compatibilism

[iambiguous]

If God came down and revealed Himself/Herself/Itself, would Iambiguous lose any free-will that he thinks he has?

Well, the first thing I would ask Him is how on Earth I can have free will if He Himself is omniscient. Or are you absolutely positive that your own God is not?

He would have to follow all of God's rules to get immortality and salvation. Isn't that being compelled by God?

No problem. If following the real deal God's rules all the way to the grave is what it takes to gain immortality and salvation, absolutely no problem. Besides, most of the faithful will assure us, we will eventually be informed regarding just how God's mysterious ways really do explain everything.

It sounds the same as being compelled at gunpoint to do something.

Note to others:

Does it sound that way to you?

Unless, perhaps, it's God holding the gun? And refusing to obey an armed gunman -- a mere mortal -- might get you shot, even killed, but refusing to obey God Himself?

Iambiguous would lose the freedom of nihilism.

Oh, indeed, moral nihilists will almost always have more options available to them because they don't have to toe the One True Path. Or else.

Uh, like you do?

On the other hand, unless you are yourself able to pin down this real deal God, all these new freedoms come at a cost. You know the ones that I note.

[Iwannaplato]

Dasein

Ironically (or not) dasein fits in seamlessly with determinism. The time and place and experiences builds up who you are.

No, as some hard determinists seem compelled to note, my own assessment of dasein here is no less but a manifestation of the only possible reality. It is when free will does become established as the real deal that my own assessment of dasein becomes relevant.

Here's the pattern. Iambiguous quotes someone, then uses a disgreeing word: actually, unless, on the other hand, and here to clear 'no'. Then when one reads what he says, it doesn't disagree. It is almost as if he cannot NOT disagree. So, let's look at this: Phyllo is arguing that dasein fits with determinism. The time and place and experience build up who you are. That certain fits with hard determinism. The experiences we have which obviously are specific due to the place and time we experience are causes, and these causes lead to what we are like, what we believe, etc. That fits with Iambiguous' sense of dasein. That fits with determinsm.

Iambiguous' 'no' is not grounded in the Phyllo wrote.

But that only disturbs the hard core objectivists here all the more. If I argue determinism, they often go apeshit because if determinism as "I" understand it "here and now" is the real deal then their own One True Path becomes just another one of Mother Nature's inherent narratives.

I didn't see Phyllo go apeshit. He's not responsible for the behavior of others, if some objectivist went apeshit. So, this mindreading ad hom - rather than something related to what Phyllo wrote - doesn't apply to what you quoted.

But if I argue free will they often go apeshit because that's when I introduce the existential parameters of dasein into the is/ought world.

Well, that would be bizzarre if you argued free will based on your version of dasein. For decades your dasein is, if anything, a determinist . Please show how free will, a version opposed to determinism, fits with your statements about dasein.

The part about being fractured and fragmented then becomes a whole other concern for them.

Being fractured and fragmented is not evidence against deteminism. Your arguments where you bring up fractured and fragmented do not show libertarian free will and offer not the slightest criitique or evidence against determinism.

Libertarian free-will, on the other hand, would let you reject any aspect of dasein that you wanted.

No, say the hard determinists,

And this is utterly incorrect. The determinists say we don't have libertarian free will. But if we did have libertarian free will, we would no longer be determinined by dasein. You have conflated disagreeing about an assumption in a hypothetical with disagreeing that if we assumed X, conclusion Y would be the case. Did you see the 'would'? Do you understand that the would is making a conditional arguement?

This will likely get misunderstood as saying that determinists do not disagree with libertarian free will, but what there's little one can do when someone wants to disagree even when what they say isn't disagreeing.

Libertarianism is no less but another of Mother Nature's narratives. They think they are free only because they were never able to actually opt to think otherwise. Just as, in my view, compatibilists are never able to freely opt
not to hold everyone morally responsible for their behaviors.

Phyllo understands that determinism, if it is the case, means there is no libertarian free will. He obviously knows this. It is obvious in the way he presents his ideas here in this post. It is necessary for him when drawing his conclusions.

So, you end up lecturing him on something that he has assumed in the post you quoted and he clearly knows is the case.

And yet again we have a post by Iambiguous disagreeing with what he qoutes, on grounds that fit perfectly well with those quotes, and lecturing people about what they already know, misinterpreting quote after quote.

[Iwannaplato]

It sounds the same as being compelled at gunpoint to do something.

Note to others:

Does it sound that way to you?

Yeah, that's pretty obvious.
Give me your money or I will kill you.
Follow my orders or I will put you in Hell for all eternity.

It's just a vastly more cruel gun.

Do X or suffer horrible consequences in both cases.

Oh, indeed, moral nihilists will almost always have more options available to them because they don't have to toe the One True Path. Or else.

Bizarre. In those two situations nihilists and everyone else can either do what they are being told or not. Phyllo starts his post with God coming down and appearing to Iambiguous, so God's existence if presumed for the scenario.

[iambiguous]

Criticising Strawson’s Compatibilism
Nurana Rajabova is wary of an attempt to dismiss determinism to keep free will

But if the actors fail in their acting, there is no way that we will feel those same strong emotions, even though the scenario is the same.

On the other hand, if the actors could never not fail and we could never not but feel the emotions we do in reacting to it? It's not the scenario [or context or dasein] that counts here so much as whether we do indeed have at least some measure of autonomy.

The insistent knowledge that they are only acting based on a script written for them weakens our emotional reaction. In addition, our resentment, sympathy, or any other type of emotional response, stops when the movie ends.

For example: https://youtu.be/iLn_oMd1DQU?si=mQ0KDwWk8mNM3qP9

It's always basically the same then. Once our emotions begin to spike, the intensity itself becomes all that is needed to "prove" that we must have free will. I'm no less convinced myself of this as often as not.

It’s possible that for a short while after we may carry a certain emotion. However, the moment we are able to make a distinction between the actors and the roles they played, and realize that they had no choice but to follow a script, then our view changes and becomes emotionally neutral.

More to the point [mine] going back to the profound mystery of existence itself, we just don't know how to fit the human condition itself into it. And I suspect any number of members here take their own existential leap of faith to autonomy because, well, just imagine the consequences embedded in human interactions if we don't have autonomy. You either convince yourself you have it [and apparently that's really all it takes] and "just know" that your great accomplishments are indeed all your own, or you convince yourself that you don't, meaning that none of your failures are really your own.

This again shows the relationship between our judgment-based attitudes and free will. In a similar manner, in real life, our reactions towards people, including our ascriptions of moral responsibility to them, come from our seeing them as free agents who directly cause their own actions.

As may well be the case. But just believing that it is "in your head" seems to be all that some here require to make it true.

As for this...

In other words, it’s plausible to argue that our ascription of moral responsibility derives from a metaphysical view of people as free agents with intention and the ability to act otherwise. The moment agency is taken away from them, our moral reaction ceases. Therefore, I would argue that people’s views about metaphysics – specifically whether they believe in free agency – are embedded in our moral judgements.

...what on Earth do you make of it given your own personal experiences? How is it pertinent to the behaviors you choose if "somehow" the human species is capable of autonomous thought and feelings?

[phyllo]

...please note more specifically what you construe to be examples of nonsensical and ignorant thinking on my part.

Well ...

Iambiguous wrote:
Okay, add society "curing" the mentally ill to your list of why free will must be the real deal.

Is a nonsense response to what I wrote:

The mentally ill arsonist is not being rewarded and she is not being punished. She is being "cured" so she can go back into society and she is being controlled so she cannot start more fires.

There is more in that post but staying on the subject of mental health ...

Iambiguous wrote:
Again, the assumption being that psychological problems themselves are just illusions.

Is a nonsense response to this :

One good reason not to blame the kleptomaniac is that she cannot help her behavior. She possesses a psychological problem that is out of her control. That’s why some defendants are acquitted on grounds of insanity. If you are not in control of your actions, you are not responsible for those actions.

Your statement baffles everyone.

[iambiguous]

...please note more specifically what you construe to be examples of nonsensical and ignorant thinking on my part.

Well ...

Iambiguous wrote:
Okay, add society "curing" the mentally ill to your list of why free will must be the real deal.

Is a nonsense response to what I wrote:

The mentally ill arsonist is not being rewarded and she is not being punished. She is being "cured" so she can go back into society and she is being controlled so she cannot start more fires.

There is more in that post but staying on the subject of mental health ...

Look, much like the free will advocates and the compatibilists among us, there are determinists who may or may not be compelled to argue in a "world of words" what in their heads "here and now" they believe about all this.

And every once in a while, "I" am one of them myself.

For some, being rewarded or punished or cured is all "as one" in the only possible reality. Same with being mentally ill. When nature evolved into us, some brains clearly appear to be healthier than others. But mentally ill or not doesn't make the arguments of the hard determinists go away.

I suspect that only a definitive, unequivocal scientific and philosophical demonstration that we do or do not possess autonomy will convince them.

Well, at least until Jesus returns? Or hundreds of years from now, our descendants will be amazed at how ridiculous our assessments of compatibilism are "here and now".

Iambiguous wrote:
Again, the assumption being that psychological problems themselves are just illusions.

Is a nonsense response to this:

One good reason not to blame the kleptomaniac is that she cannot help her behavior. She possesses a psychological problem that is out of her control. That’s why some defendants are acquitted on grounds of insanity. If you are not in control of your actions, you are not responsible for those actions.

Back again to this: huh?

From the perspective of some hard determinists, all of what every single one of us think, feel, say and do, reflects but another inherent manifestation of the laws of matter unfolding in a way that is always "beyond our control".

All that we are either compelled or not compelled by our own brains to post here is no exception.

Unless, of course, it is. So, by all means, link me to what you construe to be the best of all the current arguments regarding the distinctions that you make.

Your statement baffles everyone.

It certainly baffles me from time to time. On the other hand, stating/asserting something here about compatibilism does seem, at least to some of us, all that will ever be necessary to make it true

[phyllo]

Yeah. I'm not surprised by this.

[iambiguous]

Yeah. I'm not surprised by this.

And I am certainly not surprised by this. On the other hand, I suspect that nature wasn't either.

[Iwannaplato]

It certainly baffles me from time to time. On the other hand, stating/asserting something here about compatibilism does seem, at least to some of us, all that will ever be necessary to make it true

Could you name someone you have quoted, either a poster here or in one of the articles, who thinks that only stating that compatibilism is true is all that is necessary to make it true.

[Belinda]

The idea of nature is deterministic in the wholistic sense of 'determinism'. The idea of God is deterministic in the wholistic sense of 'determinism'.

It's a matter of faith that nature, or God, exists. To believe in God, or nature one must also believe in wholistic determinism. It follows that wholistic determinism is compatible with God or nature: freedom is incompatible with God or nature.

Obviously ,if there is no brain you cannot think, and if there are no eyes you cannot see. But you can refuse others' identifying you as this or that. You can refuse to be identified by others as 'a vertebrate' , or as 'a wife' , or as 'a woman' , or as 'a politician' , or as 'a Republican' or as 'a Christian' unless you choose to be so identified, because you are so much more than all those . You are Dasein, unique and dynamic.

[Iwannaplato]

The idea of nature is deterministic in the wholistic sense of 'determinism'.

Many people's idea of nature is deterministic, others have other takes on it.

The idea of God is deterministic in the wholistic sense of 'determinism'.

There are systems with God and free will.

It's a matter of faith that nature, or God, exists.

I suppose in the sense that any beliefs has some kind of assumption in it, but this wouldn't distinguish beliefs in either of those 'things' from any other belief

To believe in God, or nature one must also believe in wholistic determinism.

I am pretty sure we have some counterexamples right here in this forum: people who believe in God and/or believe in nature but do not believe in determinism.

It follows that wholistic determinism is compatible with God or nature: freedom is incompatible with God or nature.

I'm not sure what that follows from. You were talking about beliefs and faith and you made some assertions around that. How do assertions around belief and faith lead necessarily to a conclusion about ontology.

Obviously ,if there is no brain you cannot think, and if there are no eyes you cannot see. But you can refuse others' identifying you as this or that. You can refuse to be identified by others as 'a vertebrate' , or as 'a wife' , or as 'a woman' , or as 'a politician' , or as 'a Republican' or as 'a Christian' unless you choose to be so identified, because you are so much more than all those . You are Dasein, unique and dynamic.

This seems like an entirely new topic or set of topics.

[Belinda]

The idea of nature is deterministic in the wholistic sense of 'determinism'.

Many people's idea of nature is deterministic, others have other takes on it.

The idea of God is deterministic in the wholistic sense of 'determinism'.

There are systems with God and free will.

It's a matter of faith that nature, or God, exists.

I suppose in the sense that any beliefs has some kind of assumption in it, but this wouldn't distinguish beliefs in either of those 'things' from any other belief

To believe in God, or nature one must also believe in wholistic determinism.

I am pretty sure we have some counterexamples right here in this forum: people who believe in God and/or believe in nature but do not believe in determinism.

It follows that wholistic determinism is compatible with God or nature: freedom is incompatible with God or nature.

I'm not sure what that follows from. You were talking about beliefs and faith and you made some assertions around that. How do assertions around belief and faith lead necessarily to a conclusion about ontology.

Obviously ,if there is no brain you cannot think, and if there are no eyes you cannot see. But you can refuse others' identifying you as this or that. You can refuse to be identified by others as 'a vertebrate' , or as 'a wife' , or as 'a woman' , or as 'a politician' , or as 'a Republican' or as 'a Christian' unless you choose to be so identified, because you are so much more than all those . You are Dasein, unique and dynamic.

This seems like an entirely new topic or set of topics.

It's not a new topic because compatibilism is about how freedom and determinism are compatible . I have argued they are incompatible. You have freedom to choose how to define yourself and to determine your future.Others' definitions of what you are and will be does not necessitate that you must be defined and determined by others.
If I strike a bargain to sell some of my time and labour to an employer I have not agreed that my opinions and off duty time are my employer's. I am my own person and will not be defined or determined by others including even if I have to wear some sort of uniform to work.
Others may say that I am a woman but if I say otherwise I am the authority on that , nobody else.

Society works by sorting us all into categories that determine how we shall work, dress, have sex, and so forth. If we seek freedom from social determinism we risk our safety, unfortunately, but that fact does not mean we are mistaken to seek and value freedom from social determinism.

[Iwannaplato]

It's not a new topic because compatibilism is about how freedom and determinism are compatible . I have argued they are incompatible. You have freedom to choose how to define yourself and to determine your future.

I have trouble putting sentence two and three into the same position on the issue.


u

[Belinda]

It's not a new topic because compatibilism is about how freedom and determinism are compatible . I have argued they are incompatible. You have freedom to choose how to define yourself and to determine your future.

I have trouble putting sentence two and three into the same position on the issue.


u

Yes, I see.
I meant you don't have to tolerate social determinism(unless you live in Iran or North Korea) but you cannot avoid biological and physical determinism.

Biological determinism, e.g. the NHS struggles to keep people free from suffering and premature dying.

Physical determinism, e.g. Spanish people drowned in unforeseen floods.

Social determinism is very much in the melting pot today.
Feudalism and class consciousness are on the way out.
Societies are becoming un-gendered.
The US presidential candidates are poles apart.

[iambiguous]

Free Will Is Only an Illusion if You Are, Too
New research findings, combined with philosophy, suggest free will is real but may not operate in the ways people expect
By Alessandra Buccella & Tomáš Dominik

Imagine you are shopping online for a new pair of headphones. There is an array of colors, brands and features to look at. You feel that you can pick any model that you like and are in complete control of your decision. When you finally click the “add to shopping cart” button, you believe that you are doing so out of your own free will.

More to the point, perhaps, are those who, when confronted with the possibility that literally everything they do is beyond their control, go ballistic. They come after the hard determinists in particular and make it rather clear that as far as they are concerned, they are...fools?

Yet can we really believe that biological life evolving into human autonomy was just inherently embedded in the Big Bang?

In fact, it is not at all difficult for some of us to conclude that both assessments can be bewildering. If only because we have scarcely just begun to understand the human brain itself. Then the part where the brain is tasked with attempting to understand itself.

Like trying wrap your head around space/time as it pertains to your day-to-day interactions.

But what if we told you that while you thought that you were still browsing, your brain activity had already highlighted the headphones you would pick? That idea may not be so far-fetched. Though neuroscientists likely could not predict your choice with 100 percent accuracy, research has demonstrated that some information about your upcoming action is present in brain activity several seconds before you even become conscious of your decision.

That's what it all comes down to, right? The part where brain scientists either do or do not reach the point where they can demonstrate step by step by step what really does go on inside my own brain as, say, I type these words. Is it my brain just doing its thing wholly in sync with the laws of matter or is there an "I" in there that transcends the neurological and chemical interactions in order to create an actual autonomous being.