compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Belinda wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 7:28 pm
BigMike wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 7:03 pm
bobmax wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 5:25 pm

To learn how to be a comedian?
Naw... Study something you are weak in, such as science or math.
Big Mike, God (or nature if you prefer )does not exist like this or that exists. God is not a very powerful being among other beings, but is being itself. If it were not for being itself nothing would exist. Being implies relativity.
allahu akbar
After proving the existence of God, Spinoza discusses who "God" is. God, according to Spinoza, is "the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe, and not an individual being or creator." He claimed that the Bible contains numerous inconsistencies, thereby exposing the "absurdities" of using the Bible as a source of information.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

BigMike wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:57 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 7:28 pm
BigMike wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 7:03 pm

Naw... Study something you are weak in, such as science or math.
Big Mike, God (or nature if you prefer )does not exist like this or that exists. God is not a very powerful being among other beings, but is being itself. If it were not for being itself nothing would exist. Being implies relativity.
allahu akbar
After proving the existence of God, Spinoza discusses who "God" is. God, according to Spinoza, is "the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe, and not an individual being or creator." He claimed that the Bible contains numerous inconsistencies, thereby exposing the "absurdities" of using the Bible as a source of information.
God is indeed great in the Spinozan sense of great.
In my defence I use the Bible as a source like I may use Jane Austen as a source of an idea neatly expressed. Also, although i'm not a scholar I sometimes use scholars' findings that The Bible may be gleaned for anthropological and even historical evidence, when the due rules of evidence are applied.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by bobmax »

Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 9:37 am God is indeed great in the Spinozan sense of great.
In my defence I use the Bible as a source like I may use Jane Austen as a source of an idea neatly expressed. Also, although i'm not a scholar I sometimes use scholars' findings that The Bible may be gleaned for anthropological and even historical evidence, when the due rules of evidence are applied.
For Spinoza the Bible is as much a source of information as anything else in the world.
That is, the Bible does not contain "truths" that are not present everywhere.
What matters is seeing them.

However, the Bible is an inexhaustible source of inspiration.
Because it recounts the experiences, visions, dramas of a people who have experienced the spiritual impetus.

This confused and often contradictory tale is a metaphor for the life of the individual in search of the Truth.

There are flashes of insight in the Bible that stimulate those who catch them to reflect.
Spinoza took some of these insights to extreme consequences.

For example, free will does not exist for Spinoza. He explicitly states this in his Ethics.
Without giving up his inadequate ideas, which obviously cannot exist. A contradiction.
However, Spinoza gave a lot, especially with his goodness.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

bobmax wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:33 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 9:37 am God is indeed great in the Spinozan sense of great.
In my defence I use the Bible as a source like I may use Jane Austen as a source of an idea neatly expressed. Also, although i'm not a scholar I sometimes use scholars' findings that The Bible may be gleaned for anthropological and even historical evidence, when the due rules of evidence are applied.
For Spinoza the Bible is as much a source of information as anything else in the world.
That is, the Bible does not contain "truths" that are not present everywhere.
What matters is seeing them.

However, the Bible is an inexhaustible source of inspiration.
Because it recounts the experiences, visions, dramas of a people who have experienced the spiritual impetus.

This confused and often contradictory tale is a metaphor for the life of the individual in search of the Truth.

There are flashes of insight in the Bible that stimulate those who catch them to reflect.
Spinoza took some of these insights to extreme consequences.

For example, free will does not exist for Spinoza. He explicitly states this in his Ethics.
Without giving up his inadequate ideas, which obviously cannot exist. A contradiction.
However, Spinoza gave a lot, especially with his goodness.
Spinoza was a Jew so he knew the Bible pretty well I guess. Most people in the western world know The Bible in the sense of its huge influence on European ideas.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Compatibilism
David Agler
Classical compatibilism -- The world can be determined and individuals can be free since:
1. The world can be determined and
2. A subject S can be free since there are cases where it is true that
were S to desire to do X, they would both have the power or ability
to do X and nothing would prevent them from doing X
Of course: Scratch subject X.

Let X = Merrick Garland indicting Donald Trump. Garland desires to indict Trump because Garland deems it rational to indict Trump. But how exactly can Garland be free to indict Trump "since there are cases where it is true that were Garland to desire to indict Trump, they would both have the power or ability to indict Trump and nothing would prevent them from indicting Trump".

Huh? Nothing could prevent him from indicting Trump. Why? Because given that his brain is wholly in sync with the laws of matter, he was never able not to indict him. If, in fact, he does.

Note to compatibilists:

Again, what am I missing here?
We will consider three objections to classical compatibilism:

1. Determinism entails the lack of capacity to act otherwise (a
necessary ingredient for freedom) and so compatibilism is false
2. Determinism entails the lack of deep freedom (ability to control our
desires to the extent to which we can be said to be morally
responsible), and so compatibilism is false.
Yep, that works for me. Why? Because it was such that, here and now, it was never able not to work for me. On the other hand, what do the laws of matter have in store for me down the road? Will one day a new configuration of matter compel me to embrace compatibilism?

Then this:
3. Compatibilism entails determinism; determinism is a hopeless doctrine; therefore, we ought to accept compatibilism as a last resort.
Again: Huh?

Given the Garland/Trump context above, you tell me. Compelled or not.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Compatibilism
David Agler
Critics of compatibilism will immediately reject the theory because:
• Freedom implies the capacity to act otherwise
• Determinism seems to exclude the capacity to act otherwise
• Therefore, compatibilism cannot be true.
Let's call this the Argument from the ability to do otherwise
There you go. If you are determined by the laws of matter to read these words then you lacked the capacity to opt not to read them. And if that is the case and another lacked the capacity to not insist that not reading them is immoral how could you be held morally responsible for not reading them other than because whoever holds you morally responsible was never able not to.

Yet thinking this through given the possibility that we have free will also seems to revolve around the assumption that we may not have it...and we suggest the possibility that we do only because we were never able not to.

Yet there does not appear to be either a scientific or a philosophical -- or a theological? -- resolution to any of this. Or, rather, none that I am aware of.
Objection: no ability to do otherwise
Argument from the ability to do otherwise
• P1: If determinism is true, then every single one of my actions is
determined in advance.
• P2: If every one of my actions is determined in advance, then I could
never have acted differently than I did (can't act otherwise).
• P3: The ability to act otherwise is an essential component of what it
means to be free.
• IC: Therefore, if determinism is true, then no one is free.
• P4: Classical compatibilism says that if determinism is true, then we can
still be free.
• C: Therefore, classical compatibilism is false
Same thing. Basically, we are stuck here trying to connect the dots between words that we may or may not be compelled to choose and a world going back to an understanding of existence itself that we may or may not ever fully understand.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

I see no problem. The conclusion is clear: There is no free will. End of story.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by bobmax »

iambiguous wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:11 pm • P3: The ability to act otherwise is an essential component of what it
means to be free.
It looks like this but it isn't.
Freedom is not the ability to act otherwise.

Freedom is being an unconditional origin of events.
Freedom is about unconditionality.

On the other hand, why could I have acted otherwise if I am free?

Because freedom expresses myself, my essence.
My action "is" myself.
So it would be strange that there is an alternative, if so I would be split.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

There is no free will. End of story.
Compatibilism doesn't say that there is free-will. It just makes a distinction between doing something because a gun is being held to your head and some other, less compelling :lol: , reasons.

So there are degrees of freedom.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

From the ILP forum...
iambiguous wrote:Here's the part that continues to baffle me. If the only possible world has led one to suffer, hasn't it also led one to either seek or not to seek its reduction?

Is this the compatibilist frame of mind? Yes, there's the only possible reality in the only possible world but "somehow" we can influence and change it?

What do I keep missing here?
Ben JS wrote: I'm a hard determinist so questions directed at compatibilists aren't for me - even if I may seem like one.
Okay, but some hard determinists would be compelled to argue that I direct at you only what I was never able not to direct at you. And that you were never ever able to opt not to point this out to me.

Absolutely nothing that we think, feel, say and do is excluded from the laws of matter. Only we have no capacity that I am aware of to to pin down whether or not this is actually true.

Then [from my frame of mind compelled or not] you go on noting things to be as though you did in fact have the option to note other things...

How is this....
Ben JS wrote: Our actions contribute to the future result, shaped by a chain of events prior. I believe it is our ignorance that gives us the sense of possibility - we do not know, so we cannot determine which possible future is accurate. If a supernatural being free from the chains of cause and effect came into our existence and erased a person - the absence would affect the trajectory of existence. My point? Our lives contribute to the result - we restrict the future, forcing the hand of future events.

What our actions do change and influence, is our expectations - our predictions of the future. Our actions often lead to predictable results. If I walk off a cliff, there's an expectation of a result that follows. If I don't want this result, I should rationally avoid walking off cliffs - or act in another way to change the expected result, i.e. wear a parachute / wingsuit.

One can believe both that the current state of existence is determined by the prior state of existence, and that one's will is not free - while simultaneously acknowledging that one isn't aware of what the prior and current state of existence have determined of the future. Given these, one is left in a position where one can hope and strive towards possible futures that are preferred. If we knew exactly what was going to happen, then there's no room for hope.
...really any different from how a libertarian might put it?

Contributions, beliefs, actions, expectations, acknowledgments...hoping, striving.

What...your brain allows for them in a way that is different from mine and everyone else's in a wholly determined universe?

But, apparently, not really wholly determined at all for you.
iambiguous wrote:And here you are with a Dalai Lama avatar. Suggesting, what, that an ideal future revolves spiritually around Buddhism?
Ben JS wrote: I'm not a Buddhist. I have deep respect for the Dalai Lama and his teachings / wisdom. It makes me happy to be reminded of him.
I think his teachings regarding compassion, kindness, tolerance and gratitude can increase the quality of life for many when practiced.
Same thing. You have a deep respect for the Dalai Lama because you were never able not to have a deep respect for him. But what kind of respect is it that you were never able not to have? What on Earth are compassion, kindness, tolerance and gratitude if they are only ever what each of us could never not feel as we do?

Nope, one way or another human consciousness has to be explained scientifically and/or philosophically as matter...but a very, very different matter.

After all, why do you suppose so many explain that difference...spiritually, theologically. Some though God, others through...the universe itself? Buddhism is just another spiritual path to "enlightenment".

But in a wholly determined universe as some understand it being enlightened or unenlightened is interchangeable. If, in fact, you were never able not to be either one or the other.
iambiguous wrote:And then the part where you either will or will not consider that your own spiritual path here is but one more subjective/intersubjective embodiment of dasein..."I" given the life you've lived existentially.
Ben JS wrote: My path is my own and I wouldn't ask of another to walk it.
Again though, a preferred path may cross many common landmarks.
Well, from my frame of mind, even given free will, your path -- morally and politically -- reflects the embodiment of the points "I" raise on these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

And all I can do is to invite others to peruse those points and then, given particular sets of circumstances in the is/ought world, note for me why they are not applicable to them.

Again, assuming free will.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

bobmax wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:46 pm Because freedom expresses myself, my essence.
My action "is" myself.
So it would be strange that there is an alternative, if so I would be split.
It is odd or perhaps overly lyrical to assert that your deeds are you. Nonetheless, where is the liberty in that? You have no free will, whatever.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

BigMike wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:24 pm I see no problem. The conclusion is clear: There is no free will. End of story.
Right, BigMike, and here's where we left it above...
iambiguous wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 7:21 pm
BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:57 am
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:27 amWhen my brain compels me to? And I suspect that the scientific community has not reached a definitive consensus on the free will/determinism conundrum...antinomy?
They have. You just don't get it, do you?
Click.

They have not. After all, if they had, it would be explosive news. There would be documentaries on Nova and the Science Channel and the BBC.

And [as usual] you ask me if I get it as an advocate of free will would. In other words, you get it, I have the option to get it too but I don't.
Why?
BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:57 amPerhaps because you lack the necessary intellectual capacity? Due to physical limitations, of course.
Perhaps. After all, if there is one thing we know for sure, nature doesn't create all that many Newtons and Einsteins and Hawkings. Though it does seem to mass-produce any number of arrogant, authroitarian "my way or the highway" objectivists.

Not to mention pinheads. :shock:
On the other hand, even if one day we turn on the news and that is at the top of the newscast, how exactly would we go about demonstrating that this too is not just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?
BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:57 amWhy would you wish to demonstrate that this too is "just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?" If science demonstrates that everything adheres to the laws of physics and, consequently, there is only one "possible reality" how often do you wish to reiterate that this, too, is "just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality"? Just accept the facts, and move on.
Right, like pinning this down one way or the other isn't crucial when it comes to, say, assigning moral responsibility to the behaviors we choose. Just accept the arguments and the facts of the moral objectivists among us and, if you either can or cannot opt freely to do so, move on.
Ask you to confirm it?
BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:57 amConfirm what? Verify what? What science has already proven? Do you need someone to confirm the confirmation of science? Or confirmation of confirmation of confirmation? Stop your foolishness!
So, is bahman a character that you play here or are you a character that he plays? 8)

Next up: pinning down "foolishness" metaphysically. :wink:
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

phyllo wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:52 pm
There is no free will. End of story.
Compatibilism doesn't say that there is free-will. It just makes a distinction between doing something because a gun is being held to your head and some other, less compelling :lol: , reasons.

So there are degrees of freedom.
True, compatibilism does not assert the existence of free will. It simply indicates that those who express it believe that free will and determinism are compatible. But most sane thinkers believe compatibilism is "wretched subterfuge".
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

iambiguous wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:58 pm
BigMike wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:24 pm I see no problem. The conclusion is clear: There is no free will. End of story.
Right, BigMike, and here's where we left it above...
iambiguous wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 7:21 pm
BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:57 am

They have. You just don't get it, do you?
Click.

They have not. After all, if they had, it would be explosive news. There would be documentaries on Nova and the Science Channel and the BBC.

And [as usual] you ask me if I get it as an advocate of free will would. In other words, you get it, I have the option to get it too but I don't.
Why?
BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:57 amPerhaps because you lack the necessary intellectual capacity? Due to physical limitations, of course.
Perhaps. After all, if there is one thing we know for sure, nature doesn't create all that many Newtons and Einsteins and Hawkings. Though it does seem to mass-produce any number of arrogant, authroitarian "my way or the highway" objectivists.

Not to mention pinheads. :shock:
On the other hand, even if one day we turn on the news and that is at the top of the newscast, how exactly would we go about demonstrating that this too is not just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?
BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:57 amWhy would you wish to demonstrate that this too is "just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?" If science demonstrates that everything adheres to the laws of physics and, consequently, there is only one "possible reality" how often do you wish to reiterate that this, too, is "just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality"? Just accept the facts, and move on.
Right, like pinning this down one way or the other isn't crucial when it comes to, say, assigning moral responsibility to the behaviors we choose. Just accept the arguments and the facts of the moral objectivists among us and, if you either can or cannot opt freely to do so, move on.
Ask you to confirm it?
BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:57 amConfirm what? Verify what? What science has already proven? Do you need someone to confirm the confirmation of science? Or confirmation of confirmation of confirmation? Stop your foolishness!
So, is bahman a character that you play here or are you a character that he plays? 8)

Next up: pinning down "foolishness" metaphysically. :wink:
Gibberish.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by bobmax »

BigMike wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:54 pm
bobmax wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:46 pm Because freedom expresses myself, my essence.
My action "is" myself.
So it would be strange that there is an alternative, if so I would be split.
It is odd or perhaps overly lyrical to assert that your deeds are you. Nonetheless, where is the liberty in that? You have no free will, whatever.
Yes I agree.

Free will does not exist.

But not because determinism is true.
Free will does not exist because there can be no unconditional origin of events.

This unconditional origin cannot exist because it would be Chaos!

The non-existence of free will does not mean that we are slaves.
We are not slaves at all.
We just ... we are not.
Post Reply