compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

Too bad nobody wants to do that with Age because he's relentlessly annoying. In fact that's the one thing everyone on the forum can agree on, so thanks Age. Thanks for bringing us all together in opposition to your cockroach bullshit.

[Age]

Too bad nobody wants to do that with Age because he's relentlessly annoying.

LOL NO one HAS TO WANT TO DO 'that' WITH me.

LOL I even SAID, VERY CLEARLY, 'IF 'these people' just came together, peacefully, and just discussed ..., then ...'.

So, if ANY one WANT TO 'TRY TO' PROVE what I SAID and CLAIM could NEVER WORK, then JUST DO IT, and then you can SHOW, and REVEAL, what the ACTUAL Truth IS, here, EXACTLY. '


And, I might well be 'annoying', and even 'VERY ANNOYING', to 'these posters', here, but this is mostly BECAUSE I just POINT OUT, SHOW, and REVEAL the FLAWS and FAULTS in their VIEWS, BELIEFS, and CLAIMS, here.

In fact that's the one thing everyone on the forum can agree on, so thanks Age. Thanks for bringing us all together in opposition to your cockroach bullshit.

LOL
LOL
LOL

just so you BECOME AWARE, the MORE you people CHOOSE TO IGNORE me, or CHOOSE TO NOT LISTEN, TO me, here, then the MORE PROOF you ARE PROVIDING, FOR me, in what I have ACTUALLY BEEN POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and REVEALING, 'between the lines', or 'in the background', as some might say, and NOTICE, here.

See, it does NOT matter ONE IOTA HOW one 'PRESENTS' "themselves", NOR HOW they PRESENTS "their views', as long as what they ARE SAYING and CLAIMING STANDS ON its OWN, then 'that' is ALL that, REALLY, Truly MATTERS, here. JUST LIKE it does NOT matter ONE IOTA if what one is POINTING OUT and is SHOWING, APPEARS TO BE WRONG, or NOT RIGHT, AT FIRST GLANCE, what, REALLY, Truly MATTERS, ONLY here, is IF what IS being POINTED OUT, and SHOWN, can be REVEALED TO BE the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, or NOT.

So, FEEL FREE TO DISCUSS, AMONG "yourselves", (if you do NOT WANT TO WITH me), what I POINTED OUT and SHOWED WOULD REMOVE 'conflict' WITHIN 'the world', and PROVE TO EVERY one that DOING 'what I said' WOULD NEVER WORK. That is; IF ANY one REALLY DOES WANT TO PROVE 'me' WRONG, here.

[Age]

LOL 'These posters', here, did NOT and WOULD NOT even JUST COME-TOGETHER to JUST AGREE UPON what the ACTUAL words and terms that they were SAYING and USING ACTUALLY MEANT and/or were REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. YET they would FIGHT and/or ARGUE OVER if some 'thing' EXISTS or DOES NOT EXIST.

LOL 'They' did NOT even KNOW who NOR what A 'thing' WAS, EXACTLY, which they WOULD TALK ABOUT, although they would CONTINUALLY ARGUE and/or FIGHT each other OVER if 'that thing' EXISTED or NOT.

How MUCH MORE INSANE and/or IDIOTIC could this 'species' GET?

[Age]

380 pages later, these people have, STILL, NOT YET 'come together' TO JUST AGREE ON, and ACCEPT, what the terms 'determinism' AND 'free will' MEAN and/or are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. But, some HAVE CONTINUALLY INSISTED that EITHER 'one' OR 'the other' EXISTS, ONLY.

[Flannel Jesus]

380 pages later, these people have, STILL, NOT YET 'come together' TO JUST AGREE ON, and ACCEPT, what the terms 'determinism' AND 'free will' MEAN and/or are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. But, some HAVE CONTINUALLY INSISTED that EITHER 'one' OR 'the other' EXISTS, ONLY.

That won't ever happen. Most of this thread is biggy talking to himself. That's all he wants to do. 380 pages later, why are you expecting him to do anything different?

[Age]

380 pages later, these people have, STILL, NOT YET 'come together' TO JUST AGREE ON, and ACCEPT, what the terms 'determinism' AND 'free will' MEAN and/or are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. But, some HAVE CONTINUALLY INSISTED that EITHER 'one' OR 'the other' EXISTS, ONLY.

That won't ever happen.

So, 'you', "flannel jesus" WILL NOT JUST 'come together' WITH JUST one other person to JUST DISCUSS what the words 'free will' nor 'determinism' COULD JUST BE MEANING or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, TO JUST SEE what you two COULD COME TO AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT, right?

Most of this thread is biggy talking to himself.

WHO, REALLY, CARE what 'another' or 'one' IS DOING, here?

That's all he wants to do.

AGAIN, WHO, REALLY, CARES?

380 pages later, why are you expecting him to do anything different?

But 'I' am NOT EXPECTING 'that one' NOR ANY 'other ones', of you, to do absolutely ANY thing DIFFERENT NOR AT ALL, here?

I JUST PRESENTED WHAT WILL HELP REDUCE, and DIMINISH COMPLETELY, 'conflict' FOR one, and ALL, AND FOR ONCE, and FOR ALL.

[Flannel Jesus]

380 pages later, these people have, STILL, NOT YET 'come together' TO JUST AGREE ON, and ACCEPT, what the terms 'determinism' AND 'free will' MEAN and/or are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

I've done that plenty. With phyllo and iwannaplato for example. I can't force anyone else to.

[Age]

380 pages later, these people have, STILL, NOT YET 'come together' TO JUST AGREE ON, and ACCEPT, what the terms 'determinism' AND 'free will' MEAN and/or are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

I've done that plenty.

Okay.

With phyllo and iwannaplato for example.

Great. So, what did you, "phyllo", AND "iwannaplato", come UP WITH, or UNCOVER, AGREE UPON, and ACCEPT, together, here, EXACTLY?

I LOOK FORWARD to FINDING OUT and SEEING what WAS AGREED UPON, EXACTLY.

I can't force anyone else to.

WHY would one EVEN BEGIN TO EVEN JUST CONSIDER, or THINK ABOUT. FORCING another TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, AT ALL, here, or ANYWHERE?

[Flannel Jesus]

Great. So, what did you, "phyllo", AND "iwannaplato", come UP WITH, or UNCOVER, AGREE UPON, and ACCEPT, together, here, EXACTLY?

That any kind of free will worth having isn't contrary to determinism. Determinism may or not be the case, but free will worth having isn't negated in the hypothetical world where determinism is the reality.

At least iwannaplato and I agreed on that much. Idk about phyllo. I think he did but I might be misremembering.

[iambiguous]

Best arguments against compatibilism?
Philosophy Stack Exchange
JD

Well, I'm not going to do a research paper for you, but Kant (possibly, see comments below), Schopenhauer, and Popper were all incompatibilists. These philosophers were very invested in human culture and ethics.

"Incompatibilism is the thesis that free will is incompatible with the truth of determinism. Incompatibilists divide into Libertarians, who deny that determinism is true and hard determinists who deny that we have free will." PhilPapers

Kant, Schopenhauer and Popper. Incompatibilists? You tell me. On the other hand, given that both Libertarians and hard determinists might be called that, we'll need actual sets of circumstances so that we can examine how these three philosophers might have reacted to them. Did they freely choose to be invested in human culture and ethics, or was it entirely beyond their control?

That leads us to two prominent attacks on compatibilism. First, metaphysical libertarianism is one flavor of incompatibilism which prizes the human spirit and free will and largely reject determinism as having any sway over human choice. This is subjective with principles of humanism and the primacy of people in understanding and interpreting experience. Physical determinism is downplayed or integrated into choice in Berkeley's subjective idealism.

On the other end of the spectrum, hard determinism advocates that physical determinism is so overwhelming, in the spirit of Laplacian determinism, that little sense can be made of free will. This is compatible with eliminative materialism where ideas like free will are largely relegated to the status of "linguistic illusion". Daniel Dennett was a fierce incompatibilist in his early years, but later moderated his position.

Just what we need here. The same word used to describe completely opposite realities "for all practical purposes".

So, is anyone here familiar with Daniel Dennett when he was a "fierce incompatibilist in his early years" and then later "moderated his position"?

What does that mean for all practical purposes?

[Age]

Great. So, what did you, "phyllo", AND "iwannaplato", come UP WITH, or UNCOVER, AGREE UPON, and ACCEPT, together, here, EXACTLY?

That any kind of free will worth having isn't contrary to determinism. Determinism may or not be the case, but free will worth having isn't negated in the hypothetical world where determinism is the reality.

At least iwannaplato and I agreed on that much. Idk about phyllo. I think he did but I might be misremembering.

Okay, and thank you for clarifying. It is always appreciated.

[iambiguous]

Science supports the existence of free will
By NEIL MAHTO at the Johns Hopkins News-Letter
April 2024

Six months ago, Stanford University Professor Robert M. Sapolsky wrote a book titled Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, which argues that humans do not have free will. He calls for people to “stop attributing stuff to us that isn’t here.”

Back to that again. He writes a book some hard determinists insist he could never have not written. And others read it and then react to it in the only possible manner they themselves ever could have. So, when he calls on others to stop doing something how is that as well not just another inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe?

He also critiques any system in which we punish or reward people because people have no control over their actions.

Just more of the same:

If his critique was in turn just another necessary component of the only possible reality, and mere mortals in a No God world really don't have control over the things they think, feel, intuit, say and do...?

Sapolsky’s thesis is that free will is a myth and, the sooner we accept that, the more just society will be.

From my own frame of mind "here and now", this is just another rendition of free will determinism.

However, in reality, the science does not debunk but instead supports the existence of free will.

We'll see.
Or not, of course.

[iambiguous]

Science supports the existence of free will
By NEIL MAHTO at the Johns Hopkins News-Letter
April 2024

For most of human civilization, philosophers have posited the existence of free will. This sentiment has driven many groups to incorporate free will as a central tenet of their ideology.

Of course, what those who do this share in common with all the rest of us is the gap between free will embraced philosophically in a "world of words" here and free will unequivocally confirmed by the scientific community to be an actual component of the human brain.

For example, Christians’ belief in free will has helped them reconcile God’s all-powerful, all-good existence with the presence of worldly evil.

Of course, the only way they can accomplish this is by assuming that "somehow" human autonomy is perfectly in sync with an omniscient God. Click, of course.

In fact, the idea of free will permeates nearly every institution. We reprimand those who commit crimes because we assume that they have a choice to act in that crime. We award honors for academic or athletic excellence assuming that the winner had some agency that allowed them to achieve their talent.

That's the problem, however. Making assumptions regarding how the human brain functions without being able to actually pin that down empirically, experientially and experimentally.

There are a number of reasons why humans tend to gravitate away from arguments that disprove free will. Stripping our agency is scary but also dangerous.

Then the part where one rejects hard determinism precisely because it is too scary and dangerous to believe. As though this belief in and of itself can't possibly be an inherent, necessary component of the only possible reality.

People could justify committing horrors if they accepted the absence of free will. Ultimately, we all feel like we have free will. Our decisions and actions seem uniquely ours. Surely, we would be conscious of the fact that we were being puppeteered.

Well, again, isn't that exactly how one can feel about their dreams. How are we not basically puppets from start to finish then even though while "in the dream" it is virtually indistinguishable from the waking world. At least mine are.

[iambiguous]

Science supports the existence of free will
By Neil Mahto at the Johns Hopkins News-Letter
April 2024

The number of scientists and philosophers that are disproving free will has grown throughout the decades. In 1929, even Albert Einstein was quoted saying, “I do not believe in free will.” However, their arguments against free will fall short of logical reasoning.

Please. Logic is useful for many things, but once you take up questions like these...

* 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 the multiverse?
* What of God?

...what on Earth does it mean to be logical then? If logic "is seen as the study of the laws of thought, correct reasoning, valid inference, or logical truth" how do we intertwine it in speculation regarding the Big Questions given all of the billions of years when there were no thinking beings. At least not here on planet Earth.

Then the part where [technically or otherwise] a distinction is made between being logical and being rational.

The arguments against free will rely on the existence of determinism, a term that means event A always leads to event B. Einstein, as did many physicists of his time, believed in determinism.

Also, arguments for and against free will [here] rely largely on assumptions that the definition and the meaning given to the words in the argument need be as far as one goes.

Also, those who believe in determinism but then somehow their own arguments are ever and always deemed to be the most rational, the most effective, the most comprehensive. As though Nature and they were just in sync that way.

The brain’s processes are complex sets of chemical reactions, and, if the universe was deterministic, these processes could all be modeled and perfectly predicted.

That's what some insist. Once a theory of everything regarding mind and matter has been established, there's nothing that can't be entirely predicted about the future. Only how is this not in turn just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

[iambiguous]

Science supports the existence of free will
By Neil Mahto at the Johns Hopkins News-Letter
April 2024

You couldn’t have free will in a deterministic universe because everything that has happened or will happen to you has been predetermined. However, I do not believe in determinism and neither does modern physics.

Next up: hard determinists are compelled to remind them that for all practical purposes they were never able not to freely opt otherwise.

Then what?

Well, here, it's straight back up into the intellectual clouds for some. In other words, to pin it down philosophically.

Werner Heisenberg’s theory of quantum mechanics discredits determinism. In this new — and now accepted — theory of the universe, the universe is probabilistic as opposed to deterministic.

Actually, what those scientists who grapple with the very, very small and the very, large are still noting is that no one has yet to discover a theory of everything...let alone a way to definitively intertwine the "human condition" into whatever mind-boggling truth the existence of existence itself entails.

The outcome of a specific event has multiple possibilities, and they are weighted by probabilities. There is a 50% chance that I find the electron at point A, a 30% chance I find it at point B and a 20% chance I find it at point C. The rules of quantum mechanics provide evidence that the universe is probabilistic, so the classical argument about determinism fails.

Sure, if some here are willing to accept that quantum mechanics and a possible multiverse are all "explainable" only if human beings have free will...?

And then the part where some seamlessly intertwine the world of conflicting value judgments into the either/or world. Philosophers [and someday scientists] will discover that they are interchangeable once the One True Path [their own] is accepted as the objective truth.