compatibilism

[phyllo]

Incompatibilists, on the other hand, argue that determinism is incompatible with free will and moral responsibility. They claim that if our choices are determined, we cannot be held morally responsible for them.

If "we cannot be held morally responsible" for our choices, then why do these incompatibilists confine, reeducate and 'medicate' murderers, arsonists, rapists, pedophiles, etc?

The number of determinists/incompatibilists who would do nothing to a murderer can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

For most, 'no moral responsibility' is just empty talk.

[FlashDangerpants]

Compatibilism and Moral Responsibility
Exploring the Implications of Compatibilist Theories on Ethics
Sarah Lee

The implications of compatibilism on moral blame and praise are significant. If we are morally responsible for our actions, we can be praised for the good ones and blamed for the bad ones.

Significant? I'd say so. The part where someone is able to clearly demonstrate how and why, even though Mary was never able not to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells, she is still morally responsible for doing so. I still can't wrap my head around that...if in fact it is true.

Which then brings me back around to this: click.

Fucking hell biggie. You are now arguing on PN against a fucking AI chatbot
https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/co ... onsibility

Sarah Lee, AI generated, Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct-FP8

[iambiguous]

How is a person morally responsible in compatibilism?
Daniel Friedrichs at Quora

The following is a true story.

I was about 4 years old when my father took me to a county fair. At this fair I saw a ride where i could drive a little car. I loved cars. and I was so excited to be able to drive a car for the first time.

When it was my turn, I got into the car, the operator put the safety bar in place, I grabbed the steering wheel. The operator started the car. I did my best to steer the car to keep it on the track. I turned right and left and however the track made its way back to the start, where the ride ended.

I was so excited. I was able to perfectly drive the car around the track. But as the day wore on, and it got late and people started leaving, I happened to be passing by the ride with the car. The operator was sending the car around the track with no one in it! The car steered by itself. I was heart broken. I fell for the trick. I wasn’t really in control at all.

In a sense, this is really what discussions and debates regarding determinism [philosophical or otherwise] are often about. For all practical purposes in other words.

If we are in fact wholly compelled to think and feel and say and do given only how our brain itself is impelled to function given the "immutable laws of matter"...?

The part where those who are bursting at the seams with significant and accumulating accomplishments seethe at the thought that it was actually all -- ontologically? teleologically? -- beyond their control. Meanwhile  those who have accomplished very little or nothing can remind us that this too was beyond their control. Rewards and punishments are just along for the ride, in other words. As are the reactions of those here to this particular assumption itself. 

To this post, perhaps?

[iambiguous]

Again [click]: my reasoning is not the same as your own here. And only when it gets considerably closer to it, I suspect, will it be deemed reasoning at all.

This is the excuse you use so that you don't have to do the 'tedious' and 'dangerous' work of defending your reasoning.

Back to the part where you are able to demonstrate...scientifically, philosophically, empirically, experientially...that I am in fact able to freely opt to think other than as I do "here and now"? To post otherwise?

How about explaining how and why your own assessment of all this does come considerably closer to the way things really are.

As for how this revolves around my not doing the "tedious" and "dangerous" work of defending my reasoning, choose a particular context and we can explore this more in depth. 

Click, say. 

Different reasoning, no common ground, no point in going into it. Done.

Of course, that can be noted regarding any number of quandaries that philosophers come upon pertaining to the Big Questions. Instead, what often boggles my mind is how there are actually those here who are convinced that their very own One True Path to Enlightenment -- God or No God -- allows them to scoff at others here who don't share their own dogmatic point of view.

Again: tell that to Jane. Her very existence depends on the assumption [yes, my own] that only in a world where Mom was in fact able to choose to either abort or not abort her, is that even possible.

"Assumption" being the critical word.

You have an assumption and it doesn't have to be justified or explained. You just have it and that's it.

But with the assumption that we live in a free will world, it is possible for Jane to be among us. With the assumption that Mary was never able not to abort her, it was not. Instead, the discussion often shifts to the part where particular compatibilists seem to acknowledge that while the abortion was determined -- fated? destined? -- Mary is still morally responsible for it. 

What, they tell you that they believe in free will? Okay, next time ask some them to provide you with all the evidence they have accumulated such that in utilizing the scientific method they are able to explain step by step how and why their own brain is able to function autonomously.

I don't ask them for evidence or for them to utilize the "scientific method"All I ask is for them to show their reasoning.

How does pursuing the scientific method not include reasoning?

A cat is an animal but an animal is not a cat.

You lose me here. I'm not sure what your point is. Cats and all other animals that are not human beings are moot here because no other animal even comes close to exploring and encompassing all of this philosophically.  

The scientific method may be reasoning but it's not the only reasoning available.

That's true of course. Which -- click -- always brings me back around to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

In other words, there are any number of [at times] profoundly conflicting assumptions proposed here regarding determinism...and lots  and lots of other controversies pertaining to human social, political and economic interactions.  

This is a public forum. Most of the people here have no experience with the scientific method. Why would I demand that they use the scientific method exclusively to show their reasoning about determinism and free-will?

I'm asking them explain using the methods that they understand.

It's less a question of demanding that they use it, and more an assumption [another one] that ultimately those who do use other methods will have to eventually bring their conclusions to the brain scientists. 

On the other hand, there are those who insist the only "method" anyone really needs in order to acquire free will is to have faith in God. I thought that once included you but you won't go there.

I doubt that the scientific method can even be used to get a result about determinism/free-will. What kind of experiment could be constructed? It's not like you can set up two petri dishes, one with determinism and the other with free-will and observe the results.  But that's another story.

I suspect that it might be the most important of all methods.   
 

So, you admit that you are unable to reason and to use logic.
Okay, let's leave it at that.

No, I acknowledge that reason and logic used by anyone here is still no less subsumed in The Gap and in Donald Rumsfeld's conjecture regarding the things we don't even know that we don't even know yet about the human brain.

Note to others:

Is that what I am admitting to here?

Well you wrote this : "I can't even demonstrate ..."
and now this : "I'm not claiming that my own reasoning here is correct."

So you must be admitting that you can't make a logical argument to support your position.

Look, if that's what you need to believe about me...?

[phyllo]

As for how this revolves around my not doing the "tedious" and "dangerous" work of defending my reasoning, choose a particular context and we can explore this more in depth.

Click, say.

I've been asking you to defend your reasoning about determinism/free-will in this thread with practically no result.

Iwannaplato tried to discuss moral responsibility in compatibilism. You avoided talking about it.

You often offer to "explore" some "context" and then don't say anything of substance.

But with the assumption that we live in a free will world, it is possible for Jane to be among us. With the assumption that Mary was never able not to abort her, it was not. Instead, the discussion often shifts to the part where particular compatibilists seem to acknowledge that while the abortion was determined -- fated? destined? -- Mary is still morally responsible for it.

Yes, that's revealing.
In the first sentence you assume free-will ... "But with the assumption that we live in a free will world, it is possible for Jane to be among us."
But in the second sentence you don't assume determinism, instead you assume a specific event, an abortion, happens ..."With the assumption that Mary was never able not to abort her, it was not."

It's no wonder that you write the stories that you do about Mary.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 10:12 am
The scientific method may be reasoning but it's not the only reasoning available.

That's true of course. Which -- click -- always brings me back around to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

Yeah, those are not methods of reasoning.

It's less a question of demanding that they use it, and more an assumption [another one] that ultimately those who do use other methods will have to eventually bring their conclusions to the brain scientists.

No they don't.
There are no brain scientists here.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 10:12 am
I doubt that the scientific method can even be used to get a result about determinism/free-will. What kind of experiment could be constructed? It's not like you can set up two petri dishes, one with determinism and the other with free-will and observe the results. But that's another story.

I suspect that it might be the most important of all methods.

Let me guess ... you are unable to demonstrate that it's the most important method or that the scientific method can be used to get a result for determinism/free-will or that it is even necessary to use the scientific method.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 10:12 am
So, you admit that you are unable to reason and to use logic.
Okay, let's leave it at that.

No, I acknowledge that reason and logic used by anyone here is still no less subsumed in The Gap and in Donald Rumsfeld's conjecture regarding the things we don't even know that we don't even know yet about the human brain.

Note to others:

If "The Gap" and "Rumsfeld" were so significant then it would be impossible to know anything. All knowledge and reasoning would be unattainable, even making a toaster would be shrouded in mystery.

[iambiguous]

How is a person morally responsible in compatibilism?
Daniel Friedrichs at Quora

Now let’s relate this situation [above] to the three main positions on Free Will/Moral Responsibility.

Hard determinists: You are an observer trapped in a body you can’t control like me, the child strapped into a car I couldn’t control. Obviously you shouldn’t be held responsible if the carnival ride breaks and the car goes off the track.

More to the point [for some] your observations are no less but another inherent component of the only possible reality. Nothing that unfolds in or not in the carnival could ever have unfolded otherwise. 

Libertarians Free Will advocates: You are in control of your body, not like me the child in a controlled carnival ride, but the adult that actually does drive a car. If you drive the car off the road, then you are responsible for any damages that might occur.

All I can do here is request from the Libertarians/Objectivists a link to an argument establishing this. Then the part where they demonstrate how science and philosophy have finally reached a consensus allowing for a way in which to connect the dots existentially between words and worlds. 

Compatiblists. There is no observer trapped in a deterministic body. You are not the little child in the carnival ride, you are the carnival ride. If the carnival ride breaks, and the car goes off the track, then you, the ride, get shut down until you can get repaired.

Par for the course, I am unable to grasp how "for all practical purposes" this has anything to do with human interactions that often break down themselves given conflicted value judgments. After all, what does it mean to be the carnival ride itself here?

For the Compatibilist, the question is what is the appropriate “repair” in a given situation. We make distinctions between people with the cognitive capacity to understand the consequences of their actions from those that do not have that capacity because the “repair” will be different.
We say the person who does have the capacity to understand the consequences of their actions is morally responsible for what they do.

Right, like given how profoundly...staggeringly...immense and mysterious the  universe/existence/reality can be, we can still "just know" that what we say involves at least some measure of autonomy.

Theoretically, anyway.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Click off!

[iambiguous]

As for how this revolves around my not doing the "tedious" and "dangerous" work of defending my reasoning, choose a particular context and we can explore this more in depth.

Back to the part where you are able to demonstrate...scientifically, philosophically, empirically, experientially...that I am in fact able to freely opt to think other than as I do "here and now"? To post otherwise?

How about explaining how and why your own assessment of all this does come considerably closer to the way things really are.

Click, say.

I've been asking you to defend your reasoning about determinism/free-will in this thread with practically no result.

And I've been asking you to connect the dots between what you believe in your head about all this and the role that God and religion play in it. And then the part where you connect the dots between what you believe about all this in your head and all the scientific evidence that backs it up. 

Iwannaplato tried to discuss moral responsibility in compatibilism. You avoided talking about it.

Again, however, from my own frame of mind, I refused to agree with him. But I would never argue that because I did not agree with him that he was wrong. Same with you and others here. There is simply too much we still do not yet understand about the human brain itself for any of us to grasp either its ultimate capacities or limitations. 

You often offer to "explore" some "context" and then don't say anything of substance.

Again: tell that to Jane. Her very existence depends on the assumption [yes, my own] that only in a world where Mom was in fact able to choose to either abort or not abort her, is that even possible.

↑
"Assumption" being the critical word.
You have an assumption and it doesn't have to be justified or explained. You just have it and that's it.

But with the assumption that we live in a free will world, it is possible for Jane to be among us. With the assumption that Mary was never able not to abort her, it was not. Instead, the discussion often shifts to the part where particular compatibilists seem to acknowledge that while the abortion was determined -- fated? destined? -- Mary is still morally responsible for it.

Yes, that's revealing.
In the first sentence you assume free-will ... "But with the assumption that we live in a free will world, it is possible for Jane to be among us."

Some do that. And some assume we do not have any free will at all. Then the part where some argue that determinism still allows for moral responsibility.   

What doesn't change for me though is the assumption [and that's all it is given the Gap and Rummy's Rule] that if Mary was in fact never able not to abort Jane, others can still hold her responsible morally. To that some hard determinists will be compelled to argue that in holding her morally responsible this too is just another inherent component of a wholly determined universe. A universe where nothing is not determined.

But in the second sentence you don't assume determinism, instead you assume a specific event, an abortion, happens ..."With the assumption that Mary was never able not to abort her, it was not."

It's no wonder that you write the stories that you do about Mary.  :lol:

On the other hand, what does that really have to do with the fact [if it is a fact] that the only way Jane can be among us today is if Mary was not determined -- fated, destined -- to abort her?

  The scientific method may be reasoning but it's not the only reasoning available. 

That's true of course. Which -- click -- always brings me back around to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

In other words, there are any number of [at times] profoundly conflicting assumptions proposed here regarding determinism...and lots  and lots of other controversies pertaining to human social, political and economic interactions. 

Yeah, those are not methods of reasoning.

Tell them that.

   This is a public forum. Most of the people here have no experience with the scientific method. Why would I demand that they use the scientific method exclusively to show their reasoning about determinism and free-will?
I'm asking them explain using the methods that they understand.

It's less a question of demanding that they use it, and more an assumption [another one] that ultimately those who do use other methods will have to eventually bring their conclusions to the brain scientists.

On the other hand, there are those who insist the only "method" anyone really needs in order to acquire free will is to have faith in God. I thought that once included you but you won't go there.

  No they don't.There are no brain scientists here.

Unless, perhaps, there are? And, sure, click, if you have thought yourself into believing that science is moot here, so be it. I'm still convinced myself that those who study actual functioning brains will always be a crucial component in any debate regarding the Big Questions.

   I doubt that the scientific method can even be used to get a result about determinism/free-will. What kind of experiment could be constructed? It's not like you can set up two petri dishes, one with determinism and the other with free-will and observe the results.  But that's another story.

Again, I suspect that it might be the most important of all methods.

   

Let me guess ... you are unable to demonstrate that it's the most important method or that the scientific method can be used to get a result for determinism/free-will or that it is even necessary to use the scientific method.

That's true. In fact, I can't demonstrate conclusively anything that I argue pertaining to morality, the meaning of life and metaphysical quandaries. All I know is that -- click -- I've managed to think myself into believing...

1] that my own 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

But I have no way to determine if this too is just another inherent manifestation of hard determinism. 

So, you admit that you are unable to reason and to use logic. Okay, let's leave it at that.

No, I acknowledge that reason and logic used by anyone here is still no less subsumed in The Gap and in Donald Rumsfeld's conjecture regarding the things we don't even know that we don't even know yet about the human brain.

If "The Gap" and "Rumsfeld" were so significant then it would be impossible to know anything. All knowledge and reasoning would be unattainable, even making a toaster would be shrouded in mystery.

On the contrary, not if one assumes that human interactions in the either/or world reflect truths applicable to all of us. 

[phyllo]

And I've been asking you to connect the dots between what you believe in your head about all this and the role that God and religion play in it. And then the part where you connect the dots between what you believe about all this in your head and all the scientific evidence that backs it up.

The topic is compatibilism. The topic is not God and religion.

How many times does that need to be said??

Go talk to IC and AJ about God and religion.

Some do that. And some assume ...
...some hard determinists...

Tell them that.

I'm not talking to "some", I'm talking to you.

"Them" are not here.

On the other hand, what does that really have to do with the fact [if it is a fact] that the only way Jane can be among us today is if Mary was not determined -- fated, destined -- to abort her?

So basically, you are unable to justify or explain your assumption.

I guess we are done with that "context".

No they don't.There are no brain scientists here.

Unless, perhaps, there are? And, sure, click, if you have thought yourself into believing that science is moot here, so be it. I'm still convinced myself that those who study actual functioning brains will always be a crucial component in any debate regarding the Big Questions.

You've encountered "brain scientists" on this site? Which posters are "brain scientists"?

BigMike used to put lots of 'brain facts' into his posts. But he seems more like an enthusiast than a scientist.

Did you have lots of discussions with him?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Aug 23, 2025 7:20 am
If "The Gap" and "Rumsfeld" were so significant then it would be impossible to know anything. All knowledge and reasoning would be unattainable, even making a toaster would be shrouded in mystery.

On the contrary, not if one assumes that human interactions in the either/or world reflect truths applicable to all of us.

What are you saying?

That "The Gap" and "Rumsfeld" don't apply to science and technology?

[iambiguous]

The Science of Free Will by Samir Varma

The question of free will has confounded great thinkers for millennia: Do humans make choices of our own free will, or are we just deterministic particles in motion, obeying the immutable laws of physics? This profound enigma sits squarely at the intersection of physics, neuroscience and philosophy.

Well, not counting those among us who seem convinced that how they have grappled with all this has allowed them to be quite confident that they are at least a hell of a lot closer to the objective truth than I am.

In fact, over and again I suggest that sooner or later we all take any number of existential leaps of faith to one set of assumptions rather than another. No one, to the best of my current knowledge, is able to eschew that part. Though, sure, lots of them are more than adamant that there is nothing to eschew.

Click? Forget about it?

The Clockwork Universe

At its core, the dilemma stems from the rigid clockwork nature of reality seemingly implied by physics. The precise equations of quantum theory that underlie our universe appear strictly deterministic; given the complete state of any isolated system at one moment, these laws allow you to exactly predict that system’s future state. This leaves no room for true human agency or free will — our sense of conscious choice seems to be an illusion within inexorable cosmic machinery.

Actually, at its core, in my view, is the centuries old dilemma/quandary/conundrum grappled with by physicists [and by philosophers] revolving around what we simply do not grasp yet about the human brain.

Then the part where some suggest there may or may not be a God...but it's best to behave as though there is one. Same thing here? We may or may not have free will but we can always assume that we do and act accordingly. And even if that too is just another manifestation of the only possible human interactions in the only possible universe?

God knows?

[iambiguous]

And I've been asking you to connect the dots between what you believe in your head about all this and the role that God and religion play in it. And then the part where you connect the dots between what you believe about all this in your head and all the scientific evidence that backs it up.

The topic is compatibilism. The topic is not God and religion.

How many times does that need to be said??

That's your assumption, of course. Mine is to remind folks of this: that the overwhelming preponderance of men and women around the world who do believe they have free will do so because they came into this world hard-wired by a God, the God, their God to be...soulful. 

Really, what's the big mystery here? God and religion either play a part in your own arguments here or they don't.

...with the assumption that we live in a free will world, it is possible for Jane to be among us. With the assumption that Mary was never able not to abort her, it was not. Instead, the discussion often shifts to the part where particular compatibilists seem to acknowledge that while the abortion was determined -- fated? destined? -- Mary is still morally responsible for it.

Yes, that's revealing.
In the first sentence you assume free-will ... "But with the assumption that we live in a free will world, it is possible for Jane to be among us."

Some do that. And some assume we do not have any free will at all. Then the part where some argue that determinism still allows for moral responsibility.   

What doesn't change for me though is the assumption [and that's all it is given the Gap and Rummy's Rule] that if Mary was in fact never able not to abort Jane, others can still hold her responsible morally. To that some hard determinists will be compelled to argue that in holding her morally responsible this too is just another inherent component of a wholly determined universe. 

A universe perhaps where nothing is not determined?

I'm not talking to "some", I'm talking to you.

"Them" are not here.

Actually, we could be practically anyone here. All others really know about us -- click -- is what we tell them.  

But in the second sentence you don't assume determinism, instead you assume a specific event, an abortion, happens ..."With the assumption that Mary was never able not to abort her, it was not."

It's no wonder that you write the stories that you do about Mary.   

On the other hand, what does that really have to do with the fact [if it is a fact] that the only way Jane can be among us today is if Mary was not determined -- fated, destined -- to abort her?

So basically, you are unable to justify or explain your assumption.

I guess we are done with that "context".

What I do in regard to morality, the meaning of life and metaphysics is to offer what "here and now" makes the most sense to me. That it doesn't make the same sense to you or to others is what becomes most critical to me in a world teeming with human autonomy. As for context, over and again I make what I believe is an important distinction between the either/or and the is/ought worlds.

    No they don't.There are no brain scientists here.

Unless, perhaps, there are? And, sure, click, if you have thought yourself into believing that science is moot here, so be it. I'm still convinced myself that those who study actual functioning brains will always be a crucial component in any debate regarding the Big Questions.

You've encountered "brain scientists" on this site? Which posters are "brain scientists"?

How would I know? How would you know? 

   BigMike used to put lots of 'brain facts' into his posts. But he seems more like an enthusiast than a scientist.

Did you have lots of discussions with him?

I had a few. But he is what "here and now" I call a "free will determinist".  In other words, he's truly gung-ho about being a determinist, but his arguments are always the most rational. 

As though Mother Nature herself chose him for that task here.

If "The Gap" and "Rumsfeld" were so significant then it would be impossible to know anything. All knowledge and reasoning would be unattainable, even making a toaster would be shrouded in mystery.

On the contrary, not if one assumes that human interactions in the either/or world reflect truths applicable to all of us.

What are you saying?

That "The Gap" and "Rumsfeld" don't apply to science and technology?

Please link me to the part above [or from other threads] where you think that I think that. 

[phyllo]

The topic is compatibilism. The topic is not God and religion.

How many times does that need to be said??

That's your assumption, of course.

Assumption???

The only word in the subject line of this thread is "compatibilism".

Mine is to remind folks of this: that the overwhelming preponderance of men and women around the world who do believe they have free will do so because they came into this world hard-wired by a God, the God, their God to be...soulful.

Really, what's the big mystery here? God and religion either play a part in your own arguments here or they don't.

If somebody thinks that God and religion is important for compatibilism, then they are free to introduce those ideas and present some arguments.

I'm not that person.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 26, 2025 7:10 am
You've encountered "brain scientists" on this site? Which posters are "brain scientists"?

How would I know? How would you know?

Well, they would talk about "brain science" stuff. And you would recognize that it isn't just bullcrap because you are a science enthusiast who can distinguish real science from fake science.

BigMike used to put lots of 'brain facts' into his posts. But he seems more like an enthusiast than a scientist.

Did you have lots of discussions with him?

I had a few. But he is what "here and now" I call a "free will determinist". In other words, he's truly gung-ho about being a determinist, but his arguments are always the most rational.

So ... a real determinist wouldn't be rational???

I don't get what you mean by those statements.

On the contrary, not if one assumes that human interactions in the either/or world reflect truths applicable to all of us.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 26, 2025 7:10 am
What are you saying?

That "The Gap" and "Rumsfeld" don't apply to science and technology?

Please link me to the part above [or from other threads] where you think that I think that.

Your statement made no sense to me.
That's why the first phrase in my reply was ... "What are you saying?"

[iambiguous]

The Science of Free Will by Samir Varma

...quantum physics also reveals intrinsic indeterminacy written into the fabric of reality. Until measured, quantum entities do not exist as defined states but as a spectrum of probabilities. Outcomes are inherently uncertain. 

In a sense discussing quantum interactions is analogous to discussing God or the multiverse or the matrix. To wit: no matter what anyone thinks/believes they do grasp about it there's still that existential gap between this and everything there is to know about the existence of existence itself.

In other words, what appears "here and now" to be understood correctly about QM is no less problematic given all that we don't even know that we don't know yet about it. To say that QM outcomes are inherently uncertain is, from my own frame of mind, merely an educated guess given what science has discovered so far. 

But does this indeterminism allow for free will to operate? Careful contemplation reveals it does not; any specific result remains chained to its prior causes, even if those causes are probabilistic. No conscious intervention governs which potentiality becomes actuality when the quantum wave function collapses. The chain of causal determinism remains unbroken.

Now the part where those of us who have a reaction to this acknowledge in turn that our own reactions will only be more or less educated guesses. And that's because the "chain of causal determinism" is something we still have no capacity to pin down. Well, other than as some here do: in their heads. 

[iambiguous]

The topic is compatibilism. The topic is not God and religion. How many times does that need to be said??

That's your assumption, of course.

Assumption???

The only word in the subject line of this thread is "compatibilism".

But then the part where some here embrace a God said to be omniscient. Thus prompting others to then ask, "how is an omniscient God Himself compatible with human autonomy?"

Then the part where yet others will ask, "how is believing in the wrong God compatible with being sent to Hell [or its equivalent] for all of eternity?" 

Mine is to remind folks of this: that the overwhelming preponderance of men and women around the world who do believe they have free will do so because they came into this world hard-wired by a God, the God, their God to be...soulful.

Really, what's the big mystery here? God and religion either play a part in your own arguments here or they don't.

If somebody thinks that God and religion is important for compatibilism, then they are free to introduce those ideas and present some arguments.

I'm not that person.

On the other hand, I can't even get you to say whether God and religion factor into your assessment of determinism.

 phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 26, 2025 7:10 am
    You've encountered "brain scientists" on this site? Which posters are "brain scientists"?

How would I know? How would you know?

Well, they would talk about "brain science" stuff. And you would recognize that it isn't just bullcrap because you are a science enthusiast who can distinguish real science from fake science.

Well, in regard to human interactions in the either/or world, real science isn't difficult to spot. In fact, it's everywhere. In all the new technologies and engineering feats. In all of the medical advances. In all the new discoveries given the world of the very, very small and the very, very large. 

But in regard to morality "the meaning of life" and the Big Questions, where is the scientific equivalent of this?

  BigMike used to put lots of 'brain facts' into his posts. But he seems more like an enthusiast than a scientist.

Did you have lots of discussions with him?

I had a few. But he is what "here and now" I call a "free will determinist".  In other words, he's truly gung-ho about being a determinist, but his arguments are always the most rational.

So ... a real determinist wouldn't be rational???

A real determinist? Is that anything at all like IC's real Christian? In other words, to be a "real determinist" one has to think about it as you do? Whereas I'm the first to admit my own assessment is at best [hopefully] a more rather than a less educated guess. 

 On the contrary, not if one assumes that human interactions in the either/or world reflect truths applicable to all of us.

What are you saying?

That "The Gap" and "Rumsfeld" don't apply to science and technology?

Please link me to the part above [or from other threads] where you think that I think that.

Your statement made no sense to me. That's why the first phrase in my reply was ... "What are you saying?"

I'm saying what I think I mean here and now. 

While accepting that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, I might come to change my mind. 

Again, in other words.

[Atla]

The topic is compatibilism. The topic is not God and religion. How many times does that need to be said??

That's your assumption, of course.

Assumption???

The only word in the subject line of this thread is "compatibilism".

But then the part where some here embrace a God said to be omniscient. Thus prompting others to then ask, "how is an omniscient God Himself compatible with human autonomy?"

Then the part where yet others will ask, "how is believing in the wrong God compatible with being sent to Hell [or its equivalent] for all of eternity?" 

Then the part where I realize that my phone isn't compatible with my coworker's phone charger. Let's definitely not leave that one out.