compatibilism

[BigMike]

Immanuel does not understand how memory and learning works at the molecular level.

Yeah, he does.

But your explanation assumes the existence of those brain chemicals and the structures to make them operative. That means it doesn't explain their origins, or the fact of their complex interrelationship...let alone their correspondence with the universe.

It's a total non-explanation.

You seriously think I am going to tell you everything about every molecules "correspondence with the universe"? You're nuts.

[BigMike]

It was my intention to inform you that memory, learning, and comprehension are physical phenomena. You should consider how this fact alone may influence the conclusions you've presented thus far, and perhaps inspire you to reach better ones.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel does not understand how memory and learning works at the molecular level.

Yeah, he does.

But your explanation assumes the existence of those brain chemicals and the structures to make them operative. That means it doesn't explain their origins, or the fact of their complex interrelationship...let alone their correspondence with the universe.

It's a total non-explanation.

You seriously think I am going to tell you everything about every molecules "correspondence with the universe"? You're nuts.

No. I think you owe an explanation of how such things correspond AT ALL.

That's both a much simpler and much, much harder task for you. But it's the relevant one.

[Immanuel Can]

It was my intention to inform you that memory, learning, and comprehension are physical phenomena.

No, your point was that they are MERELY physical phenomena. That's quite a different thing.

The truth is that memory, learning and comprehension have two dimensions: mind and brain. To describe the swishing of chemicals in the brain does not account for the phenomena in mind. In fact, it doesn't even account for the existence of the mind at all.

Why should the swishing of chemicals ordinarily be devoid of all logical meaning, but in the case of human brain chemicals, suddenly "mean" something? Why should that which, in the oceans or in the washing machine, are mere random "swishings," suddenly, once occurring inside the cranium of a human being, turn into signifiers of meaning like words, paragraphs, ideas, concepts, and reasoning? That needs a lot of explaining.

You've got a basic problem, Mikey. You know a little about brain chemistry, but not enough about reasoning. So you're mistaking the problem completely.

But now, I'm going to make it dead simple, so nobody can miss it.

What you guys have been arguing is as follows:

1. That it is impossible for human beings to choose. (That's analytic in the concept "Determinism." You can't deny it, or even doubt it, without doubting Determinism itself. Period.)

2. Therefore, we should choose our social policies accordingly.

Do you yet see the problem with what you've been arguing? Because nobody can make it simpler, I think.

[promethean75]

"But when it comes to free will, you can't live your life on the assumption of determinism."

i think what Searle means is that if one were to act as they thought a determinist should act and, say, sat motionless in a chair until the universe made them do something, they'd still experience that as a choice.

as the great Neil Peart once wrote "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"

Well it certainly seems that way.

[BigMike]

"But when it comes to free will, you can't live your life on the assumption of determinism."

i think what Searle means is that if one were to act as they thought a determinist should act and, say, sat motionless in a chair until the universe made them do something, they'd still experience that as a choice.

as the great Neil Peart once wrote "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"

Well it certainly seems that way.

Certainly, that is a choice. But I don't think it necessarily is a free choice as he suggested: "Because… and this is the point… if you do that; if you refuse to exercise free will, that refusal is intelligible to you only as an exercise of free will."
Everyone is familiar with the IF-THEN-ELSE structure utilized in computer programming. Every choice can be reduced to this, but it is not at all free. I believe that humans are similar. We make choices, none of which are necessarily free. In fact, none of them are, in my opinion, because that would be physically impossible.

[Immanuel Can]

"But when it comes to free will, you can't live your life on the assumption of determinism."

i think what Searle means is that if one were to act as they thought a determinist should act and, say, sat motionless in a chair until the universe made them do something, they'd still experience that as a choice.

It wouldn't matter what they "experienced," or thought they did. In such a case, it would still be the truth that they made no choice at all. It was made for them. And it changed nothing that wasn't going to happen already.

[Immanuel Can]

We make choices, none of which are necessarily free. In fact, none of them are, in my opinion, because that would be physically impossible.

That's because you're using an absurd defintion of "free." You're imagining it means something like, "Utterly without limitation, constraint or inducement." That's only one definition of a multiple-definition word, and not the relevant definition to the term "free will."

Nothing that happens in life is quite free of these things. But it makes no difference.

For example, to say that you were limited as to your selection of a partner is not to say you had no choice. It just means your range of choice was less than total, less than every woman on earth. And to say you were constrained by your family to marry the woman they wanted doesn't mean you had to knuckle under and do it. Or to say you were induced by her fortune doesn't imply you didn't have the choice to stay with the poorer woman that you really loved.

Choice always has limits and constraints. None of us is "free" to flap our arms and fly. And nobody, but nobody, thinks that's what "free will"requires. You can be free withing various ranges, under some pressure or constraints, and with or without regard for inducements. But so long as you, yourself, had the deciding "vote" on the matter, you were, for our purposes, "free."

[Belinda]

We make choices, none of which are necessarily free. In fact, none of them are, in my opinion, because that would be physically impossible.

That's because you're using an absurd defintion of "free." You're imagining it means something like, "Utterly without limitation, constraint or inducement." That's only one definition of a multiple-definition word, and not the relevant definition to the term "free will."

Nothing that happens in life is quite free of these things. But it makes no difference.

For example, to say that you were limited as to your selection of a partner is not to say you had no choice. It just means your range of choice was less than total, less than every woman on earth. And to say you were constrained by your family to marry the woman they wanted doesn't mean you had to knuckle under and do it. Or to say you were induced by her fortune doesn't imply you didn't have the choice to stay with the poorer woman that you really loved.

Choice always has limits and constraints. None of us is "free" to flap our arms and fly. And nobody, but nobody, thinks that's what "free will"requires. You can be free withing various ranges, under some pressure or constraints, and with or without regard for inducements. But so long as you, yourself, had the deciding "vote" on the matter, you were, for our purposes, "free."

How does the Free Will thing know when it can assert itself and when it has to keep its head down?

[promethean75]

no Big M searle is a determinist and doesn't believe the choosing is free from causality and the 'sufficient antecedent conditions' making it possible. he's just saying the inescapable feeling of freewill is there. he's making note of the peculiar situation we're in, that's all.

[Immanuel Can]

How does the Free Will thing know when it can assert itself and when it has to keep its head down?

That's a bizarre question. I'm not sure I even understand what you're trying to ask.

"The free will thing?" "know"? "assert itself"? "keep its head down"? I can't even put those ideas together with logic.

[Belinda]

How does the Free Will thing know when it can assert itself and when it has to keep its head down?

That's a bizarre question. I'm not sure I even understand what you're trying to ask.

"The free will thing?" "know"? "assert itself"? "keep its head down"? I can't even put those ideas together with logic.

For one thing, if Free Will has no head then what is it?

[Immanuel Can]

How does the Free Will thing know when it can assert itself and when it has to keep its head down?

That's a bizarre question. I'm not sure I even understand what you're trying to ask.

"The free will thing?" "know"? "assert itself"? "keep its head down"? I can't even put those ideas together with logic.

For one thing, if Free Will has no head then what is it?

Obviously, "free will" means volition. I already pointed that out.

So are you saying, "Volition has no head, therefore there's no such thing as volition?" You're making no sense, B.

[Belinda]

That's a bizarre question. I'm not sure I even understand what you're trying to ask.

"The free will thing?" "know"? "assert itself"? "keep its head down"? I can't even put those ideas together with logic.

For one thing, if Free Will has no head then what is it?

Obviously, "free will" means volition. I already pointed that out.

So are you saying, "Volition has no head, therefore there's no such thing as volition?" You're making no sense, B.

What is volition? Presumably if you opt to reply to my question you will explain what causes volition.

[Immanuel Can]

For one thing, if Free Will has no head then what is it?

Obviously, "free will" means volition. I already pointed that out.

So are you saying, "Volition has no head, therefore there's no such thing as volition?" You're making no sense, B.

What is volition?

You want another synonym? How about "will"? Or "decision" or "choice"? How many do you need?