compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:06 pmI'm not a pure determinist myself, I see randomness in the universe, but that randomness isn't the source of my freedom, my responsibility, or my ability to look at evidence or arguments and change my mind.
What does it mean for something to be random in our interactions with others? Out of the blue? For no causal/material/empirical reason? Just -- poof! -- it happens?

Or in the either/or world does that come down to the profound mystery between matter in the realm of the very, very small and matter in the realm of the very, very large. Quantum reality and all the rest of it?

Or is quantom reality only that which science has just begun to scratch the surface regarding. QM understood a hundred years from now...a thousand years from now? What of randomness then?

And then in the world we interact in from day to day there is randomness as explored here: https://youtu.be/mTDs0lvFuMc

Things happening all around us that might have a profound impact on our lives...but things we are not even consciously aware of.

But what interests me above all else is that, in assuming free will, moral responsibility is embedded in the profoundly problematic nature of dasein...and in assuming determinism how can moral responsibility have any practical meaning at all?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:22 pm how can moral responsibility have any practical meaning at all?
Responsibility only has practical meaning. You want a society full of people who can coexist peacefully, so you separate, lock up, or rehabilitate those who show they are counter productive to that goal.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:22 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:06 pmI'm not a pure determinist myself, I see randomness in the universe, but that randomness isn't the source of my freedom, my responsibility, or my ability to look at evidence or arguments and change my mind.
What does it mean for something to be random in our interactions with others? Out of the blue? For no causal/material/empirical reason? Just -- poof! -- it happens?
After all this time I still don't think I know what you actually believe about all this. Are you a determinist? Are you a substance dualist? Do you believe in free will and moral responsibility?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:48 am
iambiguous wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:22 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:06 pmI'm not a pure determinist myself, I see randomness in the universe, but that randomness isn't the source of my freedom, my responsibility, or my ability to look at evidence or arguments and change my mind.
What does it mean for something to be random in our interactions with others? Out of the blue? For no causal/material/empirical reason? Just -- poof! -- it happens?
After all this time I still don't think I know what you actually believe about all this. Are you a determinist? Are you a substance dualist? Do you believe in free will and moral responsibility?

If Iambiguous may not explain what he himself is partial to, his question about the nature of randomness is a searching question which if you fully answer it, your considered answer would help to explain to others your own understanding.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Belinda wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:22 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:48 am
iambiguous wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:22 pm

What does it mean for something to be random in our interactions with others? Out of the blue? For no causal/material/empirical reason? Just -- poof! -- it happens?
After all this time I still don't think I know what you actually believe about all this. Are you a determinist? Are you a substance dualist? Do you believe in free will and moral responsibility?

If Iambiguous may not explain what he himself is partial to, his question about the nature of randomness is a searching question which if you fully answer it, your considered answer would help to explain to others your own understanding.
My own understanding is, we are physical beings. Thought seems to happen in the brain, decisions seem to happen in the brain.

The physical world may not be purely deterministic, but it is at least partially deterministic - in other words, we apparently live in a world where the future possible states are at the very least heavily constrained by the past possible states. Pure determinism means the future possible states are constrained to exactly 1 future. It's obvious to me that there are at least some constraints on the future possible states (or at least constraints on the probability distribution of future possible states), but quantum randomness indicates to me that there's a high likelihood that pure determinism isn't the case in this universe we find ourselves in.

When it comes to human behaviour, I think quantum randomness is largely unimportant - but to the degree that it does affect our behaviour, it's not an effect I would refer to as "freedom" in any sense.

If a series of quantum random events happen in my brain and cause me to make a decision I otherwise would not have, I don't feel particularly "free" because of that. I feel like I've just been made a slave to random events. If anything I feel like I've LOST control, not gained it.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

And as a corollary to that, I don't personally think dualism changes the picture in any meaningful way. If someone sees what I wrote up there and says "ah but the mind is not physical, it exists in some separate mind realm", then to that I respond, that changes nothing.

The separate mind realm, whatever it is, seems to also evolve over time in a consistent manner, based on rules that are either completely or at least partially deterministic. Randomness in this mind realm doesn't do anything for our freedom, in the same way that randomness in our physical realm doesn't.

So I can't see that dualism changes that picture at all.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:32 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:22 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:48 am
After all this time I still don't think I know what you actually believe about all this. Are you a determinist? Are you a substance dualist? Do you believe in free will and moral responsibility?

If Iambiguous may not explain what he himself is partial to, his question about the nature of randomness is a searching question which if you fully answer it, your considered answer would help to explain to others your own understanding.
My own understanding is, we are physical beings. Thought seems to happen in the brain, decisions seem to happen in the brain.

The physical world may not be purely deterministic, but it is at least partially deterministic - in other words, we apparently live in a world where the future possible states are at the very least heavily constrained by the past possible states. Pure determinism means the future possible states are constrained to exactly 1 future. It's obvious to me that there are at least some constraints on the future possible states (or at least constraints on the probability distribution of future possible states), but quantum randomness indicates to me that there's a high likelihood that pure determinism isn't the case in this universe we find ourselves in.

When it comes to human behaviour, I think quantum randomness is largely unimportant - but to the degree that it does affect our behaviour, it's not an effect I would refer to as "freedom" in any sense.

If a series of quantum random events happen in my brain and cause me to make a decision I otherwise would not have, I don't feel particularly "free" because of that. I feel like I've just been made a slave to random events. If anything I feel like I've LOST control, not gained it.
I note your comprehensive enough reply. I disagree in that determinism does not imply prediction therefore past events are not a sufficient indicator of future events. I agree, if I may paraphrase what you wrote; future events for living sentient beings are variable mixtures of chance and choice. I trust reason, and I believe reason decreases the element of chance.

You accuse me of nonsensical God belief. Hard determinism, if taken to its ultimate conclusion leads to integrated whole. Quantum randomness I don't understand as I'm in no way a physicist, I understand it says reality is not an integrated whole. If that is ever proved to be the case I will have to abandon my belief that God and Nature are the same and that Spinoza was wrong.
Your last paragraph which bears on so-called 'Free Will' is the best argument against 'Free Will' and I agree. I think your last paragraph answers Iambiguous's question.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:49 pm And as a corollary to that, I don't personally think dualism changes the picture in any meaningful way. If someone sees what I wrote up there and says "ah but the mind is not physical, it exists in some separate mind realm", then to that I respond, that changes nothing.

The separate mind realm, whatever it is, seems to also evolve over time in a consistent manner, based on rules that are either completely or at least partially deterministic. Randomness in this mind realm doesn't do anything for our freedom, in the same way that randomness in our physical realm doesn't.

So I can't see that dualism changes that picture at all.
But Cartesian dualism indicates, not that mind is a separate realm, but that mind is a separate ontic substance. Realms may communicate: ontic substances can't communicate.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

In quantum mechanics, particles don't have fixed locations or speeds, so they don't have fixed energies either. This is because quantum mechanics is based on the idea of "wave-particle duality," which says that particles can act both like waves and like particles, depending on the situation.

In quantum mechanics, a particle's position is described by its wavefunction, which shows how likely it is to be in a certain place. The wavefunction is not a position in and of itself, but rather a set of probabilities. In quantum mechanics, it is not possible to know where a particle is for sure because of this.

In the same way, the Fourier transform of the wavefunction, which is also a probability distribution, tells us about the momentum of a particle. Since the wavefunction doesn't show a fixed position, the momentum also can't be known for sure.

In classical mechanics, a particle has a certain amount of energy, which is equal to one half of its mass times its speed squared. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, says that a particle's position and momentum are both uncertain, which means that its energy is also uncertain. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle describes this uncertainty. It says that the product of the uncertainties in a particle's position and speed can't be less than a certain constant.

In the end, in a quantum mechanical world, there are no fixed positions, momentum, or energy. This is because the wave-like nature of particles makes their properties inherently uncertain.

In classical mechanics, the position, speed, and other properties of a particle can be determined and predicted with great accuracy using a set of equations. This leads to a view of the world that is deterministic. But in quantum mechanics, the fact that the position and momentum of a particle can't be known for sure means that the outcome of any given measurement can't be known for sure. This makes it seem like the world is more probabilistic than deterministic.

In quantum mechanics, this means that it is impossible to know for sure how a measurement will turn out. Instead, the best that can be done is to guess how likely it is that the particle will be in a certain place or be moving at a certain speed. The fact that quantum mechanics is based on probabilities is a core part of the theory and is often called a lack of determinism.

In short, when it comes to determinism, quantum mechanics is very different from classical mechanics. Classical mechanics is based on the idea that the properties of particles are fixed, but quantum mechanics is based on the idea that particle properties are uncertain.

Even with all of this, the laws of conservation of energy, momentum, etc. are still true when they are expressed in the language of modern science. And that's why it would make sense to change the meaning of "determinism" to mean following the six conservation laws. This would free us from the nonsense of classical determinism, yet leave us with a practical determinism that makes sense.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Our Nietzschean Future
Paul O’Mahoney considers the awful fate Nietzsche predicts for humanity.
Under these conditions [above], the appropriate conception of life would be that of a game: a grand, ongoing, purposeless and all-encompassing piece of play, each person with no more agency than a cast die or caroming billiard ball. The cosmos as a game was a metaphor of which Nietzsche himself was fond. Seeing the cosmos as a game is precisely the kind of god’s-eye view appropriate to the philosopher, who looks down on creation from a standpoint beyond good and evil.
Yeah, that is basically the frame of mind that any number the sociopaths embody in their own day to day interactions with others. The "what's in it for me?" game in which others are just a means to that end. And it's beyond good and evil precisely because "in the absence of God all things are permitted." Providing, of course, you don't get caught. But that's human justice. You might get tossed in jail. God and religion are then embraced in order to raise the stakes. Only even the sociopaths are as well wholly in sync with the only possible reality?

On the other hand, Nietzsche is often connected [philosophically or otherwise] to the Overman mentality. And here one chooses one's behaviors with considerably more deliberation...sophistication. You are on the top and not the bottom because you deserve to be. You triumph because you are among the "masters of the universe". It may be a game, but you are entitled to make up [and then enforce] the rules.

But then back to the part where Nietzsche is said to be...a determinist?
The idea, along with the thought that not truth but illusion sustains life, is prominent in Nietzsche’s early, unpublished writings from the 1870s (for example in the essay ‘Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks’ and the abandoned Philosophenbuch). Both sentiments also recur prominently in Nietzsche’s mature work, Beyond Good and Evil, which he calls ‘A prelude to a philosophy of the future’.
Or is this just one more attempt to make Nietzsche a compatibilist? The illusion of free will sustains life. But somehow Nietzsche's own philosophy -- his own thinking -- is still more insightful than those who refuse to share it. How then is that explained?
It is less of a surprise than one might think that in ruminating on the philosopher’s possible role in the future freedom-free world, Nietzsche, the great anti-Christian, holds in high regard the most genuinely religious nature – the committed mythmaking instinct of the religious leader or founder. It is even less surprising that, against the traditional picture, the future philosopher is no slave to or even servant of truth, and is instead closer to the artist.
The philosopher. The artist. The atheist. The myth-making religionist. And all while interacting with others in a "freedom-free world".

Or is this all really about word games? Making words mean what you want them to mean [in your head] so that they all fit snuggly into your own "thought up" "objective" assessment of both Nietzsche and the human condition itself? Past, present and future?

Then for all practical purposes whatever this means:
The future philosopher must move in a world where the deadliest knowledge has been disseminated and accepted; he is no longer the repository of dangerous or unendurable wisdom he traditionally was. He will be, says Nietzsche, a tempter and experimenter among humankind – and how indeed could he be otherwise, when the game is all?
The "no free will" game. He'll move in the world...he'll be a tempter and experimenter. He'll do all of this while wholly in sync with the laws of matter...but not really. Only some of us are still rather confused regarding how exactly this "not really" works.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:51 am
iambiguous wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:22 pm

What does it mean for something to be random in our interactions with others? Out of the blue? For no causal/material/empirical reason? Just -- poof! -- it happens?

Or in the either/or world does that come down to the profound mystery between matter in the realm of the very, very small and matter in the realm of the very, very large. Quantum reality and all the rest of it?

Or is quantum reality only that which science has just begun to scratch the surface regarding. QM understood a hundred years from now...a thousand years from now? What of randomness then?

And then in the world we interact in from day to day there is randomness as explored here: https://youtu.be/mTDs0lvFuMc

Things happening all around us that might have a profound impact on our lives...but things we are not even consciously aware of.

But what interests me above all else is that, in assuming free will, moral responsibility is embedded in the profoundly problematic nature of dasein...and in assuming determinism
how can moral responsibility have any practical meaning at all?
Responsibility only has practical meaning. You want a society full of people who can coexist peacefully, so you separate, lock up, or rehabilitate those who show they are counter productive to that goal.
Okay, so none of this is happening randomly---"out of the blue and for no causal/material/empirical reason".

But some determinists argue that the separation, the locking up and the rehabilitation of the bad guys are no less manifestations of the only possible reality.

To me -- and, again, I may not be thinking this through correctly -- it's as though some argue that okay, the criminals have no free will in committing the crime, but "somehow" society does in dealing with them.

And -- click -- coexisting peacefully on whose terms? Coexisting peacefully in regard to abortion, homosexuality, gender roles, social justice, global warming, animal rights, given capitalism, given socialism?

The part where I am "fractured and fragmented" and where the objectivists divide up the world between "one of them" [the bad guys] and "one of us" [the good guys]?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:48 am
iambiguous wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:22 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:06 pmI'm not a pure determinist myself, I see randomness in the universe, but that randomness isn't the source of my freedom, my responsibility, or my ability to look at evidence or arguments and change my mind.
What does it mean for something to be random in our interactions with others? Out of the blue? For no causal/material/empirical reason? Just -- poof! -- it happens?
After all this time I still don't think I know what you actually believe about all this. Are you a determinist? Are you a substance dualist? Do you believe in free will and moral responsibility?
Click.

How can I make any clearer?

Like you, I am grappling to understand the human brain/consciousness/self-consciousness/"I" given what I am unable to fathom definitively about 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.

I merely take it back further by noting the gap between this and what we are not privy to regarding the very existence of existence itself.

Yes, it is truly fascinating to think about these things. Philosophically. Scientifically. And the overwhelming preponderance of men and women around the globe don't. Instead, they leave all this stuff to the ecclesiastics...to God and religion. To the theologians.

Me, I am no less "fractured and fragmented" regarding the Big Questions "out there" than I am conflicting goods "down here". It's objectivism that I take aim at.

And it's the objectivists that are often most inclined to make this all about me. My frame of mind threatens the comfort and the consolation they sustain in imaging that they are in sync with the Real me in sync further with The Right Thing To Do.

And the Right Way to think about things like this.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 6:59 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:48 am
iambiguous wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:22 pm

What does it mean for something to be random in our interactions with others? Out of the blue? For no causal/material/empirical reason? Just -- poof! -- it happens?
After all this time I still don't think I know what you actually believe about all this. Are you a determinist? Are you a substance dualist? Do you believe in free will and moral responsibility?
Click.

How can I make any clearer?
By saying what you think.

"I think determinism is true" or "I think there's randomness".

"I'm a dualist" or "I think the mind is a product of our material existence".

"I think there's free will" or "I think there's not free will".

Or "I'm completely on the fence about all of those issues".

Any attempt to answer the questions in a straight forward manner is clearer than not answering at all
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 7:28 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 6:59 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:48 am
After all this time I still don't think I know what you actually believe about all this. Are you a determinist? Are you a substance dualist? Do you believe in free will and moral responsibility?
Click.

How can I make any clearer?

Like you, I am grappling to understand the human brain/consciousness/self-consciousness/"I" given what I am unable to fathom definitively about 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.

I merely take it back further by noting the gap between this and what we are not privy to regarding the very existence of existence itself.

Yes, it is truly fascinating to think about these things. Philosophically. Scientifically. And the overwhelming preponderance of men and women around the globe don't. Instead, they leave all this stuff to the ecclesiastics...to God and religion. To the theologians.

Me, I am no less "fractured and fragmented" regarding the Big Questions "out there" than I am conflicting goods "down here". It's objectivism that I take aim at.

And it's the objectivists that are often most inclined to make this all about me. My frame of mind threatens the comfort and the consolation they sustain in imaging that they are in sync with the Real me in sync further with The Right Thing To Do.

And the Right Way to think about things like this.
By saying what you think.

"I think determinism is true" or "I think there's randomness".

"I'm a dualist" or "I think the mind is a product of our material existence".

"I think there's free will" or "I think there's not free will".

Or "I'm completely on the fence about all of those issues".

Any attempt to answer the questions in a straight forward manner is clearer than not answering at all
Nature to iambiguous:

:roll:
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:45 pm
Nature to iambiguous:

:roll:
Why is it hard for you to just be up front with this information?
Post Reply