compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 11:01 pm "Jesus this type of shit is so fucking mechanical."

What he's doing is called the iambiguous shuffle. What u do is find a philosophical and political font with at least one defender. Then you find (or invent if there aren't any) objectivists from an opposing font, pit them against one another, and observe the intellectual contraptions that are used by all sides as supporting arguments.

You then make a note to nature that this is what passes as philosophy and dance like a banana.
Note to Nature:

I compel you to explain to me why the Philosophy Now forum members don't have access to the legendary dancing banana emoji? Over at ILP, we have "access" to...

16

...different dancing bananas!!
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 10:25 pm
Jesus this type of shit is so fucking mechanical.
He's a meat machine: it ain't his fault.
I did intend the irony. And I forgive him.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

From ILP:
iambiguous wrote:
Mad Man P wrote:
iambiguous wrote: Fully responsible? How can they be responsible to any degree at all "if every event is an inevitable consequence of the prior conditions and the natural laws"?

That's the part I can't come to grips with from the compatibilists...
I believe I've offered you an explanation once before and yet you've forgotten it...
Or...

Your brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compelled you to believe you offered me an explanation once before but my brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compelled me to forget it.

Then back to 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.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.
Mad Man P wrote: Determinism isn't a circumstance where every atom in existence is responsible for every event. Consequently it's not impossible to rule out all but one cause for a specific event... it's like a domino effect.
Even though one might be able to trace cause and effect all the way back to the first domino... it's not inaccurate to say the previous domino was entirely responsible for the current domino being toppled.
Then back to this:

Even though, going back to the first domino [whatever that means], the domino that is Mary was compelled to abort Jane, she is "somehow" still responsible for doing it.

Again, the aliens in the free will part of the universe hovering above planet Earth in the determined part of the universe noting that Mary did indeed "choose" to abort Jane. She is "responsible" in that if there is no Mary there is no abortion. Though there was still never not going to be that abortion.

Then, staying up in the "general description intellectual contraption" stratosphere...
Mad Man P wrote: What's more, things change a bit when this domino effect is applied to such complex systems as humans and their behavior, which consists of systems within systems to a treamondos degree... even though a person could not have done otherwise, what they have done could only be done if they possessed a certain character or quality... it tells us something about that person and how they function... You don't need to have been the author of your own character in order to be judged and held responsible for it... you seem to be insisting that you do, but I fail to see why.
Or, perhaps, he or she was never able not to succeed or fail to think, feel, say and do everything that he or she has ever thought, felt, said and done.

Someone link me to the definitive conclusions reached by those who actually examine and explore all of this experientially and experimentally.
Mad Man P wrote: Who cares if you could not have done otherwise?
When it comes to responsibility and blame... No one cares if you COULD have been a different person... we only care about the person you ARE.
Ah, of course!!

Merely assume that "somehow" caring itself both is and is not wholly in sync with the laws of matter.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Someone link me to the definitive conclusions reached by those who actually examine and explore all of this experientially and experimentally.
Why bother when your reply to everything people say, and do, is in this form:
Your brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compelled you to believe you offered me an explanation once before but my brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compelled me to forget it.
Or, perhaps, he or she was never able not to succeed or fail to think, feel, say and do everything that he or she has ever thought, felt, said and done.

All you're going to do is to say that every "definitive conclusion", every examination, every experiment is somehow "compelled" to be that way. IOW, they are all meaningless and worthless.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 11:01 pm "Jesus this type of shit is so fucking mechanical."

What he's doing is called the iambiguous shuffle. What u do is find a philosophical and political font with at least one defender. Then you find (or invent if there aren't any) objectivists from an opposing font, pit them against one another, and observe the intellectual contraptions that are used by all sides as supporting arguments.

You then make a note to nature that this is what passes as philosophy and dance like a banana.
Not quite what I experienced with Phyllo. What I experienced was 1) the assumption that it's relevant that some other philosophical position has problems if you are critical of a different one. For example, I don't believe in free will. Nor do I believe in determinism. If I mention the consequences of determinism or if I am critical, for example of an argument in favor of determinism, it is utterly irrelevant to say free will leads to the same thing or X would be true in a free will universe, etc. It's an avoidance of whatever point I am making. Further it's viewing philosophy as a choice between two teams. Perhaps there are more teams. Perhaps I am agnostic. More importantly it's a (potentially unintentional) way of shutting down discussion. Oh, yeah well in free will it'd be X also, so we don't need to think about that. But also 2) which is more important. The focus on my post was on the understandible human reaction to thinking/realizing/considering the possibility that the future is going to be what it is and this was determined in the Big Bang.

This was immediately interpreted as me saying that one should give up. Nah. That we know the future. Nah.

IOW hallucinated straw man arguments I was not making. These were focused on and the human reaction to the implications of determinism were utterly ignored. The main point was ignored and made up issues were focused on.

I am certainly not expecting Phyllo or others to express emtional empathy. This is a philosophy forum. It's fine to focus on ideas. But cognitive empathy. IOW making an attempt to understand at the idea level why an idea of its implications might be disturbing or depressing, given that this was the focus of the post, I would expect. If you're not interested in that topic, then don't respond. If you are interested, but disagree, well explain why reacting that way is confused or not natural. And, of course, actually mention the reaction, since that was the topic of my posts. But when no effort is made to understand or even focus on the topic of someone's post, then don't pretend to respond to it.

Here the topic was avoided. Other issues were hallucinated. Then a very specific focus on a detail again avoiding the main topic of my posts.

It's crappy interpersonal and crappy philosophical response rolled into a few posts. I know, I should be patient and chase someone for post after post until they actually focus on the post they seem to think they are responding to. This had just happened with Iambiguous where he couldn't manage to respond to a really rather basic idea over post after post.

Do these guys just want to push their points and don't give a shit about other people's interests? Are they always trying to win? Is it hard for them to concede something? Do they not want to look at certain issues? Will they only concede something if they notice it first, but refuse when someone else points something out? Is it that they view life as having two teams (objectivist/non-objectivist, free will advocate/rational determinists) so anything goes in pursuit of defeating/foiling people on the other team?

I don't know and I don't care.

It's rude and time wasting. It ends up being a (probalby unintentional) piece of sticky human paper. Where people come, write something, get what is posing as a response that is not, and then you have to run around trying to get an actual response to your first post. Motive matters little. At some point or other people can feel a certain irritation at the battered woman or the man who is in a relationship with an abusive unloving woman. Even with friends at some point we will feel an urge to angrily say....just leave him/him, come on, what's wrong with you, even if we have some subtler understanding of how this kind of dynamic can happen.

But online, man, then we spend 30 pages trying to get someone to concede something obvious or to actually focus on a point we made. This is, of course, also human. But it's not healthy. Why engage with people who can't (for whatever reason or at whatever level of awareness of what they are doing) manage to directly engage with what you are saying? That's a minimum. Might as well keep posting to someone who responds in a language you don't know or in gibberish.

So, what does this have to do with determinism and free will and compatiblism?

In a deterministic universe, even, some people/machines can be more flexible/versatile than others. We know this from machines that even most free will advocates would say were not free. Let's say we have a hoover that has a camera and if while moving it sees an object in the way it goes only to the right. That's it's programming or even it's physically determined choice every time via gears and other parts. It sees on object blocking its path, it turns to the right. Well, ths is less versatile than a hoover that can turn in either direction, even back up and try other angles. The latter hoover will likely save electricity and or hoover more of your floors.

If you can't quite respond to a post but have a habitual focus, or always respond as if attacking a position that might or might not be held by the other person, or any other one or two trick pony habit. You're less versatile than someone who can. Even in a determined universe. You may have no choice but to be this way, though this lack of flexibility is even more pronounced if the pattern is pointed out and one cannot change. Yes, this also would be determined, but it points to a meta-level lack of flexibility. Or what is often called an inablity to learn.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Someone link me to the definitive conclusions reached by those who actually examine and explore all of this experientially and experimentally.
phyllo wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:50 pm Why bother when your reply to everything people say, and do, is in this form:
Your brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compelled you to believe you offered me an explanation once before but my brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compelled me to forget it.
Click.

Quite the contrary.

Over and again, on any number of threads, I note I am no more able to resolve this centuries old conundrum than you are.

What, you don't believe a part of me doesn't agree that determinism is ridiculous? That I too "just know" that I am of my own volition typing these words and not other words?

Of course free will might be the real deal.

It's just that, like you, I'm utterly incapable of explaining how it happened if it did happen. Though, unlike you, I don't have whatever your own equivalent of God is "here and now" to bring it all back to my "soul" at the moment of conception.

Is that still your best guess? Is that what you still put your faith in?

Or, as with those like IC here, do you actually believe that you can prove it? A video of your own perhaps?
Or, perhaps, he or she was never able not to succeed or fail to think, feel, say and do everything that he or she has ever thought, felt, said and done.
phyllo wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:50 pm All you're going to do is to say that every "definitive conclusion", every examination, every experiment is somehow "compelled" to be that way. IOW, they are all meaningless and worthless.
Sigh...

Ever and always from your end the assumption that ever and always from my end the things that I do I do of my own volition.

And, sure, going back to how the human condition itself fits into a definitive understanding of existence itself that may well be the case.

But then...

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.

The link, please.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 6:42 amIt's crappy interpersonal and crappy philosophical response rolled into a few posts. I know, I should be patient and chase someone for post after post until they actually focus on the post they seem to think they are responding to. This had just happened with Iambiguous where he couldn't manage to respond to a really rather basic idea over post after post.
And around and around and around we all go. Either because 1] we were never able to not go around and around and around only as we must in the only possible reality in the only possible world, or because 2] "somehow" when matter evolved into the human brain, the human brain acquired free will.

God, maybe? Or something about matter we still don't understand going back to what we still don't understand about the existence of existence itself?

Rummy's Rule?

Now -- click -- I created this thread assuming that "somehow" the human species here on planet Earth did acquire free will. And that given this we are able to speculate about what it might be like if, instead, we lived in a wholly determined world.

Then the part where we bring what "here and now" we think about all this down to Earth and imagine Mary aborting Jane in a wholly determined world. The argument from the compatibilists that even though Mary was never able not to abort Jane, she is still responsible -- morally responsible -- for doing so.

How can that possibly make any sense?

As for the "here and now" part, that revolves around dasein. The fact that, subjectively, over the course of the life we lived in the past, we accumulated our own unique collection of personal experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge. And that predisposed us existentially to think what we do "here and now" about free will.

But: that this also continues on into the future. In other words, new experiences, new relationships, access to new information and knowledge. Such that, in a free will world, we might change our minds about all this...right?

Only, in my view, the truly hardcore objectivists among almost never do. Why? Because, in my view, what they believe is so embedded in what I call the "psychology of objectivism", that the belief itself revolves far more around anchoring their Self in one or another God or No God font. Why? Because, in doing so, they are then able to sustain the comfort and the consolation that comes with being on their very own One True Path.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Click.

Quite the contrary.

Over and again, on any number of threads, I note I am no more able to resolve this centuries old conundrum than you are.

What, you don't believe a part of me doesn't agree that determinism is ridiculous? That I too "just know" that I am of my own volition typing these words and not other words?

Of course free will might be the real deal.

It's just that, like you, I'm utterly incapable of explaining how it happened if it did happen. Though, unlike you, I don't have whatever your own equivalent of God is "here and now" to bring it all back to my "soul" at the moment of conception.

Is that still your best guess? Is that what you still put your faith in?

Or, as with those like IC here, do you actually believe that you can prove it? A video of your own perhaps?
My point was that you respond in a particular way in this thread and it is not a way that leads you to consider and evaluate research.

Therefore, posting links to research appears to be a complete waste of time.
Sigh...

Ever and always from your end the assumption that ever and always from my end the things that I do I do of my own volition.

And, sure, going back to how the human condition itself fits into a definitive understanding of existence itself that may well be the case.

But then...

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.

The link, please.
Sigh.

I don't care if you do things of your own volition or not.

I also don't care if you have a definitive understanding of existence or if you know how autonomy was acquired(or if it wasn't acquired).

I'm evaluating the merit of your statements. I'm evaluating whether they are true/false or useful/useless

That is independent of determinism and free-will.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

From ILP:
Sculptor wrote: I think the point is that the will, and all actions of the will, is determined by experience.
Fine. But some determinists are compelled to note that what you yourself think here is in turn compelled by your brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter. Again: nothing that we think, feel, say and do -- experience -- is ever not fated/destined to be thought, felt, said and done -- experienced -- in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

But the determinists, like the free will advocates, like the compatibilists among us are stuck. Here:
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.
Unless, of course, you are able to demonstrate the optimal or the only rational manner in which to untangle it. To grasp the human condition objectively given an objective assessment of the existence of existence itself.
Sculptor wrote: When you make a "free" choice it is the causally generated result of who and what you are at that moment. If it were otherwise it would just be random nonsense.
Okay, note how you would explain that to Mary who has chosen, "chosen" or "chosen" to abort Jane.
Sculptor wrote: When the will is not "free" it is because of being compelled by outside forces. When acts of will are purely endogenous they are determined by the self.
But you cannot be free of yourself.
Okay, explain this in terms of you typing these words then and me reading them now.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

From ILP:
Sculptor wrote: You are desperately confused by the whole issue.
Click.

First of all, what you note here is not nearly as interesting to me as the fact that you note it in precisely the manner that the fulminating fanatic objectivists do: "my way or the highway". "One of us" [the smart guys] vs. "one of them" [the dumb guys].

You do the same thing in regard to God and religion and in regard to moral and political value judgments. If others don't come around to thinking exactly like you do, they are, what, morons? fools? One of Mr. Chickenshit's "retards"?

Or so it seems to me.

"The simple fact..."
Sculptor wrote:The simple fact is that when you do things of your own volition you are still obeying the laws of nature. Your volition is just as determined by antecedent events are anything else.
Again, bring this frame of mind around to Mary aborting Jane, around to you typing those words and me reading them, around to your own understanding of 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.
Instead, you are always so much more comfortable up in the didactic clouds:
Sculptor wrote:An what autonomy is, ,is the degree to which you are a deterministic agent are not compelled by outside forces by compelled by the casualties within.
That is what is "free will" is. Free will is the actions of your personal agency as determined by your personal volition and experience, It is an internal set of calculations which enable choices based on the deterministic facts such as desire, and intentionality - all of which are at that moment utterly deterministic.
Now, how are we to determine if this is true? Of course: We have to go word by word by word and see if we can agree on the definition of each one. Is the definition logically and epistemologically sound? After which, if we do agree, then the meaning of the words put in that particular order are "by definition" true objectively.

And then, shifting over to moral conflicts, we can "by definition" determine which human behaviors are deontologically good and deontologically evil.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Sculptor »

iambiguous wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 5:34 pm From ILP:
Sculptor wrote: I think the point is that the will, and all actions of the will, is determined by experience.
Fine. But some determinists are compelled to note that what you yourself think here is in turn compelled by your brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter. Again: nothing that we think, feel, say and do -- experience -- is ever not fated/destined to be thought, felt, said and done -- experienced -- in the only possible reality in the only possible world.
I've never understood this worry.
The future is not known so not "fated" in any meaningful sense.
For my money the simple fact that my actions are determined is not a problem.
I am a unique agent - we all are. It would be an absurd world if we were outside nature. It's a bloody good thing that my decisions are based wholly on what I have experienced in the past.
No I can not do otherwise - but why would I ever want to? I have all this life experience, opinion, education. What good would "radical free will" be if I am just going to ignore that and act in a way that would mean all that is irrelevant?
Making good, bad, or brilliant decisions can't be free of myself if they are to make any sense.
acting on my will has to be determined by me else it is just random bollocks.



But the determinists, like the free will advocates, like the compatibilists among us are stuck. Here:
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.
Unless, of course, you are able to demonstrate the optimal or the only rational manner in which to untangle it. To grasp the human condition objectively given an objective assessment of the existence of existence itself.
Sculptor wrote: When you make a "free" choice it is the causally generated result of who and what you are at that moment. If it were otherwise it would just be random nonsense.
Okay, note how you would explain that to Mary who has chosen, "chosen" or "chosen" to abort Jane.
Sculptor wrote: When the will is not "free" it is because of being compelled by outside forces. When acts of will are purely endogenous they are determined by the self.
But you cannot be free of yourself.
Okay, explain this in terms of you typing these words then and me reading them now.
I am freely typing. Another person is not holding a gun to my head to stop me, or change what I write.
That is the only meaningful interpretation of free will.
As I type I reference what I already think about the topic of determinism, because of my education and experience. I am part of a natural world in which there is a long multifaceted chain if events going back to a moment in time when a sperm and an egg came together 62 years ago, or even a chain of events leading back the the big bang.
Any choices I have made along the way have been made on the same basis.
This does not stop me being unique and making my own choices, but it does mean that they are MINE and not free of my personal volition
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 8:50 pm
Click.

Quite the contrary.

Over and again, on any number of threads, I note I am no more able to resolve this centuries old conundrum than you are.

What, you don't believe a part of me doesn't agree that determinism is ridiculous? That I too "just know" that I am of my own volition typing these words and not other words?

Of course free will might be the real deal.

It's just that, like you, I'm utterly incapable of explaining how it happened if it did happen. Though, unlike you, I don't have whatever your own equivalent of God is "here and now" to bring it all back to my "soul" at the moment of conception.

Is that still your best guess? Is that what you still put your faith in?

Or, as with those like IC here, do you actually believe that you can prove it? A video of your own perhaps?
My point was that you respond in a particular way in this thread and it is not a way that leads you to consider and evaluate research.

Therefore, posting links to research appears to be a complete waste of time.
My point is that determinists [me sometimes] argue that your point is the only point that your material brain compels you to have.

And over and over again, I still insist that links to the research that the "hard guys" are conducting in grappling with this more scientifically [experimentally] than philosophically [dueling definitions and deductions] is likely to be more substantive.

And, of course, what makes it a "waste of time" [so far] is that even these guys have yet to come down definitively one way of another regarding 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.
Sigh...

Ever and always from your end the assumption that ever and always from my end the things that I do I do of my own volition.

And, sure, going back to how the human condition itself fits into a definitive understanding of existence itself that may well be the case.

But then...

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.

The link, please.
phyllo wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 8:50 pmSigh.

I don't care if you do things of your own volition or not.

I also don't care if you have a definitive understanding of existence or if you know how autonomy was acquired(or if it wasn't acquired).

I'm evaluating the merit of your statements. I'm evaluating whether they are true/false or useful/useless

That is independent of determinism and free-will.
Sigh...
Ever and always from your end the assumption that ever and always from my end the things that I do I do of my own volition.

And, sure, going back to how the human condition itself fits into a definitive understanding of existence itself that may well be the case.
Really, what else can I say?

You can "shrug off" the part where, in a free will world, we are profoundly ignorant regarding how and why human existence itself fits into an unequivocal understanding of existence itself...if you must?

But, from my frame of mind, that still doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

And, in a wholly determined world as some are compelled to understand it, what you care or don't care about is no less inherently and necessarily embedded in the only possible reality.

And Jane still cares that of her own volition her mother was convinced by a friend not to abort her.

Otherwise, she wouldn't be around to care about anything at all.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

My point is that determinists [me sometimes] argue that your point is the only point that your material brain compels you to have.
My brain doesn't compel me because I'm not separate from my brain. What my brain thinks is what I think.
And over and over again, I still insist that links to the research that the "hard guys" are conducting in grappling with this more scientifically [experimentally] than philosophically [dueling definitions and deductions] is likely to be more substantive.
You blow off everything that people say. It's not all dumb crap. I see no reason why you wouldn't blow off the "hard guys".
You can "shrug off" the part where, in a free will world, we are profoundly ignorant regarding how and why human existence itself fits into an unequivocal understanding of existence itself...if you must?
Have you considered the possibility that we don't need to know that in order to reach some conclusions about free-will and determinism?

Like we don't need to know everything about the human body in order to put a bandage on a cut.
And Jane still cares that of her own volition her mother was convinced by a friend not to abort her.

Otherwise, she wouldn't be around to care about anything at all.
I have offered you the opportunity to discuss Mary's abortion many, many times. You always avoid discussing it.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

From ILP:
Mad Man P wrote:
iambiguous wrote: Mary's brain is matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter. Now, for some determinists, this means that nature itself compels Mary to think, feel, say and do only that which her she was never able to not think, feel, say and do. Her "will" is but the psychological illusion of autonomy.
If all you're saying is that Mary is influencing herself and that this means Mary has no autonomy from Mary... then yes, you are correct.
It is logically impossible to both be yourself and at the same time be free of yourself.
My point, however, revolves around two assumptions that I may or may not be compelled to make:

1] that I am saying here only what I was never able not to say
2] that being "correct" about something that you were never able not to think, feel, say and do is very different from being correct about something such that "somehow" the human brain as matter acquired the capacity to freely choose

Which most, of course, attribute to God or to the universe as God or to the No God equivalent of God amongst those like Buddhists.

Thus from the perspective of many truly hardcore objectivists, if Mary convinced herself that it was "correct" to abort Jane, she was just as much incapable of not convincing herself of that as she was incapable of not aborting Jane.

Then the compatibilists are compelled to argue that even though Mary was not capable of opting not to abort Jane, she is still morally responsible for doing it.

Then [for me] the truly, truly extraordinary "reality" of dreams:
iambiguous wrote:Mary has a dream in which she aborts Jane. In the dream, however, it is as though she is not dreaming at all. In the dream the experience is real to her. Just as though she were wide-awake. Only in the morning when she does wake up is she able to realize that this abortion that she "chose" in the dream was entirely conjured up chemically and neurologically by her brain. The same brain these determinists argue that then convinces her that now, of course, wide awake, everything is different. Now she really is in full command.
Mad Man P wrote: Erm, are you suggesting that her brain is insidiously mind controlling Mary and misleading her?
No, I'm merely suggesting that, in a way that none of us seem capable of grasping definitively going back to how the human species itself fits into a full understanding of existence itself, it all comes back to untangling 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.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 7:08 pm
My point is that determinists [me sometimes] argue that your point is the only point that your material brain compels you to have.
My brain doesn't compel me because I'm not separate from my brain. What my brain thinks is what I think.
Yes, and that's precisely what any number of "hard determinists" will argue. But that this does amount "for all practical purposes" to your brain compelling you. But then the far more fascinating question [for me] is this: will they in turn acknowledge that their very own argument itself is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the only possible reality?
And over and over again, I still insist that links to the research that the "hard guys" are conducting in grappling with this more scientifically [experimentally] than philosophically [dueling definitions and deductions] is likely to be more substantive.
larry wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 7:08 pmYou blow off everything that people say. It's not all dumb crap. I see no reason why you wouldn't blow off the "hard guys".
Note to my brain:

You explain it to him.

Click.

This is just more Stooge stuff from my perspective. Huffing and puffing. Making it all about me personally. I become the equivalent of Iwannaplato's "asshole".

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.
You can "shrug off" the part where, in a free will world, we are profoundly ignorant regarding how and why human existence itself fits into an unequivocal understanding of existence itself...if you must?
phyllo wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 7:08 pmHave you considered the possibility that we don't need to know that in order to reach some conclusions about free-will and determinism?
Nope. And, more than that, such a proposal is [to me] nothing short of utterly ridiculous!!!

Note to others:

Right?

To think that we either can or cannot hold Mary morally responsible for aborting Jane given our ignorance regarding...
Why something instead of nothing?
Why this something and not something else?
Where does the human condition fit in the whole understanding of existence itself?
What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, alternate Matrix worlds, etc.?
Does God exist?
...is flat out stupid to me.

And then of course Rummy's Rule:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Obviously: the bigger the question the more applicable this becomes.
phyllo wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 7:08 pmLike we don't need to know everything about the human body in order to put a bandage on a cut.
Like heart and brain surgeons don't need to grasp human biology far, far, far beyond the knowledge it takes to put on a bandage!!
And Jane still cares that of her own volition her mother was convinced by a friend not to abort her.

Otherwise, she wouldn't be around to care about anything at all.
phyllo wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 7:08 pmI have offered you the opportunity to discuss Mary's abortion many, many times. You always avoid discussing it.
This is so preposterous, I can only leave it to others to make of it what they will.

Again, assuming that "somehow" the human brain did acquire free will when matter "somehow" acquired life.

Taking us back to phyllo's....God?
Post Reply