compatibilism

[popeye1945]

When an organism arrives in this world it has no identity, it is pure innocence/ignorance and only acquires an identity through its reactions to its environmental context, imprinting whatever is present. So, my question is this, when does free will kick in? Is it not activated until one reaches the age of eighteen or twenty-one? Did it choose its environmental context, if not it did not choose its context it did not choose its identity; how is this an agent of free will? One's identity changes over time with the changing of context/s in a process that only ends with death. This is generally not an orderly process, where is there an agent of free will. You didn't choose life and you won't choose death, where is the self-control to be an agent of free will? As an individual you are totally dependent on the world environment for your life and its maintenance and as a species totally dependent upon its causes upon us for our adaptation as a species, adapt or perish, where is the free will? Life lives upon life where is the free will here, you might say, one could choose death rather than eat our fellow beings, if this is a choice it is not one many embraces at dinner time. Face it, you are as governed in your behaviors as the movements of tides. I maybe underlining the obvious but I think the obvious is quite enough. All organisms are reactive organisms, it is simply the nature of all organisms linked to an ever-changing world.

[Flannel Jesus]

So, my question is this, when does free will kick in?

I think this is a fantastic question to ask, but primarily for people who believe in libertarian free will. For compatibilist free will, I think you just intuitively apply the concept of "free will" simultaneously with "moral responsibility" in largely the same ways you would expect a legal system to.

So intuitive applications like "if a very young child did something bad, that's very different from an adult doing the same thing", right? Like if a young boy is waiting in line somewhere and peeks under a woman's skirt to see what's underneath, intuitively that's not the same as a grown man doing it.

[BigMike]

When an organism arrives in this world it has no identity, it is pure innocence/ignorance and only acquires an identity through its reactions to its environmental context, imprinting whatever is present. So, my question is this, when does free will kick in? Is it not activated until one reaches the age of eighteen or twenty-one? Did it choose its environmental context, if not it did not choose its context it did not choose its identity; how is this an agent of free will? One's identity changes over time with the changing of context/s in a process that only ends with death. This is generally not an orderly process, where is there an agent of free will. You didn't choose life and you won't choose death, where is the self-control to be an agent of free will? As an individual you are totally dependent on the world environment for your life and its maintenance and as a species totally dependent upon its causes upon us for our adaptation as a species, adapt or perish, where is the free will? Life lives upon life where is the free will here, you might say, one could choose death rather than eat our fellow beings, if this is a choice it is not one many embraces at dinner time. Face it, you are as governed in your behaviors as the movements of tides. I maybe underlining the obvious but I think the obvious is quite enough. All organisms are reactive organisms, it is simply the nature of all organisms linked to an ever-changing world.

Well blow me down, Popeye! You sure know how to spin a philosophical yarn that would make even Aristotle blush! Your musings on the nature of identity and free will are truly epic in scope and comedic in execution.

I mean, let's be real here - who knew that a spinach-loving sailor could drop knowledge like this? You've got us all pondering the mysteries of existence and our place in the world.

But seriously, you make a great point. It's true that we don't really have control over many of the things that shape our identity, like our genetics or upbringing. And even the choices we make are often influenced by factors beyond our control.

But fear not, Popeye! Even if our actions are influenced by external forces, we still have the power to make choices and shape our own destinies to some extent. And who knows, maybe one day we'll even be able to break free from the tides of fate and chart our own course through life, although I very much doubt that. To be perfectly honest, I know that will never happen.

But anyway, in the meantime, let's just enjoy the ride and try not to get too sea-sick! Thanks for the philosophical insights, Popeye - you're a true spinach-fueled sage.

[popeye1945]

So, my question is this, when does free will kick in?

I think this is a fantastic question to ask, but primarily for people who believe in libertarian free will. For compatibilist free will, I think you just intuitively apply the concept of "free will" simultaneously with "moral responsibility" in largely the same ways you would expect a legal system to. [/quote'

Morality and free will are mutually exclusive, if one is living by an accepted set of standards or rules not of one's own making one is not an agent of free will. Morality is indeed a human extension, an expression of human nature within the context of society otherwise known as the social contract, those that live by an established contract for which one might be praised or punished are not agents of free will. One that lives their life relative to a system, be it legal or otherwise, is not a free-will agent. Nietzsche expressed it best in, "The three transformations of the spirit, an agent of free will is a wheel rolling from its center. Most of these people are locked up-----lol!!

So intuitive applications like "if a very young child did something bad, that's very different from an adult doing the same thing", right? Like if a young boy is waiting in line somewhere and peeks under a woman's skirt to see what's underneath, intuitively that's not the same as a grown man doing it.

Yes, there is common knowledge that reason does not generally kick in until about the age of seven, rough estimate. Here a child is born into a situation of control and is not even cognitive of having a choice. He/her/it is somewhat like a caged bird but one that never knew freedom, for freedom in many an instance would mean death. Society protects us from the harsh reality of nature and our ultimate freedom is the price we pay for that societal protection, the social contract. If you are not good, Santa won't bring you squat --lol!!

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you made a mistake in your quote closing. I did not say all the things in my quote block above

[popeye1945]

When an organism arrives in this world it has no identity, it is pure innocence/ignorance and only acquires an identity through its reactions to its environmental context, imprinting whatever is present. So, my question is this, when does free will kick in? Is it not activated until one reaches the age of eighteen or twenty-one? Did it choose its environmental context, if not it did not choose its context it did not choose its identity; how is this an agent of free will? One's identity changes over time with the changing of context/s in a process that only ends with death. This is generally not an orderly process, where is there an agent of free will. You didn't choose life and you won't choose death, where is the self-control to be an agent of free will? As an individual you are totally dependent on the world environment for your life and its maintenance and as a species totally dependent upon its causes upon us for our adaptation as a species, adapt or perish, where is the free will? Life lives upon life where is the free will here, you might say, one could choose death rather than eat our fellow beings, if this is a choice it is not one many embraces at dinner time. Face it, you are as governed in your behaviors as the movements of tides. I maybe underlining the obvious but I think the obvious is quite enough. All organisms are reactive organisms, it is simply the nature of all organisms linked to an ever-changing world.

Well blow me down, Popeye! You sure know how to spin a philosophical yarn that would make even Aristotle blush! Your musings on the nature of identity and free will are truly epic in scope and comedic in execution.

I mean, let's be real here - who knew that a spinach-loving sailor could drop knowledge like this? You've got us all pondering the mysteries of existence and our place in the world.

But seriously, you make a great point. It's true that we don't really have control over many of the things that shape our identity, like our genetics or upbringing. And even the choices we make are often influenced by factors beyond our control.

But fear not, Popeye! Even if our actions are influenced by external forces, we still have the power to make choices and shape our own destinies to some extent. And who knows, maybe one day we'll even be able to break free from the tides of fate and chart our own course through life, although I very much doubt that. To be perfectly honest, I know that will never happen.

But anyway, in the meantime, let's just enjoy the ride and try not to get too sea-sick! Thanks for the philosophical insights, Popeye - you're a true spinach-fueled sage.

BigMike,

Thanks so much, I've never gotten such a positive response!!!

[phyllo]

You don't know what is fated until after the event has happened.

Iambiguous wrote :

Well, in a determined universe as I understand it, everything that I know about anything at all is only that which my brain compels me to know. Mary will abort Jane no matter what she and her friend think, feel, say and do because they were only ever able to think, feel, say and do what they must.

That is literally the exact opposite of determinism.

Determinism is based on responding to the internal state of a person and the external environment.

If you're having dinner with a bunch of people and you ask the woman close to the salt shaker to "Please pass the salt." ....

- You ask because you think the food is not salty enough.

- She passes the salt because you asked her to.

Will she always pass the salt to you?

No.

She might not hear you or mishear because the room is noisy. So she passes you nothing or she passes you the pepper.

Another person might hear and might pass you the salt before the woman reacts.

She might feel that she doesn't like you and she's not going to do anything for you.

The point is that the motion and position of this salt shaker depends on what people think, feel and say.

[Flannel Jesus]

You don't know what is fated until after the event has happened.

Iambiguous wrote :

Well, in a determined universe as I understand it, everything that I know about anything at all is only that which my brain compels me to know. Mary will abort Jane no matter what she and her friend think, feel, say and do because they were only ever able to think, feel, say and do what they must.

That is literally the exact opposite of determinism.

Determinism is based on responding to the internal state of a person and the external environment.

If you're having dinner with a bunch of people and you ask the woman close to the salt shaker to "Please pass the salt." ....

- You ask because you think the food is not salty enough.

- She passes the salt because you asked her to.

Will she always pass the salt to you?

No.

She might not hear you or mishear because the room is noisy. So she passes you nothing or she passes you the pepper.

Another person might hear and might pass you the salt before the woman reacts.

She might feel that she doesn't like you and she's not going to do anything for you.

The point is that the motion and position of this salt shaker depends on what people think, feel and say.

The distinction between determinism and fatalism is one that I think is big enough to be worth correcting, as you're doing here.

[BigMike]

You don't know what is fated until after the event has happened.

Iambiguous wrote :

Well, in a determined universe as I understand it, everything that I know about anything at all is only that which my brain compels me to know. Mary will abort Jane no matter what she and her friend think, feel, say and do because they were only ever able to think, feel, say and do what they must.

That is literally the exact opposite of determinism.

Determinism is based on responding to the internal state of a person and the external environment.

If you're having dinner with a bunch of people and you ask the woman close to the salt shaker to "Please pass the salt." ....

- You ask because you think the food is not salty enough.

- She passes the salt because you asked her to.

Will she always pass the salt to you?

No.

She might not hear you or mishear because the room is noisy. So she passes you nothing or she passes you the pepper.

Another person might hear and might pass you the salt before the woman reacts.

She might feel that she doesn't like you and she's not going to do anything for you.

The point is that the motion and position of this salt shaker depends on what people think, feel and say.

Oh boy, hold on to your hats folks, we've got a real comedy gem here! Get ready to laugh harder than a hyena on laughing gas!

So, we've got phyllo trying to explain determinism, but it's like he’s trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It's like he’s trying to explain why a cat meows by saying "Well, you see, the cat makes a meowing noise because it wants to communicate." No sh*t, Sherlock!

Phyllo is trying to convince us that determinism is all about responding to the internal state of a person and the external environment, but he’s missed the point entirely. It's like he’s wandered into a conversation about quantum physics and started talking about how to make a cup of tea.

Then, he give us an example of asking for the salt at dinner, and it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. "You ask because you think the food is not salty enough. She passes the salt because you asked her to." No kidding, genius! But wait, it gets better! He goes on to explain that sometimes she might not hear you or mishear you, and she might not like you and refuse to pass the salt. Wow, groundbreaking stuff right there!

The bottom line is that phyllo doesn't understand determinism at all, and he’s trying to explain it in a way that's about as useful as a chocolate teapot. But hey, at least he gave us a good laugh, right?

[popeye1945]

I think you made a mistake in your quote closing. I did not say all the things in my quote block above

Flannel Jesus,

Sorry if I misquoted you, I read it over and still didn't see my error; but please accept my apology.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you made a mistake in your quote closing. I did not say all the things in my quote block above

Flannel Jesus,

Sorry if I misquoted you, I read it over and still didn't see my error; but please accept my apology.

Look at this part of your post:

would expect a legal system to. [/quote'

Morality and free will are mutually exclusive, if one is living by an accepted set of standards or rules not of one's own making one is not an agent of fre

I think that's where the break occurs. "Morality and free will are mutually exclusive" is not something I said there

[Iwannaplato]

Sorry if I'm asking you to rehash something you've already said, but what are your positions about all this?

Are you a determinist? Do you believe in free will?

It certainly seems to me that determinism is the case - with the proviso that there may be statistical type stuff, that is indetermism from what we know about things at the quantum level. That said, I don't know. So, most of the time I allow myself to think in terms of both free will and no-free-will. I take a kind of pragmatic approach to it.

There are problems for determinists, of course, in a couple of ways. 1) is the problem I see with both Big Mike and popeye, where they can't quite manage to deal with other people as if they believe in determinism. IOW I think they end up much like me, thinking and communicating in contradictory ways. It's understandable, but it does raise the issue of what we believe. I think people often confuse their official positions with what they believe. A person can be anti-racist officially - that's what they'd say - but without realizing it they treat other groups poorly. I think in such a situation there is no simple they believe X. They have mixed beliefs. I think that's true for lots of issues. And then 2) if you think that everything you think is utterly determined, then your sense that you analyzed something correctly would be a mere 'yeah that looks right quale'. And this can be the case at collective not just individual levels.

Beyond that I figure there are always possibilities that seem like we can rule them out, period, when this may not be the case. The history of science itself has examples of things that could have been and were ruled out via deduction (or because of lack of fit with current models) that then turned out to be real.

So, I don't know for sure, though determinism looks more solid to me.

[Flannel Jesus]

So, I don't know for sure, though determinism looks more solid to me.

Determinism without compatibilism? What do you think of the compatibilist position?

[Iwannaplato]

So, I don't know for sure, though determinism looks more solid to me.

Determinism without compatibilism? What do you think of the compatibilist position?

There seem to be a number of them. From Stanford....

2. Classical Compatibilism
2.1 Freedom According to Classical Compatibilism
2.2 The Classical Compatibilist Conditional Analysis
2.3 The Lasting Influence of the Conditional Analysis
3. Compatibilism in Transition
3.1 The Consequence Argument
3.2 A Challenge to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities
3.3 Focus upon the Reactive Attitudes
4. Contemporary Compatibilism
4.1 Compatibilism about the Freedom to Do Otherwise
4.2 Hierarchical Compatibilism
4.3 The Reason View
4.4 Reasons-Responsive Compatibilism
4.5 Strawsonian Compatibilism

But regardless I don't have much of a problem with a compatiblism that focuses on moral responsibility. IOW you still hold people responsible for their actions, despite there being determinism. One can quibble over words but I don't see determinists behaving categorically differently from compatiblists. They still get made at people who do things they don't like. They tend to support some kind of penal system. They chastize and judge individuals. As do people who believe in free will. There may be differences in the way they use background and environmental factors in their judgments and punishments (they may use different words here but I'm not sure how much difference this makes for anyone) but there will be responses and reactions aimed at the individual who carried out act X. Everyone acts as if that person is responsible. Which is of course part of most practical responses to acts we/society don't like.

[Flannel Jesus]

So, I don't know for sure, though determinism looks more solid to me.

Determinism without compatibilism? What do you think of the compatibilist position?

There seem to be a number of them. From Stanford....

2. Classical Compatibilism
2.1 Freedom According to Classical Compatibilism
2.2 The Classical Compatibilist Conditional Analysis
2.3 The Lasting Influence of the Conditional Analysis
3. Compatibilism in Transition
3.1 The Consequence Argument
3.2 A Challenge to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities
3.3 Focus upon the Reactive Attitudes
4. Contemporary Compatibilism
4.1 Compatibilism about the Freedom to Do Otherwise
4.2 Hierarchical Compatibilism
4.3 The Reason View
4.4 Reasons-Responsive Compatibilism
4.5 Strawsonian Compatibilism

But regardless I don't have much of a problem with a compatiblism that focuses on moral responsibility. IOW you still hold people responsible for their actions, despite there being determinism. One can quibble over words but I don't see determinists behaving categorically differently from compatiblists. They still get made at people who do things they don't like. They tend to support some kind of penal system. They chastize and judge individuals. As do people who believe in free will. There may be differences in the way they use background and environmental factors in their judgments and punishments (they may use different words here but I'm not sure how much difference this makes for anyone) but there will be responses and reactions aimed at the individual who carried out act X. Everyone acts as if that person is responsible. Which is of course part of most practical responses to acts we/society don't like.

Yeah, that's all pretty reasonable