compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/dete ... l-failure/

Why the Classical Argument Against Free Will Is a Failure
Despite bold philosophical and scientific claims, there’s still no good reason to doubt the existence of free will.

By: Mark Balaguer

In the last several years, a number of prominent scientists have claimed that we have good scientific reason to believe that there’s no such thing as free will — that free will is an illusion.

Or maybe you simply are compelled to think the scientists have asserted this and your mind is neither autonomous nor correct.

If this were true, it would be less than splendid. And it would be surprising, too, because it really seems like we have free will. It seems that what we do from moment to moment is determined by conscious decisions that we freely make.

Or maybe you are simply compelled to think that it seems that way. Maybe it doesn't seem that way.

We need to look very closely at the arguments that these scientists are putting forward to determine whether they really give us good reason to abandon our belief in free will. But before we do that, it would behoove us to have a look at a much older argument against free will — an argument that’s been around for centuries.

Or maybe you are compelled by a set of causes going back to the Big Bang to think that we need to examine the arguments of these scientists....

and so one.

Quote an article or quote another poster.

Then paste in the same responses that have nothing at aII to do with any specifics in the article.

Nothing new is happening.

The contents of the article are not necessary at all to engage with.

Supposedly Iambiguous says that it wouId be different if a scientist who had compelling research proving one way of the other about determinism vs. free will.

But why. Even if he himself finds the research compelling, he could still repeat the same mantra...but perhaps I am compelled from the Big Bang to think this.

What this all does is treat it as if we already know that there is no point in reasoned dialogue. Not simply that there might be or there is a strong chance, but since we have a pattern of not interacting with ideas quoted and throwing the same mantra at them, we might as well have decided there is no possibility that one interpretation could be better than another or that a discussion could possibIy Iead to a more accurate view.

But this isn't admitted.

It's rather surreaI.

But I've reached my Iambiguous threshoId.

Time for a pause.

And note: when I point out the siIIiness of his approach, he interprets this to mean I am asserting there is no possibility of determinism undermining reason. Even when I assert that it is a possibiity, yet suggest, but hey, we couId try anyway.

What a tyrannicaI poster I am when I suggest his interpretation is incorrect and present my reasons.

[Flannel Jesus]

Over and again with you, in my view, I have been accused of failing to grasp what this or that author meant to convey in this or that article. As though how you understand his or her points is necessarily more reasonable. When, all the while, over and over and over again, I suggest that both sides are able to offer reasonable arguments here merely by changing the assumptions [regarding the human condition] they start out with: https://www.educationalwave.com/pros-an ... free-will/

I give reasons for why I think my interpretation is correct.
You do not respond to this by giving reasons why you think your interpretation is correct.

He's not failing to grasp it, he's not even TRYING to grasp. You can't fail at something you didn't try in the first place. I didn't fail at fishing today, I just didn't go fishing.

Everything he reads he says the same damn things to. No matter what the other person says, it's "and then the part where <I change the subject to something else>" or "but isn't that the only thing you could have possibly said?"

These aren't the words of someone who tried to understand and failed, these are the words of someone with no intention to understand in the first place.

[Iwannaplato]

He's not failing to grasp it, he's not even TRYING to grasp. You can't fail at something you didn't try in the first place. I didn't fail at fishing today, I just didn't go fishing.

ExactIy. My next post went into this. He throws up his hands in the face of the possibility we can't now something. PossibiIity, in practicaI terms, is considered the case.

What couId possibly be the point in quoting articles?

[Flannel Jesus]

What couId possibly be the point in quoting articles?

Smell his own farts of course. Yum.

[Iwannaplato]

Smell his own farts of course. Yum.

I think I'm going to try this approach to intellectual dialogue.
I'm going to write 'But it's possible that this is a brain in a vat situation, in response to posts in all different topics here.
If someone reacts negativeIy to this, I wiII suggest they are saying that they necessarily think their viewpoint is correct.
Then I wiII ask them to demonstrate it isn't a brain in a vat situation and that it doesn't matter to Mary who just got an abortion in the simuIation.

[Flannel Jesus]

Smell his own farts of course. Yum.

I think I'm going to try this approach to intellectual dialogue.
I'm going to write 'But it's possible that this is a brain in a vat situations,' in response to posts in all different topics here.
If someone reacts negativeIy to this, I wiII suggest they are saying that they necessarily think their viewpoint is correct.
Then I wiII ask them to demonstrate it isn't a brain in a vat situation and that it doesn't matter to Mary who just got an abortion in the simuIation.

And then when they try to demonstrate it's not a brain in a vat, you say "but that's what a brain in a vat would say". Now we're thinking like biggy

[Iwannaplato]

Smell his own farts of course. Yum.

I think I'm going to try this approach to intellectual dialogue.
I'm going to write 'But it's possible that this is a brain in a vat situations,' in response to posts in all different topics here.
If someone reacts negativeIy to this, I wiII suggest they are saying that they necessarily think their viewpoint is correct.
Then I wiII ask them to demonstrate it isn't a brain in a vat situation and that it doesn't matter to Mary who just got an abortion in the simuIation.

And then when they try to demonstrate it's not a brain in a vat, you say "but that's what a brain in a vat would say". Now we're thinking like biggy

With some occasional variation into 'Given our different backgrounds, cultures, psychoIogies, that is dasein, we may be arriving at our concIusions based on inevitabIe differences, so there's no good reason for me to justify anything or consider what you are saying possibIe. I'm the first to admit I might be wrong, but I'm the Iast to admit there's any point in having an inteIIectuaI dialogue.

[iambiguous]

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

The seventeenth century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza had similar metaphysical views. Spinoza understood the world as unitary, such that there is only one true thing or substance, which is both physically extended across space and at the same time involves a mental system of ideas.

And then he proceeded to go about actually demonstrating that this is in fact true objectively for all of us. And to this day it is still the accepted explanation.

Not.

Once again that gap between "metaphysical views" regarding both the universe and our own place in it and all that we are still ignorant regarding both the world of the very, very large and the very, very small.

As for that "mental system of ideas", does this revolve around the assumption that a Divine Universe possesses a teleological component of some sort? A meaning and a purpose that we all embody...beyond our control?

Let him explain it...

To Spinoza this substance is both God and nature. However, it is important to note that Spinoza’s God should not be understood as a superpowerful quasi-human being ruling over the world.

Which, of course, makes "Him"/"It" all the more problematic. And then the part where pantheists are able to connect the dots between the metaphysical universe and the day-to-day existential reality of human interactions. Which, to the best of my current knowledge, they have never been able to accomplish.

Spinoza’s God is more the totality of everything there is. In this sense, different objects, including people like ourselves, are merely facets or modes of this one infinite, indivisible divine substance in which they all dwell.

Next up...

So, given whatever you imagine "one infinite, indivisible divine substance" to be, how do those here who share Spinoza's assessment connect the dots between his ideas and their own interactions with others. In particular interactions that result in or stem from conflicting goods.

[Iwannaplato]

The seventeenth century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza had similar metaphysical views. Spinoza understood the world as unitary, such that there is only one true thing or substance, which is both physically extended across space and at the same time involves a mental system of ideas.

And then he proceeded to go about actually demonstrating that this is in fact true objectively for all of us. And to this day it is still the accepted explanation.

Not.

Well, the first part about the unitary universe - we would say universe - fits with modern science, even relativity. That there is a four dimensional single 'thing' that is the universe. The second part, given that modern science is monist and considers mental states to be emergent from matter - the only substance - is not a problem on that count. I am not sure exactly what she means he means entirely there.

But of course even scientific explanations are not 'the accepted explanations.' There is a diversity of accepted explanations, even within different worldviews. So, that his view is not 'the accepted explanation' is not much of a criticism.

Once again that gap between "metaphysical views" regarding both the universe and our own place in it and all that we are still ignorant regarding both the world of the very, very large and the very, very small.

Is there anyone who doesn't have metaphysical views? If you think you are communicating with other people who have other minds, that's a metaphysical position? If you think Spinoza was wrong and there is a diversity of things that's a metaphysical position? If you think there is matter, that's a metaphysical position? If, like most scientists, you think there are natural laws or regularites in the universe, then you have a metaphysical position? If you think we can figure these out, you have yet another one? I you think determinism MIGHT be the case, that is a metaphysical position? Considering it possible is a metaphysical position with metaphysical assumptions.

And so on.

To Spinoza this substance is both God and nature. However, it is important to note that Spinoza’s God should not be understood as a superpowerful quasi-human being ruling over the world.

Which, of course, makes "Him"/"It" all the more problematic. And then the part where pantheists are able to connect the dots between the metaphysical universe and the day-to-day existential reality of human interactions. Which, to the best of my current knowledge, they have never been able to accomplish.

Well, that's part and parcel of most beliefs.

Spinoza’s God is more the totality of everything there is. In this sense, different objects, including people like ourselves, are merely facets or modes of this one infinite, indivisible divine substance in which they all dwell.

Next up...

So, given whatever you imagine "one infinite, indivisible divine substance" to be, how do those here who share Spinoza's assessment connect the dots between his ideas and their own interactions with others. In particular interactions that result in or stem from conflicting goods.

I don't think his ontology leads to any particular ethics. In him it led to judgments of the emotions, placing understanding of the situation, reason and self-control in the center.

Which is of course ironic, given that everything is necessary, including emotions, if it exists, according to him. His system fits fairly well, in broad strokes with many versions of Buddhism and HInduism, which he potentially teased out of Greek philosophy and perhaps even Jewish philosophy.

Anyway, it seems to me you could almost go anywhere ethically from thinking it's all one thing, God.
Whatever you do is right
to
Be nice everything is a facet of God.

[iambiguous]

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

In his Ethics (1677) Spinoza says that this substance’s essence explains its existence. In other words, it’s the nature of the ultimate substance of the world to exist; and all other things follow necessarily from this nature. Therefore, all things are conditioned to act in a particular manner by God.

No, Spinoza pondered all of this philosophically and then "thought up" this "substance" in his head. Just as Leibniz "thought up" monads. Though, sure, it may well exist. And if there is anyone here who believes that it does, please, by all means, let him or her back up their theoretical assumptions/assessments with hard evidence. Especially the part where this cosmic substance "somehow" resulted in human autonomy.

But even here, in my view, Spinoza finds it necessary to "think up" yet another transcending font in order to subsume human interactions in his very own philosophical contraption.

Where's the beef, Baruch?

Or, as Spinoza puts it, from God’s infinite power or nature “all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles.”

Again, philosophically, that's how he put it. And yet today, hundreds of years later, even science is still unable to sink this basket. And the nature of a triangle in the either/or world stays the same all the way down. But the nature of human interactions in the is/ought world?

In other words, the part where some are perturbed by the mere possibility that, to Mother Nature, we are just so many dominoes toppling over when "somehow" matter itself came into existence. And "somehow" resulted in us.

Then this part again...

Lastly, Spinoza tells us there is no free will. Even God, according to Spinoza, does not act through free will, but from its very nature or infinite power in such a way that all things are conditioned to exist and operate in a particular manner by necessity. Put differently, things could not have been brought into being by God in any manner or order different from the way they have been brought into being.

Got that?

Okay, if you think you do, please connect the dots between this philosophical argument and the actual behaviors that you yourself choose in regard to conflicting value judgments.

How does cause and effect unfold when Mary aborts Jane? How might Spinoza have "put it"?

[iambiguous]

The seventeenth century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza had similar metaphysical views. Spinoza understood the world as unitary, such that there is only one true thing or substance, which is both physically extended across space and at the same time involves a mental system of ideas.

And then he proceeded to go about actually demonstrating that this is in fact true objectively for all of us. And to this day it is still the accepted explanation.

Not.

Well, the first part about the unitary universe - we would say universe - fits with modern science, even relativity. That there is a four dimensional single 'thing' that is the universe. The second part, given that modern science is monist and considers mental states to be emergent from matter - the only substance - is not a problem on that count. I am not sure exactly what she means he means entirely there.

Either Spinoza and others like him were or were not able to demonstrate how and why their philosophical assessments of human beings, the natural world and the universe are in fact objectively applicable to all rational men and women.

Like there wasn't a gap -- a chasm? -- between what minds like his thought about all of this back then and all that science still needed to grasp in regard to mindless matter "somehow" evolving into biological matter "somehow" evolving into us. And, in fact, still needs to grasp today.

How is pantheism itself not but another One True Path by which existentially some come to embrace it and others to ridicule it.

But of course even scientific explanations are not 'the accepted explanations.' There is a diversity of accepted explanations, even within different worldviews. So, that his view is not 'the accepted explanation' is not much of a criticism.

Accepted explanations regarding what sets of circumstances? Accepted by whom? Rejected by whom? For what reasons? Let's run Donald Trump's explantion for why the world is what it is today by Kamala Harris. And yet even then we would first have to take a philosophical "leap of faith" to human autonomy.

Once again that gap between "metaphysical views" regarding both the universe and our own place in it and all that we are still ignorant regarding both the world of the very, very large and the very, very small.

Is there anyone who doesn't have metaphysical views? If you think you are communicating with other people who have other minds, that's a metaphysical position?

Having metaphysical views about the existence of existence itself, the Big Bang, quantum mechanics, the multiverse, God, determinism, ethics, how and why the human condition fits into it all, etc., is one thing, actually being able to prove with solid evidence that what you believe about these things reflects either the optimal frame of mind or the only possible rational assessment that there is...?[/quote]

If you think Spinoza was wrong and there is a diversity of things that's a metaphysical position?

On this thread in particular, however, what I think is that no mere mortal is able to definitively confirm one way of the other whether we do in fact have free will. Instead, given the time and the place they were raised as children, the people they discussed it with as adults, the personal experiences they had, the books and magazines they read, what they were taught in school, what they watched in the way of documentaries about it, etc., can take them in any number of conflicting directions given the theoretical assumptions they make.

Think Ayn Rand. She was able to take "metaphysics" and anchor human morality itself to her own philosophical understanding of the egoist, capitalism and rational behavior.

In fact, given my own understanding of determinism "here and now" it still seems absurd that some will argue that Rand was never able to opt not to believe what she dies, but who is still responsible for doing so.

To Spinoza this substance is both God and nature. However, it is important to note that Spinoza’s God should not be understood as a superpowerful quasi-human being ruling over the world.

Which, of course, makes "Him"/"It" all the more problematic. And then the part where pantheists are able to connect the dots between the metaphysical universe and the day-to-day existential reality of human interactions. Which, to the best of my current knowledge, they have never been able to accomplish.

Well, that's part and parcel of most beliefs.

And given that, I feel obligated -- compelled? -- to insist that when I come upon those who do believe in "universal morality", that they are able to move beyond mere belief into assessments that are able to be backed up objectively. Or as near to objectivity as we, perhaps, are able to go? After all, can someone here demonstrate that in fact the human species really is what everything in the universe comes back to?

Spinoza’s God is more the totality of everything there is. In this sense, different objects, including people like ourselves, are merely facets or modes of this one infinite, indivisible divine substance in which they all dwell.

Next up...

So, given whatever you imagine "one infinite, indivisible divine substance" to be, how do those here who share Spinoza's assessment connect the dots between his ideas and their own interactions with others. In particular interactions that result in or stem from conflicting goods.

I don't think his ontology leads to any particular ethics. In him it led to judgments of the emotions, placing understanding of the situation, reason and self-control in the center.

More to the point though, the gap between an ontology -- teleology? -- able to explain the universe and what Spinoza's ontology -- teleology? -- encompassed? Spinoza went to the grave just like all of us will end up there...oblivious to anything in the way of objective assessments of these questions...The Really Big Questions:

* Why something instead of nothing?
* Why this something and not something else?
* Where does the human condition fit into the whole understanding of this particular something itself?
* What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
* What of the multiverse?
* What of God?

And as I tried to explain to gib over at ILP, human emotions/intuitions are [to me[ no less embidied in dasein.

Which is of course ironic, given that everything is necessary, including emotions, if it exists, according to him. His system fits fairly well, in broad strokes with many versions of Buddhism and HInduism, which he potentially teased out of Greek philosophy and perhaps even Jewish philosophy.

With the assumption [for many] being that even though, okay, they have no capacity to actually demonstrate that Buddhism or Greek philosophy or Jewish philosophy encompasses free will...they "just know" that they have it!

Prove that they don't!

Anyway, it seems to me you could almost go anywhere ethically from thinking it's all one thing, God.
Whatever you do is right
to
Be nice everything is a facet of God.

Note to IC and henry and others:

Please explain to him how "for all practical purposes" it all unfolds for the True Christians. The True Deists. The True Buddhists. The True Platonists. The True Kantians.

[Iwannaplato]

It's OK, Iambiguous. YOu don't need to respond to my posts. I rarely find your responses actually intregrate what I write in them.
I often find, in my interpretation, naturually, thatyou don't really respond to (or read?) our posts or even the posts of writers you quote.
You often think my reactions to your posts are problematic in a variety of ways.
So, my suggestion is you post however you like and ignore me.
I'll occasionally respond to posts where either I think there is something interesting and/or I think you are misreading what you quote.
This will keep our interactions to a minimum., which I think is best.
I will unilaterally continue with this as a plan.
You're obviously free (or compelled) to do whatever you want.

[iambiguous]

It's OK, Iambiguous. YOu don't need to respond to my posts. I rarely find your responses actually intregrate what I write in them.
I often find, in my interpretation, naturually, thatyou don't really respond to (or read?) our posts or even the posts of writers you quote.
You often think my reactions to your posts are problematic in a variety of ways.
So, my suggestion is you post however you like and ignore me.
I'll occasionally respond to posts where either I think there is something interesting and/or I think you are misreading what you quote.
This will keep our interactions to a minimum., which I think is best.
I will unilaterally continue with this as a plan.
You're obviously free (or compelled) to do whatever you want.

Note to others:

As with many here -- "If I do say so myself" -- Iwannaplato often comes back around to how I never really understand the articles that I react to here from Philosophy Now. And then, to make matters worse, I don't understand in turn what they are trying to tell me what he or she really meant. And I flat-out acknowledge that I am unable myself to demonstrate how they are, what, necessarily wrong?

What's peculiar to me in regard to those like Iwannaplato, however, is that they do not appear be religious or ideological or deontological in their approach to morality.

Well, click, of course.

And yet at the same time, unlike me, they still seem intent on suggesting that one need not be "fractured and fragmented" in confronting conflicting goods in a Godless world.

How do they accomplish that?

Given free will and atheism?

Which, of course, I'll need to explore in regard to the reality of women like Mary aborting their unborn babies or clumps of cells. Some here will then insist that they have done this with me. As though only their own spin here counts.

[phyllo]

Which, of course, I'll need to explore in regard to the reality of women like Mary aborting their unborn babies or clumps of cells. Some here will then insist that they have done this with me. As though only their own spin here counts.

The replies you have received haven't explored Mary and abortion? There must be literally hundreds of replies about that subject, spanning more than a decade.

So what have all the posters who have written about Mary and abortion been doing?

Which critical aspect of Mary and abortion have they missed?

[Iwannaplato]

And yet at the same time, unlike me, they still seem intent on suggesting that one need not be "fractured and fragmented" in confronting conflicting goods in a Godless world.

How do they accomplish that?

notice how the issue is framed. The people who are not like Iambiguous have accomplished something. This echoes the days where anyone who wasn't suffering fragmentation or fracturedenss MUST be comforting themselves, and pretty much anything they said was interpreted as a method of making up stuff to comfort themselves.

For someone who thinks dasein affects use and leads to diverse attitudes, and who also acknowledges that nature (genes) also affects the way people live, feel, think, he has a very undiverse sense of humans. Really they are all like him, so if they aren't suffering X, it must be because the make up an intellectual contraption to comfort themselves.

Given the number of posts involved I could easy have missed where Iambigous considers, in a real thought out way, how perhaps he accomplished his experience of being fractured and fragmented. It seems to me that while calling himself a nihilist, he seems more like a multiple deontologist. Part of him believes X about the abortion issue and part of him believes Y. Well, yup, that's going to lead to fractured and fragmented. Add in that in another thread he didn't seem to understand the difference between virtue ethics and deontology, and he may think everyone is a deontologist. He may not realize that deontology is duty-based and that carries with it certain kinds of self-relation that are not so present in other metaethical postions. Amazingly enough his experiences may be things that he has accomplished and may not necessarily be the universal default that everyone else is unable to face. He certainly congratulaes discontinued discussion with him as meaning he 'got' to other people and they were facing the abyss.

And I second Phyllo's memory. People have responded in a variety of ways to the abortion scenario. What he really means is that after reading what they wrote, he still felt fractured and fragmented. He could consider that that does not entail what he often asserts it does. Or not. I'm betting on not, except for some throwaway acknowledgement that he might be wrong.

And yes, I will likely keep pointing out the ways I think Iambigious is misrepresnting or simply ignoring the articles he quotes. The articles are often interesting and it doesn't seem to matter much to Iambious what they say, so I can't see how it will hurt the experiences of the thousands of people reading his posts who do not respond.