compatibilism

[uwot]

Call it determination, decision, assertion, judgment, choice. Whatever you call it - it's the same idea.

If you say so, but all of them are different to determinism.

Indeed. The point is: would determinations I reached by my own autonomous efforts be different to any that result from my thought processes being the product of inexorable causal chains?

They would be different. IF you could determine a difference.

Well, my belief is that you can't.

...I have determined that I cannot determine whether any aspect of my mind is NOT subject to cause and effect.

Great, so we agree.

[Belinda]

Experts in materia medica, anatomy, and the philosopher Spinoza circumvent the changeable quality of social languages by the use of a dead language such as Latin.
Physicists sometimes cleverly invent shortish words when they need them so some physicists' jargon is not borrowed from any language except for phonemes. If you want to use the correct jargon of modern philosophers get a good dictionary of philosophy, and a short paperback students' edition is good enough.

In the jargon there is a precise enough meaning of "determined' and 'determinism' when contrasted with 'free will' which itself has a precise enough meaning.
How Free are You by Ted Honderich (short paperback edition) is a sufficient introduction and discussion of the problem. Honderich is a determinist who, as I recall, does not discuss the psychological benefit of the layman's intuitive free will belief.

Spinoza also is a determinist whose philosophy explained in his major work Ethics leads to belief in God, the God of pantheism but not necessarily the Jewish or the Christian God. Spinozan determinism also leads to the eternal values of reason and freedom.

[Skepdick]

Great, so we agree.

I have no idea how to determine if that's true.

You keep determining that you are a non-determinist.
I have determined that I can't determine whether I am a determinist or a non-determinist.

Apparently there's a difference...

[uwot]

Great, so we agree.

I have no idea how to determine if that's true.

You could try reading what I actually write.

You keep determining that you are a non-determinist.

What I have said is that I don't believe thought processes are subject to determinism. I don't have to keep determining my beliefs; they are what I believe until something causes them to change.

I have determined that I can't determine whether I am a determinist or a non-determinist.
Apparently there's a difference...

It's very simple: you either believe your beliefs are caused by processes over which you have no control, or you don't.

[Skepdick]

Great, so we agree.

I have no idea how to determine if that's true.

You could try reading what I actually write.

You keep determining that you are a non-determinist.

What I have said is that I don't believe thought processes are subject to determinism. I don't have to keep determining my beliefs; they are what I believe until something causes them to change.

I have determined that I can't determine whether I am a determinist or a non-determinist.

Not only do I read what you say I also understand it.

On the other hand I could accuse you of failing to understand...

You have arrived at the belief (I presume by determination/assertion/judgment of some sort) that your thought processes are not determined. I hear it and I understand it.

It's very simple: you either believe your beliefs are caused by processes over which you have no control, or you don't.

It's not at all that simple

I keep saying and you keep not understanding... I can't determine which one of those things I should believe, so I believe neither.

I can't determine so I have NOT determined. Therefore I am a non-determinist.

[uwot]

You have arrived at the belief (I presume by determination/assertion/judgment of some sort) that your thought processes are not determined. I hear it and I understand it.

There is no need to presume anything. Here is where I told you why I am not a determinist:

I am not a determinist for the simple reason that I don't like the idea.

It's very simple: you either believe your beliefs are caused by processes over which you have no control, or you don't.

It's not at all that simple

I keep saying and you keep not understanding... I can't determine which one of those things I should believe, so I believe neither.

It really is that simple: if you don't believe that your thought processes are determined by forces beyond your control, you are not a determinist. I don't believe that thought processes are determined by forces beyond my control; that does not commit me to any other belief.

I can't determine so I have NOT determined. Therefore I am a non-determinist.

Whatever you mean by "non-determinist" it clearly isn't the same as my "not a determinist".

[iambiguous]

For me, it's the fourth point, not the first.

Click.

Okay, fair enough.

Just resolve the connundrum I've been putting to you, namely, "If Determinism is true, how come nobody ever lives as a Determinist?"

As though the argument that people live as though they have free will could not possibly be but a psychological illusion that too is built into a human brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

It could, of course. But now we have to deal with the probility of such a hypothesis.

As though in dealing with the probability of such a hypothesis this too isn't but a psychological illusion built into a human brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

And we can go back and forth here making points that we were never able to not make.

But the bottom line doesn't change: the gap between what any of us think we know about lifeless/mindless matter "somehow" evolving into living/mindful matter here on planet Earth -- us -- and what science may or may not one day be able to disclose definitively regarding human will.

Instead [like me] it's straight back up into the "analytical" clouds...

What purely-mechanical or material feature of the Deterministic universe would produce intelligent beings, but beings that cannot live as if Determinism were true? That would require some very interesting explanation.

Well, don't expect to get the explanation from me.

Then your own "natural" explanation...

The more natural hypothesis would be that the intelligent beings in question are simply not wrong about having volition of their own.

"Natural" meaning that, intuitively, viscerally "in your gut" you "just know" this is the case?

After all, beyond that where's your own experiential/experimental evidence to actually demonstrate it?

As for neurological findings, Henry was recommending the work of Dr. Wilder Penfield, which is most certainly an example of very winsome work by a neurologist that implies the existence of free will. But if you won't look at his evidence, then you're not going to find out you're simply wrong about there being no such evidence. He's certainly a case that shows there is.

Okay, given the existence of free will, entice me to explore that with the most potent proof that he offers.

[henry quirk]

Okay, given the existence of free will, entice me to explore that with the most potent proof that he offers.

You could google it...

6772A86D-806D-47A7-8840-E0444A48245C.jpeg

...and find summaries for yourself.

I encourage it (mostly to deprive you of the opportunity to dismiss what Mannie might post as bein' skewed or biased).

Even better: read the book.

I suspect you won't read it, or search for summaries, cuz...

With some, it doesn't seem to be about whether or not the evidence actually exists; it seems to be more a case of, "You can't prove to me anything from something I staunchly refuse to know."

[Immanuel Can]

Just resolve the connundrum I've been putting to you, namely, "If Determinism is true, how come nobody ever lives as a Determinist?"

As though the argument that people live as though they have free will could not possibly be but a psychological illusion that too is built into a human brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

It could, of course. But now we have to deal with the probility of such a hypothesis.

As though in dealing with the probability of such a hypothesis this too isn't but a psychological illusion

Yeah...I get what you're doing. You don't want to answer the question.

What purely-mechanical or material feature of the Deterministic universe would produce intelligent beings, but beings that cannot live as if Determinism were true? That would require some very interesting explanation.

Well, don't expect to get the explanation from me.

Yes, I'm seeing that.

Having asked the question many times, and having given ample time for a sensible reply to come back, and having received nothing but a bunch of denials that the question can even be entertained, I'm reasonably convinced there will be no serious reply.

Okay, given the existence of free will, entice me to explore that with the most potent proof that he offers.

No, I think I'll put the ball in your court. You know where the book is, and you can consider the evidence for yourself. With me, I have to conclude you have no serious intention of discussion.

Now, when I started thinking about it, I actually cared about the subject: and I've read books on both sides of the issue, and purchased and read from cover to cover the book Henry was pointing out. It's very illuminating and highly suggestive that Determinism is a superficial and errant hypothesis. Much more than physical stuff is going on here. But you could read one of the essays of a person like Jaegwon Kim or Thomas Nagel, and find other good arguments. However, you asked for a neurological, empirical argument, and I've pointed one out.

But to be frank, I think you actually sense that, and I'm not sure you actually care at all. I think you simply prefer tho keep thinking that Determinism is true, sans evidence, though what your real motives are in refusing to think about it, I cannot say. Your intransigence on answering a very reasonable question and your refusal to seek evidence convince me that you've found as much information at you are actually interested in getting.

So the book is available if you want it. If you don't want that argument, I can't force it on you.

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

What purely-mechanical or material feature of the Deterministic universe would produce intelligent beings, but beings that cannot live as if Determinism were true?

There is no behaviour that could prove determinism is not true, nor any to prove that it is. It's a stupid argument.

[Belinda]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

What purely-mechanical or material feature of the Deterministic universe would produce intelligent beings, but beings that cannot live as if Determinism were true?

There is no behaviour that could prove determinism is not true, nor any to prove that it is. It's a stupid argument.

Evolution of species by natural selection generated insightful experiences in men and perhaps some other animals. Intelligence means ability to learn from experience.

Learning from experience implies that all events are caused, hence the age old quest for causes of events.

[Immanuel Can]

Learning from experience implies that all events are caused,

Actually, the opposite is true.

If a person can "learn" at all, then Determinism isn't true. Because Determinism holds that "learning," being a merely cognitive state, a mind state, is utterly incapable of commencing any causal chain. So "learning" for Determinists, has to be considered what they call an "epiphenomenon," by which they mean, "something that 'supervenes upon' a physical state, but is not itself physical." (That's their wording, by the way, not mine.) Being non-physical, it cannot be regarded as part of any physical causal chain.

In short, people actually don't "learn" at all: rather, the predetermined physical causes make them change state. That's all.

[Belinda]

Learning from experience implies that all events are caused,

Actually, the opposite is true.

If a person can "learn" at all, then Determinism isn't true. Because Determinism holds that "learning," being a merely cognitive state, a mind state, is utterly incapable of commencing any causal chain. So "learning" for Determinists, has to be considered what they call an "epiphenomenon," by which they mean, "something that 'supervenes upon' a physical state, but is not itself physical." (That's their wording, by the way, not mine.) Being non-physical, it cannot be regarded as part of any physical causal chain.

In short, people actually don't "learn" at all: rather, the predetermined physical causes make them change state. That's all.

Learning is not all or nothing but relates to the learner. The public criterion for quality of learned ideas is reason.

Moreover, states of mind are among the causes of change. Mind is not an epiphenomenon; mind is the fiat itself.

[uwot]

Evolution of species by natural selection generated insightful experiences in men and perhaps some other animals.

As far as I can gather, Mr Can believes living "as if Determinism were true" means staying in bed all day. It's hard to see how natural selection would favour such behaviour; I fancy evolution would ensure it didn't dominate. This is a more accurate picture of what a determinist looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY I'm not convinced that intelligence is much of an evolutionary advantage. For all the examples of intelligence in animals, including ourselves, there are many more organisms that thrive with a fraction of our intellect.

[Age]

Call it determination, decision, assertion, judgment, choice. Whatever you call it - it's the same idea.

If you say so, but all of them are different to determinism.

Indeed. The point is: would determinations I reached by my own autonomous efforts be different to any that result from my thought processes being the product of inexorable causal chains?

They would be different. IF you could determine a difference.

Well, my belief is that you can't.

And, while you have and maintain a BELIEF, then you are NOT OPEN to ANY 'thing' otherwise.

...I have determined that I cannot determine whether any aspect of my mind is NOT subject to cause and effect.

Great, so we agree.