compatibilism

[Immanuel Can]

Is that Belinda?

If I behave that I have enough control to shoulder responsibility, then I have that control.

Then you believe in the power of choice. You believe in your own responsibility, which you can "shoulder." You believe in will.

Please stop using the word 'choice' when you obviously mean free choice.

No, the word "choice" is more apt than "free choice": because people who don't understand Determinism or choice tend to zing off the word "free," as if somebody believes there's such a thing as a person who makes decisions without reference to any circumstances, causes, contributing factors, and physical realities. And that's just stupid -- because NOBODY believes that.

So let's avoid that straw-man fallacy, and just keep saying, "choice." After all, in Determinism, nobody has any "choice" of any kind.

[popeye1945]

Is that Belinda?

If I behave that I have enough control to shoulder responsibility, then I have that control.

Then you believe in the power of choice. You believe in your own responsibility, which you can "shoulder." You believe in will.

Please stop using the word 'choice' when you obviously mean free choice.

No, the word "choice" is more apt than "free choice": because people who don't understand Determinism or choice tend to zing off the word "free," as if somebody believes there's such a thing as a person who makes decisions without reference to any circumstances, causes, contributing factors, and physical realities. And that's just stupid -- because NOBODY believes that.

So let's avoid that straw-man fallacy, and just keep saying, "choice." After all, in Determinism, nobody has any "choice" of any kind.

The individual has a multitude of choices of just how he/she will react, the only choice not available to him/her is that of not reacting to one's environment, for even a considered lack of directed reaction is still reacting to one's environment. The momentum of this dialogue is the pace of the reactions of the participants, the posting of the topic is a reaction to a desire for dialogue. If someone, anyone can give me a solid example of human action rather than reaction, I would most appreciate the gesture.

[BigMike]

[...] as if somebody believes there's such a thing as a person who makes decisions without reference to any circumstances, causes, contributing factors, and physical realities. And that's just stupid -- because NOBODY believes that.

It seems a little hasty of you to assert that "NOBODY" believes in libertarian free will. Admittedly, it is difficult to determine exactly how many people believe in free will, as beliefs about free will can vary depending on cultural, philosophical, and religious backgrounds. However, surveys conducted in some countries suggest that a majority of people believe in free will.

For example, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in the United States in 2017 found that 60% of American adults believe that humans have free will, while 31% believe that free will does not exist. A survey conducted by YouGov in the United Kingdom in 2018 found that 61% of British adults believe in free will, while 12% do not, and 27% are not sure.

[Belinda]

Is that Belinda?

If I behave that I have enough control to shoulder responsibility, then I have that control.

Then you believe in the power of choice. You believe in your own responsibility, which you can "shoulder." You believe in will.

Please stop using the word 'choice' when you obviously mean free choice.

No, the word "choice" is more apt than "free choice": because people who don't understand Determinism or choice tend to zing off the word "free," as if somebody believes there's such a thing as a person who makes decisions without reference to any circumstances, causes, contributing factors, and physical realities. And that's just stupid -- because NOBODY believes that.

So let's avoid that straw-man fallacy, and just keep saying, "choice." After all, in Determinism, nobody has any "choice" of any kind.

All animals chose. Some animals have more choice than others. One of the cruelties men inflict on other species is depriving them of their ability to choose. Nature determines that an animal is as it is with the behaviours that are natural for it.
Another cruelty is men depriving other mean and women of their natural ability to choose. Nature (or God if your prefer) determines that humans are as they are and that they behave in ways peculiar to humans. People, and other animals naturally choose which of their several behaviours they will do.

Your understanding of determinism is different from mine, and so it's better we don't discuss it, not under that name anyway.
Will is a feeling we have when we have decided to behave in a certain way; there is no such thing as an anatomical or physiological will

[Immanuel Can]

If I behave that I have enough control to shoulder responsibility, then I have that control.

Then you believe in the power of choice. You believe in your own responsibility, which you can "shoulder." You believe in will.

Please stop using the word 'choice' when you obviously mean free choice.

No, the word "choice" is more apt than "free choice": because people who don't understand Determinism or choice tend to zing off the word "free," as if somebody believes there's such a thing as a person who makes decisions without reference to any circumstances, causes, contributing factors, and physical realities. And that's just stupid -- because NOBODY believes that.

So let's avoid that straw-man fallacy, and just keep saying, "choice." After all, in Determinism, nobody has any "choice" of any kind.

The individual has a multitude of choices of just how he/she will react,

That is a declaration that Determinism is false, then. Under Determinism, there are no "choices." There's only the inevitable.

If someone, anyone can give me a solid example of human action rather than reaction, I would most appreciate the gesture.

That's not possible. And it's not because free will isn't true; it's because it's always still possible for the Determinist to say, "Well, what you think was uncaused by physical forces was really caused by physical forces," whether it was or not.

In scientific terms, Determinism is simply an "unfalsifiable" hypothesis, just like the hypothesis "The universe is 102.4 quintillion miles wide" is unfalsifiable. It's very likely to be false, but still can't be proved so conclusively, because it requires knowledge of that which we cannot know. But "unfalsifiable" hypotheses, true or false, are not scientific. And we have no reason to accept an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

But if you can show me a single person in history (or at present, including yourself) who has successfully practiced Determinism, then maybe you can make a case for it.

[Immanuel Can]

If I behave that I have enough control to shoulder responsibility, then I have that control.

Then you believe in the power of choice. You believe in your own responsibility, which you can "shoulder." You believe in will.

Please stop using the word 'choice' when you obviously mean free choice.

No, the word "choice" is more apt than "free choice": because people who don't understand Determinism or choice tend to zing off the word "free," as if somebody believes there's such a thing as a person who makes decisions without reference to any circumstances, causes, contributing factors, and physical realities. And that's just stupid -- because NOBODY believes that.

So let's avoid that straw-man fallacy, and just keep saying, "choice." After all, in Determinism, nobody has any "choice" of any kind.

All animals chose.

Then Determinism is false.

Some animals have more choice than others.

And false again.

Another cruelty is men depriving other mean and women of their natural ability to choose.

If so, then Determinism is again false.

Your understanding of determinism is different from mine,

Mine is accurate. So what is yours?

[popeye1945]

[...] as if somebody believes there's such a thing as a person who makes decisions without reference to any circumstances, causes, contributing factors, and physical realities. And that's just stupid -- because NOBODY believes that.

It seems a little hasty of you to assert that "NOBODY" believes in libertarian free will. Admittedly, it is difficult to determine exactly how many people believe in free will, as beliefs about free will can vary depending on cultural, philosophical, and religious backgrounds. However, surveys conducted in some countries suggest that a majority of people believe in free will.

For example, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in the United States in 2017 found that 60% of American adults believe that humans have free will, while 31% believe that free will does not exist. A survey conducted by YouGov in the United Kingdom in 2018 found that 61% of British adults believe in free will, while 12% do not, and 27% are not sure.

Would you say that this free will enables human action or human reaction? People make it sound sometimes as if free will for the individual is a first cause and there is free will to action. The individual, however, can only react, but having the ability to react in multiple ways to a multitude of causes. Will is the desire to fulfill one's intent, but the intent must first be informed to motivate the individual; and motivation spells reaction.

[BigMike]

[...] as if somebody believes there's such a thing as a person who makes decisions without reference to any circumstances, causes, contributing factors, and physical realities. And that's just stupid -- because NOBODY believes that.

It seems a little hasty of you to assert that "NOBODY" believes in libertarian free will. Admittedly, it is difficult to determine exactly how many people believe in free will, as beliefs about free will can vary depending on cultural, philosophical, and religious backgrounds. However, surveys conducted in some countries suggest that a majority of people believe in free will.

For example, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in the United States in 2017 found that 60% of American adults believe that humans have free will, while 31% believe that free will does not exist. A survey conducted by YouGov in the United Kingdom in 2018 found that 61% of British adults believe in free will, while 12% do not, and 27% are not sure.

Would you say that this free will enables human action or human reaction? People make it sound sometimes as if free will for the individual is a first cause and there is free will to action. The individual, however, can only react, but having the ability to react in multiple ways to a multitude of causes.

I explained my stance on the matter to "Iwannaplato" a week ago:

There are just acts, or reactions. Stuff happens. A boulder dislodging and rolling downhill is no more or less moral than anyone doing anything.

The idea of "actions and reactions" is often referred to as Newton's Third Law of Motion and states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This law is a fundamental concept in physics and is considered to be scientifically valid. However, in recent years, the term "interactions" has become more widely used to describe the transfer of momentum, energy, or other physical quantities between objects. This is because the term "interactions" is more general and can encompass a wider range of physical phenomena, including those that are not easily described by the idea of "actions and reactions."

In the field of psychology and human behavior, the idea of "actions and reactions" can be misleading because human behavior is often more complex than a simple cause-and-effect relationship. Human behavior is influenced by a variety of factors, including personality, emotions, motivations, social context, and cognitive processes. The structure and function of the human brain's neuronal network play a crucial role in shaping human personality, emotions, motivations, social context, and cognitive processes by influencing the way different regions of the brain communicate with one another.

Therefore, it may be more accurate to view human behavior as a result of "interactions" rather than "reactions." For example, instead of saying that a person reacted to a situation in a certain way, it might be more accurate to say that the person interacted with the situation in a certain way, taking into account the various factors that influenced their behavior. This view recognizes that human behavior is not simply the result of a single cause, but is shaped by the complex interplay of many factors.

[Immanuel Can]

[...] as if somebody believes there's such a thing as a person who makes decisions without reference to any circumstances, causes, contributing factors, and physical realities. And that's just stupid -- because NOBODY believes that.

It seems a little hasty of you to assert that "NOBODY" believes in libertarian free will.

I never said that. "Libertarian free will" does not imply the absence of any circumstances, limitations or constraints. You're stuck on the word "free" again, ironically.

Point to a single person who thinks that choices happen without any circumstances being available. You can't. And why can't you? Because circumstances, cause and effect, probabilities, and so forth, are what choices occur among or between!

One could not even figure out how to make a "choice" if one didn't already know what options are available through circumstances and opportunties, and which ones simply are not. And one couldn't know what "choice" to make, if one could not estimate the probability that one or another is more likely to succeed.

So let's not talk rot: "free" is never "totally free of everything." Here, it simply means, "unforced."

[iambiguous]

But my point is this: that in however I answer your question, then, according to some determinists, it is the only answer I was ever able to give. Same with what you think.

Cue the ncompatibilists: "Incompatibilism is the thesis that free will is incompatible with the truth of determinism. Incompatibilists divide into libertarians, who deny that determinism is true and hard determinists who deny that we have free will."

Did you really think I didn't understand how determinists would view this?

Click.

Do you really think you can demonstrate that in fact what I think about what you understand about determinists I either was or was not able to think autonomously of my own volition?

Which is where we are all still stuck.

It's just that the objectivists among us who come down adamently one way or the other never tire of mocking those on the other side.

The thesis? Okay, but what about the actual "for all practical purposes" existential implications of that for Mary and Jane?

Great so tell me if you were with Mary how suddenly being sure of determinism or free will would make important changes in your behavior?

Well, if you were pregnant and didn't want to be, and someone was able to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt scientifically that you were in fact free to either abort or not to abort your unborn baby, you'd at least have that to fall back on. But then you would be confronted with my own arguments here relating to dasein. Yes, you are free to choose, but your choice here is profoundly embedded in the existential reality of the life you lived. And having lived a very different life [for any number of reasons], you might have been predisposed to choose the opposite behavior. And further, in my view, in a No God world, there does not appear to be a way for philosophers or ethicists to advise you on the most rational and virtuous decision.

On the other hand, if science was able to pin down definitively that any "choice" you made was one that you were never able not to make...what then? But how to even discuss that when that discussion itself would be no less embedded in the only possible reality.

My question is
given that you asked...

What could possibly be more important than pinning down whether or not what we think, feel, say and do we think, feel, say and do of our own volition?

My question is: how so?

How on earth would I know?

Because you said it was important. Which means it is important to you. Why?

Again: Assuming that it was possible to know one way or another if in fact we do have free will [God comes down and tells us, science figures it all out, philosophers deduce the answer a priori] would that not be of fundamental importance to you? It certainly would be to me. But I come back again and again to the gap between what I think I know "here and now" about 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 all I would need to know in order to pin it down.

I merely note that this is also applicable to everyone else. But the objectivists often come down hard on me here because they don't want to hear that. No, their own "intellectual contraption" "world of words" assessment really is the optimal frame of mind.

BigMike here, for example, in my opinion. Peacegirl over at ILP.

You have often talked about philosophers being up in the clouds, keeping issues at abstract levels, and asking posters here to show the concrete effects of their positions. Great.

Since you think finding out which is true, determinism or free will, is extremely important, what concrete difference do you think it would make if you knew?

You can use the Mary situation.

A down to earth explanation of how this importance plays out.

But explain in concrete terms what finding out would do that is important.

In regard to my Mary, back again to this:

Given the manner in which I and others construe the "for all practical purposes" existential reality of determinism, what unfolded back then at Essex Community College exactly overlaps with what is unfolding in this exchange today. Everything that did unfold then and is unfolding now unfolds in the only possible manner in which if ever could have unfolded. Why? Because human brains are still no less wholly embedded in the laws of matter. At least until a God, the God reveals how He created autonomous souls or until the No God scientists pin down how lifeless matter did become living matter did become conscious matter did become self-conscious matter.

And this...

In regard to abortion, given free will, my frame of mind revolves around the OPs of these two threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Both sides are fully capable of offering up "concrete changes" in order to [legally, politically] "resolve" the abortion conflagration. They simply start with different assumptions about the "natural rights" of the unborn and the "political rights" of the pregnant woman.

Then what? The "right makes might" agenda of the moral objectivists...or the "moderation, negotiation and compromise" agenda of the moral nihilists?

Here you are not answering the question. I have read those passages before. I understand what determinism entails. You have said that nothing could be more important that finding out whethere there is determinism or free will.

Describing free will or determinism is not answering the question.

Why is knowing which is true important?

Well, I addressed this above. It's important only if in fact it can be determined. If it could be determined [re God or science or philosophy] that Mary's friend did talk her into not aborting Jane in a bona fide free will world, then Jane could be among us contributing to this discussion. But if everything revolving around Mary's pregnancy unfolds in the only possible world -- and Jane is toast -- she could never have been.

Only how do we know that the proof that we do live in a free will world itself is not in turn just another manifestation of a wholly determined universe?

The part that [to me] is somewhat analogous to the hypothetical Flatlanders attempting to pin down the truth about our own three-dimensional world. The part where the human brain itself is tasked with unlocking all of the mysteries encompassed in the human brain...going back to the Big Bang. Then going back further to the existence of existence itself? To God?

BUT: I'm always the first to admit I may well be thinking this all through incorrectly. Either because no mere mortal can or because I myself lack the intelligence. After all, to this day I still don't grasp Einstein's understanding of space/time. I was terrible at math. And when I watch episodes of Nova and docs on the Science Channel relating to these things, I am often in way over my head with the physics involved. So, sure, make that the reason I don't know what I am talking about.

As though you are saying, "okay, we do have free will and you are not fractured and fragmented regarding conflicting goods such as this. What then?"

But I don't know if I have free will and, if I do, I'm still no less fractured and fragmented. What then?

I don't know if your being fractured and fragmented has to do with this issue or moral issues or something else or a mixture. That's all beside the point. You've said that nothing could be more important than knowing this. How do you know that or what makes you think it is important to know? What practical difference would knowing which is the case make? What future difference would it make?

Yes, if it actually is possible to know beyond all doubt if free will does exist for us, what could be more important? Then the part where it comes from...God or No God?

But no where am I claiming that I know anything definitive about any of this. That's your me again.

I have not said you know. I get that you don't know.

I am asking you why it's important. Show me in the mary situation why KNOWING would be important.

YOu said nothing could be more important than knowing.

How so?

I get that you don't know. But it is important for you to know why.

So, why?

Well, I tried to explain that above.

Note to others:

How would you explain it.

[iambiguous]

Well, the best I can explain it [even to myself], is it revolves around the paradox of me believing in determinism and yet still sustaining exchanges with others here as though I do have free will.

OK, thanks for the answer. I am not sure I fully understand click. But let me see if a question or two more makes it clearer.

It's like me saying, "okay, I don't know whether my brain compels me to type these words and then post them but -- click -- I'll assume that I do have free will and 'somehow' opted to."

Who is the you your brain is compelling? Why does your model have this as two entities?

Well, it could be because "I" am indeed just another domino in Nature's repertoire...able to "self"-consciously type these words even though I was never able not to type them; or "somehow" re God or Nature itself, human brain matter did evolve into the most extraordinary matter of all...matter that really did acquire a measure of autonomy.

Then back to...what exactly?

[Flannel Jesus]

Do you really think you can demonstrate that in fact what I think about what you understand about determinists I either was or was not able to think autonomously of my own volition?

Which is where we are all still stuck.

We? I think you mean you. It's where you're stuck.

I've figured out why you keep bringing this up. It's a thought stopping device. You keep bringing up this idea that determinism gives you permission to not change your mind, because you WANT permission to not change your mind. You want permission to stop thinking about it.

But guess what: you can quit looking for permission. You have it. You have the permission of determinism to stop thinking about it. You have permission to not change your mind, not look at the positions honestly and with a genuine desire to understand. You have permission entirely to stop thinking about it right here.

Now, if you don't want that permission, because you want to think about it and you want to approach the ideas honestly, then that want won't be served by you bringing up this thought stopping device over and over again. Because thought stopping devices like this only serve one purpose: to stop thought.

So if that's what you want, you have permission. You've interpreted determinism correctly, and you have permission now to stop thinking.

[phyllo]

Well, if you were pregnant and didn't want to be, and someone was able to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt scientifically that you were in fact free to either abort or not to abort your unborn baby, you'd at least have that to fall back on.

That would require a perfect prediction of the future ... always 100% correct.

But telling you what is in the future would alter the future. Unless fatalism is the reality.

And further, in my view, in a No God world, there does not appear to be a way for philosophers or ethicists to advise you on the most rational and virtuous decision.

Okay, let's say that the "most rational and virtuous decision" is revealed to you.

What prevents you from choosing not to be the most rational or the most virtuous?

If you are told that giving birth is "optimal", you can still have an abortion.

If it could be determined [re God or science or philosophy] that Mary's friend did talk her into not aborting Jane in a bona fide free will world, then Jane could be among us contributing to this discussion.

That's really easy to determine. If Mary gave birth then her friend did talk her out of aborting.

But if everything revolving around Mary's pregnancy unfolds in the only possible world -- and Jane is toast -- she could never have been.

Jane is only "toast" after an abortion is performed.

[phyllo]

Well, the best I can explain it [even to myself], is it revolves around the paradox of me believing in determinism and yet still sustaining exchanges with others here as though I do have free will.

OK, thanks for the answer. I am not sure I fully understand click. But let me see if a question or two more makes it clearer.

It's like me saying, "okay, I don't know whether my brain compels me to type these words and then post them but -- click -- I'll assume that I do have free will and 'somehow' opted to."

Who is the you your brain is compelling? Why does your model have this as two entities?

Well, it could be because "I" am indeed just another domino in Nature's repertoire...able to "self"-consciously type these words even though I was never able not to type them; or "somehow" re God or Nature itself, human brain matter did evolve into the most extraordinary matter of all...matter that really did acquire a measure of autonomy.

Then back to...what exactly?

Notice that the duality remains unaddressed.

There is apparently a Biggus entity which has thoughts, motivations and desires which are different from Biggus' brain.

But this entity can't do what it wants to do because Biggus' brain prevents it.

[iambiguous]

Why not just ask the question, "am I morally reprehensible period?" Right? Why is determinism a central part of this question to you? Determinism can be described as just a complete absence of randomness, so when you talk about determinism, randomness is implicitly part of the conversation too. When you say "morality is impossible in Determinism," theres this implicit idea that you think morality is only possible with randomness. Why?

Again, in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, everything and anything comprised of matter unfolds in interacting with other matter only as the laws of matter compel it to.

Yes, and in a non-wholly determined universe, everything unfolds as the law of matter compel it to, except for a little bit of randomness. Where, specifically, does the randomness come into the picture to produce moral responsibility?

Okay -- click -- we live in a free will universe. Where does the tiny bit of randomness you speak of come into play when Mary chooses not to abort Jane?

Now, going back to the Benjamin Button Syndrome in a free will world -- https://youtu.be/mTDs0lvFuMc -- think of all the things that could have/might have unfolded differently such that Mary's friend did not meet her and provide her with those crucial reasons that prompted her to change her mind.

There's this existential randomness in all of our lives, right?

But how is that the same or different from how you understand randomness here?

At the same time, from my frame of mind, given the fact that the behaviors we choose are embedded in so much that we do not fully understand or control, and the fact that, in a No God world, our value judgments are often little more than moral and political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein, what argument can be used in order to pin down whether Mary is morally responsible for her behaviors...and whether, one way or another, abortion either is or is not immoral?