compatibilism

[Age]

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 that so-called, "good dictionary of philosophy", how, EXACTLY, does it define or explain what 'philosophy', itself, is, EXACTLY?

And, what happens if the 'dictionary' I have has a different definition from the dictionary you have, then is it ALWAYS 'your dictionary' that is the so-called 'good' one?

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.

If one HAS TO read a whole book to find out the definition, or what the meaning, of a 'word' is, then NO WONDER 'you', adult human beings, were SO LOST and SO CONFUSED back in the days when this was being written.

To me, there is absolutely NO so-called 'problem' here, as HOT TO SOLVE ALL of these so-called 'problems' has ALREADY been RESOLVED.

Oh, and by the way, what, EXACTLY, is the 'precise' meaning of the words 'determined' and 'determinism'?

When they are PROVIDED, then we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS if those 'meanings' FIT IN WITH ALL of the other 'meanings', which EXPLAINS the WHOLE Universe, Itself.

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.

Can 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, REALLY NOT YET SEE, EXACTLY, WHY 'you' have NOT for thousands upon thousands of years been ABLE TO just FIND and SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' REALLY IS?

There is NO such 'thing' as a so-called "determinist", NOR ANY "other" 'label', which 'you', human beings, PLACE ONTO "yourselves".

But what there ACTUALLY Truly IS is human beings PLACING 'label' on EACH OTHER.

There are DIFFERENT 'thoughts' within ALL of those DIFFERENT 'human bodies'. Which is about as FUNDAMENTALLY as far as thee ACTUAL Truth is here.

OBVIOUSLY NOT one of 'you' has come up with thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', so BELIEVING ANY one has thee Truth here is just TOTALLY ABSURD.

To PROVE just how LOST and CONFUSED 'you' ALL ARE here, let us just take your last quoted here "belinda". There are NOT two adult human beings on earth who would have and use the EXACT SAME definitions nor meanings for EACH and EVERY word in that last quoted section, let two of 'you', posters, here.

And, I could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY PROVE this IRREFUTABLY True by just asking two of 'you' to define EVERY word in that quoted section.

The very REASON WHY 'you', adult human beings, have been 'arguing', 'quarreling', 'bickering', and 'fighting', for thousands upon thousands of years is BECAUSE 'you' ALL just HAVE and USE DIFFERENT definitions and meanings for the EXACT SAME 'words'.

So, to RE-SOLVE the 'PROBLEM' 'you have ALL found "yourselves" IN, for countless years now, is REALLY VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY.

1. Just come together PEACEFULLY and AGREE UPON the GOAL of ANY 'discussion'.

2 Just define the words you are going to use in a discussion, BEFORE the actual 'discussion' takes place, and ACCEPT and AGREE UPON those definitions and meanings for the words, which are going to be used.

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' in the WHOLE Universe is COMPATIBLE. Just working out HOW and WHY they ARE, leads to living in a Truly Peaceful AND Harmonious 'world' WITH EVERY one.

'you', adult human beings, have PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, of what NOT to do, for countless centuries now, NOW it is time FOR CHANGE, and to MAKE and CREATE the 'world' that 'you' ALL Truly WANT and DESIRE for "yourselves" and 'your children, thus EVERY one.

[Age]

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.

So, WHERE did 'thoughts', themselves, COME FROM, EXACTLY?

I don't have to keep determining my beliefs; they are what I believe until something causes them to change.

Could you PLEASE name the 'thing/s' that causes your human beings BELIEF to CHANGE?

Also, WHY do 'you' BELIEVE some 'things' are true, if what 'you' BELIEVE is 'true' could ACTUALLY be 'false', in the beginning, and thus could be CHANGED?

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.

WHY BELIEVE EITHER one?

Also, ALL 'thoughts' are 'determined' by past experiences BUT the ABILITY TO CHOOSE is 'free'.

AND, when what 'determinism' AND 'free will' ARE LOOKED AT from this perspective, then what is UNCOVERED and SEEN is that they, like EVERY 'thing' else, in the WHOLE Universe, is COMPATIBLE WITH EVERY 'thing' ELSE in the Universe.

There is NO 'one' OR 'the other' scenario, in absolutely ANY of these so-called 'philosophical discussions', which have been going on and on and on for thousands upon thousands of years.

'you' have ALL been FOOLED by a so-called "education system" that has TAUGHT 'you' to DEBATE, by TAKING a "side" and 'fighting' for "that side". When ALL ALONG there was NEVER ANY "side" AT ALL.

AND, be TAUGHT and DECEIVED that 'you' MUST BELIEVE in some 'thing', has TRICKED and FOOLED 'you', ONCE AGAIN, to BELIEVE in 'things' that were NOT even true to begin with.

[Age]

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.

Do you 'understand it' from the "other's" perspective, or from 'your' perspective?

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.

WHY 'should' ANY such 'things' be BELIEVED, to begin with?

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

'I' is, ACTUALLY, some 'thing' VERY DIFFERENT, and so are ALL of 'you' AS WELL.

[Age]

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.

If 'you' do not like the idea, 'human being', like 'you' do not like the idea, 'determinist', then would that make you 'not a determinist'?

If yes, then REALLY?

If no, then what is the DIFFERENCE here?

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".

REALLY?

And have you ONLY NOW just REALIZED 'this'?

That 'you' BOTH have been using DIFFERENT 'meanings' could be and can be CLEARLY SEEN from the outset of when 'you' started discussing this 'thing'.

The Fact that what EACH and EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, 'means' is NOT the SAME is OBVIOUS, as this can be CLEARLY SEEN, throughout this thread, this forum, this internet, your words, and your 'human history'.

The ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF is HERE for ALL to SEE.

The SOLE REASON 'you' are ALL DISAGREEING is just BECAUSE 'you' MEAN DIFFERENT 'things', in and with the SAME WORDS that 'you' are USING.

[Age]

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.

But this CAN BE EXPLAINED in just one word - CHANCE.

There is, after all, an INFINITE AMOUNT of 'time' for this to happen.

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.

I have NO idea what 'proof' that human being, supposedly, has.

BUT, the PROOF that 'free will' AND 'determinism' are BOTH factors at play here IS IRREFUTABLE, and thus REMAINS SO FOREVER MORE.

[Age]

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."

As I say, I have found it IMPOSSIBLE to SHOW ACTUAL PROOF while one is BELIEVING otherwise.

For example, if ANY one KNOWS HOW to PROVE God exists to one who BELIEVES otherwise, then PLEASE let us in on the secret, or conversely, if ANY one KNOWS HOW to PROVE God does NOT exist to one who BELIEVES otherwise, then also PLEASE let us in on the secret.

SEE, with some, like "immanuel can", for example, it does NOT matter one iota whether or not the evidence actually exists, it IS the case of, 'You can NOT PROVE to "immanuel can" ANY 'thing' from what 'it' staunchly refuses to KNOW". Like, for example, the God 'it' BELIEVES in does NOT exist, Or, even that 'determinsm' DOES EXIST.

And, this applies to EACH and EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, here, in this forum, and here in the days when this was being written.

[Age]

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.

Considering that 'you', "immanuel can", do NOT WANT to answer questions, and BLATANTLY just REFUSE TO, one could have envisioned you would have 'got what they are doing' some time ago.

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.

If you HAVE PROOF, "immanuel can", then WHY NOT just PROVIDE 'it'?

And, if in Reality 'you' do NOT YET have the ACTUAL PROOF, then what is 'it' that 'you' are basing your OWN BELIEFS on here, EXACTLY?

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.

Is a 'suggestion' REALLY some 'thing' one 'should' be basing their BELIEFS on, EXACTLY?

Are 'you' REALLY this 'suggestive' type of person?

If there is ANY ACTUAL PROOF, then I 'suggest' just PROVIDING 'IT'.

By the way, 'evidence' can be SEEN as being just as USELESS as 'suggestions' here.

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.

BUT, you appear to be COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of just PROVIDING ANY one of those so-called 'good arguments' here.

This could be construed as 'evidence' and even PROOF that REALLY there is NO ACTUAL 'good argument' AT ALL. Otherwise, WHY are 'you' KEEPING 'them' HIDDEN from 'us'?

Also, what is a 'good argument' to one is NOT a 'good argument' AT ALL, to "another".

AND, let us NOT FORGET that HOW 'you' read a book is NOT how "another" reads the SAME BOOK.

'you', adult human beings, can NOT even agree on the meaning of ONE word, let alone a WHOLE BOOK of words.

However, you asked for a neurological, empirical argument, and I've pointed one out.

I find this kind of discourse the MOST HILARIOUS to WATCH and OBSERVE among 'you', adult human beings.

"The proof for what I am saying is, 'in the book'. If you read the book, then you will find it".

LOL
LOL
LOL

If one has PROOF for their CLAIMS, then I suggest that they PROVIDE that, alleged and supposed, PROOF. Otherwise 'you' are REALLY NOT saying ANY 'thing' of ANY substance. As has been PROVED absolutely and IRREFUTABLY True for countless centuries now.

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.

The REAL 'motives' ARE the EXACT SAME as 'yours', "immanuel can". That is; you simply prefer to REFUSE to even LISTEN to what "another" says, which OPPOSES your current BELIEF, because if what they are SAYING PROVES you are Wrong or Incorrect, then you do NOT want to HEAR that. The sole purpose of a BELIEF is to BLOCK OUT and PREVENT absolutely ANY 'thing' OPPOSING the BELIEF from entering the 'person'.

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.

LOL
LOL
LOL

TALK ABOUT 'projection'. Are you going to go LOOKING FOR 'evidence' and/or 'proof' that 'determinism' exists or that God does NOT exist?

The Honest answer to this is OBVIOUSLY NOT.

And, ANY CLAIM that 'you' have ALREADY LOOKED FOR these 'things' is OBVIOUSLY False and a LIE. Otherwise, you would have ALREADY SEEN what thee ACTUAL Truth IS here. Which you OBVIOUSLY have NOT and STILL do NOT.

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

What 'argument'.

It does NOT take a WHOLE book to just present an 'argument' that there is absolutely NO 'determinism' EVER, and that there is ONLY 'free will'.

If there is an 'argument' for what you CLAIM 'here', then WHY NOT present 'that argument' 'here'?

What have you got to FEAR or LOSE "immanuel can"?

[Age]

...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.

THERE ACTUALLY IS. But some are just NOT YET OPEN to FINDING and SEEING 'this', in the days when this is being written.

The ACTUAL 'behavior', by the way, provides the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF of what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth is ALSO, by the way.

It's a stupid argument.

To me, that was NOT even an 'argument', let alone a 'stupid one'.

[Age]

...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.

This 'one' has ALSO been UNCOVERED and SOLVED.

The causes of so-called "events" is KNOWN, when what thee Universe ACTUALLY and how thee Universe ACTUALLY WORKS is UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN. Which, by the way, has ALREADY been worked out, and thus ALREADY KNOWN and WELL UNDERSTOOD.

[Age]

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.

Here is FURTHER IRREFUTABLE Truth of just how the people, back in those olden days, would say just ANY thing in the HOPE that it would back up and support what they ALREADY BELIEVED was true and right.

[Age]

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.

This thread here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of DEBATE and 'fighting' for "your side". Which is funny to WATCH, considering this thread's title.

These people, back then, REALLY had NOT YET even considered that there is NO "side" in the Universe, let alone worked out and had come to UNDERSTAND this Fact.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

If you believe that there even IS a "mind," let alone "reason" and "learning," then you are no Determinist.

[Belinda]

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.

If you believe that there even IS a "mind," let alone "reason" and "learning," then you are no Determinist.

Mind, reason, and learning are processes not things.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

If you believe that there even IS a "mind," let alone "reason" and "learning," then you are no Determinist.

Mind, reason, and learning are processes not things.

If you believe they are capable of altering anything at all, you're not a Determinist. And if they're not capable of altering anything at all, then in what sense can you believe that they "exist"?

[henry quirk]

Gosh, none of this is hard.

You're a Roomba or you're a person. A robot or a free will.

*Choose your poison.




*see what I did there? high-larious