compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

Let's look at Wikipedia, see if we can get any hints. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.[1]

Compatibilists believe that freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.[2] In other words, that causal determinism does not exclude the truth of possible future outcomes.[3] Because free will is seen as a necessary prerequisite for moral responsibility, compatibilism is often used to support compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

Compatibilism is the belief that determinism and free will are compatible. Not that the universe needs an exception to determinism in order for free will to exist - it doesn't say anything about exceptions there. The two things are compatible.

It stands to reason that if there did need to be an exception to determinism in order for free will to exist, that the two things would not be compatible. If you need an exception to one to allow for the other, they are not compatible.

Please let me know if you see anything in the Wikipedia page talking about compatibilists needing exceptions to determinism. I have looked and have not found that.

[Flannel Jesus]

Stanford has some great articles on philosophy, including compatibilism. Let's look at what they have to say. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comp ... /#ClasComp

For the classical compatibilist, free will is an ability to do what one wants. It is therefore plausible to conclude that the truth of determinism does not entail that agents lack free will since it does not entail that agents never do what they wish to do, nor that agents are necessarily encumbered in acting. Compatibilism is thus vindicated.

"Determinism does not entail that agents lack free will." That seems pretty clear and unambiguous. It's not saying that compatibilists need to carve out exceptions to determinism, it's saying determinism and free will are perfectly, fully, completely compatible. No exception necessary. No bifurcated brain necessary.

Please let me know if you find anything in that article implying exceptions inside bifurcated brains are necessary for compatibilists.

[iambiguous]

Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that as a compatibilist you think that it is is?[/b]

Well... No, I haven't been concluding anything like that, I've been focused on one thing very clearly: the question of if compatibilists believe the thing you say compatibilists believe.

Note to others:

Are you a compatibilist? What say you?

Or, if not, do you know of others who are? If so, then -- click -- please invite them here in order to react to the points that FJ and I are making.

You have a thread over 200 pages long where you review compatibilist literature that you find online. It seems to me that you might be interested in correcting any misunderstandings of what compatibilism even is, since if you don't have that down, everything else said about compatibilism across these 200 pages might just be entirely moot. So, I'm here to help you improve your understanding of what compatibilism means.

And around and around we go. My interest in compatibilism revolves almost entirely around the "for all practical purposes" implications of determinism in the is/ought world. If by determinism one means this: that everything we think and feel and say and do is inherently/necessarily derived from a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter. And, if this is the case, how one can then hold Mary morally responsible for aborting her unborn baby.

Unless, in holding her responsible, that too is just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

Compatibilism does not mean making exceptions for determinism inside human brains.

What can I say...

What are the "for all practical purposes" implications of that when Mary's brain compels her to have an abortion?

Also, if there are no exceptions and your brain compelled you to post that, and my brain compelled me to post this and the brains of others here compel them to react as they do...?

All of our brains wholly in sync with the only possible reality? It's just that nature compels some of our brains to believe that this is not the only possible reality...that we react to the world around us of our own volition. Whereas the brains of others here are compelled to believe that this is just a manifestation of the "psychological illusion" of free will. That human psychology itself unfolds in the only possible manner in the only possible world.

Then tapping the neuroscientists on the shoulder and asking them to confirm it scientifically one way or the other.

Then going here -- https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gle+Search -- and clicking on various links to note what the hard guys and gals are concluding about all the stuff we discuss here with our dueling definitions and deductions.

With out philosophical arguments.

[Flannel Jesus]

Compatibilism does not mean making exceptions for determinism inside human brains.

What can I say...

Well, there's quite a large range of possibilities.

One is, "You know what flannel, you're right. I've reviewed the links you've posted about compatibilism, and I can't see anything about bifurcated brains with indeterministic pieces in it anywhere, so I'm going to stop saying that from now on". That's one possibility.

Another one is, "Actually, I disagree, and here are the reasons I disagree". You could totally go that direction.

What are the "for all practical purposes" implications of that when Mary's brain compels her to have an abortion?

One step at a time. First you have to understand what compatibilism is before you concern yourself with the implications of it. Your current understanding of compatibilism, involving bifurcated brains with indeterministic parts, is in fact not what compatibilists believe. A good step would be letting go of that.

[Iwannaplato]

Compatibilism does not mean making exceptions for determinism inside human brains.

What can I say...

Well, there's quite a large range of possibilities.

One is, "You know what flannel, you're right. I've reviewed the links you've posted about compatibilism, and I can't see anything about bifurcated brains with indeterministic pieces in it anywhere, so I'm going to stop saying that from now on". That's one possibility.

Another one is, "Actually, I disagree, and here are the reasons I disagree". You could totally go that direction.

What are the "for all practical purposes" implications of that when Mary's brain compels her to have an abortion?

One step at a time. First you have to understand what compatibilism is before you concern yourself with the implications of it. Your current understanding of compatibilism, involving bifurcated brains with indeterministic parts, is in fact not what compatibilists believe. A good step would be letting go of that.

There's a difference between someone who, due to a committment to a philosophical stance, qualifies, in general with something like...

But I could be wrong.

and somone who can in a specific instance
admit they made a mistake or was wrong.

One of Iambiguous' main projects is anti-objectivist and he sees objectivists as being completely certain they are correct.
So officially he contrasts himself with them. He will often end his posts with a general

Unless I am wrong.

Or something similar.

But in practice he cannot admit he is wrong, for reasons unknown.

And here you have him implicitly saying something like 'Oh, it doesn't really matter for Mary, this whole bifuricated brain issue, and her guilt or lack of in relation to her abortion.'

A mature person could manage to admit he or she had made a mistake, concede the point, then focus on what you are saying compatibilism actually is, and then, after understanding that come back to the abortion issue.

I'm not as polite as you. I watch you patiently just come back to the point again and again, while he disrespectfully evades, or earlier mocked, or condescends or even, ironically will take the implicit moral high ground.

I admire your approach. I hope for both your sakes he can manage to admit his error, realize that his whole world doesn't come crashing down, and you both can then, after a while discuss Mary and her abortion in the context of compatibilism and not the odd dualistic philosophy he is arguing against.

And, of course, his being wrong about this point, does not mean his abortion conundrum is somehow solved by compatibilism.

[Atla]

No, seriously.

Let's find out the reason. iambiguous, what prevents you from admitting that you're wrong on an issue, for example on the definition of compatibilism?

[iambiguous]

Compatibilism does not mean making exceptions for determinism inside human brains.

What can I say...

Well, there's quite a large range of possibilities.

One is, "You know what flannel, you're right. I've reviewed the links you've posted about compatibilism, and I can't see anything about bifurcated brains with indeterministic pieces in it anywhere, so I'm going to stop saying that from now on". That's one possibility.

Another one is, "Actually, I disagree, and here are the reasons I disagree". You could totally go that direction.

Note to others:

You tell me.

I have noted the manner in which I construe compatibilism as the embodiment of "two minds": Yes, Mary was compelled by her brain to abort Jane. Yes, Mary is still morally responsible.

And then this part:

You would still believe what you do about the morality of Mary's abortion only because you were never able not to believe it? So, you reconcile an inevitable, wholly determined abortion with moral responsibility but only because every single component of your brain, in sync with the laws of matter, compels you to? Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that as a compatibilist you think that it is is?

And...

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?

What are the "for all practical purposes" implications of that when Mary's brain compels her to have an abortion?

One step at a time. First you have to understand what compatibilism is before you concern yourself with the implications of it. Your current understanding of compatibilism, involving bifurcated brains with indeterministic parts, is in fact not what compatibilists believe. A good step would be letting go of that.

And around and around and around we still go.

Again: Note what you construe compatibilists do believe. Then -- click -- note how these technically correct, APA approved compatibilists would react to Mary's abortion.

[Flannel Jesus]

I have noted the manner in which I construe compatibilism as the embodiment of "two minds"

Nobody is asking you to note it. You noting something doesn't do anything for other people.

Instead, what is being asked is that you consider the evidence and arguments presented, and if you disagree, explain why. That would be much more productive than noting things.

[iambiguous]

Above I posted this:

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.

Iwannplato completely ignores the bulk of my post and focuses in only on this:

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.

To which I responded:

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?

Then this:

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.

Note how he simply ignores the bulk of the points I raise above.

And now this:

What can I say...

Well, there's quite a large range of possibilities.

One is, "You know what flannel, you're right. I've reviewed the links you've posted about compatibilism, and I can't see anything about bifurcated brains with indeterministic pieces in it anywhere, so I'm going to stop saying that from now on". That's one possibility.

Another one is, "Actually, I disagree, and here are the reasons I disagree". You could totally go that direction.

What are the "for all practical purposes" implications of that when Mary's brain compels her to have an abortion?

One step at a time. First you have to understand what compatibilism is before you concern yourself with the implications of it. Your current understanding of compatibilism, involving bifurcated brains with indeterministic parts, is in fact not what compatibilists believe. A good step would be letting go of that.

There's a difference between someone who, due to a committment to a philosophical stance, qualifies, in general with something like...

But I could be wrong.

and somone who can in a specific instance
admit they made a mistake or was wrong.

One of Iambiguous' main projects is anti-objectivist and he sees objectivists as being completely certain they are correct.
So officially he contrasts himself with them. He will often end his posts with a general

Unless I am wrong.

Or something similar.

But in practice he cannot admit he is wrong, for reasons unknown.

And here you have him implicitly saying something like 'Oh, it doesn't really matter for Mary, this whole bifuricated brain issue, and her guilt or lack of in relation to her abortion.'

A mature person could manage to admit he or she had made a mistake, concede the point, then focus on what you are saying compatibilism actually is, and then, after understanding that come back to the abortion issue.

I'm not as polite as you. I watch you patiently just come back to the point again and again, while he disrespectfully evades, or earlier mocked, or condescends or even, ironically will take the implicit moral high ground.

I admire your approach. I hope for both your sakes he can manage to admit his error, realize that his whole world doesn't come crashing down, and you both can then, after a while discuss Mary and her abortion in the context of compatibilism and not the odd dualistic philosophy he is arguing against.

And, of course, his being wrong about this point, does not mean his abortion conundrum is somehow solved by compatibilism.

Of course: Stooge mode. Making it all about me.



And it still sounds like a personal problem to me. He doesn't like me. Again, I have my own rooted existentially in dasein suspicions regarding that. In other words, why he doesn't like me.

Let him choose a moral conflagration of note. Let us exchange our moral philosophies in regard to it. Let's see if I can bring to the surface what I suspect it is that most disturbs him about me.

Assuming, of course, we do live in a free will universe.

[iambiguous]

Let's look at Wikipedia, see if we can get any hints. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.[1]

Compatibilists believe that freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.[2] In other words, that causal determinism does not exclude the truth of possible future outcomes.[3] Because free will is seen as a necessary prerequisite for moral responsibility, compatibilism is often used to support compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

Compatibilism is the belief that determinism and free will are compatible. Not that the universe needs an exception to determinism in order for free will to exist - it doesn't say anything about exceptions there. The two things are compatible.

It stands to reason that if there did need to be an exception to determinism in order for free will to exist, that the two things would not be compatible. If you need an exception to one to allow for the other, they are not compatible.

Please let me know if you see anything in the Wikipedia page talking about compatibilists needing exceptions to determinism. I have looked and have not found that.

Again -- click -- how is the above applicable or not applicable to this:

[Compatibilists] believe what they do only because they were never able not to believe it. So, compatibilists reconcile 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 they are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that the compatibilists thinking that it is is?

And, as always, I'm the first to admit that, given free will, I'm the one here not grasping this correctly.

It simply makes no sense to me "here and now" that if Mary was unable not to abort her unborn baby, that she can still be held morally responsible for doing so. Unless, when someone does hold her morally responsible, they do so, in turn, only because they were never able not to...in a world where all of our brains are entirely in sync with the laws of matter. And thus everything that we think and feel and say and do is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the only possible reality.

Then "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" in regard to grasping how the human condition fits into the ontological -- teleological? -- understanding of the existence of existence itself.

[iambiguous]

Stanford has some great articles on philosophy, including compatibilism. Let's look at what they have to say. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comp ... /#ClasComp

For the classical compatibilist, free will is an ability to do what one wants. It is therefore plausible to conclude that the truth of determinism does not entail that agents lack free will since it does not entail that agents never do what they wish to do, nor that agents are necessarily encumbered in acting. Compatibilism is thus vindicated.

"Determinism does not entail that agents lack free will." That seems pretty clear and unambiguous. It's not saying that compatibilists need to carve out exceptions to determinism, it's saying determinism and free will are perfectly, fully, completely compatible. No exception necessary. No bifurcated brain necessary.

Please let me know if you find anything in that article implying exceptions inside bifurcated brains are necessary for compatibilists.

On the other hand...

"Compatibilists are unable to present a rational argument that supports their belief in the existence of free will in a deterministic universe, except by defining determinism and/or free will in a way that is a watered-down version of one or both of the two concepts." Quora

Just Google "why compatibilism is wrong": https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gle+Search

Click on a couple links and then get back to us.

Well, assuming of course that you do have at least some measure of free will.

[Flannel Jesus]

You are still skipping past the issue instead of addressing it head on. You talk about these exceptions to determinism you think compatibilists believe in. I've provided what I think are some pretty compelling points for why that's a misunderstanding. Please consider what I've said.

[Flannel Jesus]

On the other hand...

"Compatibilists are unable to present a rational argument that supports their belief in the existence of free will in a deterministic universe, except by defining determinism and/or free will in a way that is a watered-down version of one or both of the two concepts." Quora

Just Google "why compatibilism is wrong": https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gle+Search

Click on a couple links and then get back to us.

Well, assuming of course that you do have at least some measure of free will.

I do not see how that's related to what I've been saying. I'm not trying to convince you of compatibilism, so links that argue against compatibilism are not relevant to what I'm saying here.

[iambiguous]

No, seriously.

Let's find out the reason. iambiguous, what prevents you from admitting that you're wrong on an issue, for example on the definition of compatibilism?

Okay, I'll roll the dice here and actually take you seriously.

First off, I have made it clear before that, sure, I may be completely wrong about compatibilism.

In fact, over the years...

...I once had to admit to myself that I was wrong about Christianity, then wrong about Unitarianism then wrong about Objectivism then wrong about Marxism then wrong about Leninism then wrong about Trotskyism then wrong about Democratic Socialism then wrong about the Social Democrats then wrong about objectivism altogether.

Anyway,, my main argument revolves around the fact that given what mere mortals here on planet Earth don't grasp regarding 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.

...how on Earth would we go about pinning down which of us here actually is either right or wrong?

As for definitions, my "thing" here is more about asking those who believe that their own definition of compatibilism is the correct one to bring that definition out of the dictionary and note its applicability to Mary aborting her unborn baby/clump of cells.

She could never have not "chosen" to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells, but others can still choose to hold her morally responsible for doing so?

[iambiguous]

You are still skipping past the issue instead of addressing it head on. You talk about these exceptions to determinism you think compatibilists believe in. I've provided what I think are some pretty compelling points for why that's a misunderstanding. Please consider what I've said.

Again, we're stuck. I don't think I am skipping past the issue at all. Instead, I think that you keep skipping past the issues I raise.