compatibilism

[iambiguous]

You have provided me with a healthy chuckle, haha. We both would like to know now, where is this idea coming from? What compatibilists are saying this?

Well, Flannel, it seems like he made up that thing about compatiblists claiming there is a bifuricated brain.

He has thrown some kind of argument against compatibilism in general and I suppose that is supposed to justify makign something up and then getting mocking when this is pointed out.

Sometimes people have a problem with conceding points.

Again, let's bring this down to Earth. Compatibilism and moral responsibility. My own main interest in the Big Questions.

Mary has aborted her unborn baby. And you are a compatibilist. So, how does her brain function here? Is a part of it wholly in sync with the laws of matter...the laws of nature...such she was never able to not abort the baby? Is there another part of her brain, however, the part that revolves around "character and values", such that she can still be held morally responsible for doing so?

A brain with two parts. A part entirely intertwined in the laws a matter and a part that "somehow" still makes us morally responsible for the things that we "choose" to do?

Why can't it be argued that, on the contrary, all of the brain's functions are inherent manifestations of the only possible reality?

Again, like Mary dreaming that she had an abortion when she was not even pregnant. She wakes up marveling at the fact that in the dream it was like she wasn't dreaming at all. In the dream she did choose to have an abortion. She marvels at how, while sound asleep, it was her brain itself that created this "reality".

Well, what if, in a way we simply do not understand, the waking brain is just another necessary manifestation of the laws of matter. That the autonomy we "just know" deep down inside that we have is a psychological illusion because human psychology itself is but another intrinsic component of Nature's laws. That while the human brain is clearly like no other matter around, it still is like all other matter around. Isn't that why many come back to God here as one possible explanation? And isn't it a fact that scientists are still just grappling to explain it...empirically, experientially, experimentally? And that philosophers go about it more by defining or deducing free will into existence? As some do with God?

Me? Well, I flat out admit that my own speculation here is just a wild-ass "philosophical" conjecture given this part:

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.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

Also, for whatever personal reason, in my view, neither one of you much likes me. In particular, the points I raise regarding morality being rooted existentially in dasein. And my defense of a "fractured and fragmented" morality. You react over and again in what I construe to be Stooge Mode.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

Also, for whatever personal reason, in my view, neither one of you much likes me.

As an online person, no, I don't like you. What you're like IRL, who knows. I find your behavior online unpleasant to deal with. Based on your psychic abilities, I guess, you assume that it's more likely I'm triggered by your beliefs or lack of beliefs or whatever. If that's soothing I won't try to take your belief in your paranormal abilities or about me away from you.

So, bifuricated brains...and the compatibilist you got this from..... No answer, non-answer, mocking...then just start writing about it again as if it's some real compatibilist position. Or maybe it is, but for some reason you can't/won't let us know where you got it from.

Why don't you respond to Flannel Jesus' clear and polite post. He's got more patience with your shenanigens.

[Atla]

Should we tell the guy that he's on the spectrum, he just seems to have gone under the radar?

[iambiguous]

Also, for whatever personal reason, in my view, neither one of you much likes me.

As an online person, no, I don't like you. What you're like IRL, who knows. I find your behavior online unpleasant to deal with. Based on your psychic abilities, I guess, you assume that it's more likely I'm triggered by your beliefs or lack of beliefs or whatever. If that's soothing I won't try to take your belief in your paranormal abilities or about me away from you.

Fair enough. We'll just have to agree to disagree regarding the persona I prefer to adopt online in discussions like these. You have your rendition of me, and I have mine. And, best of all, neither one of us is actually required to read each other's posts. I never read any of yours unless they pertain to me. From my frame of mind, when I did read you, you were basically just another "serious philosopher" to me. You were almost always up in the intellectual clouds. And that's fine for those who approach philosophy in what I construe to be a didactic, technical manner. In fact, most of the articles in Philosophy Now magazine itself stay up there. Even in regard to things like ethics and free will.

If I do say so myself.

So, bifuricated brains...and the compatibilist you got this from..... No answer, non-answer, mocking...then just start writing about it again as if it's some real compatibilist position. Or maybe it is, but for some reason you can't/won't let us know where you got it from.

Why don't you respond to Flannel Jesus' clear and polite post. He's got more patience with your "shenanigens".

Again, this is what you call "shenanigans":

Again, let's bring this down to Earth. Compatibilism and moral responsibility. My own main interest in the Big Questions.

Mary has aborted her unborn baby. And you are a compatibilist. So, how does her brain function here? Is a part of it wholly in sync with the laws of matter...the laws of nature...such she was never able to not abort the baby? Is there another part of her brain, however, the part that revolves around "character and values", such that she can still be held morally responsible for doing so?

A brain with two parts. A part entirely intertwined in the laws a matter and a part that "somehow" still makes us morally responsible for the things that we "choose" to do?

Why can't it be argued that, on the contrary, all of the brain's functions are inherent manifestations of the only possible reality?

Again, like Mary dreaming that she had an abortion when she was not even pregnant. She wakes up marveling at the fact that in the dream it was like she wasn't dreaming at all. In the dream she did choose to have an abortion. She marvels at how, while sound asleep, it was her brain itself that created this "reality".

Well, what if, in a way we simply do not understand, the waking brain is just another necessary manifestation of the laws of matter. That the autonomy we "just know" deep down inside that we have is a psychological illusion because human psychology itself is but another intrinsic component of Nature's laws. That while the human brain is clearly like no other matter around, it still is like all other matter around. Isn't that why many come back to God here as one possible explanation? And isn't it a fact that scientists are still just grappling to explain it...empirically, experientially, experimentally? And that philosophers go about it more by defining or deducing free will into existence? As some do with God?

Me? Well, I flat out admit that my own speculation here is just a wild-ass "philosophical" conjecture given this part:
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.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

So, are there any compatibilists here willing to bring this all down out of the intellectual clouds?



Note to FJ:

How is this not a reasonable attempt on my part to explain both my misgivings about compatibilism and the manner in which the human brain pertaining to free will might be described as "of two minds".

Again, pertaining to abortion or a context of your own.

[Flannel Jesus]

Note to FJ:

How is this not a reasonable attempt on my part to explain both my misgivings about compatibilism and the manner in which the human brain pertaining to free will might be described as "of two minds".

Again, pertaining to abortion or a context of your own.

It may be a reasonable attempt to explain your misgivings about compatibilism. I don't know. What I do know is, contextually, neither me nor iwannaplato is asking you to explain your misgivings about compatibilism.

The focus is on one thing: your idea that compatibilists need to make an exception for determinism in human brains.

You keep saying compatibilists think that. Compatibilists don't think that. Compatibilists don't think brains are bifurcated into determined and undetermined parts. We're trying to have a conversation with you to ascertain why you think compatibilists think that, and/or help you to finally accept that compatibilists don't think that.

That's the focus here.

I've made a very clearly stated argument about why I think compatibilists don't think that, and why thinking that is actually directly contradictory to the very definition of compatibilism.

viewtopic.php?p=659356#p659356

[iambiguous]

Note to FJ:

How is this not a reasonable attempt on my part to explain both my misgivings about compatibilism and the manner in which the human brain pertaining to free will might be described as "of two minds".

Again, pertaining to abortion or a context of your own.

It may be a reasonable attempt to explain your misgivings about compatibilism. I don't know. What I do know is, contextually, neither me nor iwannaplato is asking you to explain your misgivings about compatibilism.

Still, just out of curiosity -- click -- in regard to Mary and abortion above or in regard to a moral conflagration that is of particular importance to you, encompass your own understanding of compatibilism and any agreements or disagreement you might have regarding it.

The focus is on one thing: your idea that compatibilists need to make an exception for determinism in human brains.

My main focus revolves around how the brain of a compatibilist functions such that one part of it believes that Mary was never able not to abort her unborn baby, while another part of it still insists that she is morally responsible for doing so. It's the same brain, right? But "somehow" it is able to reconcile what to my brain is not reconcilable at all.

Then that part where, in the dream where Mary has an abortion, her brain is clearly functioning beyond her "will". But: "in the dream" she does not think that she is dreaming at all. Okay, how is the waking brain "somehow" different when, in fact, Mary does have an abortion?

There are any number of more primitive, primordial brain parts we have little or no control over at all. And here some determinists suggests that, in fact, we have no control over any parts of it. Only the psychological illusion of control. Okay, but neither scientists nor philosophers are able [to the best of my current knowledge] to actually resolve it once and for all. It's just that the tools at their disposal are very different. Philosophers have definitions and deductions...arguments. Scientists have the experiential and the experimental components built into the "scientific method".

You keep saying compatibilists think that. Compatibilists don't think that. Compatibilists don't think brains are bifurcated into determined and undetermined parts. We're trying to have a conversation with you to ascertain why you think compatibilists think that, and/or help you to finally accept that compatibilists don't think that.

Again, my point is that their point may or may not involve a brain that, biologically, evolved into parts that function autonomically and parts that "somehow" acquired the psychological illusion of control. Or, instead, "somehow" evolved into a brain that really does have free will. God or No God.

I'm just back to grappling with how a single brain can reconcile determinism with moral responsibility. My brain isn't able to. Unless, of course, all of our brains are compelled by the laws of matter to think what they do only as they ever could think what they do in the only possible reality.

That's the focus here.

I've made a very clearly stated argument about why I think compatibilists don't think that, and why thinking that is actually directly contradictory to the very definition of compatibilism.

viewtopic.php?p=659356#p659356

Okay -- click -- let's examine it.

The root word of compatibilism is compatible. Of the 13 letters in compatibilism, the first 10 are exactly the same, and in the same order, as compatible. Compatibilism is, at its root, about a compatibility - if it wasn't, it would be a terrible misnomer. Compatibility between what? Free will and determinism, of course (or at least some specific notions of free will).

1] determinism as some construe it: Mary aborted her unborn baby. She aborted her unborn baby because she was never able not to abort it. She was never able not to abort it because her brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter as with all other matter is, compelled her to.
2] free will as some construe it: either through God or [in a No God universe] through the evolution of matter into biological, conscious, self-conscious human brains, human beings acquired the capacity to think through sets of circumstances and choose among alternative behaviors. Mary introspected on her pregnancy and of her own volition opted to terminate it.
3] compatibilism as some construe it...

Okay, are there any compatibilists following this exchange? You tell me how you think Mary's brain is functioning here in terms of determinism and moral responsibility.

If a compatibilist feels the need to make an exception to determinism, specifically in a human brain, in order for free will to exist to that compatibilist, then that says one thing clearly: that compatibilist does not believe free will and determinism are compatible.

Okay, say some determinists, but whatever the compatibilists think and feel about all of this, it is only because they were never actually free to think and to feel anything else. His or her wants and needs are entirely in sync with the only possible reality: one based on the laws of matter. The human brain being no exception.

If you need to make an exception to determinism in order to allow for free will, then you cannot be a compatibilist, because you do not believe the two things are compatible.

Again, how is this applicable to Mary? Everything that she thinks she needs, just like everything that the libertarians and hardcore determinists think they need, reflects only the inherent, necessary parameters of the only possible world.

If you do believe they are compatible, you don't need to make an exception. Determinism could be the case everywhere, all the time, including in every part of a human brain, and a compatibilist would still believe that free will was there.

But: You would still believe it only because you were never able not to believe it. So, the compatibilist reconciles an inevitable, wholly determined abortion with moral responsibility but only because every single component of their brain, in sync with the laws of matter, compels them to? Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that the compatibilist thinking that it is is?

Though once again, as I have noted any number of times, I am more than willing to concede that I am not following your argument in the most rational manner. But given how I understand determinism "here and now" I'm following it solely in the manner in which my own brain compels me to. So, all of our conclusions here are interchangeable in the only possible reality. If all of our brains compel us to think, feel, say and do things in the only possible sequence, what does it mean to speak of rational and irrational arguments.

Thus, this...

This is why I personally push back against this notion that compatibilists are making these arbitrary exceptions for human brains. It seems to me that that goes against what compatibilism means at its very roots. I've read plenty of literature by compatibilists and I feel confident in saying that, at least for the most part, published works by actual compatibilists conforms to what I've said above: that determinism and free will are fully compatible, and there is no need to make any exceptions for human brains or human behaviour whatsoever.

...may reflect the optimal frame of mind regarding compatibilism. But if you are noting it in a world where you were never able to freely opt to note anything other than that, what does it mean to come here and compare and contrast it with the only frame of mind that I was ever able to note?

It's all "at one" with the only possible reality in the only possible world.

[Flannel Jesus]

You're talking a lot about things that my post isn't concerned with. My post is focused on one thing and one thing only: this idea you have that compatibilists make an exception for determinism inside human brains. That's all I'm focused on. I'm not arguing for determinism. I'm not arguing for compatibilism. I'm arguing that you can improve your understanding of what compatibilism means.

Compatibilists do not think the thing you say they think. For compatibilists, there doesn't need to be an exception in human brains. If someone does think there needs to be one, they aren't a compatibilist by definition.

[iambiguous]

Okay, the bulk of my points above don't interest you enough to comment on.

Just this part:

You're talking a lot about things that my post isn't concerned with. My post is focused on one thing and one thing only: this idea you have that compatibilists make an exception for determinism inside human brains. That's all I'm focused on. I'm not arguing for determinism. I'm not arguing for compatibilism. I'm arguing that you can improve your understanding of what compatibilism means.

Compatibilists do not think the thing you say they think. For compatibilists, there doesn't need to be an exception in human brains. If someone does think there needs to be one, they aren't a compatibilist by definition.

So...

If you do believe they are compatible, you don't need to make an exception. Determinism could be the case everywhere, all the time, including in every part of a human brain, and a compatibilist would still believe that free will was there.

But: You would still believe it only because you were never able not to believe it. So, the compatibilist reconciles an inevitable, wholly determined abortion with moral responsibility but only because every single component of their brain, in sync with the laws of matter, compels them to? Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that the compatibilist thinking that it is is?

Click. I'm not clear regarding what is of most importance to you here.

Okay, Mary has the abortion. The compatibilist [as you understand one] says that she is morally responsible for "choosing" to in a wholly determined universe. One in which she could never have not aborted it. But, also, in a universe in which the compatibilist could never have not believed what she did either? Mary is not actually morally responsible for doing something she was never able not to do but the compatibilist can still "believe" that she is? Even though, in turn, her brain compels her to believe it?

[Flannel Jesus]

Click. I'm not clear regarding what is of most importance to you here.

I've been saying the same thing for a few posts now. Let's do a quick recap, see if it clears things up for you.

viewtopic.php?p=659356#p659356

If you need to make an exception to determinism in order to allow for free will, then you cannot be a compatibilist

You can see in that post that I'm questioning the claim that compatiblists take positions like the 'bifurcated brain' position which you have ascribed to them.

Iamb has said, in a number of different ways in various posts, over many months, that compatibilists seem to think humans, or human behaviour, or human brains are somehow an exception to deterministic physics. That for compatibilists, all of physics is deterministic except the physics involved in producing human decisions. The most recent phrasing of this idea is in the "bifurcated brain" idea presented in the last page.

If you need to make an exception to determinism in order to allow for free will, then you cannot be a compatibilist

In that post, I'm pushing back against your idea that compatibilists make exceptions for determinism in human brains - the 'bifurcated brain', as you put it.

viewtopic.php?p=659531#p659531

The focus is on one thing: your idea that compatibilists need to make an exception for determinism in human brains.

You keep saying compatibilists think that. Compatibilists don't think that. Compatibilists don't think brains are bifurcated into determined and undetermined parts.

In this post, I'm very explicit about my focus. Once again, I'm saying compatibilists do not believe the thing you say they believe. They do not believe that brains have to be bifurcated into determinied and undetermined slices.

viewtopic.php?p=659620#p659620

Compatibilists do not think the thing you say they think. For compatibilists, there doesn't need to be an exception in human brains. If someone does think there needs to be one, they aren't a compatibilist by definition.

In that, my most recent post (prior to this one of course), I once again reiterate the same point.

You say you are not clear regarding what's important to me here. I've been talking about one single thing over and over and over again though. I have said it explicitly across numerous posts. I believe that if you try to understand what I've been saying, it will be perfectly clear to you what's important to me here. Do you see the singular focus across all these different posts?

Just in case you still don't, I will spell it out again: the only thing I've been talking about throughout all these posts is that you think that compatibilists make exceptions for determinism inside human brains. That is not what compatibilists think.

Is it clear now?

[Iwannaplato]

IOW Iambiguous: you could try to resolve the bifuricated brain issue with FJ

and then move on to other points.

You seem to want to solve the entire issue in every post. But in a discussion where people are discussing potentially complicated issues, it often makes sense to take things step by step.

And it might actually be important, as crazy as it might sound, to find out what compatibilism is before then applying it to moral situations.

Even if you think this is not the case, you could out of courtesy focus on the 'are parts of brains not determined while others are in compatiblist models?' issue.... And then once that is resolved, if it can be, move on to the next steps.

You've brought it up a number of times, even after objections were raised. Does it matter that you might be confused about what compatibilism entails, in a thread about compatibilism and morals?

[iambiguous]

Click. I'm not clear regarding what is of most importance to you here.

I've been saying the same thing for a few posts now. Let's do a quick recap, see if it clears things up for you.

viewtopic.php?p=659356#p659356

If you need to make an exception to determinism in order to allow for free will, then you cannot be a compatibilist

You can see in that post that I'm questioning the claim that compatiblists take positions like the 'bifurcated brain' position which you have ascribed to them.

Iamb has said, in a number of different ways in various posts, over many months, that compatibilists seem to think humans, or human behaviour, or human brains are somehow an exception to deterministic physics. That for compatibilists, all of physics is deterministic except the physics involved in producing human decisions. The most recent phrasing of this idea is in the "bifurcated brain" idea presented in the last page.

If you need to make an exception to determinism in order to allow for free will, then you cannot be a compatibilist

In that post, I'm pushing back against your idea that compatibilists make exceptions for determinism in human brains - the 'bifurcated brain', as you put it.

viewtopic.php?p=659531#p659531

The focus is on one thing: your idea that compatibilists need to make an exception for determinism in human brains.

You keep saying compatibilists think that. Compatibilists don't think that. Compatibilists don't think brains are bifurcated into determined and undetermined parts.

In this post, I'm very explicit about my focus. Once again, I'm saying compatibilists do not believe the thing you say they believe. They do not believe that brains have to be bifurcated into determinied and undetermined slices.

viewtopic.php?p=659620#p659620

Compatibilists do not think the thing you say they think. For compatibilists, there doesn't need to be an exception in human brains. If someone does think there needs to be one, they aren't a compatibilist by definition.

In that, my most recent post (prior to this one of course), I once again reiterate the same point.

You say you are not clear regarding what's important to me here. I've been talking about one single thing over and over and over again though. I have said it explicitly across numerous posts. I believe that if you try to understand what I've been saying, it will be perfectly clear to you what's important to me here. Do you see the singular focus across all these different posts?

Just in case you still don't, I will spell it out again: the only thing I've been talking about throughout all these posts is that you think that compatibilists make exceptions for determinism inside human brains. That is not what compatibilists think.

Is it clear now?

Again, from my own rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein point of view, I responded to that above:

But: You would still believe it only because you were never able not to believe it. So, the compatibilist reconciles an inevitable, wholly determined abortion with moral responsibility but only because every single component of their brain, in sync with the laws of matter, compels them to? Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that the compatibilist thinking that it is is?

Then...

Okay, Mary has the abortion. The compatibilist [as you understand one] says that she is morally responsible for "choosing" to in a wholly determined universe. One in which she could never have not aborted it. But, also, in a universe in which the compatibilist could never have not believed what she did either? Mary is not actually morally responsible for doing something she was never able not to do but the compatibilist can still "believe" that she is? Even though, in turn, her brain compels her to believe it?

Then this part:

...just out of curiosity -- click -- in regard to Mary and abortion above or in regard to a moral conflagration that is of particular importance to you, encompass your own understanding of compatibilism and any agreements or disagreement you might have regarding it.

Over and over again, I make it quite clear that my own interest in determinism, free will and compatibilism revolves around human volition [or the lack thereof] and moral responsibility.

Given a particular set of circumstances like abortion.

Now, sure, what you are arguing may be even more important to pin down. But, if it is, you have not convinced me of it. Let's zero in here on this:

But: You would still believe it only because you were never able not to believe it. So, the compatibilist reconciles an inevitable, wholly determined abortion with moral responsibility but only because every single component of their brain, in sync with the laws of matter, compels them to? Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that the compatibilist thinking that it is is?

[Flannel Jesus]

Those don't look to me like responses to the thing I said.

[iambiguous]

IOW Iambiguous: you could try to resolve the bifuricated brain issue with FJ

and then move on to other points.

I did. Above. But he is convinced that I have not done so at all. A failure to communicate. But that happens all the time here when the discussions revolve around moral and political value judgments, around God, religion and spirituality, around the Big Questions. He's convinced I am not getting his point; I'm convinced he is not getting mine.

You seem to want to solve the entire issue in every post. But in a discussion where people are discussing potentially complicated issues, it often makes sense to take things step by step.

And it might actually be important, as crazy as it might sound, to find out what compatibilism is before then applying it to moral situations.

Right, like there is an established APA grasp of it. Again, what I asked of FJ is to respond specifically to this:

But: You would still believe it only because you were never able not to believe it. So, the compatibilist reconciles an inevitable, wholly determined abortion with moral responsibility but only because every single component of their brain, in sync with the laws of matter, compels them to? Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that the compatibilist thinking that it is is?

Can he be clearer about that? Can you?

Even if you think this is not the case, you could out of courtesy focus on the 'are parts of brains not determined while others are in compatiblist models?' issue.... And then once that is resolved, if it can be, move on to the next steps.

From my frame of mind, I was. Only I am the very first to acknowledge this: that the odds of my own understanding of all this being even remotely close to the optimal understanding of it going all the way back to how the human condition itself fits into the optimal understanding of how and why existence itself exist...?

You've brought it up a number of times, even after objections were raised. Does it matter that you might be confused about what compatibilism entails, in a thread about compatibilism and morals?

So, you are not confused about it? Okay, as with FL, I'll take this...

...just out of curiosity -- click -- in regard to Mary and abortion above or in regard to a moral conflagration that is of particular importance to you, encompass your own understanding of compatibilism and any agreements or disagreement you might have regarding it.

...to you as well.

[Flannel Jesus]

You've written pages and pages of content about compatibilism. I think it's reasonable to suppose that, for someone with such a keen interest in compatibilism, understanding the very basics of what compatibilism means would also be of interest to you.

When you say things like this:

Again, as though when mindless matter evolved into biological matter evolved into brain matter evolved into us, the brains of human beings "somehow" bifurcated "internally" into autonomous motivations and values...as opposed to all other matter that is entirely compelled by the laws of matter.

it sounds like you're saying that compatibilists think that there's some piece of brains that is not under the laws of physics. I would like to clarify this issue for you: compatibilists do not think that. Compatibilists believe determinism is compatible with free will, they do not feel the need to create an exception for determinism in some part of the human brain.

I hope this will help you to improve your writings about compatibilism in the future.

[iambiguous]

Those don't look to me like responses to the thing I said.

Okay, then we're stuck. And that happens all the time here, doesn't it? Failures to communicate. Indeed, going all the way back to the pre-Socratics there are lots and lots of things philosophers still disagree about in regard to "I" in the is/ought world. Scientists making all of this astounding progress in regard to the either/or world and but philosophers in the is/ought world...?

But: even in regard to the Big Questions like determinism, science is no match. At least so far.

On the other hand, given 1] my own understanding of the profound limitations of philosophy in regard to conflicting value judgments and the Big Questions, and 2] the role that dasein plays, that's basically what I expect.

Anyway, back to this...

But: You would still believe it only because you were never able not to believe it. So, the compatibilist reconciles an inevitable, wholly determined abortion with moral responsibility but only because every single component of their brain, in sync with the laws of matter, compels them to? Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that the compatibilist thinking that it is is?

And this...

...just out of curiosity -- click -- in regard to Mary and abortion above or in regard to a moral conflagration that is of particular importance to you, encompass your own understanding of compatibilism and any agreements or disagreement you might have regarding it.

How about this: we just presume that your own understanding of compatibilism is the correct one. How then is it applicable to Mary's abortion or a moral conflagration you prefer to focus in on.