compatibilism

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I think that there is no difference between determinism and free-will.

That's a pretty hard view to sustain. I think you can make the case that free will can allow some latitude for some decisions to be influenced by prior factors, but that's pretty much as far as free will can go with that. And as for Determinism, its aim is absolute: it purports to the the total truth concerning why outcomes happen, with no rival explanation allowed, particularly with reference to will.

So if free will can allow some determination, Determinism cannot allow any will at all.

If one looked at any person in any situation and asked ... What choice will that person make in a deterministic world and in a free-will world?

The answer is that he/she will make exactly same decision in both worlds.

That's not at all demonstrable. In order to say that, we would have to have two "worlds" to compare. And since the free will idea of the world allows for the existence of alternate choices and alternate possibilities, we'd actually need access to an infinite number of possible universes, before we could say we have reason to know that.

The decision is based on external factors and personal internal factors.

I really don't know what to say regarding "personal internal factors," since it seems you don't want to define those for me so I can understand. But I'll ask one more time: by "personal internal factors," are you referring to will, or merely to the prior physical-causal chain?

Could you clear that up for me, please? I don't want to respond in a way that does not reflect what you are intending to assert. That would waste your time and mine.

[phyllo]

That's a pretty hard view to sustain. I think you can make the case that free will can allow some latitude for some decisions to be influenced by prior factors, but that's pretty much as far as free will can go with that.

I think that it's much harder to explain that prior factors don't affect decisions in every case.

That's not at all demonstrable. In order to say that, we would have to have two "worlds" to compare. And since the free will idea of the world allows for the existence of alternate choices and alternate possibilities, we'd actually need access to an infinite number of possible universes, before we could say we have reason to know that.

In both cases, the external factors are the same and the person's motivations are the same. Therefore the same decision results. There is no reason for any other decision.

Mary wants an abortion whether she has free-will or not.

I really don't know what to say regarding "personal internal factors," since it seems you don't want to define those for me so I can understand. But I'll ask one more time: by "personal internal factors," are you referring to will, or merely to the prior physical-causal chain?

Internal factors:
Knowledge, memories, beliefs, talent, desires, wants, fears, doubts, etc

[henry quirk]

Knowledge, memories, beliefs, talent, desires, wants, fears, doubts, etc

These are not internal factors (causes). They're what a person does: I know, I remember, I believe, I can do, I want, I fear, I doubt; he knows, he remembers, he believes, he can do, he wants, he fears.

The person (I) causes.

-----

There are only two options...

Determinism (hard) or libertarian free will. There's no middle ground (compatibilism or soft determinism).


We're just deluded meat machines (nuthin' but aggregates of particles pinballin' around) or we're persons (bodies [aggregates of particles] and souls [organizing and animating principles]).

We're not a lil bit free and and a lil bit determined.


We're as morally responsible as a Roomba or we're utterly, completely, absolutely morally responsible.

We're not kinda *morally responsible....some of the time...when it suits us (or when we can't weasel out of it).


There you go again, Henry, with your grand proclamations and not a jot of philosophy or philosophizing to back of it.

Meh. If I'm just a meat machine (I'm not) I have absolutely no choice in the matter; if I'm a person, a libertarian free will (I am), then I choose to simply state what's apparent and leave you to your own deliberation.




*and this -- moral responsibility -- is at the root of it...what we do matters or it doesn't...we're responsible for our choices and actions or we're not

[Belinda]

GREAT, well 'now' that is RESOLVED.

Different individuals use different vocabularies, as well as different meanings and definitions for the different words that they all use, in different ways.


YET it is you adult human beings who have been, continually, DISAGREEING, BICKERING, MISUNDERSTANDING, and FIGHTING WITH 'each other' OVER things. And, some could even argue, that you adult human beings have been doing those things MORE SO in so-called 'philosophical discussions'.

In fact over the last few thousand or so years, hitherto when this is being written, you so-called "philosophers" have, REALLY, NOT made any ACTUAL PROGRESS, AT ALL.

For Future's Sake you, STILL, DISAGREE, BICKER, and FIGHT OVER the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST thing, in Life. That is; 'What is the meaning of 'life'?'

Just about EVERY older child KNOWS if they want to FIND 'the meaning' of some thing, then they just 'LOOK IN' A 'dictionary'.

Therefore, The 'meaning' of 'life' IS, living; being alive. Full stop.

And, The 'purpose' of 'life' IS, making living; being alive better. Again, full stop.

Also, WHEN, and IF, you adult human beings EVER want to STOP living the way that you are 'now', when this is being written, and SERIOUSLY Want to CHANGE, for the better, so as to make living; being alive BETTER for EVERY one, then 'life', itself, CAN, and WILL, become BETTER, MORE PEACEFUL and MORE HARMONIOUS.

Life, Itself, and living and being is about the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST thing/s TO DO, and TO DO IN Peace and IN Harmony, but that is ONLY if you, REALLY, WANT TO.

YET, you adult human beings make 'Life', and living, APPEAR to be some COMPLEX and HARD thing TO DO.

INSTEAD of USING 'vocabulary' THAT DIFFERS, how about USING 'vocablulary' that IS THE SAME. And then FIND and SEE what, ACTUALLY, TRANSPIRES.


BUT IT IS so-called "philosophers" who are THE ONES WHO have NOT YET even 'standardized' what JUST 'the meaning of the word 'life' IS, YET.


SO ONCE AGAIN, 'we', the readers, DID NOT and, still, DO NOT KNOW the ACTUAL MEANING of another word you USED here.

"Primary imagination is the creation of the self " . Coleridge . Coleridge was a poet who created ideas; he did so by way of his creating imagination.

Philosophy does not aim to tell people what to think; it helps you to think creatively.

And, when you are PRE/ASSUMING or BELIEVING absolutely ANY thing is true, then you are NOT 'thinking creatively'.

As you posters here keep PROVING me True here.

There have been several important and many minor creative thinkers in the last few thousand years of recorded history who have helped men lead happier lives. The study of ideas in philosophy tells who these men were and what they had to tell us.

Will you provide any actual examples?

If no, then why not?

Freely comparing ideas, trying to answer searching questions and disagreeing after due thought, is a way for us to help each other to be creative and hopefully get better ideas. Better idea are ideas that help us to have happier lives.

Again, will you provide any actual examples here?

An education in philosophy teaches people how not to "bicker" but instead to have useful dialogues

LOL
LOL
LOL

It does not matter one iota how much one has learned through any education system, on any subject, if one just chooses to assume to believe some thing is true, then they can NOT have a Truly useful dialogue regards that presumption/belief.

Many people have spent their hard earned money, time, and their life energies doing philosophy and other creative arts at universities.

So what?

you adult human beings, at times, are CERTAINLY NOT very intelligent AT ALL. As you have just SHOWN 'us' here, once again.

Their aim is to be happier by discovering certain truths about their self and to help others to be happier in the same way.

There is ONLY One Truth about the One and ONLY 'Self', in Life.

Also, and AGAIN, for the VERY SLOW OF LEARNING, there is NO 'their self', 'your self', NOR 'our self'. These terms are OXYMORONS and just CONTRADICTIONS IN TERMS.

You should not ,for the sake of your own satisfaction, try to learn philosophy from this website. You could be lucky, but if you want to learn philosophy you really need to get an accredited teacher, or at least a beginner's book explaining main ideas in philosophy, and also the great philosophers. Excuse me, but I am only advising this because your constant theme is the deficiencies of "You People". Maybe you expect too much of us and this forum.

[Belinda]

Knowledge, memories, beliefs, talent, desires, wants, fears, doubts, etc

These are not internal factors (causes). They're what a person does: I know, I remember, I believe, I can do, I want, I fear, I doubt; he knows, he remembers, he believes, he can do, he wants, he fears.

The person (I) causes.

-----

There are only two options...

Determinism (hard) or libertarian free will. There's no middle ground (compatibilism or soft determinism).


We're just deluded meat machines (nuthin' but aggregates of particles pinballin' around) or we're persons (bodies [aggregates of particles] and souls [organizing and animating principles]).

We're not a lil bit free and and a lil bit determined.


We're as morally responsible as a Roomba or we're utterly, completely, absolutely morally responsible.

We're not kinda *morally responsible....some of the time...when it suits us (or when we can't weasel out of it).


There you go again, Henry, with your grand proclamations and not a jot of philosophy or philosophizing to back of it.

Meh. If I'm just a meat machine (I'm not) I have absolutely no choice in the matter; if I'm a person, a libertarian free will (I am), then I choose to simply state what's apparent and leave you to your own deliberation.




*and this -- moral responsibility -- is at the root of it...what we do matters or it doesn't...we're responsible for our choices and actions or we're not

You are not a meat machine because a meat machine's future is all in a blueprint somewhere. Your future is open until it happens. You may have choices as to your future, and in any case nobody can foretell your future which is not blueprinted.

Free Will is neither here not there as it does not exist. Choice is not the same as so -called free will.

[Immanuel Can]

That's a pretty hard view to sustain. I think you can make the case that free will can allow some latitude for some decisions to be influenced by prior factors, but that's pretty much as far as free will can go with that.

I think that it's much harder to explain that prior factors don't affect decisions in every case.

That's still not problematic for free will. The "free" part does not imply "devoid of contributing factors." All it implies is that, regardless of all the possible motivating factors, at the end of the day, some decisions are made because the will of the chooser arbitrates the case.

This is what I mean when I say that free will can accord some place to prior factors, and do so unproblematically. But Determinism cannot do that. If one case of will arbitrating a decision were to exist, then Determinism, by definition, would be untrue. So it has to deny the reality of every such case.

That's not at all demonstrable. In order to say that, we would have to have two "worlds" to compare. And since the free will idea of the world allows for the existence of alternate choices and alternate possibilities, we'd actually need access to an infinite number of possible universes, before we could say we have reason to know that.

In both cases, the external factors are the same and the person's motivations are the same.

That's supposition. Without actually having access to alternate worlds, we are in no position to say what would be the case in any of them. We certainly cannot build an argument based on worlds or universes that have never existed, and to which we can have no access. That's obvious.

I really don't know what to say regarding "personal internal factors," since it seems you don't want to define those for me so I can understand. But I'll ask one more time: by "personal internal factors," are you referring to will, or merely to the prior physical-causal chain?

Internal factors:
Knowledge, memories, beliefs, talent, desires, wants, fears, doubts, etc

Oh. Thank you. So...personal stuff. Will. Desires. Wants....etc.

If any of that is allowed to be the cause of a decision or an action, then Determinism is false. Determinism cannot add any such personal stuff to its account of causality without undermining its own basic thesis.

[henry quirk]

Choice is not the same as so -called free will.

In context: only a libertarian free will chooses.

a meat machine's future is all in a blueprint somewhere

In context: a meat machine is just a link in a causal chain, fundamentally no different in character than the particles that comprise it. There's no blueprint: only a relentless, amoral bashing and crashing of particles against particles against particles against...

And, no, I'm not a meat machine. I'm a person, a libertarian free wil.

[phyllo]

These are not internal factors (causes). They're what a person does: I know, I remember, I believe, I can do, I want, I fear, I doubt; he knows, he remembers, he believes, he can do, he wants, he fears.

The person (I) causes.

A person does those things for reasons. And a major reason is that they had an experience which taught them something.

They learned (saw/heard/read) something and they know it or believe it. They had a frightening experience, or someone told them about a frightening experience, and now they fear that experience will recur.

They learned to want. They learned to desire.

Or they want and desire because of their physiology.

[henry quirk]

A person does those things for reasons.

I'm hungry. What am I gonna do about it? Comes down to eat or don't eat. I decide which based on how I rate my hunger. I do it. Not an appetite, not an impulse. I do.

And a major reason is that they had an experience which taught them something.

Oh my, I burnt the dickens out of my finger! Will I live in fear of fire or will I make a point not to be stupid in the future? I decide what to do. Not the pain, not a fear.

They learned (saw/heard/read) something and they know it or believe it. They had a frightening experience, or someone told them about a frightening experience, and now they fear that experience will recur.

Or they had a bad fright and decided to handle similar experiences more carefully precisely so they won't reoccur. That person made a choice, not the experience.

They learned to want. They learned to desire.

Or they choose to stay ignorant, choose to forsake that desire.

Or they want and desire because of their physiology.

We can choose to do other than what instinct, what we feel, dictates.

[phyllo]

Who the hell says that "appetite decides" or "pain decides" or "fear decides" or "experience decides"???

You must be going for a new strawman record.

[henry quirk]

Who the hell says that "appetite decides" or "pain decides" or "fear decides" or "experience decides"???

Allow me to expand...

I decide which based on how I rate my hunger. I do it. I choose. I cause. Not an appetite, not an impulse. I do.

I decide what to do. I choose. I cause. Not the pain, not a fear.

You must be going for a new strawman record.

[iambiguous]

Criticising Strawson’s Compatibilism
Nurana Rajabova is wary of an attempt to dismiss determinism to keep free will

A lack of agency immediately makes a claim of moral responsibility non-applicable. In fact, thanks to the lack of agency and intention, one’s whole conception of the event changes as we take the act altogether away from the object and instead bring it to the agent that was harmed in the process. Thus, in this specific example, instead of saying the sea drowned the child, we say the child got drowned in the sea. The reason is because the sea has no agency. After all, the sea was not acting in any other way than being a sea.

But then those who actually argue that panpsychism itself is the real deal. In other words, even as I type these words, all of the cells and atomic and sub-atomic particules in my brain are preparing me for your reactions. Then my reaction to your reactions.

Like a video game? Or a matrix?

Also due to this lack of agency, we more often relate such experiences to fate or to the flow of the processes rather than blame the particular thing that appeared as the immediate cause.

So, we have all these words...brain, agency, experience, fate, process, responsibility, blame, etc., that "somehow" involve whatever "I" thinks it is able to accomplish more or less of its own volition. But beyond each particular context no one seems to know how all of these factors are intertwined. Let alone how they ought to be.

It follows therefore that our sense of moral responsibility is not based solely on our emotional reactions. It is also based on our judgment, which requires some other criteria for moral responsibility to be applicable – the first and foremost being the judgement that agency is present.

Then noting that this resolves what exactly? In regard to which [if any] of our mental, emotional or psychological reactions to or judgments about moral and political conflagrations.

So despite the pain and negative emotions an event may raise in us, those emotions do not immediately yield the ascription of moral responsibility to the cause of the event.

Click? Cue the objectivists who all but scoff at those here who dare to challenge their own formulary agendas? Even out as far as we can go...metaphysically?

Or, perhaps, cue Mother Nature and all the brains she has already programmed to believe that they do possess some degree of autonomy?

[iambiguous]

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.

Are you actually able to convince yourself that going back to whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself...God? the Big Bang?...how you grasp what determinism and compatibilism mean together "here and now" is likely to be the most rational assessment?

In other words, as an argument? Words defining and defending yet more words still?

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.

Ah, a 'serious philosopher"?

You're not tugged ambivalently in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics? And you have already developed a set of core moral values? And you no doubt embody all that is normal and healthy? So how on Earth, after noting this, can anyone here possibly still be confused about, well, any of this?

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?

That's basically what I am trying to determine here: are you a "meaning, morality and metaphysical" objectivist? Do you believe that in regard to them, you have the capacity to articulate that crucial "deep down inside you" Intrinsic Self? A True Self able to discover or to invent an objective meaning, an objective morality, an objective metaphysics?

Other than in an argument aimed at "settling" it all...theoretically?

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.

But that's okay? Okay because as long as those like you are around able to sort these things out, uh, analytically, we can just stay up there until we finally "get it?".

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.

Not to worry. There's always the possibility that you were never able to understand it in a wholly determined world. Just as there's always the possibility that how I think I understand it in a free will world is...ridiculous?

And I've lost count of how many philosophers I have come into contact with [virtually] who insist not only that conflicting moral and metaphysical quandaries/conundrums/antinomies can be reconciled or resolved, but that this must be true because they have already succeeded in conflating them "in their head" in order to embrace the One True Path.

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".

But -- click -- that's the beauty of discussing and debating issues like this. In a No God world. All that is necessary is that, one way or another, you do believe it.

More to the point [mine] is the assumption [yours] that the human brain actually can concoct an explanation for this such that all the dots mesh seamlessly into what you now believe in your head.

What I call the psychology of objectivism.

[Age]

"Primary imagination is the creation of the self " . Coleridge . Coleridge was a poet who created ideas; he did so by way of his creating imagination.

Philosophy does not aim to tell people what to think; it helps you to think creatively.

And, when you are PRE/ASSUMING or BELIEVING absolutely ANY thing is true, then you are NOT 'thinking creatively'.

As you posters here keep PROVING me True here.

There have been several important and many minor creative thinkers in the last few thousand years of recorded history who have helped men lead happier lives. The study of ideas in philosophy tells who these men were and what they had to tell us.

Will you provide any actual examples?

If no, then why not?

Freely comparing ideas, trying to answer searching questions and disagreeing after due thought, is a way for us to help each other to be creative and hopefully get better ideas. Better idea are ideas that help us to have happier lives.

Again, will you provide any actual examples here?

An education in philosophy teaches people how not to "bicker" but instead to have useful dialogues

LOL
LOL
LOL

It does not matter one iota how much one has learned through any education system, on any subject, if one just chooses to assume to believe some thing is true, then they can NOT have a Truly useful dialogue regards that presumption/belief.

Many people have spent their hard earned money, time, and their life energies doing philosophy and other creative arts at universities.

So what?

you adult human beings, at times, are CERTAINLY NOT very intelligent AT ALL. As you have just SHOWN 'us' here, once again.

Their aim is to be happier by discovering certain truths about their self and to help others to be happier in the same way.

There is ONLY One Truth about the One and ONLY 'Self', in Life.

Also, and AGAIN, for the VERY SLOW OF LEARNING, there is NO 'their self', 'your self', NOR 'our self'. These terms are OXYMORONS and just CONTRADICTIONS IN TERMS.

You should not ,for the sake of your own satisfaction, try to learn philosophy from this website.

JUST TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, I NEVER WANTED TO LEARN YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF 'PHILOSOPHY' FROM THIS NOR ANY WEBSITE.

You could be lucky, but if you want to learn philosophy you really need to get an accredited teacher, or at least a beginner's book explaining main ideas in philosophy, and also the great philosophers.[/quote]

HOW YOU, PERSONALLY, CAME TO THE ABSOLUTELY False AND Wrong CONCLUSION THAT I WANT TO LEARN YOUR OWN PERSONAL DEFINITION OF THE 'PHILOSOPHY' WORD, THEN REALLY ONLY YOU WOULD KNOW, FOR SURE.

Excuse me, but I am only advising this because your constant theme is the deficiencies of "You People". Maybe you expect too much of us and this forum.

Expecting you adult human beings to just be OPEN and Honest is NOT much all. Especially considering the irrefutable Fact that you were ALL born that way.

Also, expecting you people to be somewhat CURIOS and INTERESTED in the ideas and views of others, here, is REALLY NOT much also, especially considering that this here is a PHILOSOPHY FORUM.

Also, and by the way, who you, personally, consider are so-called "great philosophers" are CERTAINLY NOT, to other people.

So, which one of you people here has the ACTUAL True, Right, Accurate, and Correct view or belief here?

If it is yours "belinda", then WHY, exactly?

[Iwannaplato]

h. Thank you. So...personal stuff. Will. Desires. Wants....etc.

If any of that is allowed to be the cause of a decision or an action, then Determinism is false. Determinism cannot add any such personal stuff to its account of causality without undermining its own basic thesis.

This is false. You do not understand determinism. Determinism includes internal causes as part of the set of causes. It is not just external causes.
And if you think about it: why would a determinist, any kind, say that internal causes are not causes. Obviously internal causes are causes. There may be certain kinds of fatalists who think that external causes determine everything that one does. But determinism is just say that the sum of causes internal and external leads to an inevitable outcome. That's it. And internal causes of course includes desires, wants, values, etc. And this is made clear in descriptiosn of compatibilism, in fact that's precisely where they think moral responsibility and determinism are compatible: because of internal causes. Unless the person was utterly forced by external causes - which is very rarely the case - they are responsible for their actions. Someone puts a gun in you hand while four men hold your body and pull your finger in the trigger and it shoots someone. OK, you are not responsible.
But a rapist is the person who wanted to rape. And internal causes led to the rape. He is morally responsible. Your posts are utterly compatibilist. A religious version, since God knows the entire future and therefore we know it is determined. Which, again does not entail that the rapist is not morally responsible. He is. But it was never going to go another way or God's knowledge would have been fallible.

You continue to present a false view of determinism and react as if determinists have positions they do not.
Determinists include internal or person-centered causes in the sum of causes.

You've been fighting a strawman and your position is a form of compatibilism.

And you position is compatible with people being responsible for their actions.