compatibilism

[iambiguous]

What bullshit. What I wrote wasn't up in the conceptual clouds, it was conceptual but pretty down to Earth. Can't you think in concepts at all?

Thinking in concepts that pertain to meaning, morality and metaphysics is one thing. Bringing those concepts down out of the theoretical clouds and noting how the arguments themselves are pertinent to the lives we live...? Well, for some of us here that can often be another thing altogether.

You'll either go there or you won't. Ah, but then those who insist that they have brought their academic abstractions down to Earth with me. Again and again.

I'm not "going in that direction", it's what we do on philosophy forums.

Yes, that is certainly the case regarding any number of discussions and debates that unfold here. After all, Philososphy Now magazine describes itself as a "magazine of ideas".

In fact, I have no problems with ideas. Nor with abstractions. Nor with definitions and concepts and theories.

It's just for those who are familiar with my posts, I make it clear from time to time that in regard to meaning and morality, my whole philosophy of life revolves around bringing these ideas down to Earth.

Same with issues like compatibilism. Only this gets particularly tricky [in my view] because so much of what we do does unfold in the either/or world. And yet that far out on the metaphysical limb...

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 determinism?
What of the multiverse?
What of God?

...you tell me where the ideas end and empirical proof [one way or the other] begins.

So, here, for you and for others...

...in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

Are you suggesting here that when it comes to moral responsibility, human autonomy is not the bottom line? And, again, in my view, you post here given a set of assumptions regarding the human brain that is no less than just another existential leap of faith. Another more or less intelligent wager to this rather than that "proposition".

That's why you should have read my comments. Which autonomy? In the philosophical free will sense or in the psychological/legal/everyday free will sense?

Back to Mary then. How would any compatibilists here explain to her how, from the defective contraception to the abortion, she was both determined and morally responsible for what she did, for what happened?

And, again, unlike others here, I start out by noting that because this is in fact so far out on the metaphysical limb, I'm always both utterly fascinated and utterly perplexed by it.

But not you? Let me guess: you too possess this Intrinsic Self that deep down inside you "somehow" allows you to grasp determinism in a way that fools like me [out of ignorance or stupidity] never will?

What on Earth are you complaining/lamenting about? What I said wasn't up in the theoretical clouds, it was clearly not academic level abstraction. If you can't understand simple concepts, then there's no point in proceeding to everyday life examples, because I don't see how you will understand those either - you can't cognize what they are examples of.

Now if you had understood my conceptual comment about ("philosophical") compatibilism, you would have understood that I think it's a non-existent position, and a non-existent position can't have examples. So you didn't understand my comment. How should I give examples of something I think is a self-contradiction?

So again, you don't think in concepts at all? Is this deliberate or can you genuinely not do it?

If dodging another's points in a philosophy forum ever becomes an Olympic event, you're good for the gold, the silver and the bronze medals.

Well, click of course.



Note to others:

I'll leave it up to you. Did he or did he not actually address the points I raised above?

Uh, no politics though, okay?

[Atla]

Thinking in concepts that pertain to meaning, morality and metaphysics is one thing. Bringing those concepts down out of the theoretical clouds and noting how the arguments themselves are pertinent to the lives we live...? Well, for some of us here that can often be another thing altogether.

You'll either go there or you won't. Ah, but then those who insist that they have brought their academic abstractions down to Earth with me. Again and again.



Yes, that is certainly the case regarding any number of discussions and debates that unfold here. After all, Philososphy Now magazine describes itself as a "magazine of ideas".

In fact, I have no problems with ideas. Nor with abstractions. Nor with definitions and concepts and theories.

It's just for those who are familiar with my posts, I make it clear from time to time that in regard to meaning and morality, my whole philosophy of life revolves around bringing these ideas down to Earth.

Same with issues like compatibilism. Only this gets particularly tricky [in my view] because so much of what we do does unfold in the either/or world. And yet that far out on the metaphysical limb...

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 determinism?
What of the multiverse?
What of God?

...you tell me where the ideas end and empirical proof [one way or the other] begins.

So, here, for you and for others...

...in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.





Back to Mary then. How would any compatibilists here explain to her how, from the defective contraception to the abortion, she was both determined and morally responsible for what she did, for what happened?

And, again, unlike others here, I start out by noting that because this is in fact so far out on the metaphysical limb, I'm always both utterly fascinated and utterly perplexed by it.

But not you? Let me guess: you too possess this Intrinsic Self that deep down inside you "somehow" allows you to grasp determinism in a way that fools like me [out of ignorance or stupidity] never will?

What on Earth are you complaining/lamenting about? What I said wasn't up in the theoretical clouds, it was clearly not academic level abstraction. If you can't understand simple concepts, then there's no point in proceeding to everyday life examples, because I don't see how you will understand those either - you can't cognize what they are examples of.

Now if you had understood my conceptual comment about ("philosophical") compatibilism, you would have understood that I think it's a non-existent position, and a non-existent position can't have examples. So you didn't understand my comment. How should I give examples of something I think is a self-contradiction?

So again, you don't think in concepts at all? Is this deliberate or can you genuinely not do it?

If dodging another's points in a philosophy forum ever becomes an Olympic event, you're good for the gold, the silver and the bronze medals.

Well, click of course.



Note to others:

I'll leave it up to you. Did he or did he not actually address the points I raised above?

Uh, no politics though, okay?

But you keep dodging my point.

[iambiguous]

But you keep dodging my point.

You know, it just dawned on me. What if -- click -- henry quirk is competing in this same Olympic event?!

[Atla]

But you keep dodging my point.

You know, it just dawned on me. What if -- click -- henry quirk is competing in this same Olympic event?!

This was about the 6th or 7th time in a row you dodged my single point. Now believe it or not, if you understood my point, I could then actually answer how it pertains to any possible everyday life situation.

[Iwannaplato]

But you keep dodging my point.

You know, it just dawned on me. What if -- click -- henry quirk is competing in this same Olympic event?!

This was about the 6th or 7th time in a row you dodged my single point. Now believe it or not, if you understood my point, I could then actually answer how it pertains to any possible everyday life situation.

For the rest of us, could you just skip to a determinist position where someone is held responsible for their actions. I'm happy if you use some other example than abortion, though that's fine also. Interacting with ideas in your posts or even arguments with specific examples are just not Iambiguous' forte. But I'd take a look at it.

[Atla]

For the rest of us, could you just skip to a determinist position where someone is held responsible for their actions. I'm happy if you use some other example than abortion, though that's fine also. Interacting with ideas in your posts or even arguments with specific examples are just not Iambiguous' forte. But I'd take a look at it.

Right, so I use two layers of philosophy (not just here but in all of philosophy, this is of course inescapable). The first layer is the absolute/universal/ultimate layer of philosophy, here is the philosophical free will vs determinism debate located. Here is where I said that compatibilism is by definition an impossibility, and 60% of philosophers are nuts. Okay so we have no evidence for free will in our 4D world, so I'm a determinist in 4D philosophy.

And the other layer of philosophy is the relative/everyday life layer. Here is where we discuss the philosophy of everyday human life. Though everything is ultimately deterministic, this is only loosely relevant to our everyday life because we are such complex beings in such a complex environment, with such specific psychological behaviours etc. For most practical purposes, we do have a free will of a different kind, a psychological/legal/everyday life free will. For most practical purposes we can make choices (and whatever choice we make is also part of the universal determinism). Maybe this is what should be called 'compatibilism' although even the name of the position annoys me.

I don't know if I said anything new above, or am just stating the obvious.

When it comes to an abortion for example, which is a relative/everyday life issue, we look at the psychological ability to choose. It is basically irrelevant that we have determinism on the absolute level. We look at that woman's psychology (including her psychological inclination to make difficult decisions and go through with them), her life circumstances, whether she wants the man who made her pregnant etc. so all the usual everyday issues. In this sense she usually has enough control over her actions to choose.

[Flannel Jesus]

Maybe this is what should be called 'compatibilism' although even the name of the position annoys me.

I don't know if I said anything new above, or am just stating the obvious.

When it comes to an abortion for example, which is a relative/everyday life issue, we look at the psychological ability to choose. It is basically irrelevant that we have determinism on the absolute level. We look at that woman's psychology (including her psychological inclination to make difficult decisions and go through with them), her life circumstances, whether she wants the man who made her pregnant etc. so all the usual everyday issues. In this sense she usually has enough control over her actions to choose.

That's pretty much already what those 60% of moronic philosophers call "compatibilism". Maybe not all of the 60% but a large fraction of that 60% anyway.

[Iwannaplato]

For the rest of us, could you just skip to a determinist position where someone is held responsible for their actions. I'm happy if you use some other example than abortion, though that's fine also. Interacting with ideas in your posts or even arguments with specific examples are just not Iambiguous' forte. But I'd take a look at it.

Right, so I use two layers of philosophy (not just here but in all of philosophy, this is of course inescapable). The first layer is the absolute/universal/ultimate layer of philosophy, here is the philosophical free will vs determinism debate located. Here is where I said that compatibilism is by definition an impossibility, and 60% of philosophers are nuts. Okay so we have no evidence for free will in our 4D world, so I'm a determinist in 4D philosophy.

And the other layer of philosophy is the relative/everyday life layer. Here is where we discuss the philosophy of everyday human life. Though everything is ultimately deterministic, this is only loosely relevant to our everyday life because we are such complex beings in such a complex environment, with such specific psychological behaviours etc. For most practical purposes, we do have a free will of a different kind, a psychological/legal/everyday life free will. For most practical purposes we can make choices (and whatever choice we make is also part of the universal determinism). Maybe this is what should be called 'compatibilism' although even the name of the position annoys me.

I don't know if I said anything new above, or am just stating the obvious.

When it comes to an abortion for example, which is a relative/everyday life issue, we look at the psychological ability to choose. It is basically irrelevant that we have determinism on the absolute level. We look at that woman's psychology (including her psychological inclination to make difficult decisions and go through with them), her life circumstances, whether she wants the man who made her pregnant etc. so all the usual everyday issues. In this sense she usually has enough control over her actions to choose.

OK, so let's go to the next step: responsibility. Let's change the example - I just think this makes it clearer - someone parks their car, but the person behind them was planning to park there. They are so angry they stab the one who got the spot. At the 4D level this was an inevitable action. Do you hold him responsible for his action of stabbing someone over a parking spot? And in practical terms, what does holding the stabber responsible entail?

In reaction to anything done to him, the stabber says: This is ridiculous. The universe is determined. I was always going to stab that guy. You can't hold me responsbile.

What do you say in response, if you think he can be held responsible?

[Atla]

Maybe this is what should be called 'compatibilism' although even the name of the position annoys me.

I don't know if I said anything new above, or am just stating the obvious.

When it comes to an abortion for example, which is a relative/everyday life issue, we look at the psychological ability to choose. It is basically irrelevant that we have determinism on the absolute level. We look at that woman's psychology (including her psychological inclination to make difficult decisions and go through with them), her life circumstances, whether she wants the man who made her pregnant etc. so all the usual everyday issues. In this sense she usually has enough control over her actions to choose.

That's pretty much already what those 60% of moronic philosophers call "compatibilism". Maybe not all of the 60% but a large fraction of that 60% anyway.

No it's not, your own link confirmed it too. Compatibilism was listed as an alternative to determinism and free will in the absolute sense. Which is bollocks.

But hey, philosophers need to stay confused and illogical, imagine what would happen if they would sort philosophy out and solve 2/3 of it. What would they do for a living after that?

[Flannel Jesus]

No it's not, your own link confirmed it too. Compatibilism was listed as an alternative to determinism and free will in the absolute sense. Which is bollocks.

I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but I think you've probably misunderstood it. If you're referring to the philpapers survey, you've definitely misunderstood it.

[Atla]

For the rest of us, could you just skip to a determinist position where someone is held responsible for their actions. I'm happy if you use some other example than abortion, though that's fine also. Interacting with ideas in your posts or even arguments with specific examples are just not Iambiguous' forte. But I'd take a look at it.

Right, so I use two layers of philosophy (not just here but in all of philosophy, this is of course inescapable). The first layer is the absolute/universal/ultimate layer of philosophy, here is the philosophical free will vs determinism debate located. Here is where I said that compatibilism is by definition an impossibility, and 60% of philosophers are nuts. Okay so we have no evidence for free will in our 4D world, so I'm a determinist in 4D philosophy.

And the other layer of philosophy is the relative/everyday life layer. Here is where we discuss the philosophy of everyday human life. Though everything is ultimately deterministic, this is only loosely relevant to our everyday life because we are such complex beings in such a complex environment, with such specific psychological behaviours etc. For most practical purposes, we do have a free will of a different kind, a psychological/legal/everyday life free will. For most practical purposes we can make choices (and whatever choice we make is also part of the universal determinism). Maybe this is what should be called 'compatibilism' although even the name of the position annoys me.

I don't know if I said anything new above, or am just stating the obvious.

When it comes to an abortion for example, which is a relative/everyday life issue, we look at the psychological ability to choose. It is basically irrelevant that we have determinism on the absolute level. We look at that woman's psychology (including her psychological inclination to make difficult decisions and go through with them), her life circumstances, whether she wants the man who made her pregnant etc. so all the usual everyday issues. In this sense she usually has enough control over her actions to choose.

OK, so let's go to the next step: responsibility. Let's change the example - I just think this makes it clearer - someone parks their car, but the person behind them was planning to park there. They are so angry they stab the one who got the spot. At the 4D level this was an inevitable action. Do you hold him responsible for his action of stabbing someone over a parking spot? And in practical terms, what does holding the stabber responsible entail?

In reaction to anything done to him, the stabber says: This is ridiculous. The universe is determined. I was always going to stab that guy. You can't hold me responsbile.

What do you say in response, if you think he can be held responsible?

Responsibility is also an everyday world issue just like abortion, so the 'free will' in the psychological sense applies, so of course he was responsible. The absolute level deterministic consideration is basically irrelevant.

Which is of course already the practice in court, they know to skip philosophical considerations largely irrelevant to everyday life.

Simple, no?

[Atla]

No it's not, your own link confirmed it too. Compatibilism was listed as an alternative to determinism and free will in the absolute sense. Which is bollocks.

I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but I think you've probably misunderstood it. If you're referring to the philpapers survey, you've definitely misunderstood it.

Maybe I did, what did I get wrong?

7. Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?

1. Compatibilism 59.1±1.6% Accept (34.8%), Lean toward (24.3%)
2. Other 14.9±0.8% Agnostic/undecided (4.1%), The question is too unclear to answer (2.8%)
3. Libertarianism 13.7±0.8% Accept (7.7%), Lean toward (6.0%)
4. No free will 12.2±0.7% Lean toward (6.6%), Accept (5.7%)

Seems to me that the only correct answer here got 2.8%..

(It's telling btw that the single most important philosophical view, nondualism, doesn't even show up in the paper.)

[Flannel Jesus]

No it's not, your own link confirmed it too. Compatibilism was listed as an alternative to determinism and free will in the absolute sense. Which is bollocks.

I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but I think you've probably misunderstood it. If you're referring to the philpapers survey, you've definitely misunderstood it.

Maybe I did, what did I get wrong?

7. Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?

1. Compatibilism 59.1±1.6% Accept (34.8%), Lean toward (24.3%)
2. Other 14.9±0.8% Agnostic/undecided (4.1%), The question is too unclear to answer (2.8%)
3. Libertarianism 13.7±0.8% Accept (7.7%), Lean toward (6.0%)
4. No free will 12.2±0.7% Lean toward (6.6%), Accept (5.7%)

You said compatibilsm was listed as an alternative to determinism and free will. That's literally not what that list you just posted says.

It is a view on free will, not an alternative to free will. And determinism isn't even an option on there. Believe it or not, "no free will" isn't a synonym for determinism. You can believe there's no free will and also not believe in determinism, and also you can believe that the universe is deterministic and believe in free will (that's called Compatibilism).

So no, it's not an alternative to free will and determinism. It's a position about free will and its relationship to determinism. That's what you got wrong.

[Atla]

I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but I think you've probably misunderstood it. If you're referring to the philpapers survey, you've definitely misunderstood it.

Maybe I did, what did I get wrong?

7. Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?

1. Compatibilism 59.1±1.6% Accept (34.8%), Lean toward (24.3%)
2. Other 14.9±0.8% Agnostic/undecided (4.1%), The question is too unclear to answer (2.8%)
3. Libertarianism 13.7±0.8% Accept (7.7%), Lean toward (6.0%)
4. No free will 12.2±0.7% Lean toward (6.6%), Accept (5.7%)

You said compatibilsm was listed as an alternative to determinism and free will. That's literally not what that list you just posted says.

It is a view on free will, not an alternative to free will. And determinism isn't even an option on there. Believe it or not, "no free will" isn't a synonym for determinism. You can believe there's no free will and also not believe in determinism, and also you can believe that the universe is deterministic and believe in free will (that's called Compatibilism).

So no, it's not an alternative to free will and determinism. It's a position about free will and its relationship to determinism. That's what you got wrong.

Then it would be even more nonsensical - the options have like little to nothing to do with each other. What's your favourite animal: animal, or the sun, or the idea that friendship is compatible with life?

[Flannel Jesus]

Maybe I did, what did I get wrong?

7. Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?

1. Compatibilism 59.1±1.6% Accept (34.8%), Lean toward (24.3%)
2. Other 14.9±0.8% Agnostic/undecided (4.1%), The question is too unclear to answer (2.8%)
3. Libertarianism 13.7±0.8% Accept (7.7%), Lean toward (6.0%)
4. No free will 12.2±0.7% Lean toward (6.6%), Accept (5.7%)

You said compatibilsm was listed as an alternative to determinism and free will. That's literally not what that list you just posted says.

It is a view on free will, not an alternative to free will. And determinism isn't even an option on there. Believe it or not, "no free will" isn't a synonym for determinism. You can believe there's no free will and also not believe in determinism, and also you can believe that the universe is deterministic and believe in free will (that's called Compatibilism).

So no, it's not an alternative to free will and determinism. It's a position about free will and its relationship to determinism. That's what you got wrong.

Then it would be even more nonsensical - the options have like little to nothing to do with each other. What's your favourite animal: animal, or the sun, or the idea that friendship is compatible with life?

Libertarianism is *also* a position about free will and its relationship to determinism - specifically, there is free will, and determinism must be false. Compatibilism is, there is free will, and determinism doesn't have to be false. You regularly speak as if 'libertarian free will' is a synonym for 'free will', and it's a big reason why you're misinterpreting the options.