compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

You are correct that "something should be accepted as true only if all rational people believe it to be true" may not be a practical or useful criterion for determining the truth of a statement or belief. Luckily, I never said that.

I know: I did. And I said it because it is one of Iambiguous's criteria. Then you agreed with me (given my post was ironic)....

In the end, we may find that there is no definitive answer that satisfies all rational people.

And what I wrote in response to that was me agreeing with you and also demonstrating the problem with the statement. It doesn't live up to itself. Again: I was agreeing with you.

As Carl Sagan once famously said, "The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true."

A sword that cuts both ways, the moment we settle on anything, or might.

In other words, the truth cannot be determined solely by what we want to be true or by the consensus of rational people. The truth must be based on evidence, logical reasoning, and empirical observation, which are the foundations of scientific inquiry.

That rational people decide is evidence and the rest of that list, yes. Consensus of all rational people is extremely unlikely which is the form Iambiguous uses. But some kind of consensus is what is aimed at. Evidence and the rest of the list does nothing alone. An old pawprint in long ago hardened mud is nothing much without humans to be rational about it. I mean, I know you know this. But your wording made it sound like evidence logical reasoning and empirical observation were separate from rational people. All rational people is a criterion designed to fail. But agreement amongst some/certain kinds is a part of using those processes and evidence.

While it is important to listen to different viewpoints and opinions, ultimately, what is true is not determined by a democratic vote or the opinions of the majority. As Sagan said, "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Sure.

Therefore, when evaluating statements and beliefs, we should look beyond consensus and consider the evidence and reasoning behind them. This is the best way to approach the truth and to make sound, informed decisions based on the best available information.

I think getting out there and experiencing is often critical to many things I find useful. And not just in the scientific observation sense.

[Flannel Jesus]

Slavoj Zizek and the Case for Compatibilism
Philosophy for the People w/Ben Burgis

Compatibilists such as Daniel Dennett have an elegant solution to the incompatibilists’ complaints about determinism: when incompatibilists complain that our freedom cannot be combined with the fact that all our acts are part of the great chain of natural determinism, they secretly make an unwarranted ontological assumption: first, they assume that we (the Self, the free agent) somehow stand outside reality, then they go on to complain about how they feel oppressed by the notion that reality in its determinism controls them totally.

"Incompatibilism is the thesis that free will is incompatible with the truth of determinism. Incompatibilists divide into libertarianians, who deny that determinism is true and hard determinists who deny that we have free will." PhilPapershttps://philpapers.org

The "thesis". Of course.

What on earth does it mean to "secretly make an unwarranted ontological assumption" when all of the assumptions that you do make you make only because you were never able not to?

Determinism isn't the thing that makes this the case though. This would still be the case even with indeterminism. Indeterminism simply adds some randomness into the recipe of "the things that make you do and think the things that you do and think", and randomness isn't the thing we're looking for here.

There's no way around this issue, you can either figure out how to work your way THROUGH the issue, or continue going in circles in despair like you've been doing.

And if that's what you're determined to do, then I feel very sorry for you. I'm determined to see past it, allow my thoughts to continue beyond this road block you find yourself stuck at. Maybe some time you'll find yourself determined to gather the strength to move past it too.

[iambiguous]

What can I say. From my frame of mind, given determinism as I understand it [compelled or not], from the cradle to the grave everything that I thought, felt, said and did in the past, everything that I think, feel, say, and do in the present, and everything that I will think, feel, say and do in the future is an inherent -- fated/destined -- manifestation of the only possible world.

So, sure, if -- re God or Science -- I could know unequivocally that this is not the case and that I did/do/will have at least some measure of choice, yeah, that would be of fundamental importance to me.

OK, you described what determinism entails, again. And you said it was important. But you didn't say why it is important for you or us to know. I know what determinism entails and free will entails - the latter in vague way. What I don't know is why this is important to you. What changes knowing would lead to.

Click.

We really, really, really are stuck here. I have explained it. Over and again. But, apparently, your brain is not yet permitted to grasp it.

If you know what I mean.

So...

Or, I explained it well, but you are unable to understand it. Compelled or otherwise.

As far as I can tell you didn't explain why. You just described determinism and said it was important to know if it wasn't the case.

Why would anyone here find it important to know that what they post -- along with everything else that they do -- they did because they opted to of their own volition.

Note to others:

Back to this: what crucial point is he making here about "why?" in a free will world that I keep missing?

How does her knowing everything is determined or knowing that she has free will change the day for her? You think it is very important to pin down. Why? How does it change that day for Mary that she knows one or the other is the case?

Here, again, others seem intent on noting the same thing.

I am not sure what I noted. I asked you a question.

And, again, I answered it to the best of ability "here and now". How about this:

Ask Jane why it is important to her that her mother was able to opt not to abort her instead of having no other option but to abort her. Then ask the compatibilists to explain how they reconcile determinism as they understand it with moral responsibility as they understand it. Unless, again, in a determined universe as I understand it in a free will world, even their explanation itself is wholly compelled by their material brains.

[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.

...down? And I am certainly unable to.

Consciousness is the subjective experience of awareness and thought. Some people believe that consciousness is linked to free will because it is the foundation of our subjective experience of making choices and taking action. However, in reality, consciousness is not essential for people to think, make decisions, and act. Therefore, it is confusing why you continue to raise the above question repeatedly, especially under this "Compatibilism" topic. Maybe it would be better to start a new discussion topic on "What is Consciousness?" instead.

Click.

Again, with you, my main interest lies in grasping whether, given how you understand a "no free will determined universe", you either did or did not opt freely to post this. Instead, compelled or not, you produce yet another "general description intellectual/philosophical contraption" in which the explanation revolves around words defining and then defending yet more words still. And, apparently, your aim/"aim" here seems to be that of the objectivist: to convey to others that it is your explanation or they are wrong.

Unless of course you can offer us a definitive/demonstrable account of how lifeless matter did evolve into biological matter here on earth billions of years ago evolving further into conscious biological matter millions of years ago evolving into philosophers a few thousand years ago.

Using, I suppose, the scientific method to establish this?

[iambiguous]

And that's because what first has to be demonstrated are the exact steps taken -- by God? by nature? -- such that lifeless matter evolved into biological matter evolved into conscious matter evolved into self-conscious matter. The part where "somehow" along the way biological matter acquired autonomy.

If you don't grasp that [let alone grasping how it all fits ontologically into the existence of existence itself] you don't grasp how to explain the human brain itself.

It's already been made clear that those exact facts aren't established and aren't going to be established any time soon. If that's what you require in order to continue thinking, then you'll just have to withhold on thinking until you can receive that information from somewhere.

Okay, then [click] in regard to this...

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether.

...you and I are [unlike my ex-wife] not yet bothered by the seeming futilely of it all. Yes, we will almost certainly go to the grave oblivious to how the Big Bang evolved into us, but it did, and we cannot pull ourselves away from grappling with it in places like this. The part I root existentially in dasein.

Fine, along with Phyllo and iwanna, we'll carry on.

On the other hand, what if what we think we are opting to pursue here we were never able not to "opt" to pursue?

Though, sure, in regard to all of this and Mary's unwanted pregnancy, there's always the possibility that your own methodology for thinking this through may "somehow" be made applicable to her and [possibly] Jane.

[iambiguous]

I think part of the struggle for Biggy - and it's a worth while thing to struggle with - is the conflict between reductionism and emergent causality. Because this is what keeps coming up in my brain every time I read a post of his.

Like, how could it be true that my thoughts are the cause of the words in typing, if it's true that the laws of physics governing all the matter in my brain is the cause of the words in typing?

This conversation has actually had a lot of value for me because it has forced me to really deeply think about emergence, and if it makes sense to call weekly emergent phenomena "causal".

I've been thinking about emergence a lot, both because of this conservation about human minds in a deterministic system AND because of Veritas threads on the moon and truth, and I've come to the following tentative beliefs:

1. As I've always believed, there's most likely only weak emergence (at least in this universe), never strong emergence
2. Weak emergence of course implies that lower levels of causality are the root "explanation" for any physical event - even if we don't know how that lower level of casualty works. Lower meaning, less emergent, more fundamental
3. That despite 2 being the case, and despite the fact that any emergent phenomena existing in any given specific circumstance could also be "explained" fully, in principle, by a complete understanding of the low level phenomena, that it still makes sense to talk about high level emergent phenomena being causal, or "having causal power" - not as an exception to the lower level description of reality, but simultaneously to that

There's a certain tension between #2 and #3, and I believe it's this tension that's the source of a lot of the problems people have with the ideas at hand here. In particular I think that, though he hasn't and might not word it this way, it's what's at the center of Biggy's problems here.

How could WE be causing something, as thinking human beings, if humans are fully reducible to the matter that makes us up?

This was nicely put and it is similar to conclusions I have in a more general way. I'm fairly pluralist. I notice that I have different models for the same things in different situations (and different moods, likely also). The desire to have the one perfect model, I think, is problematic because is entails the idea that we can put into words (notice the conduit metaphor http://www.biolinguagem.com/ling_cog_cu ... taphor.pdf) something that will work all the time and is the way we should view things all the time in all contexts. I think there are several problems with this one practical - I don't think language can do this, nor can we - and one philosophical - see the Reddy. I am not sure language is primarily a conduit for truth (and other stuff). I think that's a limited model.

So, will Jane emerge from Mary's womb in a wholly determined universe that compels Mary to abort Jane?

Duh?

But: though she was never not going to be toast, can someone still hold Mary morally responsible for killing her?

God, for example?









Just kidding of course.

[Flannel Jesus]

But: though she was never not going to be toast, can someone still hold Mary morally responsible for killing her?

Assume determinism isn't true. Do you hold Mary responsible? If so, why and to what end?

[iambiguous]

I mean, come on, aren't you part of the God world crowd here? Don't you yourself believe that the explanation for free will is God Himself?

I've been talking to him for more than a decade.

I've make made hundreds of posts in this thread and the 'Determinism' thread at ILP.

I've explicitly stated my position many times.

And the dimwit still doesn't know what my position is.

I don't use "dimwit" lightly.

Click.

I dare him to note his position on God here. If that's the position he means.

As with morality, what can possibly be more crucial in regard to the Big Questions, then the existence of an omniscient/omnipotent God?

God and instant autonomy: the soul. Well, the soul we're stuck with given Adam and Eve. The Fall and all.

So, sure, where does religion fit in here for him?

[iambiguous]

deleted

[iambiguous]

It's certainly your right to stop thinking for the time being, until you have the answers to this pinned down. If that's what you think is the correct approach, do it.

Click.

Come on, what do the Big Question/morality objectivists here among us insist? That others can stop thinking about these things because the objectivists themselves have already discovered or invented the optimal, essential truth.

All I'm asking instead is that that they take their intellectual contraption arguments pertaining to compatibilism down out of the philosophical clouds and note how they are relevant to Mary's unwanted pregnancy.

Given their own definitive understanding of determinism, is Mary morally responsible or not?

Who in the world said that? You're the one who suggested that you can't be confident in any of your thoughts without precise answers to those questions. I was just affirming what you said, I never said anything about having already discovered the optimal truth.

To the best of my recollection, I never called you an objectivist. Well, other than, perhaps, in polemicist mode. No, instead, my reaction to you revolves more around how, in my view, you keep your arguments up in the "philosophical/intellectual contraption" clouds. I'm more interested in you bringing them to bear on Mary and Jane and the argument made by compatibilists regarding her moral responsibility.

If you want to stop thinking about it because you don't have the answers to those questions, you have permission to do that. I'm not telling you to stop thinking, but I am inviting you to either (a) stop thinking, or (b) stop looking for permission to stop thinking. If you want permission, then you have it, just stop. If you don't want to stop thinking, looking for permission isn't doing anything for you.

Back to that again. I'm clearly not interested in not thinking about it. I merely point out the "for all practical purposes" limitations of thoughts emanating from a human brain that is not even capable of explaining how or why human brains themselves came to evolve into existence in the first place.

Also, there is always the possibility the next Einstein will come along and offer up entirely new way in which to think about it all this.

[Flannel Jesus]

Back to that again. I'm clearly not interested in not thinking about it. I merely point out the "for all practical purposes" limitations of thoughts emanating from a human brain that is not even capable of explaining how or why human brains themselves came to evolve into existence in the first place.

Pointing it out is one thing. Point it out, it's a great thing to point out! Fantastic!

But you bring it up every other post you make. It's past the point of pointing it out.

[iambiguous]

I think your state of uncertainty is great at least for philosophical discussion. If determinists judge your positions using logic or 'logic' such as in the assessment of an unwarranted ontological assumption, you can respond that no one can be wrong in a determinist world AND use logic to indicate their potential wrongness.

Note to Mary:
Hope that helped.

Seriously though, logic itself is a manifestation of the human brain. And if the human brain functions entirely within the parameters of the logic that nature has embedded in the laws of matter then nothing that we think, feel, say and do is not logical. Just as nothing is either right or wrong in a world where everything unfolds and interacts in the only possible reality.

We may speak in ways that others insist is illogical or act in ways that others insist is irrational...but both our actions and their reactions reflect the ontological reality encompassed in the laws of matter.

Then back to the part where human brain matter is so remarkable, who is actually able to demonstrate just how remarkable it really is.

Though, as always, I'm the first to admit I am not thinking this through correctly. It's just that, given how I understand determinism, I was never able to not think it through any other way. So, what does correct and incorrect even mean given this?

If you were committed to determinism, you couldn't really do this, since then you would be doing what you are criticizing them for doing: saying someone is wrong.

Then we understand determinism differently. Nothing I am committed to, nothing that I do, nothing that I criticize as wrong is other than that which my brain compels me to commit to, to do and to criticize. Just as if, in a dream, I commit to something, I do things and I criticize something as wrong. It's all my brain functioning only as it ever could. Just as the waking brains of those like Bruce Willis above may compel them do things they would never do before their affliction. Only it all gets that much more surreal [for me] because both their old brains and their new brains are intertwined in the only possible reality.

But since you are not committed to determinism OR free will, you can criticize both positions and request that they demonstrate their positions. If they are committed to free will, you can be skeptical about that and consider them wrong, since, again, you are not committed to determinism so you are allowed to judge others as having failed in argument.

Again, my point is not what I am committed to or not committed to but the fact that I have no way of ascertaining objectively if this commitment or lack of commitment is as a result of my own autonomy. Same with my criticisms or my praise. Same with my conclusions about right and wrong.

Even my own assumptions about determinism itself may well be fated/destined to be what they can only be.

But, again, you and others here pursue this in what, compelled or not, I construe to be largely intellectual contraptions:

IOW not having a full committment to either position results in both free will advocates and determinists bearing the onus of proof (when they are communicating with you). So, any discussion puts them in the position of convincing you and since you are not committed to either position you are free to argue however you like. And since the criterion you generally put forward is for them to demonstrate they are correct such that all rational people must agree and you are a rational person, you have the upper hand any discussion. One can always continue to be less than fully convinced. And absolutely nothing in a philosophical discussion necessarily removes doubt.

Given what context? How do you relate this to things like the behaviors you choose/"choose"/"choose"? How would it be explained to Mary struggling with an unwanted pregnancy?

And since you doubt that this will be solved in your lifetime or ever for that matter, you'll never be in a position to demonstrate anything. Well, I some of your arguments could be judged as wrong by the free will camp, but then you can throw determinism at them. They'd have to demonstrate you could have done differently.

Okay, but what about in the lifetimes of those considerably younger than I am? My daughter's lifetime? Her son's lifetime?

know uncertainty on this has a downside for you. But one should acknowledge the upside also, even if it is dwarfed but the downside.

Upside, downside. Or are they both necessarily intertwined in the only possible reality. Points of view that are interchangeable to nature.

Then the part where one ponders if nature itself has a teleological component. The pantheists with their "the universe itself is Divine."

The part where I tap them on the shoulders and remind them of just how much the Divine seems intent on making the lives of millions living hells.

[Agent Smith]

Compatibilism is an intriguing stance to adopt.

Also what about the now-famous neuroscientific experiment in which it was found that the body moves milliseconds before one wills to do so. If anyone has any idea what I'm talking about, please provide some links. I seem to have forgotten the scientist's name.

[Iwannaplato]

Compatibilism is an intriguing stance to adopt.

Also what about the now-famous neuroscientific experiment in which it was found that the body moves milliseconds before one wills to do so. If anyone has any idea what I'm talking about, please provide some links. I seem to have forgotten the scientist's name.

Libet was one of the first...
Vhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet´
but there's also more recent research...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... we-know-it
The interesting thing for philosophers is that this stuff challenges not only free will but also our sense about why we make decisions.
IOW we may think we made them for rational reasons, but......

[Agent Smith]

Compatibilism is an intriguing stance to adopt.

Also what about the now-famous neuroscientific experiment in which it was found that the body moves milliseconds before one wills to do so. If anyone has any idea what I'm talking about, please provide some links. I seem to have forgotten the scientist's name.

Libet was one of the first...
Vhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet´
but there's also more recent research...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... we-know-it
The interesting thing for philosophers is that this stuff challenges not only free will but also our sense about why we make decisions.
IOW we may think we made them for rational reasons, but......

Danke! Libet's experiment proves it then - we don't have free will. Intriguing is it not? What are the other ramifications I wonder.