Compatibilism is impossible

[Trajk Logik]

But I've never even said anything like this in this conversation with you. This conversation has literally 0 to do with my personal beliefs.

I've asked you for your definition of Compatiblism. I had to, because you were taking issue with all other definitions. So it was the only fair thing to do: to ask you what you mean when you say "Compatibilism."

My intention was to understand your position, and see if we could agree. But when your definition came back, it just said that Compatiblism means that Determinism and free will are "fully compatible." That's a circular definition, and it doesn't answer the question of HOW they can be compatible, which is what this entire thread is about.

And you stil haven't said. I can only conclude that you don't know. And our chances of agreeing, therefore are zero...not because I'm unwilling to find common ground, but because you don't actually offer an explanation of "Compatibilism" that explains how it is supposed to work.

A definition of most things doesn't explain how those things are supposed to work. That's not... how definitions work. Can you define the word "clock" without understanding how clocks work?

It depends on what you plan to do. You don't need to know how a clock works to know what it does. Do you plan on repairing a clock, or just telling the time?

[Flannel Jesus]

It depends on what you plan to do. You don't need to know how a clock works to know what it does. Do you plan on repairing a clock, or just telling the time?

You don't need to define the word "clock" to do either of those things.

If I wanted to define the word "clock", it would be to make sure people broadly understood which thing I was talking about when I say the word. Neither I nor the people I'm taking to need to understand how clocks mechanically work in order to have a mutual understanding of which category of things I'm talking about when I say "clock".

[Immanuel Can]

But I've never even said anything like this in this conversation with you. This conversation has literally 0 to do with my personal beliefs.

I've asked you for your definition of Compatiblism. I had to, because you were taking issue with all other definitions. So it was the only fair thing to do: to ask you what you mean when you say "Compatibilism."

My intention was to understand your position, and see if we could agree. But when your definition came back, it just said that Compatiblism means that Determinism and free will are "fully compatible." That's a circular definition, and it doesn't answer the question of HOW they can be compatible, which is what this entire thread is about.

And you stil haven't said. I can only conclude that you don't know. And our chances of agreeing, therefore are zero...not because I'm unwilling to find common ground, but because you don't actually offer an explanation of "Compatibilism" that explains how it is supposed to work

A definition of most things doesn't explain how those things are supposed to work.

Compatiblism is not one of those things. Look at the word "Compatible-ism." That promises an ideological position that has the ability to get two things "compatible." If you can't do that, then you haven't got "compatible" anything. So "how" is indispensible to the definition just like Stanford thinks it is, as you can see.

But I can see what you're doing: throwing up petty objections because you can't do it. You don't have any mechanism or way in which you can show Determinism and free will to be reconcilable, which is exactly why you won't even try.

[Flannel Jesus]

Compatiblism is not one of those things. Look at the word "Compatible-ism." That promises an ideological position that has the ability to get two things "compatible." If you can't do that, then you haven't got "compatible" anything. So "how" is indispensible to the definition just like Stanford thinks it is, as you can see.

I can see the definition Stanford gives at the top of the article. It's very brief and there is no "how". Here it is:

Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.

That's it. No "how" necessary. Not for a definition.

[Flannel Jesus]

There are situations where a "how" is necessary:

Explaining the idea in detail would probably require a "how". A compatibilist trying to justify compatibilism would probably require a "how". Distinguishing between the various different takes on compatibilism might utilise the different answers to "how".

But broadly defining compatibilism? No, I don't think a "how" is necessary for that. That's like saying a broad definition of Christianity isn't valid unless you know HOW exactly human minds persist into the afterlife. I don't think the HOW question there is relevant to defining Christianity.

[Immanuel Can]

Compatiblism is not one of those things. Look at the word "Compatible-ism." That promises an ideological position that has the ability to get two things "compatible." If you can't do that, then you haven't got "compatible" anything. So "how" is indispensible to the definition just like Stanford thinks it is, as you can see.

I can see the definition Stanford gives at the top of the article.

And you can see the explanation they give, which I sent on to you, twice....and that it includes how.

So again, just another evasion. Non-responsive.

You don't know how to make Determinism "compatible" with free will. That's increasingly obvious to anyone who sees your responses.

Okay. Just admit that...or don't...because either way, it's evident by your silence on that point.

[Flannel Jesus]

Compatiblism is not one of those things. Look at the word "Compatible-ism." That promises an ideological position that has the ability to get two things "compatible." If you can't do that, then you haven't got "compatible" anything. So "how" is indispensible to the definition just like Stanford thinks it is, as you can see.

I can see the definition Stanford gives at the top of the article.

And you can see the explanation they give, which I sent on to you, twice....and that it includes how.

So again, just another evasion. Non-responsive.

You don't know how to make Determinism "compatible" with free will. That's increasingly obvious to anyone who sees your responses.

Okay. Just admit that...or don't...because either way, it's evident by your silence on that point.

I already told you I can't prove compatibilism to you, and I explained why exactly it's not relevant either. No idea why you keep bringing it up as if it is.

[Immanuel Can]

I already told you I can't prove compatibilism to you...

Fair enough.

Then what you're believing is that somehow Determinism and free will might reconcile, but you haven't the faintest clue how.

That's called "wishful thinking," not "a philosophical position."

[Harbal]

Compatibilism basically says that there are no uncaused events.

Therefore, free-will is only ever free from external constrain or coercion.

That's compatibilist free-will.

What I am arguing is that free will is impossible in a deterministic world.

Maybe it isn't completely deterministic. Anyway, there is too much that we don't know to be able to say if, and to what extent, free will is possible.

[Flannel Jesus]

I already told you I can't prove compatibilism to you...

Fair enough.

Then what you're believing is that somehow Determinism and free will might reconcile, but you haven't the faintest clue how.

That's called "wishful thinking," not "a philosophical position."

And all of that is as beside the point now as it was 2 pages ago, which you still somehow haven't grasped. You said compatibilists say free will is an illusion. That's not the case, and it's not the case regardless of if any particular person is able to prove compatibilism to you.

Determinists who are INCOMPATIBLISTS say free will is an illusion. You have it precisely backwards. You have understood the exact opposite of the truth.

[Flannel Jesus]

The word "illusion" appears 6 times in the Stanford article. Here's the 3rd appearance:

The worry is that determinism entails that what we do is, always, the only thing we can do, and that because of this we never really have a choice about anything, as opposed to being under the (perhaps inescapable) illusion that we have a choice. Someone who argues for incompatibilism in this way may concede that the truth of determinism is consistent with our making choices, at least in the sense in which a dog or young child makes choices, and consistent also with our choices being causally effective. But, she insists, this is not enough for free will; we have free will only if we have a genuine choice about what actions we perform, and we have a genuine choice only if there is more than one action we are able to perform.

Explicitly it links the idea that choices are an illusion with incompatibilism, not compatibilism. You have it backwards IC.

If someone says they believe the world is deterministic and free will is an illusion, then it's almost certain that you're talking to an incompatiblist, not a compatibilist

[Immanuel Can]

I already told you I can't prove compatibilism to you...

Fair enough.

Then what you're believing is that somehow Determinism and free will might reconcile, but you haven't the faintest clue how.

That's called "wishful thinking," not "a philosophical position."

And all of that is as beside the point now as it was 2 pages ago, ...

Oh, decidedly not.

What it means is that you've been working assiduously to defend a position you don't even really understand. You don't know how it works, or what would make it rational to believe. You just want it to be true, apparently. And fact that you have no mechanism even to propose to reconcile the two means that your belief in Compatibilism is not merely a faith position, but a wholesale blind-faith position.

And I confess I'm disappointed in that. I was hoping you'd have something special to add to the conversation, some unique way of arguing that Compatiblism, as the OP has it, "is possible." Hey, maybe even some line of argument that would be challenging for me to deal with, and would make me do some mental work, or even would shift my perspective. But it seems you don't: and that you weren't even aware of how others, such as the folks listed by the Stanford explanation, had tried to resolve the dilemma that everybody sees there.

So now what I can't understand is why you were defending Compatibilism in the first place. But maybe you can explain what terror or concern, at least, induces to to cling so enthusiastically to a position you can't even explain. I'd still be interested in knowing that much.

[Flannel Jesus]

Fair enough.

Then what you're believing is that somehow Determinism and free will might reconcile, but you haven't the faintest clue how.

That's called "wishful thinking," not "a philosophical position."

And all of that is as beside the point now as it was 2 pages ago, ...

Oh, decidedly not.

What it means is that you've been working assiduously to defend a position you don't even really understand.

I can't believe you still don't understand. I haven't been defending any position for all these pages.

So now what I can't understand is why you were defending Compatibilism in the first place.

If you could read, you'd understand that hasn't been happening at all.

"Compatibilists don't think free will is an illusion" isn't a defense of compatibilism, it is a raw fact about compatibilists. My guess is, you are so blinded by ideological rage that you can't tell the difference.

[Immanuel Can]

I can't believe you still don't understand.

My only remaining question is, why are you believing in Compatibilism, since you can't even imagine how it would work?

[Flannel Jesus]

I can't believe you still don't understand.

My only remaining question is, why are you believing in Compatibilism, since you can't even imagine how it would work?

Who says I can't imagine how it would work? You seem exceedingly confused. You're confusing "I'm uninterested in talking to you about how it works" with "I can't imagine how it might work".