Philosophy Now Forum

There's no study that suggest compatibilism is false, because compatibilism isn't a scientific statement, it's a way of interpreting our physical existence. It doesn't make any predictions beyond what we already experience in every day life.

The only science that can disprove compatibilism is science that disproves free will.

I think you have this idea that compatibilism entails explicit belief in pure determinism. It does not. Compatibilism is about compatibility only.

If I have a TV that's compatible with an x box and also compatible with Nintendo 64, that doesn't mean I also have x box and Nintendo 64.

Libertarian free willians say free will is incompatible with determinism. Compatibilists say, no.

That's it.

Here's something interesting: one of the fathers of quantum mechanics weighed in on the question of if the indeterminate nature of quantum mechanics tells us anything about free will.

https://quantumlifescience.wordpress.co ... -bbc-1949/

I think his answer is, it decidedly does not and cannot.

Obviously that doesn't mean he's correct, I just think it's notable that, with quantum mechanics being a central talking point about indeterminism, we have the thoughts of a man at the bottom of it.

FREE WILL AND MORALITY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

I can't hear you. Could you say it louder please?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 12:58 pm I can't hear you. Could you say it louder please?

FREE WILL AND MORALITY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!! Sorry, I just wanted it to stand out.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 3:17 pm FREE WILL AND MORALITY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!! Sorry, I just wanted it to stand out.

It's the opposite, actually (he said, in small caps).

If you have no "will," then you aren't responsible for anything, nor praisable for anything. You're like somebody in a coma, or drugged or zombified without their choice. There's no person to blame. Nobody chose to do anything. And there isn't an identity whom you could praise or blame for what happened.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:15 am The only science that can disprove compatibilism is science that disproves free will.

Science cannot do that, for one very obvious reason: that if it does, then there's no "scientist" left to have it "proved" to him.

Instead, there's just a collection of insensate atoms being manipulated by previous forces, which we mistake for the "scientist." But there's no "him" there. There's no entity to be capable of recognizing the proof as a proof, and thus arriving at a conclusion -- especially a conclusion that should be believed by other such helpless, non-choosing non-entities as you and I would then be.

Thus, yet again, Determinism is shown to be dumb. Good thing you and I are free will entities, that can see through that nonsense.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 5:57 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 3:17 pm FREE WILL AND MORALITY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!! Sorry, I just wanted it to stand out.

It's the opposite, actually (he said, in small caps).

If you have no "will," then you aren't responsible for anything, nor praisable for anything. You're like somebody in a coma, or drugged or zombified without their choice. There's no person to blame. Nobody chose to do anything. And there isn't an identity whom you could praise or blame for what happened.

Morality is a system of behavioral controls that arises from any group, pack or society. An entity that submits to control is not an agent of free will, and an agent of free will by definition, is unrestricted by any morality/control. They are mutually exclusive because they cancel one another.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 5:57 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 3:17 pm FREE WILL AND MORALITY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!! Sorry, I just wanted it to stand out.

It's the opposite, actually (he said, in small caps).

If you have no "will," then you aren't responsible for anything, nor praisable for anything. You're like somebody in a coma, or drugged or zombified without their choice. There's no person to blame. Nobody chose to do anything. And there isn't an identity whom you could praise or blame for what happened.

Morality is a system of behavioral controls that arises from any group, pack or society.

"Arises" how? By what means?

You can't say that people, whether singly or in groups or cultures, "choose" their morality. It has to be predetermined by Nature, right? But if it is, then it's not compulsory, nor "moral" in any deep sense. It's just an odd epiphenomenon that appears whenever helpless beings are forced by Nature to cluster together. But it refers to nothing we need to take seriously.

An entity that submits to control is not an agent of free will,

No, that's clearly not true.

If the cops arrest you and put you in jail, it won't be because you wanted to go. You'll be submitted by their control. But you'll still be a free being, in a volitional sense, even though they've incarcerated your body. Your yelling, "Let me out" attests to the fact that your will remains free, even while your body is in a cage. And if you're clever, you can even break out of that cage, either by gaming the system or organizing a breakout.

...and an agent of free will by definition, is unrestricted by any morality/control.

That definition is accepted by nobody nowhere. Sorry. It just isn't.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:31 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 5:57 pm
It's the opposite, actually (he said, in small caps).

If you have no "will," then you aren't responsible for anything, nor praisable for anything. You're like somebody in a coma, or drugged or zombified without their choice. There's no person to blame. Nobody chose to do anything. And there isn't an identity whom you could praise or blame for what happened.

Morality is a system of behavioral controls that arises from any group, pack or society.

"Arises" how? By what means?

You can't say that people, whether singly or in groups or cultures, "choose" their morality. It has to be predetermined by Nature, right? But if it is, then it's not compulsory, nor "moral" in any deep sense. It's just an odd epiphenomenon that appears whenever helpless beings are forced by Nature to cluster together. But it refers to nothing we need to take seriously.

An entity that submits to control is not an agent of free will,

No, that's clearly not true.

If the cops arrest you and put you in jail, it won't be because you wanted to go. You'll be submitted to their control. But you'll still be a free being, in a volitional sense, even though they've incarcerated your body. Your yelling, "Let me out" attests to the fact that your will remains free, even while your body is in a cage. And if you're clever, you can even break out of that cage, either by gaming the system or organizing a breakout.

...and an agent of free will by definition, is unrestricted by any morality/control.

That definition is accepted by nobody nowhere. Sorry. It just isn't.

So, according to you then, what is free will free of?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:40 pm So, according to you then, what is free will free of?

"Free" is not the important bit of the phrase. "Will" is.

Don't be misled...nobody believes "will" is "free" of any constraints at all. There are always circumstances, options, physical limitations, and so on, on what choices any person can make. No choice is devoid of circumstances.

But let's call it "choice," so the adjective "free" doesn't create confusion.

When you have "choice," it means that you could do one thing or the other, and maybe have reasons and incentives why both choices (or a whole range of different choices) is palatable to you. But nothing forces you to make one choice, and prevents you from being able to make a different choice. That's what it means to have "free will."

So, to give a simple example, I can choose to support Manchester City or Nottingham Forest football clubs. I have reasons for each choice. Nobody is making me choose Nottingham Forest; and in fact, there are strong incentives for me to choose the league leaders instead of a wanna-be team like Forest.

But I choose Forest. Nobody made me choose Forest. I chose. I was free to do so. Go, Forest.

Of course, a Determinist can fudge that. He can argue, "Well, unbeknownst to you, IC, it was because a butterfly batted its wings a thousand years ago, and this caused a cat to die in the 5th Century, which meant a village starved in the 11th, and by an elaborate chain of physical events, this caused an avalanche in the 19th Century, which made your parents have you, which forced you to be a Forest fan."

I don't know how I could prove them wrong. But they are. And I know they are...because I made that whole scenario up. They're bound to be wrong. But I still couldn't prove they are.

I'm free to choose. I know I am. That they don't know I am doesn't count against that fact.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:57 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:40 pm So, according to you then, what is free will free of?

"Free" is not the important bit of the phrase. "Will" is.

Don't be misled...nobody believes "will" is "free" of any constraints at all. There are always circumstances, options, physical limitations, and so on, on what choices any person can make. No choice is devoid of circumstances.

But let's call it "choice," so the adjective "free" doesn't create confusion.

When you have "choice," it means that you could do one thing or the other, and maybe have reasons and incentives why both choices (or a whole range of different choices) is palatable to you. But nothing forces you to make one choice, and prevents you from being able to make a different choice. That's what it means to have "free will."

So, to give a simple example, I can choose to support Manchester City or Nottingham Forest football clubs. I have reasons for each choice. Nobody is making me choose Nottingham Forest; and in fact, there are strong incentives for me to choose the league leaders instead of a wanna-be team like Forest.

But I choose Forest. Nobody made me choose Forest. I chose. I was free to do so. Go, Forest.

I know you hate it when I say this, but... every word of this is exactly what a compatibilist would say.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 7:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:57 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:40 pm So, according to you then, what is free will free of?

"Free" is not the important bit of the phrase. "Will" is.

Don't be misled...nobody believes "will" is "free" of any constraints at all. There are always circumstances, options, physical limitations, and so on, on what choices any person can make. No choice is devoid of circumstances.

But let's call it "choice," so the adjective "free" doesn't create confusion.

When you have "choice," it means that you could do one thing or the other, and maybe have reasons and incentives why both choices (or a whole range of different choices) is palatable to you. But nothing forces you to make one choice, and prevents you from being able to make a different choice. That's what it means to have "free will."

So, to give a simple example, I can choose to support Manchester City or Nottingham Forest football clubs. I have reasons for each choice. Nobody is making me choose Nottingham Forest; and in fact, there are strong incentives for me to choose the league leaders instead of a wanna-be team like Forest.

But I choose Forest. Nobody made me choose Forest. I chose. I was free to do so. Go, Forest.

I know you hate it when I say this, but... every word of this is exactly what a compatibilist would say.

I don't "hate" it. I just think it's very obviously wrong. And I'll say why, if I may.

A Compatibilist is going to have to say I didn't "choose" Forest. I just thought I chose. I was fooled. I was wrong. But I didn't know it.

This is not enough, of course, to create any "compatibility" between Determinism and free will. Rather, it's merely a kind of "Determinism in drag," clothed up like something that can find a place for human volition, where, in reality, no such place can be found.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:40 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:31 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:20 pm

Morality is a system of behavioral controls that arises from any group, pack or society.

"Arises" how? By what means?

You can't say that people, whether singly or in groups or cultures, "choose" their morality. It has to be predetermined by Nature, right? But if it is, then it's not compulsory, nor "moral" in any deep sense. It's just an odd epiphenomenon that appears whenever helpless beings are forced by Nature to cluster together. But it refers to nothing we need to take seriously.

An entity that submits to control is not an agent of free will,

No, that's clearly not true.

If the cops arrest you and put you in jail, it won't be because you wanted to go. You'll be submitted to their control. But you'll still be a free being, in a volitional sense, even though they've incarcerated your body. Your yelling, "Let me out" attests to the fact that your will remains free, even while your body is in a cage. And if you're clever, you can even break out of that cage, either by gaming the system or organizing a breakout.

...and an agent of free will by definition, is unrestricted by any morality/control.

That definition is accepted by nobody nowhere. Sorry. It just isn't.

So, according to you then, what is free will free of?

There is no free will, that is the point. Free will and morality are mutually exclusive. If you were to find a free will agent it probably would be in prison, that is what happens to people that break with morality, the social contract, but then prison has its rules with consequences far harsher than on the outside.