compatibilism

[phyllo]

Phyllo is, I guess, using sarcasm to make the point that that specific blind spot doesn't really have any good reason to stop conversations otherwise.

It's not sarcasm.

I think that Biggus really believes that our lack of knowledge invalidates our arguments and our conclusions.

He's looking for certainty. He needs certainty.

[Flannel Jesus]

Phyllo is, I guess, using sarcasm to make the point that that specific blind spot doesn't really have any good reason to stop conversations otherwise.

It's not sarcasm.

I think that Biggus really believes that our lack of knowledge invalidates our arguments and our conclusions.

He's looking for certainty. He needs certainty.

I mean the fact that you're saying it, without it being in quotes - I'm saying you don't really believe it yourself

Maybe sarcasm is the wrong word.

[phyllo]

I didn't put it in quotes because he doesn't state it in those exact words.

I should have put some sort of wrapper around those statements to make it clearer that I was paraphrasing his points.

[BigMike]

I was responding to BigMike's post. (The immediately preceding post.)

BM thinks that Biggus is not presenting an argument ... that the post "lacks a clear argument", that "the passage is not an explanation of anything".

In fact, Biggus is presenting his position:

We lack the knowledge to say/argue anything. Therefore, he does not argue anything.

The idea that you can't argue if you don't know something brings up questions about what argumentation is and what knowledge has to do with it. Even though it's true that you need to know a lot about a topic in order to make good arguments, it's not true that you have to know everything about a subject in order to argue.

In a lot of traditions, arguing is seen as a way to explore and improve ideas by having critical conversations with other people. From this point of view, arguing isn't just about presenting a set of facts or knowledge. Instead, it's a process of reasoning and conversation that can help people learn more and find new insights.

Also, the idea that you have to know something to make a good argument can be seen as elitist or exclusive because it suggests that only people with specialized knowledge or expertise are allowed to take part in discussions. This can make it harder for people to share different points of view and experiences in an argument, which can lead to conclusions that are too narrow or not complete.

[Iwannaplato]

I was responding to BigMike's post. (The immediately preceding post.)

BM thinks that Biggus is not presenting an argument ... that the post "lacks a clear argument", that "the passage is not an explanation of anything".

In fact, Biggus is presenting his position:

We lack the knowledge to say/argue anything. Therefore, he does not argue anything.

Thanks for the explanation (and FJ also.)

[Flannel Jesus]

I think the problem here, from my perspective, is that I don't know that that knowledge would even be relevant.

It'd be like two biologists discussing how gills work and what function they perform in modern fish. The first biologist starts talking, and is interrupted by the second biologist who says, "no no no, we can't even discuss these things about gills unless we know exactly when and how the first set of gills arose."

Is that reasonable? Is it true that we can't say anything about the functions and mechanisms of gills without knowing that? Why should we accept that?

[Iwannaplato]

I was responding to BigMike's post. (The immediately preceding post.)

BM thinks that Biggus is not presenting an argument ... that the post "lacks a clear argument", that "the passage is not an explanation of anything".

In fact, Biggus is presenting his position:

We lack the knowledge to say/argue anything. Therefore, he does not argue anything.

Well, he has expressed incredulity that anything could be more important than pinning down the determinism vs. free will issue.
I disagree, at least as far as myself - but at the same time I have mulled a lot on the issue.
I don't think it would change me if I learned that determinism must be true or if I learned that free will must be the case. I could be wrong, but I can't really see coming at my day any differently.
So, I've asked him about this position. He's not presenting a position on it being correct, but it's a position of some kind about what knowing the answer would do.

[BigMike]

I don't think it would change me if I learned that determinism must be true or if I learned that free will must be the case. I could be wrong, but I can't really see coming at my day any differently.

This statement appears to suggest that the concept of determinism versus free will is not particularly important or relevant to the individual's daily life or personal philosophy.

While it is certainly possible for an individual to hold this belief, it's worth noting that the question of determinism versus free will has been a central debate in philosophy for centuries and has far-reaching implications for our understanding of human agency, responsibility, and morality. The conclusion of this debate can have significant consequences for how we view ourselves and others, and how we structure our societies and legal systems.

[phyllo]

I don't think it would change me if I learned that determinism must be true or if I learned that free will must be the case. I could be wrong, but I can't really see coming at my day any differently.

This statement appears to suggest that the concept of determinism versus free will is not particularly important or relevant to the individual's daily life or personal philosophy.

While it is certainly possible for an individual to hold this belief, it's worth noting that the question of determinism versus free will has been a central debate in philosophy for centuries and has far-reaching implications for our understanding of human agency, responsibility, and morality. The conclusion of this debate can have significant consequences for how we view ourselves and others, and how we structure our societies and legal systems.

I don't think the consequences are significant.

People are going to made decisions the same way that they always have.

People who engage in undesirable behavior will still be 'punished'. People will still be frustrated and irritated by stupidity and incompetence.

Nothing will actually change.

[iambiguous]

Defending Compatibilism
Bruce R. Reichenbach
at the Science, Religion and Culture website
[the focus here being on free will given an omniscient God]

It is a truism that where one starts from and the direction one goes determines where one ends up. This is no less true in philosophy than elsewhere, and certainly no less true in matters dealing with the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and human free actions.

Perhaps. But in regard to God where most of the faithful start is with the assumption that there is one. And that it is their God. And that their God is omniscient. Whereas while of course some philosophers start with the assumption that God installed an autonomous soul in them and that in living a righteous life they will end up in one or another rendition of Heaven, others do not.

In what follows I will argue that the incompatibilist view that [John Martin] Fischer and others stalwartly defend results from the particular starting point they choose, and that if one adopts a different starting point about divine knowledge the logical incompatibility they envision and philosophically anguish over evaporates.

Of course, that's always my own point as well. Only, again, with God we are talking about a "starting point" pertaining to an entity that is alleged to exist, that is alleged to be omniscient, but that, to the best of my knowledge, has never actually been demonstrated to exist at all. Omniscient or otherwise. So, obviously, your starting point here can simply be something that you think up or others have thought up for you that "in your head" you believe. Anguish subsumed in more or less blind faith.

I will also argue that the path Fischer and others tread has critical ambiguities that lead to conclusions that can be avoided if one clarifies the critical ambiguities. The result will be that choosing a proper starting point and clarifying the ambiguities will show that God’s foreknowledge is compatible with human freedom.

We'll see.

But what does not change is that the author's conclusions are still predicated on premises that he may or may not be able to demonstrate to be true regarding that which he construes to be God "in his head".

[iambiguous]

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.

Okay [click] then back to this:

Back again to how far he takes this. Does it include his brain compelling him to post this [too]? Was he ever able to opt not to post it? Or opt for a different conclusion? Does it include my brain compelling me to react to the post in the only manner in which I am able to? If yes to both then then how is anything that we argue in our posts here not essentially interchangeable. Someone might argue that others ought to argue the same thing as they do...but only because they were never able not to argue this.

However, our interactions with others have a direct impact on their (and our) future. For instance, when we communicate with someone, what we say becomes a part of their past and may influence their future actions. After all, as stated in the paragraph above, "the course of events in the world is predetermined by past events". The more consistent exposure to certain ideas, the greater the possibility of affecting their behavior. This is how education aims to continually shape our perspectives, and consequently our actions.

Same thing though. Interactions have impacts. We communicate them to others. Education then impacts both future communication and interactions. Precipitating new impacts. And around and around and around they go in the only possible world.

Only here, from my frame of mind [compelled or not], he is "the free will determinist" seemingly arguing that "somehow" his own assessment reflects the most rational frame of mind about all of this. As though [to me] he really could have opted to think about it in a less rational manner while still lacking in free will.

Though we cannot change what we do in the present, persistent learning and growth can shape what we do in the future. You appear resistant to this fact, at least for the time being.

Again, my point revolves around how our past determines our present but "somehow" our future is not entirely fated/destined in turn in a world where our brain -- past, present and future -- is wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

On the other hand, as I am more than willing to concede, I may simply be unable "here and now" to grasp his point.

But there's still the part where, aside from the "intellectual contraption" arguments he makes here in a "world of words", he takes his conclusions to Mary and explains why, if the entirety of her past necessitates her aborting Jane in the present, how, in the future, she either can or cannot be held morally responsible for it.

[Iwannaplato]

This statement appears to suggest that the concept of determinism versus free will is not particularly important or relevant to the individual's daily life or personal philosophy.

I was speaking about myself - not 'the individual' , iow not everyone - and asking someone who said they couldn't imagine anything being more important why that is.

While it is certainly possible for an individual to hold this belief,

Oh, it's not a mere belief. Since I was talking about myself, I hold it with a great deal of certainty.

it's worth noting that the question of determinism versus free will has been a central debate in philosophy for centuries and has far-reaching implications for our understanding of human agency, responsibility, and morality.

Fine, for you it is important. I find in interesting, but I don't think I would live differently. So, tell, what would change for you tomorrow. You wake up find a perfect argument in favor of free will, a perfect counter to your belief in determinism. How would you treat people differently? How would you change the way you act in the world?

[iambiguous]

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.

Click.

Again, however, with IC, all of this comes back to the Christian God. He can go on and on and on with his own set of "philosophical" assumptions here, but in the end we have free will because the Christian God "saw that it was good". But then when Adam and Eve, tempted by the Devil, "misused" their free will, eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they brought evil into the world. That precipitated "the Fall" and the rest is history.

And of course all of this is entirely true because it says so in the Christian Bible. And even though the Christian Bible is derived from the God of Abraham, the God of the Jews, even Jews themselves will be denied access to paradise unless they accept Jesus Christ as their own personal savior. Or, as others insist, Muhammad.

And then with Christians, there is reconciling an omniscient God with human autonomy.

Let the word games begin!

[Iwannaplato]

I don't think the consequences are significant.

People are going to made decisions the same way that they always have.

People who engage in undesirable behavior will still be 'punished'. People will still be frustrated and irritated by stupidity and incompetence.

Nothing will actually change.

I appreciate seeing a position similar to mine. I am not sure how other people will react. I can imagine people getting depressed if they were on the free will side. (note: I am not say they should or that this would be a rational reaction. I just think it might have some strong psychological effects. Perhaps even finding out free will was the case would also lead to fear by people used to thinking they were not free. I don't know.)

My guess is that there would be a transition period - hallucinating for the sake of argument that most people were convinced by some perfect argument one way or the other - but that things would settle down after that. Again, I don't know.

Personally, I doubt it would make much difference to me.

[Iwannaplato]

Click.

What does click mean?