Philosophy Now Forum

I ambiguous, you are certainly living up to your username.
Correct me, at any point if I am wrong. Mary as you stated is NOT a hypothetical person.

Therefore, I am starting to think that this is something about Mary?

Indeed, did you in fact "give her a bang", "knock her up"?

To be honest, I think you have been banging on about Mary for quite some time to the point that maybe she already aborted your kid, and didn't tell you, and this is kid part 2.0?

Of course, I digress since a kid is not born from humans, but from goats.

So. (and alas)

iambiguous wrote:...my main interest in compatibilism revolves around those compatibilists who argue that Mary was never able not to abort her fetus but that she is still morally responsible for doing so.

Well then, it's simple. Find one of those...and who nose, perhaps they actually give a shit.

RE This:-

iambiguous wrote:Instead, some do insist it's "solved" because a God, the God, their God planted a "soul" inside us at conception. Instant free-will. Then those who argue that their God is omniscient also have to "think up" how an all-knowing God and human autonomy are compatible.

That's my area of expertise, so fire away.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:02 am I ambiguous, you are certainly living up to your username.
Correct me, at any point if I am wrong. Mary as you stated is NOT a hypothetical person.

Therefore, I am starting to think that this is something about Mary?

Indeed, did you in fact "give her a bang", "knock her up"?

To be honest, I think you have been banging on about Mary for quite some time to the point that maybe she already aborted your kid, and didn't tell you, and this is kid part 2.0?

Of course, I digress since a kid is not born from humans, but from goats.

So. (and alas)

Note to others:

Decide for yourself what this tells us about how seriously we should take him or her.

As for Mary [not her real name], my interactions with her here...

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

...had absolutely nothing to do with compatibilism. In fact, back then I was firmly embedded in the free will camp.

iambiguous wrote:...my main interest in compatibilism revolves around those compatibilists who argue that Mary was never able not to abort her fetus but that she is still morally responsible for doing so.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:02 amWell then, it's simple. Find one of those...and who nose, perhaps they actually give a shit.

Who "nose"?

Of course, over at ILP, this sort of what I call there a "pinhead" post, is alas the norm of late. It just still disappoints me to find them here.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:02 amRE This:-

iambiguous wrote:Instead, some do insist it's "solved" because a God, the God, their God planted a "soul" inside us at conception. Instant free-will. Then those who argue that their God is omniscient also have to "think up" how an all-knowing God and human autonomy are compatible.

That's my area of expertise, so fire away.

You know, whatever that means.

Determinism by definition is, going from one state to another state, let's call this chain of causality, and it is true until we reach the options when we have some available chains of causality. That is when the mind intervenes and freely chooses one of the options.

From ILP [or what's left of it]:

Ben JS wrote:

iambiguous wrote:What we do or do not do with Mary, how we respond or do not respond to her, how we approach or do not approach her...how is that in turn but one more necessary/inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world?

I agree, it is an inherent manifestation - our choice determined long before we were even aware of the question.

Okay, on this part -- compelled or not? -- we seem to agree. Whatever set into motion the laws of matter "somehow" evolved into the extraordinary matter that is human brains. And thus "somehow" Mary's choice to abort Jane was determined long before there ever was a Mary or an unborn Jane.

If, of course, in a free will world, I understand this as you do.

But then this "yet" part...

Ben JS wrote: Yet, we're still here expressing our being. The question itself affirms our structure. It's only the living - the biased, that have an interest in one result as opposed to another. By the very concern we demonstrate for understanding, we are implicitly saying 'We care about what's happening and we have a preferred result'.

How are we not "expressing our being" in the only manner in which our wholly in sync with the laws of matter brains compel us to express it? How mentally, emotionally and psychologically is anything that we think and feel not but an inherent manifestation of the only possible world?

How is what we think we understand and is happening around us any different from what we care about here, if both emanate from a consciousness emanating from a mind emanating from a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

Now, I'm certainly not insisting that how "I" think about all this is optimal understanding, only that if there is to be an optimal understanding that would come from the brain scientists themselves rather than from philosophers.

Or, if "a God, the God" is demonstrated to exist from the theologians?

Ben JS wrote: So even if it's all determined, as I and others believe, we're still trying to act in a way that we anticipate may contribute to an outcome in reality which is preferable than other outcomes that aren't preferred. It is our ignorance that leaves us with the idea of possibility, that we do not know what the future holds - so we seek for the ideal possibilities.

Again, if it's all determined, we're not trying to act, we're acting in the only manner in which the laws of nature compel us to act. Our "contributions" are no less destined/fated.

How are our "anticipations" not in turn inherently embedded in this:

"I agree, it is an inherent manifestation - our choice determined long before we were even aware of the question.[/i]

Then [for me] it's just more of the same: you speculating here as someone convinced that they have free will would:

Ben JS wrote: Given that we do not know the future, why ought not we seek to influence change which we value? If one believes that indifference to action, in itself isn't ideal, then isn't it reasonable to instill truthful reasons why actions matter - even in the face of great adversity? To say we should never have expectation of another is terribly harmful. We should not condone harm - for regardless of whether it was determined or not, we still suffer.

Back to you telling this to someone in a dream. You wake up and realize it was entirely your brain creating the words you "spoke".

Ah, but, of course, the waking brain is just "somehow" different.

An Examination of Free Will and Buddhism
Barbara O'Brien

The term "free will" signifies the belief that rational people have the capacity to make their own life choices. That may not sound terribly controversial, but, in fact, the nature of free will, how it is exercised, and whether it exists at all, have been argued about fiercely in western philosophy and religion for centuries.

Exactly.

And what does this tell us? That if, after centuries, some of the greatest minds around could not come up with the definitive argument for or against free will, it's either because there is no free will and these minds came up with only that which they were never able not to come up with or there is free will and this is a very, very, very tough nut to crack. Both scientifically and philosophically.

And applied to Buddhism, "free will" has an additional hurdle -- if there's no self, who is it that wills?

That again. Those who claim that with Buddhism there is no self. As though Buddhists, just like all the rest of us, don't know perfectly well that in their interactions with others in the either/or world, of course there is a reasonably objective Me.

Am I [and not you] typing these words in my own here and now? Are you [and not me] reading them in your own here and now. Unless of course at the very moment you read them I go back and read them again myself. But here whether someone is a Buddhist or not, the laws of matter seemingly don't change.

No, again, for me, the far more problematic quandary revolves around "I" in the is/ought world. Are we free to opt among alternative points of views and behaviors? Because if we are not what does it really mean to speak of moral responsibility.

Other than as we were never able not to.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:00 pm Determinism by definition is, going from one state to another state, let's call this chain of causality, and it is true until we reach the options when we have some available chains of causality. That is when the mind intervenes and freely chooses one of the options.

Okay, but I don't focus on how we define it but on whether or not we can demonstrate [scientifically and/or philosophically] that we defined it freely. That, given whatever the definitive relationship is between the human brain and the laws of matter, we could opt of our own volition to define it differently given a new experience or access to new information and knowledge.

That "somehow" when lifeless matter evolved into living matter all those millions of years ago "something" happened that led to an autonomous human brain.

Now, as with your conjectures regarding something and nothing, you have "thought up" the conclusion here that "the mind intervenes and freely chooses one of the options."

And how exactly do you go about actually demonstrating it?

By merely believing it of course.

Just as there are those here who believe that an omniscient God provided Adam and Eve with free will and they, uh, blew it?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:47 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:00 pm Determinism by definition is, going from one state to another state, let's call this chain of causality, and it is true until we reach the options when we have some available chains of causality. That is when the mind intervenes and freely chooses one of the options.

Okay, but I don't focus on how we define it but on whether or not we can demonstrate [scientifically and/or philosophically] that we defined it freely. That, given whatever the definitive relationship is between the human brain and the laws of matter, we could opt of our own volition to define it differently given a new experience or access to new information and knowledge.

That "somehow" when lifeless matter evolved into living matter all those millions of years ago "something" happened that led to an autonomous human brain.

Philosophers and scientists (materialists) have difficulty dealing with the hard problem of consciousness, how unconscious matter can become conscious. Compatibilists have the same difficulty, how nonfree matter can become free. They however deal with another problem too: how something nonfree can be free. Strong emergence could be the only viable answer for the emergence of consciousness and free will. I however have an argument against strong emergence: To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is a strong emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of the properties of parts. Therefore there is no strong emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to the properties of parts.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:47 pm Now, as with your conjectures regarding something and nothing, you have "thought up" the conclusion here that "the mind intervenes and freely chooses one of the options."

And how exactly do you go about actually demonstrating it?

What do you want me to demonstrate? Are you able to choose? If yes, then you are not mere matter and have a mind that is free since I showed that the strong emergence is impossible.

Damn bahman just went in didn't he? I'ont know if any of that is true, but it sounded good af.

I didn't know u go hard like that, B. I thought you wuz just a three-liner forum philosopher.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:15 pm Damn bahman just went in didn't he? I'ont know if any of that is true, but it sounded good af.

Glad to see that you like my response. Let's wait for his response.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:15 pm I didn't know u go hard like that, B. I thought you wuz just a three-liner forum philosopher.

I rarely write more than three lines. I try my best to be concise.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:02 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:47 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:00 pm Determinism by definition is, going from one state to another state, let's call this chain of causality, and it is true until we reach the options when we have some available chains of causality. That is when the mind intervenes and freely chooses one of the options.

Okay, but I don't focus on how we define it but on whether or not we can demonstrate [scientifically and/or philosophically] that we defined it freely. That, given whatever the definitive relationship is between the human brain and the laws of matter, we could opt of our own volition to define it differently given a new experience or access to new information and knowledge.

That "somehow" when lifeless matter evolved into living matter all those millions of years ago "something" happened that led to an autonomous human brain.

Philosophers and scientists (materialists) have difficulty dealing with the hard problem of consciousness, how unconscious matter can become conscious. Compatibilists have the same difficulty, how nonfree matter can become free. They however deal with another problem too: how something nonfree can be free. Strong emergence could be the only viable answer for the emergence of consciousness and free will. I however have an argument against strong emergence: To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is a strong emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of the properties of parts. Therefore there is no strong emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to the properties of parts.

In my view, you're still stuck though. Just like all the rest of us. Thinking up arguments regarding the existence of strong emergence is not the same thing as demonstrating experientially and experimentally that you thought this up freely. Or, instead, that when non-conscious/non-living matter "somehow" evolved into conscious/living matter here on planet Earth, it included autonomy when matter "somehow" became human consciousness.

As for the reason it is one or the other, we may as well discuss the reason there is something instead of nothing. Or the reason there is or is not a God.

We just don't know. Either ontologically or teleologically.

Again, there is only the life that we lived precipitating a unique set of personal experiences, uniquely personal communications with others and uniquely personal things that we read or heard or became aware of.

In other words, necessarily excluding all of the experiences and relationships and information and knowledge that did not become a part of our profoundly problematic sense of reality. But that could given new experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge.

Here for example.

Anyway, take your "intellectual contraption" above and imagine you are explaining it to Mary, grappling with whether to abort or not to abort her pregnancy. Strong emergence or not for her given how there are compatibilists who argue that she is both compelled to abort her pregnancy and morally responsible for doing so.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:47 pm Now, as with your conjectures regarding something and nothing, you have "thought up" the conclusion here that "the mind intervenes and freely chooses one of the options."

And how exactly do you go about actually demonstrating it?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:02 pmWhat do you want me to demonstrate? Are you able to choose? If yes, then you are not mere matter and have a mind that is free since I showed that the strong emergence is impossible.

Again, you noted how you think about it. You did not demonstrate that how you think about it necessarily establishes that human autonomy exists. Otherwise, you could take your conclusions to the folks at the American Philosophical Association or the American Physical Society [or their equivalent in other countries] and attempt to have them either verified or falsified.

And I suspect no one else has finally pinned it down because if they had, how would this not be the most discussed topic of all? In both the APA and the APS.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:20 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:02 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:47 pm

Okay, but I don't focus on how we define it but on whether or not we can demonstrate [scientifically and/or philosophically] that we defined it freely. That, given whatever the definitive relationship is between the human brain and the laws of matter, we could opt of our own volition to define it differently given a new experience or access to new information and knowledge.

That "somehow" when lifeless matter evolved into living matter all those millions of years ago "something" happened that led to an autonomous human brain.

Philosophers and scientists (materialists) have difficulty dealing with the hard problem of consciousness, how unconscious matter can become conscious. Compatibilists have the same difficulty, how nonfree matter can become free. They however deal with another problem too: how something nonfree can be free. Strong emergence could be the only viable answer for the emergence of consciousness and free will. I however have an argument against strong emergence: To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is a strong emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of the properties of parts. Therefore there is no strong emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to the properties of parts.

In my view, you're still stuck though. Just like all the rest of us.

I am stuck in what? What is wrong with my argument?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:47 pm Thinking up arguments regarding the existence of strong emergence is not the same thing as demonstrating experientially and experimentally that you thought this up freely.

Consciousness/free will can only be justified from the first-person perspective.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:47 pm Or, instead, that when non-conscious/non-living matter "somehow" evolved into conscious/living matter here on planet Earth, it included autonomy when matter "somehow" became human consciousness.

There are two problems here (if we focus on materialism): First, you need to prove that matter is not conscious, and second, you need to show how matter could become conscious.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:47 pm As for the reason it is one or the other, we may as well discuss the reason there is something instead of nothing. Or the reason there is or is not a God.

We just don't know. Either ontologically or teleologically.

Again, there is only the life that we lived precipitating a unique set of personal experiences, uniquely personal communications with others and uniquely personal things that we read or heard or became aware of.

In other words, necessarily excluding all of the experiences and relationships and information and knowledge that did not become a part of our profoundly problematic sense of reality. But that could given new experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge.

Here for example.

Anyway, take your "intellectual contraption" above and imagine you are explaining it to Mary, grappling with whether to abort or not to abort her pregnancy. Strong emergence or not for her given how there are compatibilists who argue that she is both compelled to abort her pregnancy and morally responsible for doing so.

Are you a compatibilist? What is your position?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:47 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:47 pm Now, as with your conjectures regarding something and nothing, you have "thought up" the conclusion here that "the mind intervenes and freely chooses one of the options."

And how exactly do you go about actually demonstrating it?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:02 pmWhat do you want me to demonstrate? Are you able to choose? If yes, then you are not mere matter and have a mind that is free since I showed that the strong emergence is impossible.

Again, you noted how you think about it. You did not demonstrate that how you think about it necessarily establishes that human autonomy exists. Otherwise, you could take your conclusions to the folks at the American Philosophical Association or the American Physical Society [or their equivalent in other countries] and attempt to have them either verified or falsified.

And I suspect no one else has finally pinned it down because if they had, how would this not be the most discussed topic of all? In both the APA and the APS.

I am documenting my stuff. But for those who read this here, I can prove that free will is real. There are two types of decisions: Conditional, and free. To elaborate, think of a situation with two options, A and B. Suppose that you like A more than B and you decide on A. This is the conditional decision. Free decision can happen in three different situations: When you equally like A and B and decide on one of the options, when the future outcome of A and B are not known and decide on one of the options, and when you like A more than B but unconditionally decide on B for no specific reason. It should be obvious that a non-free thing cannot for example decide on one option when the future outcome of A and B are not known.

Is free will falsifiable? Well, not so far.
Is determinism falsifiable? I don't think so. I mean, qm seems to falsify it, though it doesn't lead to free will, nor has it's at least seeming falsification by qm led to any consensus that it has been falsified. Qm offers a kind of indeterminism that isn't free will, at least, it doesn't seem like one. But I can't see a way to falsify free will or it's antagonists.
To me it's a non-issue.
I've still got the day's challenges.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:18 am Is free will falsifiable? Well, not so far.
Is determinism falsifiable? I don't think so. I mean, qm seems to falsify it, though it doesn't lead to free will, nor has it's at least seeming falsification by qm led to any consensus that it has been falsified. Qm offers a kind of indeterminism that isn't free will, at least, it doesn't seem like one. But I can't see a way to falsify free will or it's antagonists.
To me it's a non-issue.
I've still got the day's challenges.

Free Will is falsifiable by arguing for relativity. All events relate to other events either causally or nomically. Therefore a Free Will event is impossible.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:40 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:18 am Is free will falsifiable? Well, not so far.
Is determinism falsifiable? I don't think so. I mean, qm seems to falsify it, though it doesn't lead to free will, nor has it's at least seeming falsification by qm led to any consensus that it has been falsified. Qm offers a kind of indeterminism that isn't free will, at least, it doesn't seem like one. But I can't see a way to falsify free will or it's antagonists.
To me it's a non-issue.
I've still got the day's challenges.

Free Will is falsifiable by arguing for relativity. All events relate to other events either causally or nomically. Therefore a Free Will event is impossible.

You are using some kind of deduction. Falsifiability has to do with testing. I am not sure you are correct in your use of 'relativity' either, not that that matters in this case. And I can't see how

All events relate to other events either causally or nomically.

has been proven, though it's certainly a working hypothesis that has generated a lot of useful information. Or it's related to several in science.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 10:12 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:40 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:18 am Is free will falsifiable? Well, not so far.
Is determinism falsifiable? I don't think so. I mean, qm seems to falsify it, though it doesn't lead to free will, nor has it's at least seeming falsification by qm led to any consensus that it has been falsified. Qm offers a kind of indeterminism that isn't free will, at least, it doesn't seem like one. But I can't see a way to falsify free will or it's antagonists.
To me it's a non-issue.
I've still got the day's challenges.

Free Will is falsifiable by arguing for relativity. All events relate to other events either causally or nomically. Therefore a Free Will event is impossible.

You are using some kind of deduction. Falsifiability has to do with testing. I am not sure you are correct in your use of 'relativity' either, not that that matters in this case. And I can't see how

All events relate to other events either causally or nomically.

has been proven, though it's certainly a working hypothesis that has generated a lot of useful information. Or it's related to several in science.

I did not mean falsifiable in Popper's sense as applied to empirical theory and induction. I meant falsifiable as deducible from Einstein's theory of special relativity. If someone believes they chose from a position of Free Will , they are not taking into account that they are not only an agent of their choice but also related to relative causes of their choice.