compatibilism

[iambiguous]

Then around and around and around we all go. The evidence that philosophers provide each other here is contained in "worlds of words". Certain "intellectual assumptions" are posited in arguments that revolve basically around words defining and defending other words. The words aren't connected to the world in the manner in which neuroscientists attempt to grapple with human consciousness experientially/experimentally re the "scientific method".

Well, that's a self-defeating perspective, and, if you don't mind me saying so, is shallow, if we leave it there.

Right, like your philosophical definitions and deductions are on par with the experiments that scientists conduct in probing the actual functioning brain. As if, given free will, common sense itself doesn't suggest which approach is shallower.

So, what is involved here if we "don't Leave it there":

We shouldn't. For while it is t rue that arguments use words, it's clearly untrue that all "words" are the same in value. There are words that tell truths, and words that tell lies -- and even you think that's true, because otherwise, what could your "objection" be? It, too, would be just "words."

On the other hand, the objectivists among us -- moral and metaphysical -- almost always come around to insisting that if your words don't define and defend particular words as they do, then you may not be intentionally lying but you are definitely wrong.

As though in regard to Mary choosing an abortion given human autonomy, it can be determined whether that behavior is necessarily moral or immoral. Or, ontologically itself, whether her choice was necessarily determined or autonomous.

How other than intellectually/philosophically are you able to demonstrate either one more substantively than those working with human brains in the act of choosing itself?

What is reasonable or unreasonable in regard to dueling definitions and deductions?

But it's not just "dueling definitions."

Think again: the words make reference to the external world. They form propositions about that world that can be true or false. Even mere definitions must be OF something. So it's not the case at all that everything is just a kind of internal language game. That's a conceit of the Postmondernists, and a rather stupid one, if I may say.

They have A point when they say that words are not always precise. But they lose their whole point when they say that words only refer to other words. They clearly don't: and if they didn't, then any "language game" is as good -- or more accurately, as absurd and pointless -- as any other.

Only here again you provide us with but another world of words. The words don't connect to human beings interacting, but to words interacting with other words in a particular order such that the truthfulness of your conclusion revolves entirely around others agreeing with how you define the meaning of the words.

Let a postmodernist among us note a particular context and we can explore the extent to which a discussion of it more or less involves "language games". In fact, I explore that on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=34306

This thread, however, focuses more on whether postmodernists, like all the rest of us, are just along for the ride that nature compels us to take from the cradle to the grave.

So, where is your "hard evidence" that pins down once and for all that mindless matter evolved into mindful matter [us] and, as a result of this, human autonomy/volition came into existence.

Please point me to where I promised you this, and I'll happily deliver it.

Well, given the manner in which [to me] you inflect a sense of certainty regarding the failure of determinists to provide their own hard evidence it seems reasonable to turn it around. Also, the manner in which you assume that the burden of proof here revolves more around the determinists than the free will advocates.

As though both weren't equally at a loss in explaining definitively how mindless matter evolved into us.

Demanding of those like me that we put things on it [the table] that "prove" determinism is real.

I'm not "demanding." I'm pointing out the correct burden of proof, and asking what you've got.

But you left this part...

Think of all the myriad experiences we had as children brainwashed into seeing ourselves in the world around us in vastly different ways. Think of all the experiences we had as adults that none of us are ever either fully aware of or in control of. All the countless variables bombarding us from every direction shaping and molding us in this direction rather than that in regard to things like this debate.

Grasping this exactly?!

I'm reminded of that scene from "sex, lies and videotapes":

"Ann: I just wanna ask a few questions, like why do you tape women talkin' about sex? Why do you do that? Can you tell me why?
Graham: I don't find turning the tables very interesting.
Ann: Well, I do. Tell me why, Graham.
Graham: Why? What? What? What do you want me to tell you? Why? Ann, you don't even know who I am. You don't have the slightest idea who I am. Am I supposed to recount all the points in my life leading up to this moment and just hope that it's coherent, that it makes some sort of sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me. You know, I was there. I don't have the slightest idea why I am who I am, and I'm supposed to be able to explain it to you?"

Of course, it's not like we don't have "the slightest idea" of how we came to think what we do about this particular discussion. But our ideas revolve around the life we lived. Leaving out what our conclusions might have been had for any number of reasons our lives had been very different.

And, again, always presuming that determinism as I understand it here and now is wrong. Why? Because it's not what you believe?

...out.

I thought it wasn't worthy of comment. It was just an analogy from a movie: and anybody is allowed to make those; but they don't constitute either evidence or argument for Determinism.

Was there a point you thought worth retaining from all that? Then feel free to make it plainly, without the speculative references, and I'll respond.

No, I won't waste my time. Or yours. We just connect the dots between these "philosophical speculations" and the lives we actually live differently.

On the other hand, given my own understanding of determinism "here and now", this difference itself is merely an illusion created by brains that necessarily sustain everything that we think, feel, say and do.

Though this as well can only reflect the assumption that my own assumptions here are little more than a stab in the dark...somewhere in the murky middle between a more or less educated guess and a more or less wild-ass guess.

Just like yours.

[RCSaunders]

How can I? According to your view, I have no choice in the matter.

No, according to me, if my own understanding of determinism is correct then you have no autonomous choice in the matter.

If you are going to call just anything that happens a, "choice," and must make a distinction between an event and a volitional choice, the distinction is not, "autonomy," but, "consciousness." A volitional choice is one where all the possible options have been consciously identified and evaluated relative to some objective and selected to execute. The rational process of evaluation and selection may not be explicit (especially if it is commonly performed one) but it is always implied.

Okay, but what does this entirely "intellectual contraption" mean "for all practical proposes?"

Back again to Mary "choosing" an abortion, such that the "choice" is only the psychological illusion of choosing freely. Or Mary choosing an abortion such that matter evolving into the human brain "somehow" created autonomy.

Or the compatibilist argument that, yes, Mary was never able not to abort her fetus, but she is still morally responsible for it.

Or, rather, the extent to which I understand compatibilism here.

Anyway, you will either reframe your argument by intertwining it in a "situation" we are all likely to be familiar with or you won't.

Or, is that sort of thing all "pointless" to you?

I have no idea what anyone else's conscious experience is, nor does it possibly matter. If you want to know what or how someone else thinks you can ask them, but the proper answer is, "it's none of your business." Because it isn't.

Here though the focus is not on what others think but on whether they were able to not think it. But: assuming free will, what others do think can have profound implications in regard to our interactions with them. What if, in the is/ought world, it cannot be determined by philosophers how rational and virtuous men and women ought to think?

But what if it's not correct? In that case, it's not fish that interests me in regard to determinism and free will but the choices that our own species make. In particular on this thread in regard to how compatibilists reconcile determinism with moral responsibility.

There is no guarantee any choice will be a correct one no matter how well reasoned. There is a guarantee and unreasoned choice (one based on whim, or desire, or feeling, or irrational fear, for example) will be a wrong one.

On the contrary, given our interactions in the either/or world, there are countless situations in which there is only the right answer. Whereas in the is/ought world, how do we go about establishing the right answer? Philosophically or otherwise. The question here though revolves around autonomy. From my frame of mind "here and now" there can be no wrong answers if all answers are wholly as in sync with the laws of matter.

One is only responsible for the life they have the authority for making choices for--their own life. It is the fact that all own does they must consciously choose to do the makes them responsible for their actions. It is the reason we do not hold the animals or machines responsible for what they do, because they do not consciously choose their behavior.

Unless, of course, human animals are no less compelled by the laws of matter to act only as they must. That's the part we are still groping to understand more fully. Here philosophically, and, for the neuroscientists, experientially.

No one is responsible to or for anyone else or anyone else's behavior.

And yet, even assuming volition on our part, there are any number of contexts in which we might be indoctrinated by others to behave as we do. As children in particular. Or we might be using drugs or have a mental condition/affliction. Think Leonard killing Teddy in Memento.

Again, in order to sustain an exchange such as this, yes, I can only assume that I do have some measure of free will. And, of course, that may well be the case. But these exchanges are always surreal because until we grasp definitively how brain matter clearly came to be different from all other matter, we take our own philosophical leaps to conflicting sets of assumptions in exchanges like this.

There is absolutely nothing about the physical nature of the brain that different from any other physical material. Conscious is not some kind of thing or stufff or material. Consciousness is an attribute (a quality, property, or characteristic). It's like a, "state." There are physical states like liquid, solid, and gas and some material things can have, at any time, any of those states. But those states are not things, not different kinds of matter. Consciousness is that state of a living organism that enables it to be aware (through perception) of its physical environment and (via interoception) its own physical nature . It is, as I said, an attribute, like size, or charge, or shape, or color but is just not a physical attribute such as those. Like a state it is "on" (when one is awake) and "off" (when one is asleep, anesthetized, or dead). But it is not a thing or substance and has no existence at all except as a property of some living organisms.

As I noted, I have no clear understanding of how abstract assumptions like this play themselves out given actual human interactions. These "attributes" "states" "things" "stuff" "material"...are they manifestations of the only possible reality? Or manifestations of the singular autonomous reality that we perceive as individuals in any particular set of circumstances? A reality we freely opted to embrace.

Not sure what your point was in this last paragraph but there is nothing teleological about any aspect of physical or ontological existence. All of teleology begins and ends with human minds because nothing in the universe matters except to human rational consciousness. If there were no human beings in the universe, nothing would matter and there would be no values of any kind.

The way you speak of these things as though you, "an infinitesimally tiny and insignificant speck of existence in the vastness of all there is", could possibly know for a fact that they are true!!!

Relative to an atom, a human being is as big as the entire universe. Physical size has nothing to do with consciousness nor the capacity for knowledge. Why would it?

Yes, but how does that make my point go away?

You made point? Sorry I missed it.

Just kidding, actually. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just thought you might be interested in another idea, one you won't find in any philosophy or religion. New ideas are always resisted, though.

[Immanuel Can]

Could I ask God what I am going to do later? Couldn't I do the opposite of what God says?

You can "ask" anything you want, I guess. What you probably can't do is compel Him to tell you.

[Immanuel Can]

...like your philosophical definitions and deductions are on par with the experiments that scientists conduct in probing the actual functioning brain.

Give your specific case, I guess. I'll look at your data. Let's find out what it's worth.

What is reasonable or unreasonable in regard to dueling definitions and deductions?

But it's not just "dueling definitions."

Think again: the words make reference to the external world. They form propositions about that world that can be true or false. Even mere definitions must be OF something. So it's not the case at all that everything is just a kind of internal language game. That's a conceit of the Postmondernists, and a rather stupid one, if I may say.

They have A point when they say that words are not always precise. But they lose their whole point when they say that words only refer to other words. They clearly don't: and if they didn't, then any "language game" is as good -- or more accurately, as absurd and pointless -- as any other.

Only here again you provide us with but another world of words.

That's how you choose to see it, maybe; but it's not how it is.

So, where is your "hard evidence" that pins down once and for all that mindless matter evolved into mindful matter [us] and, as a result of this, human autonomy/volition came into existence.

Please point me to where I promised you this, and I'll happily deliver it.

Well, given the manner in which [to me] you inflect a sense of certainty...

So I didn't promise it. What I did do is point out that Determinism is incapable of accounting for ordinary human experience.

Demanding of those like me that we put things on it [the table] that "prove" determinism is real.

I'm not "demanding." I'm pointing out the correct burden of proof, and asking what you've got.

But you left this part...

It was utterly irrelevant, speculative and empty. So yes, I did. As I said...

I thought it wasn't worthy of comment. It was just an analogy from a movie: and anybody is allowed to make those; but they don't constitute either evidence or argument for Determinism.

Was there a point you thought worth retaining from all that? Then feel free to make it plainly, without the speculative references, and I'll respond.

No, I won't waste my time.

So there wasn't. That's what I thought.

Well? What's next? Do you actually have any explanation of how Determinism can account for human experience? Or are you going to avoid that one again?

[Age]

Could I ask God what I am going to do later? Couldn't I do the opposite of what God says?

You can "ask" anything you want, I guess. What you probably can't do is compel Him to tell you.

Could SEEING and/or BELIEVING that God, Itself, is a male gendered 'Thing' be a form of INSANITY?

What would make a Truly SANE and SENSIBLE human being call God a "him"?

[Age]

What does that have to do with anything?

Everything.

It means that God can know what you are going to do, and yet you are still the one doing it when you do it. He may have made you, but He hasn't "made" you do what you choose to do.

And this is routine, even for humans. For, no doubt, if you and a woman combine you will make a child; but once that child is born, he/she will begin to make his/her own choices, from the very first moment. Free will beings do that.

Could I ask God what I am going to do later? Couldn't I do the opposite of what God says?

'you', the thinking/feeling being within a human body, are absolutely FREE to do whatever 'you' want to do or not do. The ABILITY to CHOOSE is absolutely FREE. What 'you' are ABLE to CHOOSE FROM, however, is LIMITED.

Once what the words 'free will' AND 'determinism' MEAN, and REFER TO, in A WAY, which FITS IN WITH EVERY other 'thing', then what thee ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS here becomes CLEARLY SEEN.

That IS; 'I' have 'free will' AND what 'I' have set out to, and WILL, achieve was pre-determined by what 'I' am doing RIGHT HERE, and NOW.

SEE, the words 'free will' AND 'determinism' BOTH EXIST EQUALLY because ALL words are COMPATIBLE, WITH each other.

[Age]

...like your philosophical definitions and deductions are on par with the experiments that scientists conduct in probing the actual functioning brain.

Give your specific case, I guess. I'll look at your data. Let's find out what it's worth.

What is reasonable or unreasonable in regard to dueling definitions and deductions?

But it's not just "dueling definitions."

Think again: the words make reference to the external world. They form propositions about that world that can be true or false. Even mere definitions must be OF something. So it's not the case at all that everything is just a kind of internal language game. That's a conceit of the Postmondernists, and a rather stupid one, if I may say.

They have A point when they say that words are not always precise. But they lose their whole point when they say that words only refer to other words. They clearly don't: and if they didn't, then any "language game" is as good -- or more accurately, as absurd and pointless -- as any other.

Only here again you provide us with but another world of words.

That's how you choose to see it, maybe; but it's not how it is.

So, where is your "hard evidence" that pins down once and for all that mindless matter evolved into mindful matter [us] and, as a result of this, human autonomy/volition came into existence.

Please point me to where I promised you this, and I'll happily deliver it.

Well, given the manner in which [to me] you inflect a sense of certainty...

So I didn't promise it. What I did do is point out that Determinism is incapable of accounting for ordinary human experience.

Demanding of those like me that we put things on it [the table] that "prove" determinism is real.

I'm not "demanding." I'm pointing out the correct burden of proof, and asking what you've got.

But you left this part...

It was utterly irrelevant, speculative and empty. So yes, I did. As I said...

Was there a point you thought worth retaining from all that? Then feel free to make it plainly, without the speculative references, and I'll respond.

No, I won't waste my time.

So there wasn't. That's what I thought.

Well? What's next? Do you actually have any explanation of how Determinism can account for human experience?

Yes, I have.

Or are you going to avoid that one again?

[Age]

Then around and around and around we all go. The evidence that philosophers provide each other here is contained in "worlds of words". Certain "intellectual assumptions" are posited in arguments that revolve basically around words defining and defending other words. The words aren't connected to the world in the manner in which neuroscientists attempt to grapple with human consciousness experientially/experimentally re the "scientific method".

Well, that's a self-defeating perspective, and, if you don't mind me saying so, is shallow, if we leave it there.

We shouldn't. For while it is t rue that arguments use words, it's clearly untrue that all "words" are the same in value. There are words that tell truths, and words that tell lies -- and even you think that's true, because otherwise, what could your "objection" be? It, too, would be just "words."

What is reasonable or unreasonable in regard to dueling definitions and deductions?

But it's not just "dueling definitions."

Think again: the words make reference to the external world. They form propositions about that world that can be true or false. Even mere definitions must be OF something. So it's not the case at all that everything is just a kind of internal language game. That's a conceit of the Postmondernists, and a rather stupid one, if I may say.

They have A point when they say that words are not always precise. But they lose their whole point when they say that words only refer to other words. They clearly don't: and if they didn't, then any "language game" is as good -- or more accurately, as absurd and pointless -- as any other.

So, where is your "hard evidence" that pins down once and for all that mindless matter evolved into mindful matter [us] and, as a result of this, human autonomy/volition came into existence.

Please point me to where I promised you this, and I'll happily deliver it.

The human body is NOT more "full of mind" (or "mindful matter") than ANY other body, of matter, IS.

There is, however, a brain within the human body that is NOT in ANY other body. And, it is the COMBINATION of the human brain WITH thee Mind, Itself, (that is IN ALL MATTER), which is WHY 'you', human beings, evolved into a somewhat 'conscious state'.

How are you really any different from the rest of us?

Who are the "us" there? You mean Postmodernists?

I'm different from them in that I know that I believe in truth.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The Fact that you HAVE TO BELIEVE 'in' some 'thing' is FURTHER PROOF of just how BLIND, STUPID, and INSANE these adult human beings REALLY WERE, back in those OLDEN DAYS.

And, what makes this one even worse is the CLAIM that 'it' BELIEVES "in the truth". It is like this one has NOT YET even begun to REALIZE that EVERY one of 'you' SAYS and CLAIMS that what 'you' EACH BELIEVE 'in' "is the truth".

The MORE 'you', people, back in those OLDEN DAYS, are being OBSERVED by your OWN words (and thinking), and LOOKED AT and INTO, the MORE STUPID 'you' REALLY WERE.

They say they don't, but they also want you to believe that's TRUE.

Demanding of those like me that we put things on it that "prove" determinism is real.

I'm not "demanding." I'm pointing out the correct burden of proof, and asking what you've got.

And, what have 'you' got for what 'you' BELIEVE IN "immanuel can"?

You BELIEVE that there is NO 'determinism', which COMPLETELY and UTTERLY CONTRADICTS the CLAIM that 'God has a plan'.

If One HAS A PLAN, then they, literally, CREATE this 'deterministically' and/or 'determinedly'. There is NO use making a plan if there is NOTHING predetermined, right?

In fact is it even possible to make and have a NON predetermined 'plan', itself?

But you left this part out...

I thought it wasn't worthy of comment. It was just an analogy from a movie: and anybody is allowed to make those; but they don't constitute either evidence or argument for Determinism.

Was there a point you thought worth retaining from all that? Then feel free to make it plainly, without the speculative references, and I'll respond.

[Belinda]

Go back and read my previous answer: I already answered this question.


And this one, too.


That's your assumption, maybe, but there is actually no reason to believe it's true. You're performing a logical fallacy called "assuming the conclusion" here. You don't get to stipulate that your view is right, and everybody else has to agree: you have to prove it's right.

Go ahead.

Free Will , if it existed, would either be caused by circumstance or by miracle.

Circumstance can only be part of it. It can't be the totality. Because circumstances only constrain the options to a certain range (eggs, waffles, etc.), but do not tell you which of the options you should take.

For that, you -- the volitional initiator -- must make a choice.

What causes (your choices, your volitions, your will, your decisions)?

Read above, and go back two messages. This question has been answered now twice.

If you want, you can take issue with the answers I have given; but ignoring them is not an option, if what we're having is a conversation.

I'm not ignoring your reasoning.

Your moral volitions, moral will, and moral decisions are caused by circumstances. For instance there are circumstances that caused you yourself to study scripture, and to learn a certain moral code.

There are circumstances that cause Putin to resent and distrust the US.

There are circumstances that caused American colonists to revolt against British rule.

[bahman]

Could I ask God what I am going to do later? Couldn't I do the opposite of what God says?

You can "ask" anything you want, I guess. What you probably can't do is compel Him to tell you.

Why I cannot ask him what I am going to do?

[Sculptor]

Could I ask God what I am going to do later? Couldn't I do the opposite of what God says?

You can "ask" anything you want, I guess. What you probably can't do is compel Him to tell you.

Why I cannot ask him what I am going to do?

You are going to ask what you want. But you cannot want what you want. You just want it.
If, and only if, you compel their answer, say through, force, would their free will be denied.
But their answer shall also be want they want to answer, and like you they cannot want what they want.

[Immanuel Can]

Your moral volitions, moral will, and moral decisions are caused by circumstances.

Circumstances don't "cause."

If I live in Halifax, that constrains the range of my choices, but does not make me choose among the options. If I were born into a Hindu household, that doesn't mean it's impossible my morality couldn't be Sharia or Quakerism. Rabid Occultist druggie Ozzy Osborne was raised in a devoutly religious, conservative household. C.S. Lewis was an Atheist for years before he was a Christian, and Anthony Flew was one of the most famous Atheist apologists before he became a Deist later in life.

People choose their beliefs. Circumstances, at most, present options. They are not causal agents.

For instance there are circumstances that caused you yourself to study scripture, and to learn a certain moral code.

There aren't, actually. I had every option to choose not to, and in fact, for a time chose not to. And then later, I found I wanted to. But had I decided not to, I didn't have to. And if I wanted a different moral code, I could choose one. It's not at all as if the code you learn first is what you're predetermined to have to follow.

[Immanuel Can]

Could I ask God what I am going to do later? Couldn't I do the opposite of what God says?

You can "ask" anything you want, I guess. What you probably can't do is compel Him to tell you.

Why I cannot ask him what I am going to do?

I said you could. You can "ask" anything you want.

[Belinda]

Your moral volitions, moral will, and moral decisions are caused by circumstances.

Circumstances don't "cause."

If I live in Halifax, that constrains the range of my choices, but does not make me choose among the options. If I were born into a Hindu household, that doesn't mean it's impossible my morality couldn't be Sharia or Quakerism. Rabid Occultist druggie Ozzy Osborne was raised in a devoutly religious, conservative household. C.S. Lewis was an Atheist for years before he was a Christian, and Anthony Flew was one of the most famous Atheist apologists before he became a Deist later in life.

People choose their beliefs. Circumstances, at most, present options. They are not causal agents.

For instance there are circumstances that caused you yourself to study scripture, and to learn a certain moral code.

There aren't, actually. I had every option to choose not to, and in fact, for a time chose not to. And then later, I found I wanted to. But had I decided not to, I didn't have to. And if I wanted a different moral code, I could choose one. It's not at all as if the code you learn first is what you're predetermined to have to follow.

Obviously you were quite fortunate in having options. You did not originate your range of choices. God is the only originator.

[Immanuel Can]

You did not originate your range of choices.

Of course not. Nobody gets every choice possible, anymore than a person gets to marry every possible partner in the world today, and every possible partner throughout history.

You get a range of choices. But the range does not make you choose a particular one. You make that choice yourself.