compatibilism

[phyllo]

Unless, of course, in regard to the human brain, one of them is able to link their own philosophical assessment of compatibilism to that which brain scientists are in fact able to confirm.

You will believe "brain scientists" but not philosophers?

Why?

Science has a long history of being wrong. The Gap and Rummys Rules also apply to science so you are always stuck with those stumbling blocks.

Brain science hasn't found any mechanism for libertarian free-will. Therefore, determinism is how things work according to the science.

Moral responsibility isn't a brain science problem, its a philosophy or social science problem. It's a problem of how we want social interactions to work.

[iambiguous]

Let it be known that here, before the thousands of imagined followers of iambig, he was incapable of fixing the 10-15 mistakes he made, he proved again that he has no business commenting on a philosophy forum. He tried to go ahead and asked us things instead, hoping to bury this little problem and tried and failed to make us look bad, but he has already shown that he has no idea what he's actually asking us and would have no ability to make sense of our responses. How thoroughly embarrassing. But some people are just shameless, well, what can we do?

Well, with me, you can start here:

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla and flashdangerpants, given their own understanding of philosophy and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla and flashdangerpants, given their own understanding of free will and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

He/she will either note the mistakes I made and provide us with "corrections", or he/she won't and will continue to wiggle, wiggle, wiggle out of it.

Either way, he/she, like all the rest of us, is unable to provide us with a comprehensive scientific assessment of the human brain here.

In other words, it's still all about Click as I understand it "here and now".

[Atla]

Let it be known that here, before the thousands of imagined followers of iambig, he was incapable of fixing the 10-15 mistakes he made, he proved again that he has no business commenting on a philosophy forum. He tried to go ahead and asked us things instead, hoping to bury this little problem and tried and failed to make us look bad, but he has already shown that he has no idea what he's actually asking us and would have no ability to make sense of our responses. How thoroughly embarrassing. But some people are just shameless, well, what can we do?

Well, with me, you can start here:

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla and flashdangerpants, given their own understanding of philosophy and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla and flashdangerpants, given their own understanding of free will and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

He/she will either note the mistakes I made and provide us with "corrections", or he/she won't and will continue to wiggle, wiggle, wiggle out of it.

Either way, he/she, like all the rest of us, is unable to provide us with a comprehensive scientific assessment of the human brain here.

In other words, it's still all about Click as I understand it "here and now".

Here before his imagined subjects, iambig ran away again from addressing the 10-15 points that were already noted, while playing victim.

One of his imagined followers whispers:
- I can't believe he can't clear up something so simple. I really thought he had a grasp of the topic. But now I'm not so sure.

Another one nods:
- We had such high hopes for him, but turns he doesn't even know what he's talking about. How can he expect others to reply to him, when he doesn't reply to anything, so others can't know what he means and how to respond to him?

[iambiguous]

Unless, of course, in regard to the human brain, one of them is able to link their own philosophical assessment of compatibilism to that which brain scientists are in fact able to confirm.

You will believe "brain scientists" but not philosophers?

Why?

First of all, my point is that neither scientists nor philosophers have [to the best of my current knowledge] been able to determine if human beings either have or do not have free will. Instead, if you want that sort of certainty, it's any number of the theologians among us who can provide it. Free will? Of course: a God, the God, my God installed that in my very soul.

Only, I still have no understanding of how God and religion function for you here in this regard. Do you believe that you have a God-given soul? Is God the font you fall back on in regard to autonomy?  

Science has a long history of being wrong. The Gap and Rummys Rules also apply to science so you are always stuck with those stumbling blocks.

Look, in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, have you managed to convince yourself that science and philosophy are, what, interchangeable...? And, sure, they just may well be. On the other hand, in regard to the functioning human brain, what exactly is the equivalent of the scientific method among philosophers in exploring this?

And while I would never deny that The Gap, Rummy's Rule and the Benjamin Button Syndrome may well be applicable to both the either/or and the is/ought world, just look at the truly enormous gap -- a veritable grand canyon! -- between communication breakdowns in the either/or world and communication breakdowns in the is/ought world. And with science, when the discussion shifts to the Big Questions pertaining to the very, very large and the very, very small, that's when the failures to communicate start to pile up. 

Brain science hasn't found any mechanism for libertarian free-will. Therefore, determinism is how things work according to the science.

Okay, but then there are the compatibilists among us who insist that moral responsibility is entirely in sync with determinism. Why? Because "somehow" the "internal components" of the brain manage to accomplish this. On the other hand, where is the scientific consensus backing this up empirically, experientially and experimently?

Moral responsibility isn't a brain science problem, its a philosophy or social science problem. It's a problem of how we want social interactions to work.

So, here you are proposing, what, that what we want in regard to social interactions, we want of our own volition? Why? Because you [and others] "just know" this is true? On the other hand, you can't actually link us to anything definitive given the philosophical equivalent of the scientific method to demonstrate it.

Or, perhaps, you can?

[popeye1945]

Morality is self-interest, the self-interest of a species in its survival and well-being. In other words, the subject of morality is the biological agent. Through identifying oneself with the self of others, compassion arises, making the formation of societies of differing forms possible. Society is an expansion of the concept of the self, like organisms form societies to find security and well-being from harsh nature.

[Atla]

Okay, but then there are the compatibilists among us who insist that moral responsibility is entirely in sync with determinism. Why? Because "somehow" the "internal components" of the brain manage to accomplish this.

VA taught us that AI can step in when we don't want to waste time correcting someone's deep-seated delusion. It's a time-saving trick.

Does the following text fundamentally misunderstand compatibilism, because many compatibilists disagree that moral responsibility is accomplished by the brain's internal components, instead they have different explanations for moral responsibility? Here is the text:

"there are the compatibilists among us who insist that moral responsibility is entirely in sync with determinism. Why? Because "somehow" the "internal components" of the brain manage to accomplish this."

Yes, the text does fundamentally misunderstand compatibilism, or at least misrepresents it in an oversimplified or inaccurate way. Here's why:

1. Mischaracterization of Compatibilist Reasoning
The text suggests that compatibilists believe moral responsibility is compatible with determinism because of some mysterious function of the brain's "internal components". This is not a view that most compatibilists hold, and it misrepresents the philosophical foundation of compatibilism.

Compatibilism, at its core, is not a neuroscientific theory but a philosophical position. It argues that free will (and moral responsibility) can exist even if determinism is true, because what matters is not whether actions are determined, but whether they arise from the agent's own motives, desires, and reasoning—not from external coercion.

Philosophers like Daniel Dennett, Harry Frankfurt, and John Martin Fischer defend compatibilism on the grounds of agency, rational deliberation, and the capacity to respond to reasons, not on the operation of "internal components" in a mechanistic or reductionist way.

2. The “Somehow” Framing is Dismissive
The use of the phrase:

"Because 'somehow' the 'internal components' of the brain manage to accomplish this."

…is dismissive and vague, implying compatibilists rely on hand-waving or poorly understood neuroscience. In reality, compatibilists do not hinge their argument on brain mechanics. While some might draw on cognitive science or psychology to support how humans act for reasons, they do not base moral responsibility solely—or even primarily—on neural mechanisms.

3. Compatibilism is Normative, Not Mechanistic
Compatibilism is often concerned with normative concepts—like what it means to be a rational agent, to act for reasons, or to be the proper target of praise or blame—not just mechanistic processes in the brain. These normative ideas are largely absent from the quoted text.

Summary
Yes, the text misunderstands compatibilism by:
Suggesting compatibilists appeal to unexplained brain mechanics rather than philosophical reasoning.
Ignoring the actual arguments compatibilists make about agency, control, and moral norms.
Dismissing compatibilist views with vague and reductive language.

If you’re analyzing or critiquing compatibilism, it’s best to engage with the actual arguments rather than implying that compatibilists are hand-waving about neuroscience.

Some in iambig's audience are shaking their heads.

Now, things like morality, responsibility, moral responsibility, are interpersonal issues which seem to be more or less inconceivable to you, because all interpersonal issues are. So you are bound to forever misunderstand what people are talking about, bound to make mistakes like the above.

[phyllo]

Will Iambiguous listen to "God"?

I doubt it.

People have been trying to explain the compatibilist position to him for years (some for more than a decade). FJ, IWP and me, just to name a few on this site.

And the result is ... he still thinks that compatibilists believe that some non-deterministic process is producing free-will in the brain.

[Atla]

What's the name of the philosophical position where there are some non-deterministic processes inside the brain which are free will, but the rest of the world is deterministic? Summary only.

The position is often referred to as libertarian compatibilism or agent-causal libertarianism. It holds that free will arises from indeterministic processes within the mind, even if most of the external world is deterministic. This blends aspects of libertarian free will with a largely deterministic universe.

Is this different from "typical" compatibilism? Summary only.

Yes, it's different. Typical compatibilism holds that free will is compatible with a fully deterministic universe, with no need for indeterminism. In contrast, the view you described requires indeterminism in the brain for free will to exist.

Libertarian compatibilism or agent-causal libertarianism. Click

[FlashDangerpants]

Another thing biggy says that he thinks means something to other people.

"Waffle iron to flannel Jesus: get a load of this guy".

Wtf does that shit even mean? Does he not know how he sounds?

Weather forecast to paraplegic donkey farm: cram it with walnuts!

I like this idiom, it could go paces and do things.

Here, of course, I can only come back to this...

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla and flashdangerpants, given their own understanding of philosophy and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla and flashdangerpants, given their own understanding of free will and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Otherwise, if it doesn't embarrass them to post Stooge Stuff like the above, it doesn't embarrass me to suggest that they ought to be.

Unless, of course, in regard to the human brain, one of them is able to link their own philosophical assessment of compatibilism to that which brain scientists are in fact able to confirm.

Speculum to biggiboy: What the hell is this mess?

[phyllo]

First of all, my point is that neither scientists nor philosophers have [to the best of my current knowledge] been able to determine if human beings either have or do not have free will. Instead, if you want that sort of certainty, it's any number of the theologians among us who can provide it. Free will? Of course: a God, the God, my God installed that in my very soul.

"Brain science hasn't found any mechanism for libertarian free-will. Therefore, determinism is how things work according to the science."

Human beings don't have libertarian free-will.

Isn't that the scientific consensus at this point? What do you need a 'link' to?

Look, in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, have you managed to convince yourself that science and philosophy are, what, interchangeable...? And, sure, they just may well be.

You might as well say that chemistry and history are interchangeable. It's just as silly. Sure, you can use chemistry to date artifacts, for example, but the two are completely different disciplines and are in no way "interchangeable".

Philosophy and science deal with different types of knowledge and use different tools for that reason.

On the other hand, in regard to the functioning human brain, what exactly is the equivalent of the scientific method among philosophers in exploring this?

You don't know the methodology that philosophers use??? How many decades have you been hanging around on philosophy forums? And you studied some philosophy in a university?

And while I would never deny that The Gap, Rummy's Rule and the Benjamin Button Syndrome may well be applicable ...

"May well be"???

Everybody knows that there are gaps and limits to human knowledge.

That's why your constant references to The Gap and Rummy's Rules are received with yawns of boredom and indifference.

Moral responsibility isn't a brain science problem, its a philosophy or social science problem. It's a problem of how we want social interactions to work.

So, here you are proposing, what, that what we want in regard to social interactions, we want of our own volition? Why? Because you [and others] "just know" this is true? On the other hand, you can't actually link us to anything definitive given the philosophical equivalent of the scientific method to demonstrate it.

How you manage to think that this is an appropriate response to what I wrote, boggles the mind.

[iambiguous]

Here before his imagined subjects, iambig ran away again from addressing the 10-15 points that were already noted, while playing victim.

Click.

What subjects? Please. How many men and women do you know who have managed to think themselves into believing... 

1] that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that human morality in a No God world revolves largely around a fractured and fragmented assessment of right and wrong rooted existentially in dasein
3] that oblivion is awaiting all of us when we die

Trust me, it's a truly grim, glum, grueling assessment. And I've been trying for years now to bump into someone able to actually convince me that it is entirely unreasonable.

One of his imagined followers whispers:
- I can't believe he can't clear up something so simple. I really thought he had a grasp of the topic. But now I'm not so sure.

Again, I'm not asking for "corrections" regarding all 10 to 15 mistakes you claim I've made. Just, say, the top three?

Another one nods:
- We had such high hopes for him, but turns he doesn't even know what he's talking about. How can he expect others to reply to him, when he doesn't reply to anything, so others can't know what he means and how to respond to him?

Same thing. High hopes pertaining to what? That I would come around to their own conclusions regarding meaning, morality and metaphysics? 

All we can really do here is try and try again to connect the dots between what we believe in our head regarding these things and what we can demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

It's just that here the brain is tasked with explaining itself. And given the extent to which we grasp the brain now compared to, say, 100 years from now? A thousand years from now? 

Then those here who actually do believe that, pertaining to autonomy, how they grasp the brain right now is, in fact, what all rational men and women will believe even ten thousand years from now. In fact, some will even insist that they'll be following all of this from...Heaven? Nirvana? Vahalla? Paradise? the happy hunting grounds? 

[iambiguous]

Now, things like morality, responsibility, moral responsibility, are interpersonal issues which seem to be more or less inconceivable to you, because all interpersonal issues are. So you are bound to forever misunderstand what people are talking about, bound to make mistakes like the above.

Click.

Over and again, it's not what we conceive or fail to conceive here, but, in my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind, the extent to which philosophical arguments about either human perception or conception can stand alone without the scientific method or can, in fact, outshine it?
 
Also, one way for sure to embody this...

"...bound to forever misunderstand what people are talking about, bound to make mistakes like the above."

...is in a world that unfolds given the only possible reality.

If, perhaps, everything is bound together naturally, inherently, necessarily such that we really are but nature's own automatons. 

Now let's get back to this...

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla and flashdangerpants, given their own understanding of philosophy and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla and flashdangerpants, given their own understanding of free will and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

...given a context of your own [click] choosing.

[iambiguous]

Weather forecast to paraplegic donkey farm: cram it with walnuts!

I like this idiom, it could go paces and do things.

Here, of course, I can only come back to this...

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla and flashdangerpants, given their own understanding of philosophy and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla and flashdangerpants, given their own understanding of free will and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Otherwise, if it doesn't embarrass them to post Stooge Stuff like the above, it doesn't embarrass me to suggest that they ought to be.

Unless, of course, in regard to the human brain, one of them is able to link their own philosophical assessment of compatibilism to that which brain scientists are in fact able to confirm.

Speculum to biggiboy: What the hell is this mess?

Well, click, if I do say so myself, after you stop wiggling, you'll choose a conflicting good of particular importance to you, and we can explore [existentially] just how messy these exchanges can really become.

[iambiguous]

First of all, my point is that neither scientists nor philosophers have [to the best of my current knowledge] been able to determine if human beings either have or do not have free will. Instead, if you want that sort of certainty, it's any number of the theologians among us who can provide it. Free will? Of course: a God, the God, my God installed that in my very soul.

Only, I still have no understanding of how God and religion function for you here in this regard. Do you believe that you have a God-given soul? Is God the font you fall back on in regard to autonomy? 

"Brain science hasn't found any mechanism for libertarian free-will. Therefore, determinism is how things work according to the science."

 Human beings don't have libertarian free-will.

Isn't that the scientific consensus at this point? What do you need a 'link' to?

Of course, we'll have to run this by the Libertarians first, won't we? Then the Objectivists? They can come in here and argue for Libertarian free will [and even "metaphysical morality"] and those of your ilk can go about accumulating their mistakes?

How about this...

You, Atla and FJ explore what each other gets right or wrong regarding compatibilism. Or do all of you believe exactly the same thing about it? No mistakes at all between you?

Look, in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, have you managed to convince yourself that science and philosophy are, what, interchangeable...? And, sure, they just may well be.

You might as well say that chemistry and history are interchangeable. It's just as silly. Sure, you can use chemistry to date artifacts, for example, but the two are completely different disciplines and are in no way "interchangeable".  Philosophy and science deal with different types of knowledge and use different tools for that reason.

Please. What chemists conclude about the brain revolves around the scientific method. 

As for historians -- click -- they might actually agree regarding historical facts, but where is the consensus regarding what those facts convey in regard to rational or irrational value judgments? 

How are your own value judgments not derived existentially from dasein?

On the other hand, in regard to the functioning human brain, what exactly is the equivalent of the scientific method among philosophers in exploring this?

You don't know the methodology that philosophers use??? How many decades have you been hanging around on philosophy forums? And you studied some philosophy in a university?

Right. If you google "philosophy and free will" you get this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=philoso ... s-wiz-serp

So, using the tools at their disposal, what has the philosophical community definitively concluded regarding those who claim that compatibilism and determinism are, well, compatible.

Please cite a few examples regarding your own behavior. Like, say, posting here?

The part where, over and again, some will argue that if someone puts a gun to your head and commands, "post or you die", that's an "external" factor. But they ignore the possibility that someone puts a gun to your head only because he or she was never able not to do this either.

And while I would never deny that The Gap, Rummy's Rule and the Benjamin Button Syndrome may well be applicable ...

"May well be"???

Yeah, as opposed to "this is what I believe about compatibilism and that settles it".

Everybody knows that there are gaps and limits to human knowledge.

That's why your constant references to The Gap and Rummy's Rules are received with yawns of boredom and indifference.

Again, from my frame of mind "here and now", that is nothing short of...ridiculous? preposterous? harebrained? risible? On the other hand, I have no capacity -- scientific, philosophical, theological -- to actually demonstrate it. So, sure, it might well be smack dab in the bullseye philosophically. And, if it is, congratulations. Maybe at the next APA convention, this will be confirmed as, indeed, the One True Path to grasping compatibilism.

As for the yawns, it's about what I'd expect from the objectivists. They put all of their eggs in one or another One True Path basket. And I know what's involved here because I've had any number of baskets upended myself.

Moral responsibility isn't a brain science problem, its a philosophy or social science problem. It's a problem of how we want social interactions to work.

So, here you are proposing, what, that what we want in regard to social interactions, we want of our own volition? Why? Because you [and others] "just know" this is true? On the other hand, you can't actually link us to anything definitive given the philosophical equivalent of the scientific method to demonstrate it.

How you manage to think that this is an appropriate response to what I wrote, boggles the mind.

No more so than Jane's mind is boggled when you tell her the only reason she is among us at all is because her Mom's friend [of her own volition] convinced her not to have the abortion. Though if Mom did abort her as a manifestation of the only possible reality, she is still morally responsible.
 
Then this part: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

All I can then do is ask others how their own moral and metaphysical philosophies unfolded over the course of their life, such that they arrived at their convictions here in a completely different way.

[phyllo]

Of course, we'll have to run this by the Libertarians first, won't we? Then the Objectivists? They can come in here and argue for Libertarian free will [and even "metaphysical morality"] and those of your ilk can go about accumulating their mistakes?

First off start with the scientists since you have already brought it up, is it or is it not the consensus of science that there is no libertarian free-will?

You, Atla and FJ explore what each other gets right or wrong regarding compatibilism. Or do all of you believe exactly the same thing about it? No mistakes at all between you?

You don't think it's possible to come up with a set of basic facts about compatibilism? Based on what has been written about compatibilism over the centuries?

Who says that different people can't disagree on some aspects of compatibilism? Who says that everyone's beliefs have to be identical?

As for historians -- click -- they might actually agree regarding historical facts, but where is the consensus regarding what those facts convey in regard to rational or irrational value judgments?

That's moving the goal posts from knowledge to value judgements.

How are your own value judgments not derived existentially from dasein?

Who said they are not?

And what does it have to do with what I posted?

So, using the tools at their disposal, what has the philosophical community definitively concluded regarding those who claim that compatibilism and determinism are, well, compatible.

Compatibilism is a version of determinism. IOW, compatibilism is determinism with a specific concept of will.

Again, from my frame of mind "here and now", that is nothing short of...ridiculous? preposterous? harebrained? risible? On the other hand, I have no capacity -- scientific, philosophical, theological -- to actually demonstrate it. So, sure, it might well be smack dab in the bullseye philosophically. And, if it is, congratulations. Maybe at the next APA convention, this will be confirmed as, indeed, the One True Path to grasping compatibilism.

Are you saying that there is no consensus that human knowledge is limited and not complete?

Some individuals, groups and organizations are claiming omniscience?