compatibilism

[Belinda]

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.

Hear! Hear!

[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".

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.

What a 'nothing' reply.

You might as well just go back to posting your commentary on rudimentary quotes.

[iambiguous]

The Science of Free Will by Samir Varma

Just as we cannot fully explicate our own actions, free will persists precisely because we operate beyond self-explication, our inner workings irremediably complex.

Then the part where those who agree with this note how, experientially, it is applicable from day to day to day given their own conflicting interactions with others. Then the part where, for many, the complexities become embodied and/or subsumed in one or another rendition of the One [And The Only] True Path to Enlightenment. 

Thus you can come to embrace one or another of these particular OTPs...

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

...and then convince yourself that all the other ones are bogus.

So, in regard to morality and the "meaning of life", even given free will, fierce conflicts have been around now for thousands of years.

Viewed thus, the ancient paradox dissolves — physics fully determines all events, yet our irreducible complexity shields the clockwork from view. We are simultaneously puppets and agents — pawns of cosmic code, yet weavers of our own destinies within emergent intricacy transcending reductionist comprehension.

Of course, some particularly hard as nails determinists will insist that, however all of this is viewed, it is viewed by each of us individually given the only possible reality. That this reality may well include the psychological illusion of free will is something that here and now many will reject. Only this rejection itself is seen by the hardcore determinists as just another inherent component of the only possible reality. Nothing, in other words, is not wholly determined for some.

As for the part where puppets become agents, where is the consensus among philosophers and scientists that establishes how this all unfolds systemically in the human brain. 

[phyllo]

Just as we cannot fully explicate our own actions, free will persists precisely because we operate beyond self-explication, our inner workings irremediably complex.

This reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Except it's been changed to "Any sufficiently advanced technology is operating with free-will."

[Atla]

If you had to choose between being locked in a room full of One True Pathers and a room full of hard as nails Hard Determinists, which one would you choose? And would your choice be free?

(Also, when a leaf falls in a forest, does it experience dASeIn?)

[Belinda]

If you had to choose between being locked in a room full of One True Pathers and a room full of hard as nails Hard Determinists, which one would you choose? And would your choice be free?

(Also, when a leaf falls in a forest, does it experience dASeIn?)

There are so many threads I don't have to waste my time on since Atla has sorted them already.

[iambiguous]

If you had to choose between being locked in a room full of One True Pathers and a room full of hard as nails Hard Determinists, which one would you choose? And would your choice be free?

Of course: click.

And then some?

On the other hand, any number of folks here...

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

...will insist their own moral, political, religious and metaphysical paths are in fact the one and the only path to enlightenment here and now and [for many] the one and the only true path to immortality and salvation there and then. Just as there are any number of hard determinists who insist there is nothing that we think, feel, intuit, say and do that is not entirely embedded in the only possible reality.

Only like all the rest of us, they fail to demonstrate how and why this is the case by taking us step by step through a human brain actually accomplishing it. Their own, say. 

(Also, when a leaf falls in a forest, does it experience dASeIn?)

Okay, given the points I raise in the OP here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641

...note how it either is or is not applicable to your own assessment of conflicting goods in a No God world. 

Given some measure of autonomy.

[iambiguous]

Just as we cannot fully explicate our own actions, free will persists precisely because we operate beyond self-explication, our inner workings irremediably complex.

This reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Indeed. For example, someone please explain to us how, when we click on submit here, what we post immediately shows up on any and all computers of those who are in the PN community. Especially the part where it all transpires in a wireless world. 

Except it's been changed to "Any sufficiently advanced technology is operating with free-will."  :lol:

  

Of course, like others, I will be curious to note if an AI entity is actually able to provide us with a demonstrable argument. One way or the other as it were.

[Atla]

If you had to choose between being locked in a room full of One True Pathers and a room full of hard as nails Hard Determinists, which one would you choose? And would your choice be free?

Of course: click.

And then some?

On the other hand, any number of folks here...

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

...will insist their own moral, political, religious and metaphysical paths are in fact the one and the only path to enlightenment here and now and [for many] the one and the only true path to immortality and salvation there and then. Just as there are any number of hard determinists who insist there is nothing that we think, feel, intuit, say and do that is not entirely embedded in the only possible reality.

Only like all the rest of us, they fail to demonstrate how and why this is the case by taking us step by step through a human brain actually accomplishing it. Their own, say. 

(Also, when a leaf falls in a forest, does it experience dASeIn?)

Okay, given the points I raise in the OP here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641

...note how it either is or is not applicable to your own assessment of conflicting goods in a No God world. 

Given some measure of autonomy.

Would a leaf experience DaSeiN or dASeIn? Hmmmm

[phyllo]

Just as there are any number of hard determinists who insist there is nothing that we think, feel, intuit, say and do that is not entirely embedded in the only possible reality.

Only like all the rest of us, they fail to demonstrate how and why this is the case by taking us step by step through a human brain actually accomplishing it. Their own, say.

This is not hard to demonstrate. It's been done over and over by determinists.

But it can't be demonstrated to some people.

If you insist that the only way to demonstrate something is through experiments then you are out of luck. Nobody has bothered to do experiments on this sort of stuff. You need experiments to show that you are embedded in a reality and you are responding to it? Really? Isn't it already common experience that doesn't need further verification?

And then there is the psychological block. Some people are afraid that if they accept determinism, then they lose control and lose their identity. They will reject any demonstration. It doesn't help that a lot of determinists use language and descriptions which are passive and dis-empowering. Enough of the "puppet" analogies, please. Nobody is a "puppet" of the Big Bang. That's just stupid.
I remember two or three times that we went through the reasoning of some particular situation with Henry Quirk. He accepted all the steps, all the logic of what happens, the logic that shows determinism is what is happening. Then at the end he reverted back to "I am a free will".

[Atla]

Unless the Big Bang is my puppet because I'm using determinism in reverse. I want the BB to be blue can I make it blue? If I jump three times now, that backwards causes the BB to be blue. Unless I want it pink. But do I really have a choice in the matter?

[Atla]

What is more important: to satisfy a thousand desires to personally choke the life out of the One True Pathers, or to conquer one desire? Or perhaps to join the OTPs?

And if a Hard Determinist is like a brick wall, can you build a house using a bunch of them?

[Atla]

Would Mary not abort Jane if there was compatibility, between her sign and the father's sign? Unless Mary was an irresponsible masochist and would keep Jane if she has bad compatibility with the father, hoping that the child would keep them together?

And what if you can use free will to change your sign and your birthdate, but that also changes the whole world and all your memories with it, so you can never tell that you've used free will?

Unless God comes down and tells you about it? Then the part where God could be determined to do so? And would that still make him God?

[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.

What a 'nothing' reply.

You might as well just go back to posting your commentary on rudimentary quotes.

On the other hand, if my post above is 'nothing', what's that make yours then?

[iambiguous]

Would a leaf experience DaSeiN or dASeIn? Hmmmm

Again:

Okay, given the points I raise in the OP here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641

...note how it either is or is not applicable to your own assessment of conflicting goods in a No God world. 

Given some measure of autonomy.

I challenge you to go there with me. Given a moral conflagration of your own choosing.