

well, you've asserted that a couple of times without explaining why it was ludicrous.

So, once again, we will have to agree to disagree regarding the relevance of my points.

Perhaps you could point to the part where you explained what he asked.

As for this...

...I have no clear understanding at all what your point is here.

On the one hand I'm disappointed. It was a good faith go at what I thought we might have missed. But the upside is...how consistent you are.

It's not whether our experiences are bad or good but what on earth it means to call any experience bad or good in a world where you could never have not had the experience. A world in which, in calling an experience bad or good, you were in turn entirely compelled to.

Uh, huh. You mention people should talk to Jane, an aborted fetus who never got to live and it has nothing to do with whether something was bad or good.

Not, Tell that to Mary. But tell that to Jane was what you said. OK. That makes no sense, but OK.

Same here...

But, 1) if that's how you meant it, why wouldn't you say that in response to his simple question? and 2) there are places elsewhere where it sounds much more literal. What would Sam Harris say to Jane is asked.

How this point pertains to my assessment above is beyond my grasp here and now.

well, obviously it doesn't apply. If you did not mean what my charitable interpretation suggested, then, well, of course you didn't say it earlier.

Further you presented a more balanced view of the abortion outcomes in your previous post. Mary might have been determined to give birth. You did leave out the in the free will world hundreds of mothers capriciously decide to abort, even though they want the babies, but their wants are not longer compelling in the least, because it's a free will universe where one can choose free of past influences including one's own desires.

You'd have to run this by the women confronting "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy in a free will world.

No, cause It's not whether our experiences are bad or good but what on earth it means to call any experience bad or good in a world where you could never have not had the experience

If you just presented the scenario in a way that didn't make it seems like determinism leads to bad things and free will leads to less bad things, that would go a long way to people dropping their reactions.

Determinism leads to everything unfolding in the only possible reality. Free will, on the other hand, in regard to conflicting value judgments is, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein.

HOw could free will be rooted in dasein? Free will is free from past states and causes. One is precisely NOT determined by one's culture, personality, past experiences, psychology, family patterns and so on. Free will goes precisely against your ideas of dasein leading to one's beliefs and actions. dasein, as you use, fits well with determinism.

Not that I believe in free will or rule it out, but saying it is rooted in dasein is utterly confused. Not that it's rooted in genetics or external forces. It is the freedom to not be influenced by any of these things.

Unless you meant that the belief in it is rooted in dasein. That' could be supported by decent arguement. But since you contrast it with determinism, that can't be what you meant.

[Flannel Jesus]

Next up: phyllo and Iwannabeplato pat FJ on the back virtually and completely concur with his or her, uh, blistering critique.

I think it's interesting that you had a moment here of self awareness, a moment where you could see the situation the way everyone else sees it.

You see, you call everyone else "shameless" quite a lot but... shame is a social emotion. Socially, you realise that everyone here views your approach to these conversations as unhelpful, needlessly vitriolic, fruitless and, in a lot of ways, stupid. So the fact that you continue behaving in the same ways despite the social feedback you've received actually kind of points to the conclusion that YOU are shameless - that you have every reason to feel a sense of shame here, and for some reason you don't, you're incapable of it.

Phyllo was trying to talk to you. Instead of just talking to him about the points that he brought up, discussing with him why you might agree with some of them and disagree with others of them, you shamelessly distract the conversation with links to a list of religions, a list of political ideologies, a list of religious ideologies. But you shouldn't be shameless, you should perhaps feel ashamed. Ashamed that you can't look Phyllo's arguments and ideas in the face and attempt to clearly express why you might disagree with them.

You're the shameless one, quite clearly, but luckily for you there's a very simple thing you can do to turn that around. Will you do it, or will you continue to behave shamelessly?

[iambiguous]

Why Sam Harris is confused about free will
Dan Jones

Harris’s answer is, in essence, that what matters is whether people harbour the kinds of thoughts, intentions, beliefs and desires that will make them likely to commit moral offences, such as harming others. That is, if a man is the kind of person who wants and intends to kill people, then “we need entertain no notions of free will to consider him a danger to society”.

Sam's answer. So, would he flat-out insist as well that if his own understanding of determinism is correct then those who express conflicting answers are also correct? Correct in the sense that they were never actually free to opt to answer it otherwise?

The surreal part? Brains grappling to understand themselves? In other words, given all that they do not -- will not? cannot? -- grasp about the human condition itself "somehow" fitting into existence of existence itself?

And in a No God universe without that "transcending" frame of mind, there are only mere mortals going about the business of being dominoes toppling over on cue again and again and again...all the way to the grave. To oblivion?

So? The point here [mine] is that others might hold him responsible for stealing those anchovies above that he was never able not to steal. And, in fact, they are holding him responsible only because they too were never able to freely opt not to.

Back then to how determinism [for some] is basically interchangeable with fate and destiny...in a world where everything that human beings think, feel, say and do is wholly determined by the laws of matter.

Is that Sam's take on all of this too? Are his own "thoughts, intentions, beliefs and desires" just more chemical and neurological interactions "somehow" inherently intertwined in the world of the very, very, large and the very, very small?

Same as ours?

[Iwannaplato]

So? The point here [mine] is that others might hold him responsible for stealing those anchovies above that he was never able not to steal. And, in fact, they are holding him responsible only because they too were never able to freely opt not to.

That's one because that I think Sam Harris would agree with, or at least, I think he ought to, given his determinism.
But there would be for him another because...
because it's a good idea to treat, well, I don't know about anchovie stealers - I missed that earlier wherever it is - but because it's a good idea to treat people who want to kill differently than you treat those who don't.

Of course, the sense that this is a good idea is also determined, if Sam Harris is right about determinism.

[iambiguous]

Now, if Mary had free will, there was the possibility that John or others of their own free will might have been successful in changing her mind about aborting Jane.

If Mary had free will, perhaps that's what led her to abort. Perhaps she wanted that baby. Perhaps in a determined world her friend's speech would have convinced her, it was so compelling and presented an understanding of Mary so well, if causes led inevitable to effects, Mary would not have aborted, but because this was a free will universe, she was free to ignore all causes and even her own desires and she aborted it.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Each woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy does so given the existential parameters of her own unique set of circumstances. But from the perspective of some determinists none of that matters. Why? Because all sets of circumstances are intertwined seamlessly in the only possible reality. As are all human brains.

If we really don't know if this is a free will world or a determined world, then we don't know if her aborting the fetus was only possible because of free will or if it was determined.

That's my point. Given 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.

...embedded further in both "the gap", "Rummy's Rule" and the fact that for thousands of years now both philosophers and scientists have failed to pin down "the final answer", what can we "really know"?

From FJ:

Not a single word of that explains what you mean when you say "tell that to Jane". Not a single word of that explains how one of us might be expected to tell Jane anything at all

And the "blistering critique" comment was meant to be ironic from my frame of mind. That and reflecting the manner in which from time to time I am inclined to play the polemicist here. Or as with Prom75 -- remember him? -- the smart-ass.

I actually thought that his/her post above was ludicrous. Only I admit it may well be my own reasoning here that is ludicrous.

well, you've asserted that a couple of times without explaining why it was ludicrous.

For him/her to argue that this from me...

Year in and year out, thousands upon thousands of women are confronted with unwanted pregnancies. Some will choose abortion, others will choose to give birth.

So, the question [mine] becomes, "did these women choose of their own volition to abort or give birth, or were they all compelled by their brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter to 'choose' to abort or give birth?"

Now, if Mary had free will, there was the possibility that John or others of their own free will might have been successful in changing her mind about aborting Jane. But if she was compelled by the laws of matter to abort Jane, Jane is now on her way back to "star stuff". So, in discussing free will/determinism/compatibilism with Jane, either she is still around because in a determined universe Mary was compelled to give birth to her or in a free will universe Mary chose to give birth to her.

Then the part where some compatibilists argue that, yes, Mary was compelled to abort Jane but that doesn't make her any less morally responsible for doing so.

And then, finally, the part where I flat-out acknowledge how I may well be unable "here and now" to grasp why I am understanding all of this incorrectly. On the other hand, if there is but one and only one rational manner in which to grasp it, how come philosophers and scientists haven't reached an optimal consensus yet after thousands of years? In fact, it is the theologians who "settle it" once and for all: God installed free will in our very souls at the point of conception.

...warrants this from Him or her...

Not a single word of that explains what you mean when you say "tell that to Jane". Not a single word of that explains how one of us might be expected to tell Jane anything at all.

...is deemed ludicrous ridiculous, preposterous by me. Not by you? Fine. One more thong we can agree to disagree regarding.

It's not whether our experiences are bad or good but what on earth it means to call any experience bad or good in a world where you could never have not had the experience. A world in which, in calling an experience bad or good, you were in turn entirely compelled to.

Uh, huh. You mention people should talk to Jane, an aborted fetus who never got to live and it has nothing to do with whether something was bad or good.

No, my point was always to talk to Jane in a world where she was not aborted. Explain to her how, for some, women who do abort their unborn babies in a determined universe where they were never able to freely opt to give birth, can still be held morally responsible for doing so. What I would tell her is that we either live in a world where her mother was compelled to give birth to her or in a free will world in which she is around because her Mom's friend talked her out of aborting her.

Determinism leads to everything unfolding in the only possible reality. Free will, on the other hand, in regard to conflicting value judgments is, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein.

HOw could free will be rooted in dasein? Free will is free from past states and causes. One is precisely NOT determined by one's culture, personality, past experiences, psychology, family patterns and so on. Free will goes precisely against your ideas of dasein leading to one's beliefs and actions. dasein, as you use, fits well with determinism.

Over and over and over again: given what context? And -- click -- how to distinguish human interactions in the either/or world that are objectively applicable to all of us and our ofttimes conflicting reactions to the consequences of those behaviors in the is/ought world. Dasein as I understand it is far, far more applicable when confronting conflicting goods. On the other hand, given my understanding of determinism "here and now", my own assessment of dasein itself is no less an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality given the only possible material world.

And here I'm stuck like everyone else...what don't I know about all of this given all that I do not know [cannot know] about the existence of existence itself?

[iambiguous]

Next up: phyllo and Iwannabeplato pat FJ on the back virtually and completely concur with his or her, uh, blistering critique.

I think it's interesting that you had a moment here of self awareness, a moment where you could see the situation the way everyone else sees it.

You see, you call everyone else "shameless" quite a lot but... shame is a social emotion. Socially, you realise that everyone here views your approach to these conversations as unhelpful, needlessly vitriolic, fruitless and, in a lot of ways, stupid. So the fact that you continue behaving in the same ways despite the social feedback you've received actually kind of points to the conclusion that YOU are shameless - that you have every reason to feel a sense of shame here, and for some reason you don't, you're incapable of it.

Phyllo was trying to talk to you. Instead of just talking to him about the points that he brought up, discussing with him why you might agree with some of them and disagree with others of them, you shamelessly distract the conversation with links to a list of religions, a list of political ideologies, a list of religious ideologies. But you shouldn't be shameless, you should perhaps feel ashamed. Ashamed that you can't look Phyllo's arguments and ideas in the face and attempt to clearly express why you might disagree with them.

You're the shameless one, quite clearly, but luckily for you there's a very simple thing you can do to turn that around. Will you do it, or will you continue to behave shamelessly?

Unless, of course, he or she is wrong.

The good news, however, is that, given my own understanding of determinism, no one is ever really right or wrong if, for all practical purposes, they were never able not to post what they do here.

Or is that the bad news?

[Flannel Jesus]

For him/her to argue that this from me...

Year in and year out, thousands upon thousands of women are confronted with unwanted pregnancies. Some will choose abortion, others will choose to give birth.

So, the question [mine] becomes, "did these women choose of their own volition to abort or give birth, or were they all compelled by their brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter to 'choose' to abort or give birth?"

Now, if Mary had free will, there was the possibility that John or others of their own free will might have been successful in changing her mind about aborting Jane. But if she was compelled by the laws of matter to abort Jane, Jane is now on her way back to "star stuff". So, in discussing free will/determinism/compatibilism with Jane, either she is still around because in a determined universe Mary was compelled to give birth to her or in a free will universe Mary chose to give birth to her.

Then the part where some compatibilists argue that, yes, Mary was compelled to abort Jane but that doesn't make her any less morally responsible for doing so.

And then, finally, the part where I flat-out acknowledge how I may well be unable "here and now" to grasp why I am understanding all of this incorrectly. On the other hand, if there is but one and only one rational manner in which to grasp it, how come philosophers and scientists haven't reached an optimal consensus yet after thousands of years? In fact, it is the theologians who "settle it" once and for all: God installed free will in our very souls at the point of conception.

...warrants this from Him or her...

Not a single word of that explains what you mean when you say "tell that to Jane". Not a single word of that explains how one of us might be expected to tell Jane anything at all.

...is deemed ludicrous ridiculous, preposterous by me. Not by you? Fine. One more thong we can agree to disagree regarding.

If you genuinely think all that text you wrote is somehow an explanation of what "tell that to Jane" means, you don't understand the first thing about language or communication.

"Agree to disagree" is a cop out.

[iambiguous]

For him/her to argue that this from me...

Year in and year out, thousands upon thousands of women are confronted with unwanted pregnancies. Some will choose abortion, others will choose to give birth.

So, the question [mine] becomes, "did these women choose of their own volition to abort or give birth, or were they all compelled by their brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter to 'choose' to abort or give birth?"

Now, if Mary had free will, there was the possibility that John or others of their own free will might have been successful in changing her mind about aborting Jane. But if she was compelled by the laws of matter to abort Jane, Jane is now on her way back to "star stuff". So, in discussing free will/determinism/compatibilism with Jane, either she is still around because in a determined universe Mary was compelled to give birth to her or in a free will universe Mary chose to give birth to her.

Then the part where some compatibilists argue that, yes, Mary was compelled to abort Jane but that doesn't make her any less morally responsible for doing so.

And then, finally, the part where I flat-out acknowledge how I may well be unable "here and now" to grasp why I am understanding all of this incorrectly. On the other hand, if there is but one and only one rational manner in which to grasp it, how come philosophers and scientists haven't reached an optimal consensus yet after thousands of years? In fact, it is the theologians who "settle it" once and for all: God installed free will in our very souls at the point of conception.

...warrants this from Him or her...

Not a single word of that explains what you mean when you say "tell that to Jane". Not a single word of that explains how one of us might be expected to tell Jane anything at all.

...is deemed ludicrous ridiculous, preposterous by me. Not by you? Fine. One more thong we can agree to disagree regarding.

If you genuinely think all that text you wrote is somehow an explanation of what "tell that to Jane" means, you don't understand the first thing about language or communication.

"Agree to disagree" is a cop out.

Then I don't know the first thing about language or communication. And -- click -- this being the case, I would advise you to completely steer clear of the things I post here. That ought to calm you down.




Note to others:

If perchance you ever do come across something that might actually indicate the possibility that I know something about language and communication, please bring it to FJ's attention.

[iambiguous]

So? The point here [mine] is that others might hold him responsible for stealing those anchovies above that he was never able not to steal. And, in fact, they are holding him responsible only because they too were never able to freely opt not to.

That's one because that I think Sam Harris would agree with, or at least, I think he ought to, given his determinism.
But there would be for him another because...
because it's a good idea to treat, well, I don't know about anchovy stealers - I missed that earlier wherever it is - but because it's a good idea to treat people who want to kill differently than you treat those who don't.

Of course, the sense that this is a good idea is also determined, if Sam Harris is right about determinism.

And then the part where all of us are just submitting posts and/or reading them given the same set of assumptions the truly hardcore determinist sustain here.

So, if you are a particularly good poster, that was actually beyond your control. On the other hand, if you are a particularly bad poster, that too is beyond your control.

But how to wrap your head around the human condition in a No God world? The universe "somehow" having always existed or bursting into existence out of nothing at all "somehow" manages to evolve into self-conscious living matter here on Earth.

At least with God, one has an ontological and teleological font to explain everything. But with No God, even if there might be an ontological TOE intertwined in actual human interactions, how can there be a teleological component?

The more you think about just how profoundly problematic existence itself is, the more boggled the mind becomes. No wonder then that there are so many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...around to offer you the psychological balm that is objectivism.

[Iwannaplato]

But how to wrap your head around the human condition in a No God world?

How to wrap your head around it in a God world? I don't see any answer that isn't mindboggling.

At least with God, one has an ontological and teleological font to explain everything.

And all those explanations...how does one wrap one's mind around them?

So, when you say these things about it being mindboggling and that you can't wrap your head around it: is there something else you are trying to say. Or are you simply saying you can't understand these things?

[Flannel Jesus]

So? The point here [mine] is that others might hold him responsible for stealing those anchovies above that he was never able not to steal. And, in fact, they are holding him responsible only because they too were never able to freely opt not to.

That's one because that I think Sam Harris would agree with, or at least, I think he ought to, given his determinism.
But there would be for him another because...
because it's a good idea to treat, well, I don't know about anchovie stealers - I missed that earlier wherever it is - but because it's a good idea to treat people who want to kill differently than you treat those who don't.

Of course, the sense that this is a good idea is also determined, if Sam Harris is right about determinism.

This idea that people can't be rational if determinism is true, and they can only be rational if indeterminism is true, is worth exploring. I'd explore it with Biggy but I know from experience that he doesn't seem to know how to stay on a topic or answer questions clearly.

In any case, I would posit that perhaps it's exactly the opposite of that that's the case - we can only reason BECAUSE our brains are a casual system where future states follow from past states. I posit that the very process of reasoning relies on deterministic-ish systems operating.

I mean, the more randomness you add, eventually your brain becomes entirely incapable of processing coherent thoughts - add even more randomness and eventually your brain is entirely physically unstable, not able to physically cohere together because the rules of the universe aren't consistent enough to keep this chunk hooked up to that chunk.

So while I understand, in a way, the intuition that determinism means rationality is moot, on the other hand it seems like determinism (not necessarily PURE determinism, but at least some lesser kind) is the only venue in which rationality can occur at all. Rationality may be something only achievable by a machine with information processing tools available to it. And if that is the case, then even if determinism is true, it would make sense that some of these information processing machines are measurably better at that than other ones. Determinism doesn't seem to conflict with that to me.

[Flannel Jesus]

But how to wrap your head around the human condition in a No God world?

How to wrap your head around it in a God world? I don't see any answer that isn't mindboggling.

At least with God, one has an ontological and teleological font to explain everything.

And all those explanations...how does one wrap one's mind around them?

I consider that a pretty shallow explanation as well. "Why are you rich?" God wanted it. "Why did that child die of cancer?" God wanted it. "Why do we breathe o2 and drink h2o?" God wanted it.

It's as satisfying as saying A Witch Did It

[Iwannaplato]

This idea that people can't be rational if determinism is true, and they can only be rational if indeterminism is true, is worth exploring. I'd explore it with Biggy but I know from experience that he doesn't seem to know how to stay on a topic or answer questions clearly.

In any case, I would posit that perhaps it's exactly the opposite of that that's the case - we can only reason BECAUSE our brains are a casual system where future states follow from past states. I posit that the very process of reasoning relies on deterministic-ish systems operating.

I mean, the more randomness you add, eventually your brain becomes entirely incapable of processing coherent thoughts - add even more randomness and eventually your brain is entirely physically unstable, not able to physically cohere together because the rules of the universe aren't consistent enough to keep this chunk hooked up to that chunk.

So while I understand, in a way, the intuition that determinism means rationality is moot, on the other hand it seems like determinism (not necessarily PURE determinism, but at least some lesser kind) is the only venue in which rationality can occur at all. Rationality may be something only achievable by a machine with information processing tools available to it. And if that is the case, then even if determinism is true, it would make sense that some of these information processing machines are measurably better at that than other ones. Determinism doesn't seem to conflict with that to me.

I don't think that determinism eliminates reason.
And I am not sure that free will, whatever it would be, makes being able to reason more likely.
You come to a conclusion utterly uncompelled by prior causes. The conclusion is not caused by what you experienced, by deduction or induction, by what you have perceived, by your desires, by outside compulsion....etc. Nothing necessarily leads to the conclusion.

And this is MORE rational?

I am not ruling this out, but I don't know, yet, what this would mean.

There is, regardless, it seems to me, the possibility that we are fooling ourselves/mistaken. This seems possible in either the detemininist model or the free will model - with the proviso that I am not sure what the latter is like deep down.

It certainly seems like animals, which Iambiguous thinks do not have free will even if we do, can be quite rational. The rabbit ran in the hole, I will dig there. And so on. In other words animals can function well in relation to reality.

We can have a broken calculator or spreadsheet maker or ones that work.

[Iwannaplato]

But how to wrap your head around the human condition in a No God world?

How to wrap your head around it in a God world? I don't see any answer that isn't mindboggling.

At least with God, one has an ontological and teleological font to explain everything.

And all those explanations...how does one wrap one's mind around them?

I consider that a pretty shallow explanation as well. "Why are you rich?" God wanted it. "Why did that child die of cancer?" God wanted it. "Why do we breathe o2 and drink h2o?" God wanted it.

It's as satisfying as saying A Witch Did It

It's no less mind boggling. If tomorrow someone came and managed to prove to me without a doubt that the universe is like it is because of X and the correct ontology is Y, I know I would be stunned, whatever those variables are. I have my belief system, though I shift through paradigms. But even if my guess turned out to be the case, I would be stunned. The supposedly banal, non-supernatural physicalist model...utterly amazing. How utterly odd and strange! All the others I have ever heard of...? I'd be gobsmacked.

[Flannel Jesus]

If tomorrow someone came and managed to prove to me without a doubt that the universe is like it is because of X and the correct ontology is Y, I know I would be stunned, whatever those variables are.

I think I feel the same