compatibilism

[attofishpi]

What's wrong with everyone!?

Is this not an adequate thought experiment for the thread? Maybe you chaps don't want to reveal your cards..

IMO: I think after they speak at the time time, they soon manage to get to a normal discussion.
I think they don't draw on identical parts of the wall, close but not identical and definitely the same fruit, but slightly different drawings of them.


Boony’s Room

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him.

When you say, 'Two identical copies of "david boon" were made are you talking about 'the person' and/or 'the body'?

ffs, really? Stumble number 1. and you expect me to read further of your poorly comprehended crap.

[Iwannaplato]

Bears are, quite literally, shameless

LOL.
How could you say that?
They cannot help what they do.
And you can't help think that they are shameless.
And I can't help pointing that out.
And......

It's like a hoover sucking in itself till it's gone.....
but our hoover goes on accusing people of shameless behavior, being incredulous that other people believe what they believe with any confidence, believing things itself with great confidence, making arguments despite being potentially determined....
why can't Iambiguous meet himself. Then it's whoever is faster to pull the trigger on the

there's no way we can know anything conversation destroyer comment.

[Flannel Jesus]

Bears are, quite literally, shameless

LOL.
How could you say that?

Data point 1. Bears don't wear clothes. As we all know, humans wear clothes because humans are the only species capable of feeling shame.

Data point 2. You might say "Whinnie the pooh wears clothes". Look again. He's only wearing a top. He's still flopping out down below.

Shameless.

[Iwannaplato]

Data point 1. Bears don't wear clothes. As we all know, humans wear clothes because humans are the only species capable of feeling shame.

Data point 2. You might say "Whinnie the pooh wears clothes". Look again. He's only wearing a top. He's still flopping out down below.

Shameless.

Asian bears are another story.

[Flannel Jesus]

Pandas are damn cute. After all, they could never have not been. Existentially of course, based in dasein of course.

[Consul]

Here are classical statements of compatibilism:

"By LIBERTY, is understood, according to the proper signification of the word, the absence of external impediments: which impediments, may oft take away part of a man's power to do what he would; but cannot hinder him from using the power left him, according as his judgment, and reason shall dictate to him."

(Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Pt. I: Ch. XIV; §2)

"LIBERTY, or FREEDOM, signifieth (properly) the absence of opposition; (by opposition, I mean external impediments of motion;) and may be applied no less to irrational, and inanimate creatures, than to rational."

(Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Pt. II: Ch. XXI; §1)

"[A] FREEMAN, is he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he has a will to."
…
"[F]rom the use of the word free-will, no liberty can be inferred of the will, desire, or
inclination, but the liberty of the man; which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to do."

(Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Pt. II: Ch. XXI; §2)

"[L]iberty is the absence of all the impediments to action that are not contained in the nature and intrinsical quality of the agent."

(Hobbes, Thomas. "Of Liberty and Necessity." 1654. Reprinted in: D. D. Raphael, British Moralists 1650–1800, Vol. 1: Hobbes–Gay. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. p. 67)

"[A] free agent is he that can do if he will, and forbear if he will; and that liberty is the absence of external impediments. "

(Hobbes, Thomas. "Of Liberty and Necessity." 1654. Reprinted in: D. D. Raphael, British Moralists 1650–1800, Vol. 1: Hobbes–Gay. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. p. 68)

"Liberty…is the power a man has to do or forbear doing any particular action, according as its doing or forbearance has the actual preference in the mind, which is the same thing as to say, according as he himself wills it."

(Locke, John. An Essay concerning Human Understanding. 1690. Bk. II: Ch. XXI; §15.)

"By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may. Now this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one, who is not a prisoner and in chains. Here then is no subject of dispute."

(Hume, David. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. 1748. Sect. VIII: Pt. I; §23)

"[C]ompatibilists argue that to be free, as we ordinarily understand it, is (1) to have the power or ability to do what we want or desire to do, which in turn entails (2) an absence of constraints or impediments (such as physical restraints, coercion, and compulsion) preventing us from doing what we want. Let us call a view that defines freedom in terms of 1 and 2 'classical compatibilism'. Most traditional compatibilists, such as Hobbes, Hume, and Mill, were classical compatibilists in this sense."

(Kane, Robert. A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. p. 13)

Compatibilism trivializes the free-will problem, since we know we have compatibilist free will, in the sense that we can sometimes do what we choose/desire/intend/want to do without there being any external impediment or coercion.

The nontrivial and really interesting question is whether we also have libertarian free will, in the sense that we can perform actions or form decisions or intentions to action which are neither causally predetermined nor random.
According to libertarianism, given the total causal history of the world < time T, including agent A's total causal history < T, and A's deciding to do/doing X at T, A could have decided/done otherwise at T. Libertarians believe that…

"[E]ach of us, when we act, is a prime mover unmoved. In doing what we do, we cause certain events to happen, and nothing—or no one—causes us to cause those events to happen."

(Chisholm, Roderick M. On Metaphysics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1989. p. 12)

In his highly recommendable new book, Robert Sapolsky presents a compelling case for hard incompatibilism, according to which the world is deterministic and there is no (libertarian) free will (and thus no moral responsibility either).

"[W]e are nothing more or less than the cumulative biological and environmental luck, over which we had no control, that has brought us to any moment."

(Sapolsky, Robert M. Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will. New York: Penguin, 2023. p. 4)

"What Do I Mean by Free Will?

People define free will differently. Many focus on agency, whether a person can control their actions, act with intent. Other definitions concern whether, when a behavior occurs, the person knows that there are alternatives available. Others are less concerned with what you do than with vetoing what you don’t want to do. Here’s my take.

Suppose that a man pulls the trigger of a gun. Mechanistically, the muscles in his index finger contracted because they were stimulated by a neuron having an action potential (i.e., being in a particularly excited state). That neuron in turn had its action potential because it was stimulated by the neuron just upstream. Which had its own action potential because of the next neuron upstream. And so on.

Here’s the challenge to a free willer: Find me the neuron that started this process in this man’s brain, the neuron that had an action potential for no reason, where no neuron spoke to it just before. Then show me that this neuron’s actions were not influenced by whether the man was tired, hungry, stressed, or in pain at the time. That nothing about this neuron’s function was altered by the sights, sounds, smells, and so on, experienced by the man in the previous minutes, nor by the levels of any hormones marinating his brain in the previous hours to days, nor whether he had experienced a life-changing event in recent months or years. And show me that this neuron’s supposedly freely willed functioning wasn’t affected by the man’s genes, or by the lifelong changes in regulation of those genes caused by experiences during his childhood. Nor by levels of hormones he was exposed to as a fetus, when that brain was being constructed. Nor by the centuries of history and ecology that shaped the invention of the culture in which he was raised. Show me a neuron being a causeless cause in this total sense. The prominent compatibilist philosopher Alfred Mele of Florida State University emphatically feels that requiring something like that of free will is setting the bar “absurdly high.” But this bar is neither absurd nor too high. Show me a neuron (or brain) whose generation of a behavior is independent of the sum of its biological past, and for the purposes of this book, you’ve demonstrated free will. The point of the first half of this book is to establish that this can’t be shown."

(Sapolsky, Robert M. Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will. New York: Penguin, 2023. pp. 14-5)

[iambiguous]

Already responded to that above:

These "responses" have nothing to do with responsibility:

Click...

Whatever that means?

Both bears and human beings have brains. And "somehow" their brains and our brains are connected to the behaviors that they choose and that we choose. Only we don't hold bears morally responsible for killing us as we might hold human beings morally responsible for killing them. And that's because it is assumed that our brains go beyond biological imperatives. "Somehow" our brains acquired autonomy which eventually precipitated memes precipitating philosophy and ethics. And all of the "theoretical" arguments that we exchange here.

And how each of us -- compelled or not -- thinks about this has everything to do with responsibility. We just can't pin down scientifically if in fact we do have free will.

Of course, both bears and human beings are mammals. Over millions of years the first brains became bear brains became our brains. But bear brains are rooted almost entirely in genes [biological imperatives] whereas our brains evolved to encompass memes [social, political and economic narratives] as well. Memes then evolved into morality.

Still, how did our brains come to acquire autonomy?

This one is about brains, evolution, memes and autonomy.

And that has what to do with my point?

Again, other than defining and deducing free will into existence philosophically here, how exactly do the free will folks explain how human brains acquired autonomy in the first place? And bears may have some measure of autonomy themselves...but few would argue that they deserve to be killed when they kill us. Why? Because it's not like they could have chosen not to kill us. We just don't fully grasp how and why brains evolved as they did here on Earth.

This one is also about free-will, brains, evolution and autonomy.

Note to others:

A little help here. What exactly is he getting at here and how is it related to the point I made?

The point was that bears, people can be held responsible even if they don't have free-will or (your version of) autonomy.

We already do it.

Back to the aliens hovering above us in the free will sector of the universe observing that we "do things". And then pointing out that everything that we do, we do becasue, in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, we were never able not to given that the human condition itself is but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

If we have free-will, we do it. If we don't have free-will, we do it. So your standard, "we could never have not done it" doesn't work since free-willers have no problem dealing with non-free-will, non-autonomous bears.

Then back to this...

You have free will and you want a car. You have free will and you steal the car. You have free will, get drunk, and drive the car into a pedestrian, killing her. And her child.

Society holds you morally responsible for choosing these things of your own volition and punishes you.

Or...

You don't have free will and were never able not to do those things. Society was never able not to punish you. In fact, everything pertaining to you and the car and the two dead people and society above is entirely fated/destined to happen.

Now, sure, maybe his lumping the two scenarios together as though they were interchangeable is the more reasonable frame of mind. Maybe I still just don't get it.

[phyllo]

Only we don't hold bears morally responsible for killing us as we might hold human beings morally responsible for killing them.

We hold bears responsible for killing us.

That's why we shoot them when they have attacked someone or we relocate them where they can't harm people again.

Is he gaslighting me or what??

[iambiguous]

Shall we go around and around and around again regarding the extent to which the compatibilists among us are able to believe "internally" other than what their own brains compel them to believe.

How do you decide that someone' was 'shameless', given that their behavior might have been utterly determined?

That's the whole point of "click".

Again, I don't know if my decision to construe someone as shameless is either compelled by my brain or is a manifestation of autonomy. In other words, the surreal nature of these exchanges themselves. We have brains itself trying to pin down, what, the ontological and teleological nature of the brain itself?

And I often note that my own value judgments here are rooted existentially in dasein given some measure of free will. It's not like I'm saying, "you are absolutely shameless and I can prove it!"

Scientifically? philosophically? metaphysically?

If a bear broke into your apartment, would you not call Animal Control, since they will shoot it, it being the bear that has attacked other humans? Even though you think bears are utterly determined.

Down to earth examples.

Again, we think about this in different ways. It's not whether or not I would call Animal Control, but whether or not if I do, I opted to do so of my own volition. Or am I and the bear both fated/destined to do what we do around each other in the only possible reality.

[Consul]

Only we don't hold bears morally responsible for killing us as we might hold human beings morally responsible for killing them.

We hold bears responsible for killing us.
That's why we shoot them when they have attacked someone or we relocate them where they can't harm people again.

There's a distinction between causal responsibility and moral responsibility, and the former is sufficient for punitive sanctions such as imprisonment (for the sake of crime prevention & protection rather than for the sake of moral retribution, the latter of which presupposes moral responsibility).

[iambiguous]

Only we don't hold bears morally responsible for killing us as we might hold human beings morally responsible for killing them.

We hold bears responsible for killing us.

That's why we shoot them when they have attacked someone or we relocate them where they can't harm people again.

Is he gaslighting me or what??

Yes, we hold them responsible if and when they kill one of us. But we don't hold them morally responsible. Why? Because the assumption is made that bears do what they do autonomically. They are compelled genetically to embody biological imperatives that include killing and eating us if the opportunity is there.

Whereas when we kill bears, some are outraged by it. They deem it to be immoral. Especially sport hunting. But what has changed? Our brains, like their brains, like all brains, the hardcore determinists argue, are entirely behind everything that all biological life here on Earth does.

It's just that no other animal has a brain enabling them to acquire the "psychological illusion of free will".

[Iwannaplato]

That's the whole point of "click".

Again, I don't know if my decision to construe someone as shameless is either compelled by my brain or is a manifestation of autonomy.

And you've noticed this and yet assign moral responsibility anyway.

In other words, the surreal nature of these exchanges themselves. We have brains itself trying to pin down, what, the ontological and teleological nature of the brain itself?

Well, I agree that our situation is surreal, or at least seems surreal. I'm not sure if reality can be surreal - given the definitions - but I share that reaction.

And I often note that my own value judgments here are rooted existentially in dasein given some measure of free will. It's not like I'm saying, "you are absolutely shameless and I can prove it!"

What the hell difference does that make? You act in the world. Sure, you're not sending people to prison. But you manage to assign moral responsibility. Most people who work in courts understand that the judgment in the case can be mistaken.

If a bear broke into your apartment, would you not call Animal Control, since they will shoot it, it being the bear that has attacked other humans? Even though you think bears are utterly determined.

Down to earth examples.

Again, we think about this in different ways. It's not whether or not I would call Animal Control, but whether or not if I do, I opted to do so of my own volition. Or am I and the bear both fated/destined to do what we do around each other in the only possible reality.
[/quote]You think differently at different times. But you keep asking with incredulity how could anyone give Mary moral responsibility for her abortion. Well, the same way you would the bear.

That's how it happens. You don't call them about some other bear. And if the animal lover across the street said you were being mean to an animal that was only following it's genetic imprints, you'd probably think she was being shameless.

Here you are, in this universe, managing to assign moral responsibility to animals and humans.

There's your answer to the question about how can one do that.

Yes, that doesn't answer YOUR OTHER QUESTION.

[phyllo]

Only we don't hold bears morally responsible for killing us as we might hold human beings morally responsible for killing them.

We hold bears responsible for killing us.

That's why we shoot them when they have attacked someone or we relocate them where they can't harm people again.

Is he gaslighting me or what??

Yes, we hold them responsible if and when they kill one of us. But we don't hold them morally responsible. Why? Because the assumption is made that bears do what they do autonomically. They are compelled genetically to embody biological imperatives that include killing and eating us if the opportunity is there.

Whereas when we kill bears, some are outraged by it. They deem it to be immoral. Especially sport hunting. But what has changed? Our brains, like their brains, like all brains, the hardcore determinists argue, are entirely behind everything that all biological life here on Earth does.

It's just that no other animal has a brain enabling them to acquire the "psychological illusion of free will".

Okay guys, I made some progress.

It's up to you to argue the differences between 'responsibility' and 'moral responsibility' with him.

I need a little rest in a sanatorium after all that effort.

[Iwannaplato]

Only we don't hold bears morally responsible for killing us as we might hold human beings morally responsible for killing them.

We hold bears responsible for killing us.

That's why we shoot them when they have attacked someone or we relocate them where they can't harm people again.

Is he gaslighting me or what??

Yes, we hold them responsible if and when they kill one of us. But we don't hold them morally responsible.

But we do. The guys from animal control might not, cause it's a job, they're used to it. Most people see a bear tear apart someone they love, they'll shoot with passion, in rage. And not rage at the way the Big Bang unfolded, though that might come later.

And is this your concern? That people will hold Mary responsible morally? Like it'd be alright with you if they held her responsible but like she's a defective clock?

Would it make a difference to you?

Guilt and shame both have to do with what we think we are. Shame is directly about feeling wrong about what he are. And guilt is about what we did and is horrible because we think of that act as showing what we are. Or it would just be regret.

Don't worry Mary, we hold you responsible, but it's not moral. It's a bit like you're like a rabid dog, only in your case it's about your genes and brain.

Maybe 1000 posts dealing with what would not make a bit of difference to Mary. They think I am a bad person cause I could have no done that but I did. They think I am a bad person and I couldn't help but be a bad person.

Mary's gonna feel shame and guilt either way. I am that. I did that.

Yes, slightly different views. But in the end we shoot the bear, and for the bear it doesn't make any difference. Nor the murderer who we put in prison. Nor Mary. Bad person, bad thing. Bad person. Bad machine. 1000 posts. The different connotations of 'bad'.

And nowhere in all of this an explanation for why that would make much difference. It's implicit. That it would be horrible to judge Mary a bad person, if actually she's just a bad machine, like a bad motor. Hey, that's a bad transmission you've got. I mean, you are a bad transmission.

[iambiguous]

That's the whole point of "click".

Again, I don't know if my decision to construe someone as shameless is either compelled by my brain or is a manifestation of autonomy.

And you've noticed this and yet assign moral responsibility anyway.

No, I'm still drawn and quartered regarding the question of human autonomy. Though, sure, if someday science is able to pin down that we do in fact have some measure of free will, then holding people responsible [morally or otherwise] seems reasonable.

Only that's where dasein kicks in for me. Some believe that killing bears is immoral and other's do not believe that it is. Okay, those on both sides do have autonomy. But how does that get us any closer to determining if, say, hunting bears for sport is moral or immoral?

Then the mind-boggling surreality of it all. Even if one day scientists demonstrate that we do have free will, how on Earth would it be demonstrated further that this too is not just another inherent component of the only possible reality?

Back to "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule".

And I often note that my own value judgments here are rooted existentially in dasein given some measure of free will. It's not like I'm saying, "you are absolutely shameless and I can prove it!"

What the hell difference does that make? You act in the world. Sure, you're not sending people to prison. But you manage to assign moral responsibility. Most people who work in courts understand that the judgment in the case can be mistaken.

It makes all the difference in the world if what is construed to be a mistake in court revolves around the assumption that we can opt freely not to make it. As opposed to a world where "mistakes" are in fact merely a necessary component of the only possible reality. If you must argue that 2 + 2 = 5 and if you were never able not to embrace one set of moral prejudices rather than another...how is that really a mistake at all?

If a bear broke into your apartment, would you not call Animal Control, since they will shoot it, it being the bear that has attacked other humans? Even though you think bears are utterly determined.

Down to earth examples.

Again, we think about this in different ways. It's not whether or not I would call Animal Control, but whether or not if I do, I opted to do so of my own volition. Or am I and the bear both fated/destined to do what we do around each other in the only possible reality.

You think differently at different times. But you keep asking with incredulity how could anyone give Mary moral responsibility for her abortion. Well, the same way you would the bear.

Again, it's one thing if, in regard to both the bear and Mary, their behaviors -- all of their behaviors -- were compelled by their brains. And if there is no free will than how are both not interchangeable?

It's just that the compatibilists seem to argue that even though Mary was not able to not abort Jane, just as the bear was not able to not eat a human being, she is still morally responsible.

Then back to how, if human beings are morally responsible, their brains were able to "somehow" acquire these mysterious internal components -- motivation, intention, goals, personalities, etc. -- that "transcends" the brain parts that are wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

That's how it happens. You don't call them about some other bear. And if the animal lover across the street said you were being mean to an animal that was only following it's genetic imprints, you'd probably think she was being shameless.

And around and around we go. It's not what we think and feel and say and do in regard to bears but whether our brains "somehow" did acquire the capacity to have actual options here.

Then -- click -- the part where given free will, philosophers and ethicists are able to establish whether the hunter or the animal lover comes closest to the most rational and virtuous behavior. The part I root existentially in dasein.

Here you are, in this universe, managing to assign moral responsibility to animals and humans.

That's your take on me. I don't assign responsibility here, I ponder whether or not anyone assigning responsibility for anything that another does is doing so of their own free will.