compatibilism

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, chimp life is pretty bloody and cruel, especially if a chimp is caught by one troop while away from his own.

Oh sure, yes. But within the troop disputes can settled thru, as I say, dominance (a kind of peaceful settlement).

Hmmm…you should see how “dominance” is established within a chimp troop. It’s about as bloody and decisive as you might imagine.

[phyllo]

Why, if it can be done?

FJ sez what's compatible are free will and determinism. All he needs to do is define both. If he's right the compatibility should be obvious.

As Steven Weinberg puts it: "I would say that free will is nothing but our conscious experience of deciding what to do, which I know I am experiencing as I write this review, and this experience is not invalidated by the reflection that physical laws made it inevitable that I would want to make these decisions."[

Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had the freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."[15] In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. This definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism.[3] This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one's own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination.

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

[Immanuel Can]

Why, if it can be done?

FJ sez what's compatible are free will and determinism. All he needs to do is define both. If he's right the compatibility should be obvious.

As Steven Weinberg puts it: "I would say that free will is nothing but our conscious experience of deciding what to do, which I know I am experiencing as I write this review, and this experience is not invalidated by the reflection that physical laws made it inevitable that I would want to make these decisions."

All that says is, “Free will is what I imagine I have (my “conscious experience”), and physical laws are absolutely the real thing that makes the illusory ‘decision’ for me.” That’s exactly what I’ve been saying is true of Compatibilism — it simply collapses free will into strict determinism. It doesn’t make them “compatible” at all.

A delusion is not “compatible” with the truth. By definition, it’s the opposite.

[Iwannaplato]

I think there's a huge intuitional gap between what's in your head and compatibilism,

Sorry…you’re just wrong. It was you who identified determinism and free will as the alleged “compatible” things. I’m just asking you to provide the evidence that that’s even possible. And your refusal to do so…well, that really says all we need to know.

I have yet to meet a Compatibilist who could defend his view on rational grounds. I offered you the chance to be the first. You’ve declined that opportunity. As to why, well, I guess we’ll just have to draw the obvious conclusion.

Now, as to your question WHY they believe something that’s so contradictory it cannot be rationally defended, that’s a psychological question, and not uninteresting. But it is ad hominem, and thus is unrelated to the question of whether or not their belief makes a drop of sense. There can be a lot of reasons why somebody embraces an indefensible belief: but none of the motive questions help make Compatibilism itself any more rational. To do that, they would have to defend it; and you have decided not to do that…for whatever motives you, yourself have. I think motive questions are much less important than coherence ones here.

You did not respond to the post you quote one piece of. This started with him clarifying what the terms mean, and you treating that as an assertion he had or could demonstrate it (to you). He explained that he had not made a case, in what you were treating as an argument or assertion that compatibilism was true. S

And then we get to the slimy last posts where you claim to not be interested in motivations, while sayng things like this

As to why, well, I guess we’ll just have to draw the obvious conclusion.

It's your usual slimy, smug passive aggressive BS.

The charitable interpretation of something like this

Now, as to your question WHY they believe something that’s so contradictory it cannot be rationally defended, that’s a psychological question, and not uninteresting. But it is ad hominem, and thus is unrelated to the question of whether or not their belief makes a drop of sense. There can be a lot of reasons why somebody embraces an indefensible belief: but none of the motive questions help make Compatibilism itself any more rational. To do that, they would have to defend it; and you have decided not to do that…for whatever motives you, yourself have. I think motive questions are much less important than coherence ones here.

and it's obvious contradictions is that you just simply lack the ability to reflect and introspect.

The alternative is so toxic it's disturbing to contemplate.

[Immanuel Can]

This started with him clarifying what the terms mean, and you treating that as an assertion he had or could demonstrate it (to you).

Look back: that’s not at all how it happened. This started with me asking if there could be any rationale for Compatibilism that didn’t amount to a collapse into Determinism. And that’s a very reasonable question, surely.

He refused, and then averred to the “motive” issue, as in, why do people believe this (contradictory) thing? I think it quite obvious that the more important question is whether or not Compatiblism is contradictory or not. He says it reconciles determination with free will. I don’t see how it does that. He doesn’t answer, and refuses to, and then accuses me of asking a question other than the one he wants to answer.

That’s how it went. The rest of what you say…well, it gets the attention it deserves.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think there's a huge intuitional gap between what's in your head and compatibilism,

Sorry…you’re just wrong.

So there isn't a huge intuitional gap? So you understand the intuitions and thought processes that lead to compatibilism?

[Immanuel Can]

I think there's a huge intuitional gap between what's in your head and compatibilism,

Sorry…you’re just wrong.

So there isn't a huge intuitional gap? So you understand the intuitions and thought processes that lead to compatibilism?

I don’t want “intuitions.” “Intuitions” can be right or wrong. I’d like reasons to believe that Compatibilism can ‘compatibilize’ free will and determination. And nobody seems ready to step up on that.

[Flannel Jesus]

Sorry…you’re just wrong.

So there isn't a huge intuitional gap? So you understand the intuitions and thought processes that lead to compatibilism?

I don’t want “intuitions.” “Intuitions” can be right or wrong. I’d like reasons to believe that Compatibilism can ‘compatibilize’ free will and determination. And nobody seems ready to step up on that.

so i'm not just wrong about the gap then.

[Flannel Jesus]

and then averred to the “motive” issue, as in, why do people believe this (contradictory) thing?

I never said anything about a motive. "Why do you believe this?" doesn't have to be answered with a "motive", it's bizarre that you'd jump there without asking me.

[Immanuel Can]

So there isn't a huge intuitional gap? So you understand the intuitions and thought processes that lead to compatibilism?

I don’t want “intuitions.” “Intuitions” can be right or wrong. I’d like reasons to believe that Compatibilism can ‘compatibilize’ free will and determination. And nobody seems ready to step up on that.

so i'm not just wrong about the gap then.

The turn to the ad hominem is evidence of desperation. If Compatiblism could be defended by you, you’d have done it. If you haven’t, then the most obvious reason would be inability. In which case, congratulations: you’re a garden-variety Compatibilist, a person who thinks mutually-exclusive things can be true at the same time.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't owe you a proof. You're not entitled to a proof. If you'd like to have a conversation about my reasoning that leads me to believe something, you can have that, but I'm not putting myself on the backfoot in a trial with some entitled brat demanding a proof. Your attitude is entirely offputting.

[Immanuel Can]

and then averred to the “motive” issue, as in, why do people believe this (contradictory) thing?

I never said anything about a motive. "Why do you believe this?" doesn't have to be answered with a "motive", it's bizarre that you'd jump there without asking me.

You asked “why they believe,” but also insisted that by “why,” you don’t intend to offer any rational defence for the truth of that belief. What other “why” is left, then, but the motive of the (apparently-false) believer himself?

But if you didn’t mean motive, then what did you mean?

[Flannel Jesus]

and then averred to the “motive” issue, as in, why do people believe this (contradictory) thing?

I never said anything about a motive. "Why do you believe this?" doesn't have to be answered with a "motive", it's bizarre that you'd jump there without asking me.

You asked “why they believe,” but also insisted that by “why,” you don’t intend to offer any rational defence for the truth of that belief.

I insisted that, did I?

You're being entirely ridiculous.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't owe you a proof. You're not entitled to a proof.

Owing has nothing to do with it. This is a philosophy site: people come her to advance and defend their beliefs. You’ve advanced one, Compatibilism. But you can’t defend it. And while you don’t owe anybody a defense, neither do they owe you to believe you, if you have no rational account of how such a thing can be believed.

[Flannel Jesus]

You’ve advanced one, Compatibilism.

Believe it or not, in this conversation that we're having here, that actually *didn't* happen.