compatibilism

[phyllo]

The way IC and HQ put it, they are influenced but not determined by external/internal factors.

(Whatever that means? How does it work? )

Anyways, they are responsible because they are choosing something and it's not "forced" on them by the physical configuration of matter.

[Iwannaplato]

What if someone had a little bit of libertarian free will, but also were a little bit subject to determining factors, external (and internal) causes?

Right that's the trickiest area to look at for my position.
It seems to me however that whatever that freedom is, it has nothing to do with the person. The decision, in this scenario would have partial relation to that person, but which of the possible choices is chosen would not. So, first off, the freedom is not theirs. It's lopped on on top. Not unlike interpretations of qm where we have indeterminism, but liklihoods.

So, for the libertarian free willer, I think, we have the unpleasant conclusion that the particular choice is random and the range of choices has to do with them. That's not really free will, that's a random lack of determinism. That swing room is not willed, it simply is. If it was willed than it would be determined by the self, its desires, etc.

But I think most libertarians (in this sense) would be unwilling disconnect the freedom part from their own natures. Their own specific natures.

If they are will to accept that certain choices are off the table, given external and internal causes, then it makes sense to retain responsbility. Since their range of options, for example, rules out rape. But they are not really given themselves free will.

If they want to hand onto something that is not merely non-determinism, then I think they have a problem.

And these people who have to admit that, in a sense, they could not order and eat something they hate. They could only do that if there was some reason to override their nature.

Internal causes would rule out all sorts of actions. They are off the table. External causes eliminate others.

This would entail that many things that other people can do we cannot, given our natures - which certainly seems to be the case.

If one can really do anything - with or without Atla's freedom from physical laws freedom included - then it's random. It has nothing to do with who we are. It's like dice are rolled period.

If there are limits placed by internal and external causes. Then the dice control the choosing within the possible range. And what makes us decide between going bowling and playing ping pong is not our decision, it's random.

Rape, for most of us, cannot be dice rolled to.

In any case, I would consider it a confused name to call that free will. It's a mix of determinism and indeterminism, much like some interpretations of, say, radioactive decay.

[Atla]

People who think that determinism isn't compatible with (psychological, legal, everyday) responsibility, simply don't understand determinism. We don't have free will in the philosophical sense, but most people have more than enough free will in the psychological, legal, everyday sense.

What's the big mistery here?

[Age]

Maybe I'll try to have the conversation with you that I wish he could.

What do you think about free will and determinism, and why do you think it?

As I've said earlier I think responsibility is compatible - and to me clearly in the practical sense - with determinism.

As can be very clearly seen here, once again, these people just did not get it.

Definitions, which actually are irrefutable, and thus work, perfectly, are completely ignored, and they persist bickering, arguing, and/or fighting over words and definitions that they cannot even agree with, and accept, let alone ones that actual work and are irrefutable.

LOL These people would just persist and carry on with words and definitions that can be refuted. Which, again, shows and proves why they took so, so long to 'grow up' and, also, discover and see what the actual Truth is, exactly.

Responsibility and determinism are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and SEPARATE issues, HERE. And, just talking about them, in 'the way' this one does, shows, exactly, why they were so far behind, back when this was being written.

I see no reason to not react to, including taking measures, iindividuals doing things we consider dangerous to others, for example.

Again, so far off track, and thus, again, also, literally, 'missing the mark', completely.

Sometimes in this and other of his threads he hsa made the distinction between intellectual contraptions and, in my words, down to earth, practical applications of ideas. Well, I see it as perfectly reasonable to isolate a rapist from society.

Because 'this one' has only ever experienced 'one way' of life, and living. That is; the very, very judgmental, ridiculing, non and misunderstanding, and punishing way of life.

So, of course, 'this one' 'separates' some, judgmentally, and wants to isolate 'them' from 'its' very limited 'group of like-people'.

Which is just what 'those' of any True understanding, used to do, back then.

I don't hold a table responsible for his raping. I don't hold non-rapists responsibile. I might hold, for example, his parents or someone who sexually abused him parly responsible and take measures in relation to them also. There might also be societal causes: systemic sexism, for example - and these I might also want to hold responsible and take measures in relation to. The up in the clouds idea that his actions could not have been otherwise going back to the Big Bang might lead to greater sympathy for the rapist on my part. But I would still consider him a person who may rape again and it is more likely he will than someone who has not raped and we need to do something about that.

LOL As can be seen here, very clearly, even when one expresses 'very near Truth/s', it, still, manages to remove all of this, go completely 'judgmental' again, and then class and label 'things' absolutely Inaccurate and Incorrectly.

I am not comparing a person to bacteria, but in terms of causation, I would also potentially take antibiotics because I think a specific bacteria in my body is responsible for my fever and sepsis. I will take measures in relation to that. I hold the bacteria responsible

But, again, not "itself".

- and perhaps my idiotically not clearning a wound that got infected and take steps to remedy my own responsibility for creating this problem.

But, and again, this is only a 'perhaps'.

The person we punish is not empty of traits, even in determinism.

So, where did the so-called 'traits' come from, exactly?

Find this out, and then 'the Truth' becomes far, far clearer.

Until then, 'these ones' will continue on just 'guessing', only.

He, in this case, is someone who has the desire to rape and lived it out.

Just because 'you' say so, never means it is so.

And, why has "iwannaplato" made and create 'this one' here, with 'the desire' to rape, and so-call live it out, again?

While the causes go back to the Big Bang and perhaps beyond, and even though they are inevitable, this does not mean that his nature has nothing to do with his acts. He is the one who rapes. He has qualities that lead to rape.

But, and obviously, this is only in "iwannaplato's" imaginings, only.

If causation had nothing to do with essence, it would be different. I'm not sure how. But if anyone regardless of attitudes toward women, tendencies to aggressive acts and all that had NOTHING to do with rape, that might be a different situation.

This here is another prime example of how 'these ones', back then, had no comprehension at all of how and why some human beings love being 'raped' and seek out to be 'raped'.

In fact they could not even tell another what the word 'rape' means, and refers to, exactly, nor what is even involved in 'rape' and being 'raped'.

Although they loved to talk 'about it', as though they knew what they were 'talking about'.

For exmaple, let's say that humans who come within five feet of ladybugs try to rape a woman shortly after.. A causation that has nothing at all to do with the essence/traits/tendencies of a paticular person was the cause of rape. That's different. I suppose my focus would be entirely on measures that keep ladybugs from the proximity of men and vice versa.

Why not just keep the gender, or sex, of one group of you adult human beings away from ladybugs, instead?

Why interfere with the natural instincts of other animals? Why not fix "yourselves" first?

But here we have a person with traits that lead to rape.

If 'you', supposedly, have 'a person', with 'traits', which lead to 'rape', then what are 'those traits', exactly?

Instead of just making claims, accusations, and/or judgments will you provide solutions, and resolutions, as well?

If no, then why not?

I can feel bad, certainly, if he had a childhood that was violent and abusive, for example, and he was trained to hate women or see rape as justified.

Does 'feeling bad' do or provide absolutely any thing?

If yes, then what, exactly?

But I am still dealing with a person with these tendencies.

And, you appear to have a 'tendency' of just 'feeling bad'. So, 'we' are, still, dealing with a person with 'this tendency'.

Now, what should 'we' do with people who have 'this tendency'?

EDIT: See below for an addition

[Flannel Jesus]

People who think that determinism isn't compatible with (psychological, legal, everyday) responsibility, simply don't understand determinism. We don't have free will in the philosophical sense, but most people have more than enough free will in the psychological, legal, everyday sense.

What's the big mistery here?

I thought you looked down on the compatibilist definition of free will.

[Atla]

People who think that determinism isn't compatible with (psychological, legal, everyday) responsibility, simply don't understand determinism. We don't have free will in the philosophical sense, but most people have more than enough free will in the psychological, legal, everyday sense.

What's the big mistery here?

I thought you looked down on the compatibilist definition of free will.

Yes because it's pure sophistry. In the philosophical sense of free will, we have free will and determinism and there is no third logical option.

[Flannel Jesus]

People who think that determinism isn't compatible with (psychological, legal, everyday) responsibility, simply don't understand determinism. We don't have free will in the philosophical sense, but most people have more than enough free will in the psychological, legal, everyday sense.

What's the big mistery here?

I thought you looked down on the compatibilist definition of free will.

Yes because it's pure sophistry. In the philosophical sense of free will, we have free will and determinism and there is no third logical option.

So there's the big mystery. You're saying we have free will in a sense, and then you call that sense "pure sophistry". You talk like it's simple, "what's the big mystery", but your very own take is far from simple. You call your own take sophistry. Obviously something needs unpacking.

[Atla]

I thought you looked down on the compatibilist definition of free will.

Yes because it's pure sophistry. In the philosophical sense of free will, we have free will and determinism and there is no third logical option.

So there's the big mystery. You're saying we have free will in a sense, and then you call that sense "pure sophistry". You talk like it's simple, "what's the big mystery", but your very own take is far from simple. You call your own take sophistry. Obviously something needs unpacking.

Maybe what you and iam have in common is that you don't understand context.

[Flannel Jesus]

Maybe what you and iam have in common is that you don't understand context.

Or maybe it's just genuinely weird that in one breath you say it's sophistry to talk about alternative conceptions if free will (while compatibilists do it), but then fully accept alternative conceptions of free will at other times.

You're hasty to dismiss.

[Atla]

Maybe what you and iam have in common is that you don't understand context.

Or maybe it's just genuinely weird that in one breath you say it's sophistry to talk about alternative conceptions if free will (while compatibilists do it), but then fully accept alternative conceptions of free will at other times.

You're hasty to dismiss.

Is compatibilism a position in the philosophical free will debate?

[Flannel Jesus]

Maybe what you and iam have in common is that you don't understand context.

Or maybe it's just genuinely weird that in one breath you say it's sophistry to talk about alternative conceptions if free will (while compatibilists do it), but then fully accept alternative conceptions of free will at other times.

You're hasty to dismiss.

Is compatibilism a position in the philosophical free will debate?

The way you, personally, are choosing to use the word "philosophical" is probably not how many other people would use that word. It seems on the surface like when you say "philosophical free will" you literally just mean "libertarian free will". That's obviously not what compatibilists mean, and many compatibilist conceptions of free will are actually going to be a lot closer to what you mean when you say "legal free will". (If you read iwannaplatos recent posts, I think there's clear signs of this there)

But most compatibilists don't think that conception is not "philosophical", that's just how you personally choose to word it.

[Atla]

Or maybe it's just genuinely weird that in one breath you say it's sophistry to talk about alternative conceptions if free will (while compatibilists do it), but then fully accept alternative conceptions of free will at other times.

You're hasty to dismiss.

Is compatibilism a position in the philosophical free will debate?

The way you, personally, are choosing to use the word "philosophical" is probably not how many other people would use that word. It seems on the surface like when you say "philosophical free will" you literally just mean "libertarian free will". That's obviously not what compatibilists mean, and many compatibilist conceptions of free will are actually going to be a lot closer to what you mean when you say "legal free will". (If you read iwannaplatos recent posts, I think there's clear signs of this there)

But most compatibilists don't think that conception is not "philosophical", that's just how you personally choose to word it.

This is from what you yourself linked

What Do Philosophers Believe?
7. Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

YOU CAN'T HAVE FREE WILL AND NO FREE WILL AT THE SAME TIME. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A CONTRADICTION IS?

[Flannel Jesus]

Is compatibilism a position in the philosophical free will debate?

The way you, personally, are choosing to use the word "philosophical" is probably not how many other people would use that word. It seems on the surface like when you say "philosophical free will" you literally just mean "libertarian free will". That's obviously not what compatibilists mean, and many compatibilist conceptions of free will are actually going to be a lot closer to what you mean when you say "legal free will". (If you read iwannaplatos recent posts, I think there's clear signs of this there)

But most compatibilists don't think that conception is not "philosophical", that's just how you personally choose to word it.

This is from what you yourself linked

What Do Philosophers Believe?
7. Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

YOU CAN'T HAVE FREE WILL AND NO FREE WILL AT THE SAME TIME. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A CONTRADICTION IS?

I don't see how that text, from what I linked, is a response to anything I wrote above. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You posted a stat that 59% of professional philosophers are compatibilists - yes, so what point are you making?

[Atla]

The way you, personally, are choosing to use the word "philosophical" is probably not how many other people would use that word. It seems on the surface like when you say "philosophical free will" you literally just mean "libertarian free will". That's obviously not what compatibilists mean, and many compatibilist conceptions of free will are actually going to be a lot closer to what you mean when you say "legal free will". (If you read iwannaplatos recent posts, I think there's clear signs of this there)

But most compatibilists don't think that conception is not "philosophical", that's just how you personally choose to word it.

This is from what you yourself linked

What Do Philosophers Believe?
7. Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

YOU CAN'T HAVE FREE WILL AND NO FREE WILL AT THE SAME TIME. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A CONTRADICTION IS?

I don't see how that text, from what I linked, is a response to anything I wrote above. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You posted a stat that 59% of professional philosophers are compatibilists - yes, so what point are you making?

Never mind then. You don't know what a contradiction is. (law of noncontradiction) You don't follow the same basic laws of thought which I follow.

[Flannel Jesus]

Never mind then. You don't know what a contradiction is. (law of noncontradiction) You don't follow the same basic laws of thought which I follow.

You yourself implied that there are conceptions of free will that are compatible with determinism. I agree, but when I say it you say I'm contradicting myself. I definitely think you could do more to clarify your thoughts.