compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

Unrelated to your conversations with Age, I'm curious what your thoughts are on free will and compatibilism.

Thank you FJ. Absolute free will does not exist, neither anatomically nor supernaturally, so absolute free will can't be compatible with anything.

Thank you for your reply.

What would qualify it as 'absolute'? And what about non-absolute free will? Can non-absolute free will be compatible with determinism, or anything else?

[Belinda]

How was 'what', exactly, for me?

Until I wait for 'your clarification' here I do not see any 'debate' here at all, as both 'free will' and 'determinism' are concialliated. There was and is absolutely nothing at all to even reconcile here, let alone to debate. Well to me anyway.

Sorry I meant to ask does doing philosophy help you to confirm or progress ideas or are you mentally immobile with the same ideas.

1. 'I' do NOT 'do philosophy'. 'Philosophy', to me, is some one has, or does not have, and/or is some thing one is showing, or is not showing.

2. I do not present ideas, here, which I am unable to back up with IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

3. When 'i' am CLOSED, then 'i' am mentally immobile with some idea/s.

4. Are there any 'same ideas' that you think or believe 'I' have, here?

5. If yes, then what are they, exactly?

I see what you mean. You and I disagree about the meaning of 'philosophy'. You are not the only one who thinks philosophy is what you say it is.

It would be nice, though, if you could understand that what philosophy means for some others is that it's an academic discipline with worthwhile practical applications.

[Iwannaplato]

So, the thread will go on for years without him directl engaging with positions that do not fit his binary schema - libertarian free will of a specific type or hard determinism, with the former having brains that are exceptions to the laws of matter. Every single position he faces will be treated as the former, if it isn't a hard determinist.

I'm still amazed that he's read so much about compatibilism - literally probably more than every person on this forum combined - and still doesn't get what it's saying.

I'm not amazed if someone disagrees with it. Plenty of people get what compatibilists are saying and disagree, that's normal - what's not normal is to be the forum record holder for most words read and written about compatibilism, and still not even understand the base claim. Disagree with it all you want, but if you hold the record, you shouldn't be saying things like "compatibilists think that somehow brains gained autonomy from the laws of physics". That's not what compatibilsits think. No text he's reading says compatibilists think that. Multiple compatibilists he speaks with explain that compatibilists don't think that. He has no excuse to still say shit like that.

There's only one explanation, but it's not very flattering for Biguous.

Well, he is on about how objectivists believe in things to soothe themselves and he's envious. Given that he was part of real life abortion with the model for Mary, I wonder if he's noticed that if determinism and moral resposibility are not compatible, then he has no reason to feel guilt about what happened back then. IOW it might well be soothing.

Of course spedulation like is a kind of ad hom - or would be if he'd argued for determinism or his incredulity, rather than just expressing it as if that was enough - and miraculously when he using similar ad hommy attacks on individual objectivists or all of them at once, that's not being a Stooge.

[Immanuel Can]

Unrelated to your conversations with Age, I'm curious what your thoughts are on free will and compatibilism.

Thank you FJ. Absolute free will does not exist, neither anatomically nor supernaturally, so absolute free will can't be compatible with anything.

What the heck is "absolute free will"?

I haven't met one single proponent of free will who thinks it's "absolute." The most I've ever seen is that people say that some things are matters of will, and some are matters of material causality. Usually, these things are even combined, as when some material inducements for choosing one thing exist, and some for another exist, and the chooser arbitrates between them.

So it seems to me that to represent their view as "absolute" would be obvious straw-manning: it's a position nobody holds, and nobody has even suggested, so far as I can see.

But Determinism inherently claims to be absolute: it requires that nothing but Deterministic forces predetermine every single action. So if any instance of genuine will exists, then Determinism is, by definition, not true.

So you could speak (rather redundantly, of course) of "absolute Determinism," but never of "absolute free will."

[Flannel Jesus]

Do you know if he believes in free will? Determinism? "Fractured and fragmented" aside, has he indicated that any particular ideas make more sense to him than others? He's obviously not a compatibilist - but he also hasn't yet figured out what compatibilism even means.

[Iwannaplato]

Do you know if he believes in free will? Determinism? "Fractured and fragmented" aside, has he indicated that any particular ideas make more sense to him than others? He's obviously not a compatibilist - but he also hasn't yet figured out what compatibilism even means.

To me it sounds like he tends towards determinism but feels there has not so far been a ruling out of other possibilities. And further that perhaps we will never know. Of course, I might be projecting, since that's more or less my position. On the other hand I think determinism and moral responsibility are compatible.

I'd even raise the issue here of if you feel guilty for what you've done or you blame others AND you believe in determinism (officially) you also believe in compatiblism.

We don't just believe what we claim we believe and think we believe and have as our official positions.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'd even raise the issue here of if you feel guilty for what you've done or you blame others AND you believe in determinism (officially) you also believe in compatiblism.

There's the term 'soft determinism' which is, you're a determinist, you reject free will, but you still find some basis for concepts like responsibility or morality. It's like hard determinism but with a few steps towards compatibilism.

[Atla]

All I can say is he is going to read this and again assume you are saying something like the complexity of the brain makes it free from the laws of matter. I am not saying that is what you are saying. In fact near the beginning you make this clear. Just predicting, given the history where even more obviously non-free will positions are interpreted as saying that brain cells are autonomous and not controlled by the laws of the universe.

In parallel, in many posts he will write what are essentially arguments of incredulity. Or perhaps assertions of incredulity. How could one possibly give someone responsiblity for their inevitable acts/choices? Two things that never seem to happen:
1) When someone does do this with a specific act - does explain how this can be non-contradictory, he does not interact with those posts and/or repeats his incredulity.
2) He never justifies his incredulity. I do have sympathy for the incredulity, but I think if he actually tried to argue it, he might find that it is a problematic default. It also need justification and at present is nowhere an argument from him.

So, what we get is every compatibilist or other person arguing the determinism and moral responsiblity are compatible is told they are saying brain cells or brains do not follow the laws of the universe, and he continues to tell them this even when they explain they are not and why.

Well.. maybe he simply can't hold two apparently opposing ideas in the mind at the same time, he just literally can't do it.

Further I never see any argument for how libertarian free will actually fits with moral responsibilty. If one doesn't go into this issue, it may seem, from common sense, to be a fit. But if these free acts are not caused by either external or internal causes (or a combination) what do they have to do with the person who 'performed them'. The acts were not caused by the person or their interests, goals, motivations, desires, values, in the context of their knowledge and external restraints. No explanation how this wouldn't be random?

Dualism.. you guys questioned me how I would conceive of absolute free will by itself, which is admittedly pretty difficult. But if we don't go for absolute free will, just look at the plain ordinary free will that most people are talking about, that's pretty simple imo.

You just use the good old dualism for that. Your mind is not part of the physical world, its internal parts are not part of the physical world. The internal parts of your mind may be deterministic, but that's it. You have free will in the physical world. You can break its rules, are exempt from its determinism.

[Iwannaplato]

I'd even raise the issue here of if you feel guilty for what you've done or you blame others AND you believe in determinism (officially) you also believe in compatiblism.

There's the term 'soft determinism' which is, you're a determinist, you reject free will, but you still find some basis for concepts like responsibility or morality. It's like hard determinism but with a few steps towards compatibilism.

I was aiming more at we believe what we regularly feel and we believe those things that drive our acts.

The person who officially is anti-racist but treat minorities less well than whites.
I don't think the answer need be that such a person is simply racist. They may sincerely believe that racism is wrong but at the same time not be aware that they have beliefs that affect their actions and these go against their official position.

The hard determinist who believes one is not responsble for one's acts, but blames people, feels guilty regulary about things she's done, punishes people for doing things she doesn't like.

I don't think it makes sense to simply call these people hypocrits. People like to present themselves as units. I believe X and so do not believe Y. I think you can believe things that disagree, even directly.

[Immanuel Can]

I'd even raise the issue here of if you feel guilty for what you've done or you blame others AND you believe in determinism (officially) you also believe in compatiblism.

There's the term 'soft determinism'

It should be "soft-headedness."

To think that there can be "steps toward" Determinism makes no sense. Determinism is absolute: it's even in the name. It cannot allow that determination has anything less than total explanatory significance. If there were even one iota of genuine freedom or choice, then Determinism would not be "determinative." It would then become mere "Provisionalism," a theory that would only be true provided genuine choice isn't involved; and since free will allows for some things to be provisionally arranged, it wouldn't differ at all from belief in free will, then.

So there's no "compatibility" with anything else possible, and no "steps" toward it.

[Alexiev]

I'd even raise the issue here of if you feel guilty for what you've done or you blame others AND you believe in determinism (officially) you also believe in compatiblism.

There's the term 'soft determinism'

It should be "soft-headedness."

To think that there can be "steps toward" Determinism makes no sense. Determinism is absolute: it's even in the name. It cannot allow that determination has anything less than total explanatory significance. If there were even one iota of genuine freedom or choice, then Determinism would not be "determinative." It would then become mere "Provisionalism," a theory that would only be true provided genuine choice isn't involved; and since free will allows for some things to be provisionally arranged, it wouldn't differ at all from belief in free will, then.

So there's no "compatibility" with anything else possible, and no "steps" toward it.

"Freedom of choice" (as the phrase is normally used) "describes an individual's opportunity and autonomy to perform an action selected from at least two available options, unconstrained by external parties." If the choice the individual will make is "determined" (i.e. caused) by his neurons, that does not make it less free. Of course everyone's choices are determined by how and what he or she thinks. How else could they be determined?

But if we say Joe freely chose to go to the store yesterday, the sentence is coherent and meaningful, even though Joe can no longer choose a different option. This is obvious. That he might have been caused to decide to go because he was hungry is irrelevant to whether the choice was freely made. Of course people have reasons (causes) for making the decisions they make. So what?

When Martin Luther said, "Here I stand and I can do no other" was it his free choice to stand thus? He was constrained, of course, by his faith, and said that he "could do no other". But he was unconstrained by external parties. (Actually, Diarmond Maccolloch, in his book The Reformation claims that Luther never said that. But if he didn't, he should have.)

[Flannel Jesus]

I'd even raise the issue here of if you feel guilty for what you've done or you blame others AND you believe in determinism (officially) you also believe in compatiblism.

There's the term 'soft determinism'

It should be "soft-headedness."

Yes, everyone that thinks differently from you is stupid. Wondeful strides you've been making, and will continue to make, with that conversational strategy.

Perhaps one day you'll learn how to have a genuine conversation with someone who thinks differently from you.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'd even raise the issue here of if you feel guilty for what you've done or you blame others AND you believe in determinism (officially) you also believe in compatiblism.

There's the term 'soft determinism' which is, you're a determinist, you reject free will, but you still find some basis for concepts like responsibility or morality. It's like hard determinism but with a few steps towards compatibilism.

I was aiming more at we believe what we regularly feel and we believe those things that drive our acts.

The person who officially is anti-racist but treat minorities less well than whites.
I don't think the answer need be that such a person is simply racist. They may sincerely believe that racism is wrong but at the same time not be aware that they have beliefs that affect their actions and these go against their official position.

The hard determinist who believes one is not responsble for one's acts, but blames people, feels guilty regulary about things she's done, punishes people for doing things she doesn't like.

I don't think it makes sense to simply call these people hypocrits. People like to present themselves as units. I believe X and so do not believe Y. I think you can believe things that disagree, even directly.

I think there's definitely some interesting philosophical and psychological questions. I'm not going to psychologize a whole group of people just because they disagree with me - I'm sure like any group, there's the entire range of psychology there in that group - but I am curious how they conceptualize the interactions of these concepts.

[Immanuel Can]

If the choice the individual will make is "determined" (i.e. caused) by his neurons, that does not make it less free.

That depends, completely. If all we mean is that his "neurons" are triggered not by his decision at all, but rather by pre-existing causes, such as material, chemical or physical causes, then it's not free. It's constrained by the physical precursors.

Of course everyone's choices are determined by how and what he or she thinks.

That's not the meaning of "Determinism." Determinism says that "what you think" is irrelevant, completely. Your feeling that you are making a choice is a mere "seeming," and is not at all determinative of what happens or of what you do.

But if we say Joe freely chose to go to the store yesterday, the sentence is coherent and meaningful, even though Joe can no longer choose a different option. This is obvious.

Yes, but it's also trivial, and unrelated to Determinism. That the sentence is coherent doesn't show that it's true. "I rode my unicorn here" is a coherent sentence. It's also clearly false.

Moreover, that Joe cannot choose something different AFTER the course has been set (either by Determinism or choice) is something neither Determinists nor free willians debate at all. What they debate is how Joe made the decision in the first place -- whether as predetermined by prior causes, or as an expression of his personal agency and will.

Of course people have reasons (causes) for making the decisions they make. So what?

Reasons and causes are opposite explanations. A "reason" implies free will, and reducing that to a mere "cause" implies Determinism. They cannot both be true, because Determinism aims at a singular, absolute explanation for every human action, in terms of prior causes. So volition or will, which is what reason would implicate, can play no causal role in a Deterministic account.

When Martin Luther said, "Here I stand and I can do no other" was it his free choice to stand thus?

Yes. Of course.

He was constrained, of course, by his faith, and said that he "could do no other".

He was not saying he had no other choice. He was only saying "My conscience is captive to the word of God! To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I therefore cannot, and I will not recant!" (his words) In other words, he was declaring his personal choice of honouring the will of God over and against the demands of the Papacy, and over and against even the threat of death. He was obviously not saying, "I can't recant, because I have been predetermined by material forces to do only this," which is what Determinism would require.

[Immanuel Can]

There's the term 'soft determinism'

It should be "soft-headedness."

Yes, everyone that thinks differently from you is stupid.

No, just everybody who thinks they can be a Compatibilist. That's a really dumb thing. It shows they have no grasp of either position they claim to "compatiblize," and no grasp of logic.

So yeah, that's super stupid.