Philosophy Now Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 6:18 pm

Determinists believe that, in principle, they could...if all the relevant factors could be put into a computer, say, and nothing forgotten. So they say there is no meaning to the idea of "free will": all "will" is only a seeming, but is really produced by these "antecedent events."

So they literally believe that, if we had all the "antecedent conditions" in hand, we could say in advance exactly what had to happen, and would inevitably happen; and that nothing else but that could happen. It's just that we don't happen to know all the "antecedent conditions." So they think we're actually the pawns of things we don't quite understand...but pawns, nonetheless.

Yet when God knows exactly what will happen, you don't think it contradicts free-will.

Strange that it should be problematic for determinists but not for you.

God's knowledge demonstrates the 'inevitability' of it all.

I think this point is addressed in The Bible. Alone mong all the rest of creation, God gave humans Free Will. Free Will is therefore a Christian doctrine. Later on , God mercifully sent Jesus to show us to will what God wills for us.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 7:49 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 7:32 pm

I was thinking about this the other day, about how I fully expect that Immanuel Cans religious beliefs probably amount to determinism even if he'd never call it that, for some reason it another. If God knows what's going to happen, then what does it mean to say you could have done otherwise? Does that mean you can make god wrong? You have the power to make god wrong? Interesting to say the least

Well, that's one option, though that would surprise me. Omniscience is out or determinism is in. And the funny thing is that it seems, so far, like he is a compatibilst. He may think compatibilism means Libertarian free will + determinism, which is not the case. But it seems to me he was describing compatibilism Moral Responsibility + Determinsm. God knows what will happen, but he doesn't make it happen. What is going to happen will happen and He knows it in advance. But still you make it happen and you are responsible. That is compatibilism to the bone.

He's said he thinks compatibilism is logically impossible but he seemed to be describing Libertarian free will in that combination.

And bang: he writes a post supporting a religious compatiblism.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:05 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 6:18 pm

Determinists believe that, in principle, they could...if all the relevant factors could be put into a computer, say, and nothing forgotten. So they say there is no meaning to the idea of "free will": all "will" is only a seeming, but is really produced by these "antecedent events."

So they literally believe that, if we had all the "antecedent conditions" in hand, we could say in advance exactly what had to happen, and would inevitably happen; and that nothing else but that could happen. It's just that we don't happen to know all the "antecedent conditions." So they think we're actually the pawns of things we don't quite understand...but pawns, nonetheless.

Yet when God knows exactly what will happen, you don't think it contradicts free-will.

Strange that it should be problematic for determinists but not for you.

God's knowledge demonstrates the 'inevitability' of it all.

I think this point is addressed in The Bible. Alone mong all the rest of creation, God gave humans Free Will. Free Will is therefore a Christian doctrine. Later on , God mercifully sent Jesus to show us to will what God wills for us.

But you're missing IC's position. He says

Not really. I'm not a Determinist. Nor does the claim that God knows what will happen imply that God makes what happens happen.

If God knows what is going to happen, in advance, then there is only one thing that is going to happen. He just doesn't make it happen. We will choose to sin or do the right thing. But it's known in advance what we will choose - known to God that is.
Or perhaps he didn't write clearly here. Perhaps he does think that God is not omniscient.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:08 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 7:49 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 7:32 pm

I was thinking about this the other day, about how I fully expect that Immanuel Cans religious beliefs probably amount to determinism even if he'd never call it that, for some reason it another. If God knows what's going to happen, then what does it mean to say you could have done otherwise? Does that mean you can make god wrong? You have the power to make god wrong? Interesting to say the least

Well, that's one option, though that would surprise me. Omniscience is out or determinism is in. And the funny thing is that it seems, so far, like he is a compatibilst.

Yeah. Looking strongly like that's the case now.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:13 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:08 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 7:49 pm

I was thinking about this the other day, about how I fully expect that Immanuel Cans religious beliefs probably amount to determinism even if he'd never call it that, for some reason it another. If God knows what's going to happen, then what does it mean to say you could have done otherwise? Does that mean you can make god wrong? You have the power to make god wrong? Interesting to say the least

Well, that's one option, though that would surprise me. Omniscience is out or determinism is in. And the funny thing is that it seems, so far, like he is a compatibilst.

Yeah. Looking strongly like that's the case now.

But I think we both supsect that somehow something is going to disappear or be renoodled so none of this is true. But who knows.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:40 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:13 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:08 pm Well, that's one option, though that would surprise me. Omniscience is out or determinism is in. And the funny thing is that it seems, so far, like he is a compatibilst.

Yeah. Looking strongly like that's the case now.

But I think we both supsect that somehow something is going to disappear or be renoodled so none of this is true. But who knows.

He likes to talk about how logical he is and how illogical compatibilists are, because compatibilists find a way to reconcile two things that are on the surface incompatible.

Now he's the one reconciling the incompatibility of god knowing exactly what you'll do, with the genuine ability to do otherwise - as if we have the genuine ability to make God wrong. Spicy times.

There is one more factor :

God is not an idle observer.

Not only does God know what will happen, God created the universe and you (body and soul) with certain characteristics. Your decisions and actions are a result of how God made you.

You did not create yourself nor are you self made.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 7:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 6:21 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 6:18 pm Yet when God knows exactly what will happen, you don't think it contradicts free-will.

Of course it doesn't. Because "know" and "make" are two different verbs, and neither automatically implies the other. Easy.

Strange that it should be problematic for determinists but not for you.

Not really. I'm not a Determinist. Nor does the claim that God knows what will happen imply that God makes what happens happen.

I know you'll reply. But I'm not going to say I've "made" you do it. You would have perfect freedom not to. But you will.

So, God won't make it happen, but he knows what will happen.

Exactly.

He knows what you will do. And there is only one thing you are going to do, or?

You could do other things. But you won't. Just like you've responded, exactly as I perfectly predicted, but without me having made you do it. You could have not: but you did. And it was your decision.

The Bible actually models this fact quite clearly. There are things you will do, and God knows them; but there are also things you could have done instead, and still He knows them, too.

I could have misunderstood what you meant. Let's check....
God knows, for example, everything you will do tomorrow.
What he knows you will do, you will do.

So far, so good. But you forgot that He also knows what I will not do, and what would happen if I had done something other than what I will, in fact, choose to do. And I know none of these things, nor am I controlled by the fact that he knows these things; for His foreknowledge makes absolutely no impact on my decision.

Tomorrow can only go one way, the way that God knows it will.

No, tomorrow could go many ways. But in point of fact, it will only go one. And I do not know which one, in advance. But God knows.

Picture it this way. You're standing in front of a roulette wheel. There are 38 numbers on one of those, and you are placing a bet on "00." You don't know if that's the number that will come up. It could be 37 others. But I (supposing I had God-level knowledge) would know exactly which number was going to come up. I could even tell you, if I chose to, which one it will be.

Now, tell me: in light of all the above facts, would you change your bet? Is anything I've told you going to make you, or even influence you, to abandon your first bet in favour of another number? And if you did change to "36" or something, would that mean that my foreknowledge MADE you change your number?

He doesn't choose for you, he does not make your choices for you. But he knows what your choices will be.

That's a form of determinism.

Not at all. It gives me actually zero information about the consequences of my choice: and the choice, as in the roulette wheel, is being made by me, not by Him. Moreover, the other numbers are still there; and if I had a different desire, I could switch to "36," or "12," or "19." Nobody's stopping me.

What's necessary for all forms of Determinism is that something MAKES things happen. Knowledge would not do that. Only active involvement would. And in, say, Materialist Determinism, the claim is that "material" forces do exactly that. They MAKE things happen the way they happen. And nothing else CAN happen, because "materials" only have momentum or causality in a single direction; they have neither will nor knowledge. And because you're made up of materials (they say) neither do you have will or knowledge. You just think you do, and are wrong, according to Determinism.

Free will isn't in any way compatible with a prior force MAKING something happen. But knowledge does not disturb the causal loop. Whatever was going to be the cause remains what is the cause. If it was materials, it remains materials. If it was your volition, it remains your volition -- and all regardless of what somebody else, somebody not making it happen, knows about it.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 9:29 pm There is one more factor :

God is not an idle observer.

Not only does God know what will happen, God created the universe and you (body and soul) with certain characteristics. Your decisions and actions are a result of how God made you.

It depends on exactly what he made.

Did He make robots? Or did God make entities that have personhood, capacity for reason, volition, desire, choice, creativity, will, and so on?

You might say, "How can a free will being be created?" But it's not hard to imagine at all. If you have any children of your own, then you've already done it. It wasn't even a few months before you realized that the creature you and your spouse had created had his/her own will. The fact that you created him/her didn't prevent that one bit.

If you were to suppose that God merely created robots, you'd be right: we'd be predetermined by our programming. But if God can create free beings, beings with their own will and choices, then obviously that would no longer mean we had to be robots.

How does it seem to you? Do you genuinely believe you're a robot, or do you instinctively know that you're a free will being? (Honest question, not implied insult.) If it seems to you like you can make choices, then the burden of proof is on the Determinist to prove to you that that is an illusion. And honestly, I have no idea how he's going to manage that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:36 pm

So, God won't make it happen, but he knows what will happen.

Exactly.

OK.

He knows what you will do. And there is only one thing you are going to do, or?

You could do other things. But you won't. Just like you've responded, exactly as I perfectly predicted, but without me having made you do it. You could have not: but you did. And it was your decision.

Sure.

The Bible actually models this fact quite clearly. There are things you will do, and God knows them; but there are also things you could have done instead, and still He knows them, too.

OK

I could have misunderstood what you meant. Let's check....
God knows, for example, everything you will do tomorrow.
What he knows you will do, you will do.

So far, so good. But you forgot that He also knows what I will not do, and what would happen if I had done something other than what I will, in fact, choose to do. And I know none of these things, nor am I controlled by the fact that he knows these things; for His foreknowledge makes absolutely no impact on my decision.

yes, I understand. He does not make you do it. But you will do it and He knows what you will do.

Tomorrow can only go one way, the way that God knows it will.

No, tomorrow could go many ways. But in point of fact, it will only go one. And I do not know which one, in advance. But God knows.

Well, God knows. He can't be wrong.
Let's get specific. God knows you won't be nice to someone tomorrow at 12:15. He knows exactly what you will do. He doesn't make you do it. You are the cause of the action that is not nice. But God, knowing everything, knows exactly what you will do.

Picture it this way. You're standing in front of a roulette wheel. There are 38 numbers on one of those, and you are placing a bet on "00." You don't know if that's the number that will come up. It could be 37 others. But I (supposing I had God-level knowledge) would know exactly which number was going to come up. I could even tell you, if I chose to, which one it will be.

Fine, that works for me.

Now, tell me: in light of all the above facts, would you change your bet? Is anything I've told you going to make you, or even influence you, to abandon your first bet in favour of another number? And if you did change to "36" or something, would that mean that my foreknowledge MADE you change your number?

I'm not sure where this issue of someone else or God making me do something is coming from, but I am not asserting this nor have I even heard this model that God makes me do things in any version of Christianity. Perhaps some group does believe this; my point is that nowhere am I assuming this and it's tangential to the issues I'm focused on.

He doesn't choose for you, he does not make your choices for you. But he knows what your choices will be.

That's a form of determinism.

Not at all. It gives me actually zero information about the consequences of my choice: and the choice, as in the roulette wheel, is being made by me, not by Him. Moreover, the other numbers are still there; and if I had a different desire, I could switch to "36," or "12," or "19." Nobody's stopping me.

There is nothing about determinism that entails you know the consequences of your choice. Determinism as a model has nowhere in it that humans need to know the consequences of their choices. Nor does it need to include the other people stopping or not stopping issue.

There are internal causes that lead to choices. Determinism is about one outcome being possible. If God knows what is going to happen, then what will happen will happen.

Or, are you saying that you could do something that would surprise God and he could be wrong about your choice?

What's necessary for all forms of Determinism is that something MAKES things happen.

Yup, including you. Your desires, values, goals, emotions. Those are all causes. It need not entail that anything outside you compells you to act.

Knowledge would not do that. Only active involvement would. And in, say, Materialist Determinism, the claim is that "material" forces do exactly that. They MAKE things happen the way they happen.

Yes, materialist determinism entails that matter inevitably through chains of causes and effects leads where will always have led. Internal matter and external matter.

But determinism is not limited to material determinism. All that matters is that causes lead inevitably to what happens. And if God is correct, period, then it is inevitable. The only other possibility is that one could chose something God did not expect you to choose and God would have been wrong.

And nothing else CAN happen, because "materials" only have momentum or causality in a single direction; they have neither will nor knowledge. And because you're made up of materials (they say) neither do you have will or knowledge. You just think you do, and are wrong, according to Determinism.

According to that version of deteminism.

Free will isn't in any way compatible with a prior force MAKING something happen.

Libertarian free will is not.

One other way to look at this is: you keep saying you could do something else. Well, what would lead you to doing something else? the desire to be nice and love thy neighbor? your values? your desire to be a better person? whatever the motive for making any choice is still a cause. And determinism is only saying that causes lead inevitably to the choice you will make and if you are going to make that choice, since God already before you make it knows what it is, that is the choice you are going to make. Determinism does not mean God or external causes make you do things. It just means that what you choose is inevitable, which it must be or God couldn't know what you will choose. To say you could have done something different is to say God could have been wrong.

But you chose and you are responsible.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 4:05 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 2:00 am Next up: Atla moves beyond his/her "world of words" argument and actually attempts to demonstrate empirically, experientially, experimentally, existentially, etc., how I either could or could not have freely opted to question anything he/she posts about compatibilism.

How does he/she understand the meaning of a "stance" here? Webster's defines it as "an intellectual or emotional attitude". So -- click -- between being utterly ignorant regarding the meaning of compatibilism and grasping it's essential meaning going all the way back to the existence of existence itself, how much weight should we give to a stance here? And, no, not excluding my own stances either.

Again, I'm not a compatibilist. And I explained my take on compatibilism. It's impossible to tell what you're responding to, if it's a response to anything I wrote at all. Stance was short for philosophical stance obviously (I assumed), in the free will debate it has nothing to do with emotions for me.

On the other hand, the whole point some determinists seem compelled to make is that you too were compelled to assert that you are not a compatibilist. That anything and everything you "explain" to us here reflects just more dominoes toppling over.

The free will debate, in my view, has everything to do with thoughts and emotions and intuitions and psychological states. It's just that some determinists don't make a distinction between them. Why? Because nature itself doesn't make a distinction between them. Whereas -- click -- I'm still no less drawn and quartered here. Tugged ambivalent in completely opposite directions.

He/she notes that we are living in an "ultimately determined" world but that this is "basically irrelevant at the everyday human world level."

Okay, chemically and neurologically, how exactly does this all unfold in your brain...such that your own everyday interactions with others in a No God world [merely another assumption of course] are understood by you such that, further, you can pin point when you are acting autonomously and when you are not.

Given the context of your -- click -- choice.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 4:05 amLooks like you didn't read what I wrote about the two layers of philosophy that become necessary after a point, or at least didn't get the gist of it.

Here we go again. Since my reaction to your "two layers of philosophy" did not confirm your point about them, I clearly didn't read it.

Which is why -- click -- I often come back around to this:

Have you ever been wrong about something important to you pertaining to value judgments? or to the Big Questions?

If you say there were never any errors at all in your philosophical assessment of meaning, morality and metaphysics, sure, go ahead and actually believe that.

If you do own up to having made a mistake about something important in your life, however, you are admitting that you have been wrong about important things. Which of course is just another way of noting that you have been, are now and will be wrong about other important things too.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 4:05 amLet's see what happens if I unpack things more.

Ultimately we are never acting autonomously, say on the 'chemical level' we see that all our chemicals follow the laws of matter. But your brain is made of some 10^25-10^26 molecules, and parts of it are specifically arranged for everyday-scale decision-making, that's what the prefrontal cortex does.

Yes, that works for some. But for me it just muddies the water all the more. All those things that are "arranged" by our brains given that...

"The human brain is made up of about 86 billion nerve cells, along with many other types of cells. They interact and link together in unique ways, creating distinct brain regions with specific functions." NIH

Think about it. Somewhere amidst those 86,000,000,000 cells there's this autonomous I still able to take charge when confronting conflicting goods? Sure, maybe. But when something is composed of 86,000,000,000 cells [not to mention 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms] where to even begin to pin it all down.

In other words, empirically, experientially, experimentally and existentially.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 4:05 amIt's just highly nonsensical to treat the behaviour of the human brain the same way we treat the behaviour of a single molecule or atom, due to the high-level, complex emergent behaviours that the brain has evolved for. While in the absolute sense we never have free will, this is largely irrelevant in everyday life.

Nothing is nonsensical [to me] if it was never able not to happen. It happens because it must happen. You and I and others react to it as we do because we were never able not to.

Most people can make everyday choices just fine, and whatever choice they make is the determined outcome. And that still follows the laws of matter.

On the other hand, determined as defined -- as compelled to define? -- by those such that -- presto! -- somehow the determined outcomes in our lives are such that we must still to be held responsible for "creating" them?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 4:05 amNow it's possible that this baffles you because you could have some prefrontal cortex dysfunction or some other issue, and can't really make decisions.

It's a "dysfunction" to some only because for all practical purposes it was never able to be otherwise as they have been compelled to understand them, they could have been born with any number of mental afflictions that make any number of choices "beyond their control". The hardcore determinists merely believe that given the laws of matter as science has come to understand them so far, and given that the human brain is entirely composed of it, all we really experience over and again is the psychological illusion of autonomy.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 4:05 amBut the average human can, so let's just assume that Mary can too. Moral responsibility is also an everyday world issue, we can make everyday life choices and we have moral responsibility.

Unless, of course, you are wrong. Unless, of course, you could never have not been.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 11:00 pm Let's get specific. God knows you won't be nice to someone tomorrow at 12:15. He knows exactly what you will do. He doesn't make you do it. You are the cause of the action that is not nice. But God, knowing everything, knows exactly what you will do.

I think that's a fair account.

Now, tell me: in light of all the above facts, would you change your bet? Is anything I've told you going to make you, or even influence you, to abandon your first bet in favour of another number? And if you did change to "36" or something, would that mean that my foreknowledge MADE you change your number?

I'm not sure where this issue of someone else or God making me do something is coming from,

Oh, sorry...I mean to point out that "knowing" is not "making," and by "knowing" the result, God is not "making" you do it.

but I am not asserting this nor have I even heard this model that God makes me do things in any version of Christianity. Perhaps some group does believe this; my point is that nowhere am I assuming this and it's tangential to the issues I'm focused on.

There is a group of people who believe in a kind of Divine Determinism -- namely, that God is the only effective will in the universe, and He makes everything happen. They're called "Calvinists." But I'm not one of those.

There is nothing about determinism that entails you know the consequences of your choice.

Very true. Exactly right.

There are internal causes that lead to choices.

"Internal"? To what? Do you mean "internal to human will"? Or do you mean "chemical-physical causes that circulate inside the brain"? I have to ask, because, of course, my response would have to be different, depending on which you mean.

Determinism is about one outcome being possible.

That's only part of it, but yes: Determinism does not recognize any such category of things as "alternatives," or "possibilities." There's only ever one outcome, and it's inevitable, according to them.

If God knows what is going to happen, then what will happen will happen.

That's of no particular relevance, though. Because what somebody knows doesn't change your freedoms. All it means is that He knows which of your freedoms you will freely choose to actualize.

Or, are you saying that you could do something that would surprise God and he could be wrong about your choice?

Not "surprise" Him, since He would know not just what WILL happen, but also what COULD HAVE happened if you'd chosen differently. You'll see this modeled in the Bible in 1 Samuel 23. Apparently, God can tell people what will happen, and what else would happen if they made a different choice.

What's necessary for all forms of Determinism is that something MAKES things happen.

Yup, including you. Your desires, values, goals, emotions. Those are all causes. It need not entail that anything outside you compells you to act.

That's free will, then. It's not Determinism or Compatiblism. And I'd agree with you.

Knowledge would not do that. Only active involvement would. And in, say, Materialist Determinism, the claim is that "material" forces do exactly that. They MAKE things happen the way they happen.

Yes, materialist determinism entails that matter inevitably through chains of causes and effects leads where will always have led. Internal matter and external matter.

I'll have to ask you again what you mean by "internal matter": do you mean chemicals and electricity, or volition?

And nothing else CAN happen, because "materials" only have momentum or causality in a single direction; they have neither will nor knowledge. And because you're made up of materials (they say) neither do you have will or knowledge. You just think you do, and are wrong, according to Determinism.

According to that version of deteminism.

According to those for which I supplied definitions, or to any other coherent version of Determinism.

One other way to look at this is: you keep saying you could do something else. Well, what would lead you to doing something else?

"Lead you"? Nothing needs to "lead you." You can lead yourself. One can choose to do the right thing, or one can choose to do the other thing. That's what free will entails.

...whatever the motive for making any choice is still a cause.

Not in a Deterministic sense, of course. To say that somebody has a motive isn't to suggest they have no choice.

Take the case of a man who has a motive for murder. Perhaps it might make him rich to rob the bank. But on the other side, he has the motive of fear; he might get shot or arrested. So now he has conflicting motives: what is to make up his mind for him? The free will proponent will say, "He's going to decide which motive to respond to."

...since God already before you make it knows what it is, that is the choice you are going to make.

Sure. But you don't know that. You're still struggling genuinely with the decision. And unlike God, you don't really know what the outcomes will be, either. So you still are going to have to choose between the motives available to you, and only you can set your feet in motion to do it.

Determinism does not mean God or external causes make you do things.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

But you chose and you are responsible.

I agree. But again, that's neither Determinism nor Compatiblism. You're speaking very much like a person who believes in free will.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:10 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:05 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 6:18 pm Yet when God knows exactly what will happen, you don't think it contradicts free-will.

Strange that it should be problematic for determinists but not for you.

God's knowledge demonstrates the 'inevitability' of it all.

I think this point is addressed in The Bible. Alone mong all the rest of creation, God gave humans Free Will. Free Will is therefore a Christian doctrine. Later on , God mercifully sent Jesus to show us to will what God wills for us.

But you're missing IC's position. He says

Not really. I'm not a Determinist. Nor does the claim that God knows what will happen imply that God makes what happens happen.

If God knows what is going to happen, in advance, then there is only one thing that is going to happen. He just doesn't make it happen. We will choose to sin or do the right thing. But it's known in advance what we will choose - known to God that is.
Or perhaps he didn't write clearly here. Perhaps he does think that God is not omniscient.

This is why I think determinism is compatible with free will. God knows what's going to happen. There is no alternative. However, people are still free to choose (I.e. they are not constrained.) It's just that God knows what they are going to choose.

That's why I brought up a free choice from the past. Just as God knows what will happen in the future, we know what did happen in the past. Nonetheless, we can talk about having made a free choice. Why (if God knows the future like we know the past) is free choice impossible given the fact that God knows what choice we will make?

For some reason, though, IC objects to this line of reasoning.

P! If God knows the future, the future is "determined".
P2: If neither God nor anyone else compels people to make choices, they have freedom of choice despite God's knowledge.
Conclusion: Freedom of choice and determinism are compatible.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 6:47 am All I can say is he is going to read this and again assume you are saying something like the complexity of the brain makes it free from the laws of matter.

No, once again I am stuck -- necessarily? -- noting "click" here because all I can do given The Gap and Rummy's Rule is us to take my own existential leap of faith to determinism. Determinism as "I" have come to understand it "here and now".

But: even then only given my own set of assumptions about the human condition...premises [philosophical or otherwise] which in all likelihood will in no way, shape or form be even close to nailing my own brain down here. Ontologically or otherwise.

It's in suggesting, however, that those like you and Atla and phyllo and others are in the same boat that tends to rile some here. This part in other words:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

So, convinced this is not applicable to you? Okay, in regard to one of your own value judgments note how it is not. Note how you have never felt "fractured and fragmented" in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics. Note how the Benjamin Button Syndrome is simply not applicable to your own interactions with others day in and day out.

As for what to make of the "complexity of the brain" here...?

Just more of the same from the objectivists, in my view. They speak of things like meaning and morality and metaphysics as though they really were able to connect the dots between them and the objective reality of human social, political and economic interactions.

I know! Let's continue to explore this over and over and over again up in the theoretical clouds! After all, once that's nailed down philosophically, we might actually accumulate the definitions that no one is exempt from. Maybe someone will even be able to reconfigure these definitions into the most rational of all human behaviors. The Republic 2.0.

But, in my own personal opinion "here and now" this is what he excels at:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 6:47 amIn parallel, in many posts he will write what are essentially arguments of incredulity. Or perhaps assertions of incredulity. How could one possibly give someone responsiblity for their inevitable acts/choices? Two things that never seem to happen:
1) When someone does do this with a specific act - does explain how this can be non-contradictory, he does not interact with those posts and/or repeats his incredulity.
2) He never justifies his incredulity. I do have sympathy for the incredulity, but I think if he actually tried to argue it, he might find that it is a problematic default. It also need justification and at present is nowhere an argument from him.

Maybe those like Veritas Aequitas can pursue this with him so that at least the two of them have all the technical knowledge necessary for, well, whatever it is necessary for given the time when they confront those like Mary who have been told that they were never able to opt not to "choose" an abortion, but are still held morally responsible for doing so. Though, sure, even if Mary notes how that makes no sense at all, what does she know about the rigors of analytic philosophy when confronting conflicting goods.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 6:47 am Further I never see any argument for how libertarian free will actually fits with moral responsibilty.

Wait, shouldn't we all go up into the theoretical clouds in order to pin down precisely what "libertarian free will" means. As opposed to say what Libertarian free will means? As opposed to, say, what the Ayn Randroid Objectivists embody?

Me? Well, click...

"In particular, libertarianism is an incompatibilist position which argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe. Libertarianism states that since agents have free will, determinism must be false and vice versa. wiki

Of course, how are they really any different from the rest of us given The Gap and Rummy's Rule? As though 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.

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.

...is still just so much in the way of trivial pursuits. And has little or no relevance at all here in regard to our grasping how the human brains works.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 6:47 am If one doesn't go into this issue, it may seem, from common sense, to be a fit. But if these free acts are not caused by either external or internal causes (or a combination) what do they have to do with the person who 'performed them'. The acts were not caused by the person or their interests, goals, motivations, desires, values, in the context of their knowledge and external restraints. No explanation how this wouldn't be random?

Note to others:

I challenge someone here to reconfigure what you think he is arguing here into your own behaviors...behaviors that come into conflict with others over value judgments. What might you figure is entirely within your capacity to choose freely, what might be too close to call and what might be entirely beyond your control?

Note to Veritas Aequitas:

You might want to weigh in here...

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 6:47 am So, the thread will go on for years without him directl engaging with positions that do not fit his binary schema - libertarian free will of a specific type or hard determinism, with the former having brains that are exceptions to the laws of matter. Every single position he faces will be treated as the former, if it isn't a hard determinist. Every time any other position will face incredulity that brain cells are not controlled by the laws of matter. This position and assumption will never be justified. His incredulity will never be justified - it's common sense/obvious/apriori. If people tell him they don't actually believe brain cells or phsychology or whatever if free from the laws of matter, if they challenge his strange interpretation of their positions, they will be told in a variety of ways that they are dogmatic, authoritarian types. If third parties point out he hasn't correctly interpreted them or an article, he will never go back to the article and quote from it and justify his position, he will accuse the person of being authoritarian and assuming they are infallible. The only interesting patches of this thread are where other people start interacting with each other and ignore him.

...just in case it is simply not abstract enough for you.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 11:14 pm On the other hand, the whole point some determinists seem compelled to make is that you too were compelled to assert that you are not a compatibilist. That anything and everything you "explain" to us here reflects just more dominoes toppling over.

I'd say, dominoes toppling over is a good way to think about this, but determinism doesn't really "compel" us to do anything. Those who say this may not really understand what determinism means.

The free will debate, in my view, has everything to do with thoughts and emotions and intuitions and psychological states. It's just that some determinists don't make a distinction between them. Why? Because nature itself doesn't make a distinction between them. Whereas -- click -- I'm still no less drawn and quartered here. Tugged ambivalent in completely opposite directions.

Don't be tugged ambivalent in completely opposite directions, it's not normal and not healthy. Develop a set of core moral values.

Here we go again. Since my reaction to your "two layers of philosophy" did not confirm your point about them, I clearly didn't read it.

Which is why -- click -- I often come back around to this:

Have you ever been wrong about something important to you pertaining to value judgments? or to the Big Questions?

If you say there were never any errors at all in your philosophical assessment of meaning, morality and metaphysics, sure, go ahead and actually believe that.

If you do own up to having made a mistake about something important in your life, however, you are admitting that you have been wrong about important things. Which of course is just another way of noting that you have been, are now and will be wrong about other important things too.

Of course I've been wrong, everyone is wrong sometimes. How does this connect to what I wrote?

Yes, that works for some. But for me it just muddies the water all the more. All those things that are "arranged" by our brains given that...

"The human brain is made up of about 86 billion nerve cells, along with many other types of cells. They interact and link together in unique ways, creating distinct brain regions with specific functions." NIH

Think about it. Somewhere amidst those 86,000,000,000 cells there's this autonomous I still able to take charge when confronting conflicting goods? Sure, maybe. But when something is composed of 86,000,000,000 cells [not to mention 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms] where to even begin to pin it all down.

In other words, empirically, experientially, experimentally and existentially.

No, when we look at it from the absolute determinist perspective, the autonomous I is an illusion. Like, half of Eastern philosophy is based on the illusory nature of the I, while Western philosophy is the philosophy of falling for the illusion.

Nothing is nonsensical [to me] if it was never able not to happen. It happens because it must happen. You and I and others react to it as we do because we were never able not to.

On the other hand, determined as defined -- as compelled to define? -- by those such that -- presto! -- somehow the determined outcomes in our lives are such that we must still to be held responsible for "creating" them?

Not sure I get what you mean, looks like a moot point to me, you are conflating the two layers I mentioned above. Just let's drop such considerations in everyday life.

Unless, of course, you are wrong. Unless, of course, you could never have not been.

If my take is demonstrably wrong then I'd like to hear why. I have a coherent universal philosophy that seems to work, and I'm not "fragmented".