compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

Surely you must have found his response amusing, if not outright hilarious:

"Unless, perhaps, the hardcore determinists are right and everything that unfolds both in our heads and out in the world around us is entirely determined by the laws of matter. "

It's so completely disconnected from what I write. When have I ever said that everything is not "determined by the laws of matter"?

It's amusing in a sad way. He's just such a waste of grey matter. He's not even using it.

[iambiguous]

Well, the logic is pretty simple.

A decision is based on the state of the 'system', which is the external state of world and internal state of the person. The state of the person is the brain/mind/soul of the person.

If a decision does not does not come from state of the person, then it would not reflect the will of the person. It would not be a free decision, it would be a random decision.

On the other hand, how, for all practical purposes, is this embodied in the actual behaviors that you...choose? The behaviors, perhaps, that you..."choose" instead. Then the part where you either do include a God, the God, your God as the font of choice in providing you with a soul, autonomy, and all the other software God installs in the brains of mere mortals.

You tell me.

On the other hand?

Yeah. I'm trying to get a sense of how you connect the dots between what you believe about compatibilism "in your head" philosophically and how that becomes embodied in the behaviors you either choose of your own free will, or "choose" given the illusion of free will. Posting here for example.

This is like is I said "Triangles have three sides" and you ask "How, for all practical purposes, is this embodied in the actual behaviors that you...choose?" It makes no sense as a reply.

Huh?

No, seriously.

Sure, there may be a context -- click -- in which establishing that a triangle has three sides is crucial regarding a behavior you choose. So, any particular examples from your own life? I can't think of a single one from mine.

Otherwise, "for all practical purposes" I'm missing your point.

Do you you have some problem with what I wrote? Agree? Disagree? What?

The problem here is always the same for me. There's what those like you and I think we know about determinism, free will and compatibilism in a world of words here, and there's what what we can actually demonstrate empirically and experientially such that all rational men and women would be obligated to think the same.

Random decisions? As though, what, like "a bolt out of the blue", we post here? Or we say or do something so completely spontaneous and unexpected, we can't account for the reason why?

In fact, those things can happen given any number of brain afflictions. Out of the blue a brain compels someone to do things that they do only because the brain does compel it.

The Charles Whitman Syndrome some call it.

Though another example might be the case of Shane Tamura, the shooter in New York. He left a note telling us to "check my brain". He was afflicted with "Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy" from playing football.

Decisions not connected to the person's internal state.

The part where someone puts a gun to your head and says, "do what I say or die". On the other hand, what if the "internal state" of that person was such that he or she could never have not said it?

What, you can prove it was autonomous?

So either you are making decisions which are determined by the state of 'things', or you are making random decisions, which are essentially out of your control.

Unless, perhaps, the hardcore determinists are right and everything that unfolds both in our heads and out in the world around us is entirely determined by the laws of matter.

Random decisions wouldn't be determined by "the laws of matter". But they wouldn't represent free-will either.

And that's true because, what, you believe that it is? And that needs to be, what, as far as you go in establishing it?

All other decisions are determined by the "laws of matter" or the "laws of the immaterial" if you are not a physicalist.

What ultimately determines your own decisions? Is it a God, the God, your God? Or are you a pantheist here? Or link me to neuroscientists able to translate your philosophical assumptions here into something considerably more substantive and substantial.

[Atla]

Now I wonder if Kant was also a solipsistic-autistic retard who never communicated with anyone in his entire life, except he had 180 IQ. I get a similar vibe from him.

[phyllo]

Yeah. I'm trying to get a sense of how you connect the dots between what you believe about compatibilism "in your head" philosophically and how that becomes embodied in the behaviors you either choose of your own free will, or "choose" given the illusion of free will. Posting here for example.

The determinism/free-will debate is just an exercise in reasoning.

It doesn't alter my behaviors or decisions in any way.

This is like is I said "Triangles have three sides" and you ask "How, for all practical purposes, is this embodied in the actual behaviors that you...choose?" It makes no sense as a reply.

Huh?

No, seriously.

Sure, there may be a context -- click -- in which establishing that a triangle has three sides is crucial regarding a behavior you choose. So, any particular examples from your own life? I can't think of a single one from mine.

Establishing that a triangle has three sides is not crucial regarding the behaviors one chooses and neither is establishing if free-will or determinism is correct.

Literally, it is part of the background of existence over which one has no control.

The problem here is always the same for me. There's what those like you and I think we know about determinism, free will and compatibilism in a world of words here, and there's what what we can actually demonstrate empirically and experientially such that all rational men and women would be obligated to think the same.

The logical argument is the demonstration.

The part where someone puts a gun to your head and says, "do what I say or die". On the other hand, what if the "internal state" of that person was such that he or she could never have not said it?

What, you can prove it was autonomous?

I just showed that it was not autonomous (in the way that you tend to use that word).

And that's true because, what, you believe that it is? And that needs to be, what, as far as you go in establishing it?

If you reject reasoning, then you will never be able to establish anything. Even your "empirical", "experiential" demonstrations are based on reasoning.

What ultimately determines your own decisions? Is it a God, the God, your God? Or are you a pantheist here?

Ah, you manage to stick 'god', 'the god', 'your god' in here. Even though it's totally irrelevant to what I wrote.

[iambiguous]

Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t
By Dennis Overbye at the New York Times

Daniel C. Dennett, a philosopher and cognitive scientist at Tufts University who has written extensively about free will, said that “when we consider whether free will is an illusion or reality, we are looking into an abyss. What seems to confront us is a plunge into nihilism and despair.”

The first thing I would ask of Dennett is this:

"Is everything you believed, believe now or ever will believe about determinism just another manifestation of the immutable laws of matter? In other words, did your brain entirely compel you to come to the conclusion above?"

Then the part where some conclude that any plunge by any mere mortal at any time into any actual thing, is no less but an inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality.

The part whereby I readily admit -- click -- that I am simply unable "here and now" to grasp it all correctly. It's like "space-time". I've tried to wrap my head around "the point" of it over the years, but to this day I still have no real understanding of "what it means". Especially the part where it is connected to mere mortals in a No God is/ought world given conflicting goods.

Mark Hallett, a researcher with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said, “Free will does exist, but it’s a perception, not a power or a driving force. People experience free will. They have the sense they are free."

Unless, perhaps...?

Then the part where those who think they understand Hallett's point above attempt to explain how for all practical purposes it has become embodied in the behaviors that they themselves choose from day to day.

The explanation itself then encompassing that which philosophers and scientists all agree reflects the optimal understanding of determinism? Unless, perhaps, this reality has never actually unfolded now going all the way back to the presocratics?

[Atla]

But anyone with a basic understanding of physics can easily grasp determinism?

Could something basic like that be "up in the clouds" to him?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Click.

[iambiguous]

Yeah. I'm trying to get a sense of how you connect the dots between what you believe about compatibilism "in your head" philosophically and how that becomes embodied in the behaviors you either choose of your own free will, or "choose" given the illusion of free will. Posting here for example.

The determinism/free-will debate is just an exercise in reasoning.

It doesn't alter my behaviors or decisions in any way.

Yeah, reasoning for or reasoning against free will. It's everywhere here. But is this reasoning itself autonomous or autonomic? 

Here's just how extraordinary [and problematic] it can all become:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/book ... %20enteric.

As for human behavior with or without free will, I'm back to this:

The thing that puzzles me is how, in a determined world where Mary can never not abort Jane, she is still said to be morally responsible for it. After all, how many here would agree to being held morally responsible for something they were never able not to do?

The part whereby, if Mary had free will, her friend, given her own free will, might have convinced her not to abort Jane. Whereas without free will, Jane could never have not been obliterated.   

The part where you explain to Jane how Mom having free will or not is not pertinent to her own existence at all?

The part, whereby, over and over again, I acknowledge/admit I am simply not understanding this correctly.

 This is like is I said "Triangles have three sides" and you ask "How, for all practical purposes, is this embodied in the actual behaviors that you...choose?" It makes no sense as a reply.

Huh?

No, seriously.

Sure, there may be a context -- click -- in which establishing that a triangle has three sides is crucial regarding a behavior you choose. So, any particular examples from your own life? I can't think of a single one from mine.

Otherwise, "for all practical purposes" I'm missing your point.

Establishing that a triangle has three sides is not crucial regarding the behaviors one chooses and neither is establishing if free-will or determinism is correct.

Literally, it is part of the background of existence over which one has no control.

That -- click -- you believe this is one thing, actually demonstrating how and why you do, using both the tools of philosophy and the scientific method, is another thing altogether. If, here and now, I say so myself. But, sure, give it a shot.

The problem here is always the same for me. There's what those like you and I think we know about determinism, free will and compatibilism in a world of words here, and there's what we can actually demonstrate empirically and experientially such that all rational men and women would be obligated to think the same.

The logical argument is the demonstration.

But logic itself is derived from the fact that matter evolved into us. It pertains to the language mere mortals in a No God world [an assumption] invented -- discovered? --  enabling them to connect [or disconnect] the dots between "in my head" and "out in the world".

Is it logical that anything exists at all?
Is it logical that matter evolved into us?
Is it logical that human beings have autonomy?

And if things of this sort are logical, is that a manifestation of God, of Pantheism? Are human beings on planet Earth the measure of all things here?

My whole intent is in exploring the limitations of logic. In particular with regard to "meaning morality and metaphysics".

The part where someone puts a gun to your head and says, "do what I say or die". On the other hand, what if the "internal state" of that person was such that he or she could never have not said it?

What, you can prove it was autonomous?

I just showed that it was not autonomous (in the way that you tend to use that word).

Well, I missed that part. In other words, the part where you provide us with ample empirical, experiential evidence that what you claim you showed us here you did so either autonomously [voluntarily] or autonomically [involuntarily].

And that's true because, what, you believe that it is? And that needs to be, what, as far as you go in establishing it?

If you reject reasoning, then you will never be able to establish anything. Even your "empirical", "experiential" demonstrations are based on reasoning.

Over and again, from the perspective of particular hard determinists, it's not whether one can accept certain reasoning, but whether one can demonstrate that this acceptance [or rejection] was done of their own free will. 

What ultimately determines your own decisions? Is it a God, the God, your God? Or are you a pantheist here?

Ah, you manage to stick 'god', 'the god', 'your god' in here. Even though it's totally irrelevant to what I wrote.

Nothing could possibly be more relevant here, in my view, than the existence of a God, the God in regard to free will. Literally millions upon millions upon millions around the globe connect the dots between volition and God. Part of His mysterious ways.

On the other hand, in my view, how would I go about demonstrating that this view in and of itself is autonomous?
 
Why do you refuse to note the part that God and religion play here in your own assessment of free will? And pertaining to objective morality? 

[Atla]

Huh. Looks like he really doesn't know what determinism means. Guess he really can't think in concepts all, it's up in the clouds to him. How can that be? Is that a side-effect of being a natural solipsist?

[phyllo]

The determinism/free-will debate is just an exercise in reasoning.

It doesn't alter my behaviors or decisions in any way.

Yeah, reasoning for or reasoning against free will. It's everywhere here. But is this reasoning itself autonomous or autonomic?

Here's just how extraordinary [and problematic] it can all become:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/book ... %20enteric.

As for human behavior with or without free will, I'm back to this:

The thing that puzzles me is how, in a determined world where Mary can never not abort Jane, she is still said to be morally responsible for it. After all, how many here would agree to being held morally responsible for something they were never able not to do?

The part whereby, if Mary had free will, her friend, given her own free will, might have convinced her not to abort Jane. Whereas without free will, Jane could never have not been obliterated.

The part where you explain to Jane how Mom having free will or not is not pertinent to her own existence at all?

The part, whereby, over and over again, I acknowledge/admit I am simply not understanding this correctly.

I notice that your reply does not say how your behaviors would change or anyone else's behaviors, if you knew you had free-will or didn't have free-will.

And what would be the difference between autonomous reasoning and autonomic reasoning?

That -- click -- you believe this is one thing, actually demonstrating how and why you do, using both the tools of philosophy and the scientific method, is another thing altogether. If, here and now, I say so myself.

Then maybe you ought to discuss it in two separate threads ... one dealing with determinism/free-will/compatibilism and the other one dealing with how a demonstration would proceed.

Would be a lot better than mixing ice cream and beef stew in the same pot.

My whole intent is in exploring the limitations of logic. In particular with regard to "meaning morality and metaphysics".

Sounds like something to split into another thread unless you are prepared to say what's wrong with the logic of determinism. Are you?

Are the determinists' arguments going beyond the "limitations of logic"?

Well, I missed that part. In other words, the part where you provide us with ample empirical, experiential evidence that what you claim you showed us here you did so either autonomously [voluntarily] or autonomically [involuntarily].

What would you consider as "ample empirical, experiential evidence"? What would that look like? What are the requirements that need to be met?

Over and again, from the perspective of particular hard determinists, it's not whether one can accept certain reasoning, but whether one can demonstrate that this acceptance [or rejection] was done of their own free will.

Over and over, notice that determinists aren't looking for this demonstration.

It's something you keep attributing to determinists that they don't do.

If I am mistaken, then quote the determinists who are doing this.

Nothing could possibly be more relevant here, in my view, than the existence of a God, the God in regard to free will. Literally millions upon millions upon millions around the globe connect the dots between volition and God. Part of His mysterious ways.

This site is full of discussions about god and religion. And lots of posters who are interested in that sort of thing.

I'm sure that you can start a thread about god and free-will in the Religion section of the forum and you will get some participants. Enjoy.

[iambiguous]

The determinism/free-will debate is just an exercise in reasoning.
It doesn't alter my behaviors or decisions in any way.

Yeah, reasoning for or reasoning against free will. It's everywhere here. But is this reasoning itself autonomous or autonomic?

Here's just how extraordinary [and problematic] it can all become:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/book ... %20enteric.

As for human behavior with or without free will, I'm back to this:

The thing that puzzles me is how, in a determined world where Mary can never not abort Jane, she is still said to be morally responsible for it. After all, how many here would agree to being held morally responsible for something they were never able not to do?

The part whereby, if Mary had free will, her friend, given her own free will, might have convinced her not to abort Jane. Whereas without free will, Jane could never have not been obliterated.

The part where you explain to Jane how Mom having free will or not is not pertinent to her own existence at all?

The part, whereby, over and over again, I acknowledge/admit I am simply not understanding this correctly.

I notice that your reply does not say how your behaviors would change or anyone else's behaviors, if you knew you had free-will or didn't have free-will.

Note to others:

Is he making an important point here that I keep missing? Because I'm always willing to acknowledge that, given just how mind-boggling [even surreal] the Big Questions...

Why is there 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?

...can often be, sure, I might be way off the mark. As with everyone else here. It's just that given the gap between what mere mortals here on planet Earth think they understand about the human brain here and now and all that there is to be known about it going back to a definitive understanding of existence itself...?

The point, some say, isn't what we would do so much as whether or not it can ever be demonstrated that we either have or do not have free will when we do do things.

And what would be the difference between autonomous reasoning and autonomic reasoning?

It would seem to be the difference between voluntary and involuntary reasoning. It's like with AI. We click on one or another AI font and it gives us answers/reasons for whatever we ask of it. So, is this AI exercising free will? Or is it entirely programmed to reason given what is programmed into it by flesh and blood human beings? Then some extrapolate from that the belief that we are just nature's very own automatons/robots/androids.

Uh, dominoes?

Though, again, I may well be unable here and now -- click -- to understand it correctly.

That -- click -- you believe this is one thing, actually demonstrating how and why you do, using both the tools of philosophy and the scientific method, is another thing altogether. If, here and now, I say so myself.

Then maybe you ought to discuss it in two separate threads ... one dealing with determinism/free-will/compatibilism and the other one dealing with how a demonstration would proceed.

Would be a lot better than mixing ice cream and beef stew in the same pot.

I'm for keeping the two intertwined, myself.

The logical argument is the demonstration

But logic itself is derived from the fact that matter evolved into us. It pertains to the language mere mortals in a No God world [an assumption] invented -- discovered? -- enabling them to connect [or disconnect] the dots between "in my head" and "out in the world".

Is it logical that anything exists at all?
Is it logical that matter evolved into us?
Is it logical that human beings have autonomy?

And if things of this sort are logical, is that a manifestation of God, of Pantheism? Are human beings on planet Earth the measure of all things here?

My whole intent is in exploring the limitations of logic. In particular with regard to "meaning morality and metaphysics".

Sounds like something to split into another thread unless you are prepared to say what's wrong with the logic of determinism. Are you?

Are the determinists' arguments going beyond the "limitations of logic"?

So, philosophically, is the logic of free will, the logic of determinism, or the logic of compatibilism more reflective of human interactions?

And, as long as particular determinists provide us with arguments alone, they are no less anchoring their own assumptions and conclusions in a "world of words".

I just showed that it was not autonomous (in the way that you tend to use that word).

Well, I missed that part. In other words, the part where you provide us with ample empirical, experiential evidence that what you claim you showed us here you did so either autonomously [voluntarily] or autonomically [involuntarily].

What would you consider as "ample empirical, experiential evidence"? What would that look like? What are the requirements that need to be met?

How about enough of it that philosophers and scientists are able to come together some day in order to inform the world [one way or the other] what the "real deal" is here.

Over and again, from the perspective of particular hard determinists, it's not whether one can accept certain reasoning, but whether one can demonstrate that this acceptance [or rejection] was done of their own free will.

Over and over, notice that determinists aren't looking for this demonstration.

Well, the ones who are brain scientists are attempting to. But any and all demonstrations will come only from those qualified to provide it. Which certainly leaves me out. And most posters here. All those of our ilk can really do is to follow the debate by following the discussions among philosophers and scientists.

As for quoting the determinists, that's basically all I do when I react to articles pertaining to determinism. The arguments are either made by the authors of the articles themselves who are determinists or, given those who are not, the arguments of the determinists that they note.

Ah, you manage to stick 'god', 'the god', 'your god' in here. Even though it's totally irrelevant to what I wrote.

Nothing could possibly be more relevant here, in my view, than the existence of a God, the God in regard to free will. Literally millions upon millions upon millions around the globe connect the dots between volition and God. Part of His mysterious ways.

This site is full of discussions about god and religion. And lots of posters who are interested in that sort of thing.

I'm sure that you can start a thread about god and free-will in the Religion section of the forum and you will get some participants. Enjoy.

Yes, I could do that. But that doesn't change the bottom line [mine] here:

That "literally millions upon millions upon millions around the globe do connect the dots between volition and God".

Not to include God and religion in any discussion of free will just seems bizarre to me.

Click, of course.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yeah, reasoning for or reasoning against free will. It's everywhere here. But is this reasoning itself autonomous or autonomic?

Here's just how extraordinary [and problematic] it can all become:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/book ... %20enteric.

As for human behavior with or without free will, I'm back to this:

The thing that puzzles me is how, in a determined world where Mary can never not abort Jane, she is still said to be morally responsible for it. After all, how many here would agree to being held morally responsible for something they were never able not to do?

The part whereby, if Mary had free will, her friend, given her own free will, might have convinced her not to abort Jane. Whereas without free will, Jane could never have not been obliterated.

The part where you explain to Jane how Mom having free will or not is not pertinent to her own existence at all?

The part, whereby, over and over again, I acknowledge/admit I am simply not understanding this correctly.

I notice that your reply does not say how your behaviors would change or anyone else's behaviors, if you knew you had free-will or didn't have free-will.

Note to others:

Is he making an important point here that I keep missing? Because I'm always willing to acknowledge that, given just how mind-boggling [even surreal] the Big Questions...

Yes

[phyllo]

I notice that your reply does not say how your behaviors would change or anyone else's behaviors, if you knew you had free-will or didn't have free-will.

Note to others:

Is he making an important point here that I keep missing? Because I'm always willing to acknowledge that, given just how mind-boggling [even surreal] the Big Questions...

The point is that for someone who wants to take philosophy out of the clouds, someone who wants to understand responsibility in compatibilism, someone who wants demonstrations ... you spend practically no time thinking and discussing the 'down to earth' behaviors.

Here you jump to the abstract "Big Questions".

And what would be the difference between autonomous reasoning and autonomic reasoning?

It would seem to be the difference between voluntary and involuntary reasoning.

Involuntary reasoning would seem to apply to issues like mental illness. But it quickly leads to dualism ... the idea that there is a 'real' person separate from the mental illness who does not want to think the thoughts that mental illness is 'making' him think.

I would say that there is no involuntary thought or reasoning. You are what you think. And that may be broken, which is unfortunate. But it's the current you.

I'm for keeping the two intertwined, myself.

Of course by keeping demonstrations and the determinism/free-will/compatibilism tied together, you don't reach any conclusion on anything. It's just a jumbled mess of constantly shifting focus.

So, philosophically, is the logic of free will, the logic of determinism, or the logic of compatibilism more reflective of human interactions?

You make it sound as if determinism, compatibilism and free-will all use their own logic, three different logics. That intentional on your part, right? They all have their own 'truth' according to you.

"Logic of determinism" simple means logic applied to the subject of determinism. One logic to bind them all.

And, as long as particular determinists provide us with arguments alone, they are no less anchoring their own assumptions and conclusions in a "world of words".

Arguments are anchored in observations of the world. They always have been.

What would you consider as "ample empirical, experiential evidence"? What would that look like? What are the requirements that need to be met?

How about enough of it that philosophers and scientists are able to come together some day in order to inform the world [one way or the other] what the "real deal" is here.

That's so vague and general that it doesn't say anything of interest.

You're asking for "ample empirical, experiential evidence" so you ought to state what posters should provide for you? That way, they won't waste their time and yours, posting 'evidence' which you will reject as inadequate.

Come on, give us a clue as to what you want.

As for quoting the determinists, that's basically all I do when I react to articles pertaining to determinism.

You keep attributing claims to determinists which are not in the quotes that you post.

This has been pointed out many times.

[Atla]

Yeah I guess he can't really process concepts. He never learned to think in concepts, that's interesting. Determinism, free will and compatibilism are three concepts from the "conceptual cloud", he doesn't really know what any of those mean or how to handle them. He needs to be told everyday stuff without any concepts, but is that even possible? What can we say in philosophy when there can be no conceptual takeaway?

I guess I can try:

ME THINK WE NO NEED FREE WILL FOR MORAL RESPONSIBILITY. ME THINK WE NO NEED FREE WILL FOR MORALITY. MORALITY WORK WITHOUT FREE WILL. ME DO EVERYDAY DETERMINED CHOICE AND THEN ME HAVE EVERYDAY DETERMINED MORAL RESPONSIBILITY. MARY DO EVERYDAY DETERMINED CHOICE AND THEN MARY HAVE EVERYDAY DETERMINED MORAL RESPONSIBILITY. HUMANS USED MORAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR A HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS AND IT WAS ALL DETERMINED AND IT WORK JUST FINE. IN THE ONLY POSSIBLE REALITY YOU DO THE ONLY POSSIBLE EVERYDAY CHOICE AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ONLY POSSIBLE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Ah no, this still used concepts, I suck at this..

[iambiguous]

I notice that your reply does not say how your behaviors would change or anyone else's behaviors, if you knew you had free-will or didn't have free-will.

Note to others:

Is he making an important point here that I keep missing? Because I'm always willing to acknowledge that, given just how mind-boggling [even surreal] the Big Questions...

Why is there 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?

...can often be, sure, I might be way off the mark. As with everyone else here. It's just that given the gap between what mere mortals here on planet Earth think they understand about the human brain here and now and all that there is to be known about it going back to a definitive understanding of existence itself...?

The point, some say, isn't what we would do so much as whether or not it can ever be demonstrated that we either have or do not have free will when we do do things.

The point is that for someone who wants to take philosophy out of the clouds, someone who wants to understand responsibility in compatibilism, someone who wants demonstrations ... you spend practically no time thinking and discussing the 'down to earth' behaviors.

But then -- click -- when I do bring all this down to Earth with Mary...

"The thing that puzzles me is how, in a determined world where Mary can never not abort Jane, she is still said to be morally responsible for it. After all, how many here would agree to being held morally responsible for something they were never able not to do?

The part whereby, if Mary had free will, her friend, given her own free will, might have convinced her not to abort Jane. Whereas without free will, Jane could never have not been obliterated.

The part where you explain to Jane how Mom having free will or not is not pertinent to her own existence at all?

The part, whereby, over and over again, I acknowledge/admit I am simply not understanding this correctly."

...it's wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. Though, sure, that reaction is in and of itself still no less than a subjective/subjunctive assessment rooted existentially in dasein. Then click, of course. Well, anyway, if "I" do say so myself.

Same with any attempt on my part to grasp how you intertwine philosophy and theology given the manner in which you connect the dots "here and now" between God, religion, souls, the human brain and human autonomy.  

Here you jump to the abstract "Big Questions".

What are the Big Questions other than those quandaries that involve understanding reality [human and otherwise] at its broadest? 

And what would be the difference between autonomous reasoning and autonomic reasoning?

It would seem to be the difference between voluntary and involuntary reasoning. It's like with AI. We click on one or another AI font and it gives us answers/reasons for whatever we ask of it. So, is this AI exercising free will? Or is it entirely programmed to reason given what is programmed into it by flesh and blood human beings? Then some extrapolate from that the belief that we are just nature's very own automatons/robots/androids.
Uh, dominoes? 

Though, again, I may well be unable here and now -- click -- to understand it correctly. 

Involuntary reasoning would seem to apply to issues like mental illness. But it quickly leads to dualism ... the idea that there is a 'real' person separate from the mental illness who does not want to think the thoughts that mental illness is 'making' him think.

This "real person"...that's not the equivalent of Maia's Intrinsic Self is it? They [as with many others embracing very different moral, political and religious fonts] are able to believe that deep down inside them is this Real Me enabling them to "just know" intuitively when something is good or bad, right or wrong, determined or free. And since no one else is them, no one else can possibly grasp this intrinsic reality as they do. And, perhaps,  the futility of explaining that part to them?

I would say that there is no involuntary thought or reasoning. You are what you think. And that may be broken, which is unfortunate. But it's the current you.

What on Earth do you call thinking and reasoning in dreams if not involuntary? 

I'm for keeping the two intertwined, myself.

Of course by keeping demonstrations and the determinism/free-will/compatibilism tied together, you don't reach any conclusion on anything. It's just a jumbled mess of constantly shifting focus.

In fact, it's those here who embrace an ontological/deontological "my way or else" frame of mind regarding the Big Questions [and most everything else] that enables me to appear all jumbled and losing focus in regard to the teleological nature of the universe. If there even is one.

So, philosophically, is the logic of free will, the logic of determinism, or the logic of compatibilism more reflective of human interactions? 

You make it sound as if determinism, compatibilism and free-will all use their own logic, three different logics. That intentional on your part, right? They all have their own 'truth' according to you.

Again, logic revolves around the biological/evolutionary relationship between words and worlds. Only the world here revolves in turn around The Gap, Rummy's Rule and the Benjamin Button Syndrome. All those things we don't even know [yet] that we don't even know about the universe.

After all, it's not for nothing that every week there seems to be one or another "new discovery" by the Hubble/Webb telescopes that bring into question the profoundly problematic mystery embedded in existence itself. What, the human condition is the exception to the rule?

"Logic of determinism" simple means logic applied to the subject of determinism. One logic to bind them all.

In other words, the logic that you and flannel jesus and flashdangerpants express here on this thread is inherently/necessarily more rational than my own jumbled logic? And this is true because philosophically you believe that it is true of your own free will. That's what makes it true. Either in being compelled to behave as you do given the only possible reality, or in being compelled to explore the science enabling you to actually demonstrate how and why your own assessment of compatibilism is the optimal assessment given the inherent relationship here between words and worlds. 

And, as long as particular determinists provide us with arguments alone, they are no less anchoring their own assumptions and conclusions in a "world of words".

Arguments are anchored in observations of the world. They always have been.

Same thing in my view. What particular arguments relating to what particular observations relating to what particular historical and cultural contexts? And pertaining to what particular accumulation of personal experiences? 

What would you consider as "ample empirical, experiential evidence"? What would that look like? What are the requirements that need to be met?

How about enough of it that philosophers and scientists are able to come together someday in order to inform the world [one way or the other] what the "real deal" is here.

That's so vague and general that it doesn't say anything of interest.

You're asking for  "ample empirical, experiential evidence" so you ought to state what posters should provide for you? That way, they won't waste their time and yours, posting 'evidence' which you will reject as inadequate.

Come on, give us a clue as to what you want.

This reminds me of IC demanding to know what proof might convince me that the Christian God does in fact exist. Yet nothing that I or others suggest here is really proof at all. Not until we pat him on the back and congratulate him for providing us with all the proof we'll ever need in order to accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior.

How about you? What's your own take on Jesus?