compatibilism

[BigMike]

The concept of determinism suggests that the course of events in the world is predetermined by past events and natural laws, leaving no room for free will. This means that our choices and actions are not truly ours, but rather a result of prior circumstances.

Correct, so far.

However, our interactions with others have a direct impact on their (and our) future.

But given Determinism, this is not possible.

Determinism is a single train-track, with no deviations. And whatever goes on in people's heads either fails to make any change in what is predetermined to happen, or only acts as a non-variable link in the inevitable causal chain. That's what the theory requires.

To me, that's what he means when he says "our interactions with others have a direct impact on their (and our) future." -- he means that bold text. Just because it's part of a non variable link of casualty doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact. An impact, itself, is literally part of a chain of casualty.

When a rock hits the moon and creates a crater, that event had an impact, literally. And even if the event was fully deterministic, the impact is still real, and the consequences of it are still real.

FJ, you expressed it far better than I could have, so I won't bother. Thanks!

[Immanuel Can]

The concept of determinism suggests that the course of events in the world is predetermined by past events and natural laws, leaving no room for free will. This means that our choices and actions are not truly ours, but rather a result of prior circumstances.

Correct, so far.

However, our interactions with others have a direct impact on their (and our) future.

But given Determinism, this is not possible.

Determinism is a single train-track, with no deviations. And whatever goes on in people's heads either fails to make any change in what is predetermined to happen, or only acts as a non-variable link in the inevitable causal chain. That's what the theory requires.

To me, that's what he means when he says "our interactions with others have a direct impact on their (and our) future." -- he means that bold text. Just because it's part of a non variable link of casualty doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact. An impact, itself, is literally part of a chain of casualty.

Yes, that's true.

But it's a "non-varying" link, just like any "link in a chain" is. It's held both to an inevitable past and leading to an inevitable future. The terms "may" and "possibility" have no reality in such a scenario, nor do words like "choice," or "learning" or anything that implies that ideas can cause the commencement or alter the direction of the inevitable causal chain. Human volition is only ever an inert link or a non-effective epiphenomenon, and does not itself "cause" or "alter" anything...it's a dead link, just as much a product of previous links as anything else is, and just as incapable of introducing any uncertainty or variablity into the system.

The truth is that Determinism is not "compatible" with any conception of "free will" that does not render that term utterly meaningless.

[Flannel Jesus]

The truth is that Determinism is not "compatible" with any conception of "free will" that does not render that term utterly meaningless.

Seeing as randomness is no basis for free will either, I guess that leaves free will out altogether

[BigMike]

The truth is that Determinism is not "compatible" with any conception of "free will" that does not render that term utterly meaningless.

That's kind of what I was getting at in the post that I made yesterday, the one on which you commented:

The concept of determinism suggests that the course of events in the world is predetermined by past events and natural laws, leaving no room for free will.

[Immanuel Can]

The truth is that Determinism is not "compatible" with any conception of "free will" that does not render that term utterly meaningless.

Seeing as randomness is no basis for free will either, I guess that leaves free will out altogether

No, because randomness is not the only logical alternative to Determinism. There's choice amid variable alternatives.

I have to ask, what makes that hard to understand?

[Flannel Jesus]

The truth is that Determinism is not "compatible" with any conception of "free will" that does not render that term utterly meaningless.

Seeing as randomness is no basis for free will either, I guess that leaves free will out altogether

No, because randomness is not the only logical alternative to Determinism. There's choice amid variable alternatives.

I have to ask, what makes that hard to understand?

Because choices are made *somehow*. Choices are made either by physical brains, or by some alternative thing to physical things, but however they are made, they are made *somehow*. And when I start asking how or why, specifically, I cannot seem to avoid ending up in a situation where the cause of this particular choice, as opposed to that one, either being determined by the system my mind exists in, or being random, or being some combination of determined and random.

And if determinism isn't freedom, and randomness isn't freedom, then where's the freedom we're looking for supposed to exist?

[Immanuel Can]

Seeing as randomness is no basis for free will either, I guess that leaves free will out altogether

No, because randomness is not the only logical alternative to Determinism. There's choice amid variable alternatives.

I have to ask, what makes that hard to understand?

Because choices are made *somehow*.

Of course. But the question is, "Are all choices made for you?" (i.e. by impersonal forces in play prior to the moment of decision, which make their conclusions ineluctable), or "Do you make choices?" (i.e. among the various realistic alternatives available).

I'm saying the second. And that's precisely how everybody in history has actually lived. So it seems the obvious belief.

I cannot seem to avoid ending up in a situation where the cause of this particular choice, as opposed to that one, either being determined by the system my mind exists in, or being random, or being some combination of determined and random.

By choice. By people actually being what they seem to be, which is agents capable of making their own decisions amid complex sets of possibilities.

The "determined" part of that (although the term is wrong) would be the set of circumstances one gets: like, will you have chocolate, vanilla or strawberry? Mango and pineapple are not available, so you are "predetermined" not to be able to choose them. But it is you who get to decide: do I want chocolate, because it tastes better, or vanilla, because it won't stain my new dental work, or strawberry, because that's my girl's favourite ice cream flavour, and I'm hoping to share it with her? There are good reasons for all three choices. And you aren't predetermined to accept one rationale over any other. You get to choose.

That's exactly how it looks to everybody. And that's how it is. If it were not, you and I could not change our minds about it anyway.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't feel like you're selling me on some sort of realm of "choice" that somehow manages to be outside of the spectrum of determinism and randomness. I don't know if that's really what you're trying to do. I don't feel like you're addressing my position at all, really, in that last post.

Everything you've said about deciding and choices there seems well within the bounds of compatibilism. I don't know if you mean it to seem that way...

[Immanuel Can]

I don't feel like you're selling me on some sort of realm of "choice" that somehow manages to be outside of the spectrum of determinism and randomness. I don't know if that's really what you're trying to do. I don't feel like you're addressing my position at all, really, in that last post.

I think you're mistaken to think randomness and Determinism are opposites, just as the video says. Randomness is one form of Determinism, and Causal Determinism is another. Neither gives any recognition to "choice" as contributing anything to an outcome...even in the case of human beings.

Everything you've said about deciding and choices there seems well within the bounds of compatibilism.

Compatibilism is really just another name for Determinism, but is more popular among people who are fearful of the logical consequences of Determinism, and hence try to fend them off by referring to illusory conceptions. It holds that "free will" only refers to a kind of illusion. So no, the difference would be that I hold that "choice" is an authentic condition of outcomes. Compatiblism insists it's not.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you're mistaken to think randomness and Determinism are opposites, just as the video says.

Can you quote where you think the video says that? When I watch the video I feel like he pretty much mirrors most of what I think and say, so I'm not sure what he said that makes you think he disagrees with my "spectrum of determinism" framing.

Randomness is one form of Determinism, and Causal Determinism is another.

I'm not really sure what this means either. How is randomness a form of determinism?

I mean, I can imagine a world in which the laws of physics "determine" the space of possibilities, and some sort of randomness makes the final "decision" about which of those possibilities becomes reality - is that what you're referring to when you say randomness is a form of determinism? Because that's what I'm referring to when I talk about the spectrum.

[Immanuel Can]

I think you're mistaken to think randomness and Determinism are opposites, just as the video says.

Can you quote where you think the video says that?

We did this before. Just rewind to the last paragraph.

Randomness is one form of Determinism, and Causal Determinism is another.

I'm not really sure what this means either. How is randomness a form of determinism?

In Causal or Materialist Determinism, material forces and "laws" make what happens happen. Human volition is an illusion. In Randomness Determinism, the play and movement of "random forces" makes things turn out as they do. But in neither case does one's volition change anything. It's just a dead node.

I mean, I can imagine a world in which the laws of physics "determine" the space of possibilities, and some sort of randomness makes the final "decision" about which of those possibilities becomes reality - is that what you're referring to when you say randomness is a form of determinism? [/quote]
No, not at all. "Randomness" doesn't "make decisions," of course. All randomness can do is squirt out whatever random outcome is going to come out. And that is as much a product of incomprehensible material processes and "laws" as regular Determinism is.

The key differentiator is human volition. If one thinks human volition is capable of "deciding" which "possibilities become reality," then you are not a Non-Determinist. If you think human volition can't "decide" anything in that regard, then you're a Determinist (or Compatibilist).

[Flannel Jesus]

Human volition can decide things - deterministically or randomly or somewhere on that spectrum.

"Randomness determinism" is a phrase I've never heard outside of talking to you. I think you have a vocabulary about this that is unique and I'm stumbling on your word choice a bit.

Anyway, I still don't see a real way for choice to exist outside of the spectrum of randomness-to-determinism. I don't see that the video says I'm wrong about them being on opposite sides of the spectrum like I'm saying. A specific quote would help.

[iambiguous]

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

By pure chance I started listening to a lecture on YouTube by one of my favourite thinkers, and I think he sort of touches on this question, maybe... loosely.

https://youtu.be/2JsKwyRFiYY

Yes, I'm familiar with him. In fact, starting here...

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... l#p2893033

...I accumulated a number of quotes from him on a number of posts.

So, sure, I'll invest an hour of my life and watch the entire video.

Watched it.

Two points:

1] he flat out acknowledges that we still do not know what consciousness is or how/why it came into existence
2] but "somehow" "poetic naturalism" pertaining to the 90 billion neurons in our brain reconciles determinism and free will?

So, I'll ask others to watch the video and then imagine how Carroll himself might react to this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

And, in particular, pertaining to Mary aborting or not aborting Jane.

At around 42 minutes in, he talks about a network of chemical reactions "breaking free" to become the precursor to life. When I heard this, I thought of you!

Chemical reactions "breaking free" given the laws of matter? But still lacking self-consciousness. That "somehow" came into existence only around 5 million years ago. Biological life itself however has been around for 3.7 billion years.

Don't skip to it though, you gotta have the whole context, and this dude is saying some fascinating stuff, I think you'll enjoy it.

Really fascinating. And I always enjoy speculation of this sort. But I can only try to imagine Carroll himself responding to the points I raise on this thread.

And at 50 minutes, he starts talking about the beginnings of what I would describe as the mental processes we call "free will".

Yes, apparently among the 90 billion neurons in our brain there are these particular neurons that make a connection between "I" and "the world around me". Am "I" seeing dirt or grass or water...or something like that. And, sure, if some wish to imagine neurons able to inform all the other neurons whether Mary is morally responsible for aborting Jane even though she was never able not to, okay, let's explore the science here.

And at 55 minutes or so he talks about "autonomy" in his world view, and how we might view ourselves and our free will while knowing that we are composed of matter that "follows laws".

Same thing though. He links it back to what science has discovered going all the way back to the Big Bang...the laws of matter/nature...but. But it still all ends with the "bad news" about death. Oblivion? And what are the odds that in his own lifetime scientists and philosophers really will have encompassed not only a "theory of everything", but a way in which to demonstrate it such that compatibilism will finally be pinned down and Mary will know one way or the other if she is or is not morally responsible for killing Jane.

[Flannel Jesus]

Tbh I don't think too many philosophers are that worried about Jane...

But yes, of course he acknowledges the general ignorance about consciousness, nobody should expect anything else at this stage. It's called "the hard problem" for a reason.

Carroll is, like the majority of academic philosophers, a compatibilist. He's also an expert in quantum mechanics and maintains the position that I do: that randomness isn't a satisfactory source of free will, so people looking for free will in quantum indeterminacy are barking up the wrong tree.

Anyway, I quite liked the reason he gave for why and when consciousness might have arisen, that's gonna stick with me.

[Immanuel Can]

Human volition can decide things - deterministically or randomly or somewhere on that spectrum.

Neither. Both of those are Deterministic.

"Randomness determinism" is a phrase I've never heard outside of talking to you.

That's because it's not a common term. But we need some way of reminding ourselves that "randomness" is not ultimately different from other explanations of Determinism...they end up in the same place, with no persons being able to make choices.

A specific quote would help.

Last paragraph of the vid., where he sums up the problem he sees with the "randomness" idea.