compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:52 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:53 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:30 pm

Belinda, is what you are inferring full body consciousness, if so, it would be difficult to deny. I believe awareness itself is function and not material, just as thought is not physical but the product of the physical.
I mean, not only full body consciousness,as brain can't exist without oxygen etc, but also all material existence : circulation of the blood, osmosis, etc. The materialist (physicalist) is not mistaken that physical stuff exists and is apprehended through objective minds.

I also mean that subjective perspectives pertain to all living things and subjective implies not mediated by objective considerations. Subjectively, men usually feel there is an objectively material world 'out there'. Thus the material world of brains, bodies, and physiology is conceptual.

Also conceptual is what I am doing right now, philosophising. Both the material and the mental are true and are two aspects of the same thing which is Deus Sive Natura. (It's a pity English is so polluted by silly beliefs that we speak Latin!)

So I don't think "thought is ----- the product of the physical". That explanation of thought is a posteriori explanation. Thought, or 'mind' and the material world a priori are aspects of nature.
Wow, it is going to take me awhile to digest that, interesting!! You are a piece of work; I mean that in a positive way!!
I am still working on it. Explaining helps me to clarify my ideas, and thanks for commenting .

Elsewhere, either on this philosophy website or the other one, this morning I was trying to explain how existence itself (otherwise known as being itself) is one big Law which, as a priori Law, implies that all that happens necessarily happens.That in a nutshell is causal determinism .

("One big Law" does not imply a supernatural anthropomorphic Lawmaking deity).
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:35 pm I am still working on it. Explaining helps me to clarify my ideas, and thanks for commenting .

Elsewhere, either on this philosophy website or the other one, this morning I was trying to explain how existence itself (otherwise known as being itself) is one big Law which, as a priori Law, implies that all that happens necessarily happens.That in a nutshell is causal determinism .

("One big Law" does not imply a supernatural anthropomorphic Lawmaking deity).
Just make sure that when you're explaining something, you start with ideas that are simpler than the thing you're explaining. This will make your explanation much easier to understand.

Sapere aude.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:35 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:52 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:53 pm
I mean, not only full body consciousness,as brain can't exist without oxygen etc, but also all material existence : circulation of the blood, osmosis, etc. The materialist (physicalist) is not mistaken that physical stuff exists and is apprehended through objective minds.

I also mean that subjective perspectives pertain to all living things and subjective implies not mediated by objective considerations. Subjectively, men usually feel there is an objectively material world 'out there'. Thus the material world of brains, bodies, and physiology is conceptual.

Also conceptual is what I am doing right now, philosophising. Both the material and the mental are true and are two aspects of the same thing which is Deus Sive Natura. (It's a pity English is so polluted by silly beliefs that we speak Latin!)

So I don't think "thought is ----- the product of the physical". That explanation of thought is a posteriori explanation. Thought, or 'mind' and the material world a priori are aspects of nature.
Wow, it is going to take me awhile to digest that, interesting!! You are a piece of work; I mean that in a positive way!!
I am still working on it. Explaining helps me to clarify my ideas, and thanks for commenting .

Elsewhere, either on this philosophy website or the other one, this morning I was trying to explain how existence itself (otherwise known as being itself) is one big Law which, as a priori Law, implies that all that happens necessarily happens.That in a nutshell is causal determinism .

("One big Law" does not imply a supernatural anthropomorphic Lawmaking deity).
Interestingly, it doesn't even seem common knowledge or belief that the essence of all life forms is the same, differing only in structural adaptations, like keys to a lock fitting into the multitude of niches. That which happens necessarily happens if only one could link back the happening. It might have arisen from a multitude of causes/energy forms, pointing to many possibilities, a decisive element determining manifestation, for when does a condition become a thing. Chemistry in motion might in itself be considered events not yet objects. It's a dreamy moving not quite thing, only the illusion is the grasp of the ring, without wonder, we would all dry up and blow away.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

BigMike wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:16 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:35 pm I am still working on it. Explaining helps me to clarify my ideas, and thanks for commenting .

Elsewhere, either on this philosophy website or the other one, this morning I was trying to explain how existence itself (otherwise known as being itself) is one big Law which, as a priori Law, implies that all that happens necessarily happens.That in a nutshell is causal determinism .

("One big Law" does not imply a supernatural anthropomorphic Lawmaking deity).
Just make sure that when you're explaining something, you start with ideas that are simpler than the thing you're explaining. This will make your explanation much easier to understand.

Sapere aude.
Okay. Two ideas are in what I was trying to explain.
1. Determinism is a concept that includes causal chains, causal circumstances, and lawlike connections.

The concept of causal chains is insufficient for us to establish causes of events because few events can be explained as simply as billiard ball events.

Causal circumstances are less ephemeral than causal chains, can happen concurrently , and so knowledge of circumstances lets us more efficiently falsify hypothetical causes.

Lawlike connections explain events as necessary attributes of a higher level fact, as for instance if night comes and no where give way to day then it follows that Earth has stopped turning on its axis. The study of Nature shows that there are so many lawlike causes of events that it's increasingly probable Nature itself is not chaotic.

These three parts to determinism logically lead to the truth of determinism as Cosmic law.




2. A priori is another concept for another post.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:48 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:35 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:52 pm

Wow, it is going to take me awhile to digest that, interesting!! You are a piece of work; I mean that in a positive way!!
I am still working on it. Explaining helps me to clarify my ideas, and thanks for commenting .

Elsewhere, either on this philosophy website or the other one, this morning I was trying to explain how existence itself (otherwise known as being itself) is one big Law which, as a priori Law, implies that all that happens necessarily happens.That in a nutshell is causal determinism .

("One big Law" does not imply a supernatural anthropomorphic Lawmaking deity).
Interestingly, it doesn't even seem common knowledge or belief that the essence of all life forms is the same, differing only in structural adaptations, like keys to a lock fitting into the multitude of niches. That which happens necessarily happens if only one could link back the happening. It might have arisen from a multitude of causes/energy forms, pointing to many possibilities, a decisive element determining manifestation, for when does a condition become a thing. Chemistry in motion might in itself be considered events not yet objects. It's a dreamy moving not quite thing, only the illusion is the grasp of the ring, without wonder, we would all dry up and blow away.
Popeye, you wrote "That which happens necessarily happens if only one could link back the happening."
I had posted a reply to BigMike before I read your post. In that reply I tried to show how determinism does link back, largely by laws of nature or laws of science, which I call 'nomic connections' a term I read in a book by Ted Honderich
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:03 pm
BigMike wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:16 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:35 pm
Just make sure that when you're explaining something, you start with ideas that are simpler than the thing you're explaining. This will make your explanation much easier to understand.

Sapere aude.
Okay. Two ideas are in what I was trying to explain.
1. Determinism is a concept that includes causal chains, causal circumstances, and lawlike connections.

The concept of causal chains is insufficient for us to establish causes of events because few events can be explained as simply as billiard ball events.

Causal circumstances are less ephemeral than causal chains, can happen concurrently , and so knowledge of circumstances lets us more efficiently falsify hypothetical causes.

Lawlike connections explain events as necessary attributes of a higher level fact, as for instance if night comes and no where give way to day then it follows that Earth has stopped turning on its axis. The study of Nature shows that there are so many lawlike causes of events that it's increasingly probable Nature itself is not chaotic.

These three parts to determinism logically lead to the truth of determinism as Cosmic law.
What you say is true if I add a little goodwill. However, when you talk about things like causal chains and other similar ideas, it's hard for me to take them at face value.

Contrary to what the idea of causal chains might seem to imply, it is not true or at least not accurate to say that one thing causes something to happen to another thing. For example, one pool ball does not cause the other to move to the right or left. They affect one another. You could just as quickly claim that the second ball causes the first ball to deflect. Since the idea of causal chains can be misleading, scientists prefer to talk about interactions rather than one thing causing something in another. As a result, the causal chain idea is somewhat out of date.

Instead, we talk about interactions, of which there are only four: gravity, electromagnetism, and the two interactions between nuclear particles (strong and weak). Also, each interaction only swaps some of six "things": energy, linear (translational) momentum, electric charge, angular momentum, baryon number, or lepton number. Each quantitative property moves from one particle to another, without gain or loss, in amounts consistent with all six conservation laws. Those properties are never created or destroyed. They are conserved. And that’s it. Moreover, every law of physics is just a special case of these simple conservation laws.

If someone can show that even a tiny amount of these conserved quantities went away or appeared out of nowhere, which I find extremely unlikely, they would surely win the Nobel Prize in physics.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

BigMike wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:23 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:03 pm
BigMike wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:16 pm

Just make sure that when you're explaining something, you start with ideas that are simpler than the thing you're explaining. This will make your explanation much easier to understand.

Sapere aude.
Okay. Two ideas are in what I was trying to explain.
1. Determinism is a concept that includes causal chains, causal circumstances, and lawlike connections.

The concept of causal chains is insufficient for us to establish causes of events because few events can be explained as simply as billiard ball events.

Causal circumstances are less ephemeral than causal chains, can happen concurrently , and so knowledge of circumstances lets us more efficiently falsify hypothetical causes.

Lawlike connections explain events as necessary attributes of a higher level fact, as for instance if night comes and no where give way to day then it follows that Earth has stopped turning on its axis. The study of Nature shows that there are so many lawlike causes of events that it's increasingly probable Nature itself is not chaotic.

These three parts to determinism logically lead to the truth of determinism as Cosmic law.
What you say is true if I add a little goodwill. However, when you talk about things like causal chains and other similar ideas, it's hard for me to take them at face value.

Contrary to what the idea of causal chains might seem to imply, it is not true or at least not accurate to say that one thing causes something to happen to another thing. For example, one pool ball does not cause the other to move to the right or left. They affect one another. You could just as quickly claim that the second ball causes the first ball to deflect. Since the idea of causal chains can be misleading, scientists prefer to talk about interactions rather than one thing causing something in another. As a result, the causal chain idea is somewhat out of date.

Instead, we talk about interactions, of which there are only four: gravity, electromagnetism, and the two interactions between nuclear particles (strong and weak). Also, each interaction only swaps some of six "things": energy, linear (translational) momentum, electric charge, angular momentum, baryon number, or lepton number. Each quantitative property moves from one particle to another, without gain or loss, in amounts consistent with all six conservation laws. Those properties are never created or destroyed. They are conserved. And that’s it. Moreover, every law of physics is just a special case of these simple conservation laws.
If someone can show that even a tiny amount of these conserved quantities went away or appeared out of nowhere, which I find extremely unlikely, they would surely win the Nobel Prize in physics.
I agree the idea of causal chains is what I'd call simplistic. I had to name causal chains as a lot of posters here think they are what determinism is all about.

The matter of your paragraph about the nature of interactions is like what I meant by causal circumstances. With a short leap of faith interactions of --- energy, linear (translational) momentum, electric charge, angular momentum, baryon number, or lepton number --- can be construed as together definitive laws of Nature.
If someone can show that even a tiny amount of these conserved quantities went away or appeared out of nowhere, which I find extremely unlikely, they would surely win the Nobel Prize in physics.
That would be like someone showing that God does not exist.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:46 pm
BigMike wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:23 pmIf someone can show that even a tiny amount of these conserved quantities went away or appeared out of nowhere, which I find extremely unlikely, they would surely win the Nobel Prize in physics.
That would be like someone showing that God does not exist.
This is true only if you say that god is nature and nature is god, as Spinoza did when he came up with the phrase "Deus sive Natura." But that god would be very different from the traditional god, who has plans, likes being worshiped, gets mad if you don't, is obsessed with punishing people, and gives in to all kinds of childish whims and caprices.

Or are you able to offer an alternative explanation?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

BigMike wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:21 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:46 pm
BigMike wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:23 pmIf someone can show that even a tiny amount of these conserved quantities went away or appeared out of nowhere, which I find extremely unlikely, they would surely win the Nobel Prize in physics.
That would be like someone showing that God does not exist.
This is true only if you say that god is nature and nature is god, as Spinoza did when he came up with the phrase "Deus sive Natura." But that god would be very different from the traditional god, who has plans, likes being worshiped, gets mad if you don't, is obsessed with punishing people, and gives in to all kinds of childish whims and caprices.

Or are you able to offer an alternative explanation?
For many years I've thought Deus sive Natura.

The traditional God as you describe Him infests this forum and wastes an awful lot of thinking- time and energy.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Did John Calvin Believe in Free Will?
MATTHEW BARRETT at the TGC website
]Two Calvinists strike up a conversation, and I just happen to be nearby. As they express their love for the doctrines of grace, I then hear them describe the difference between, say, Calvin and Arminius: the former rejected free will and the latter heralded free will. Though they don’t know it yet, pitching the long-standing debate this way leaves them open to the all-too-common objection that we are just a bunch of robots. Maybe it is time for the eavesdropper to speak up.
No, really, what is the existential relationship between Calvinism and the fate of your very own eternal soul?

"Are you familiar with Calvinist doctrine? At its heart is the concept of predestination. Calvinists believe that, at the beginning of time, God selected a limited number of souls to grant salvation and there's nothing any individual person can do during their mortal life to alter their eternal fate."

Okay, the concept of Calvinism. But what about the nitty-gritty existential reality of your very own soul either nestled blissfully for all of eternity in Salvation or writhing in agony the very embodiment of Damnation?

Is it really possible that the God of Abraham has in fact already selected a handful of us to reside in Heaven with Him forever and ever while the rest -- including the most fervent defenders of Christianity here -- are already doomed to Hell? Period. Judgment Day for each of us only as it has always ever been fated/destined to be?

What to make of this, right?
Now you know Arminius was not a contemporary of Calvin. But hold on a minute, Calvin did have plenty of nemeses, and one of them would take up Calvin on issues that would, later on, put Arminius in hot water with his Reformed counterparts. The man’s name was Albertus Pighius, a Dutch Roman Catholic scholar.

You may be aware of Martin Luther’s famous work The Bondage of the Will, a must read for every Christian. But many forget that Calvin wrote a book with a similar title: The Bondage and Liberation of the Will (though it is his subtitle that gets down to the nitty-gritty: A Defense of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice Against Pighius).
Now here of course we get into the historical accounts of Christianity. Jesus Christ [man or myth] arrives on Earth, is crucified, dies for our sins.

Then [historically] all those flesh and blood human beings putting together this while rejecting that in constructing one or another rendition of the Christian Bible.

Calvin then becoming just one of those to put his own rooted existentially in dasein stamp on it all.

God, the determinist.
While there is much we could say about the Calvin-Pighius boxing match, I want to ask a question that may seem, well, obvious: Did Calvin believe in free will? By looking at Calvin’s Institutes, as well as his debate with Pighius, we discover that this question is not so easily answered as one might have assumed.
Seriously, how could someone convince himself that whether he lived his life, say, embracing Hitler or doing everything in his power to defeat him, it was all entirely moot. His fate was decided by God right from the start.

Or is Calvinism just one more frame of mind such that it doesn't matter what your fate is as long as you are able to convince yourself it was all "beyond my control...so don't blame me."
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

Iambiguous wrote:
"Are you familiar with Calvinist doctrine? At its heart is the concept of predestination. Calvinists believe that, at the beginning of time, God selected a limited number of souls to grant salvation and there's nothing any individual person can do during their mortal life to alter their eternal fate."

Okay, the concept of Calvinism. But what about the nitty-gritty existential reality of your very own soul either nestled blissfully for all of eternity in Salvation or writhing in agony the very embodiment of Damnation?

Is it really possible that the God of Abraham has in fact already selected a handful of us to reside in Heaven with Him forever and ever while the rest -- including the most fervent defenders of Christianity here -- are already doomed to Hell? Period. Judgment Day for each of us only as it has always ever been fated/destined to be?

What to make of this, right?
We are each immersed in time and subjectivity . Natura naturata remain separated from each other unless they get to know there is also Natura naturans. understanding of Natura naturans as the other aspect of Nature releases the soul and the affections from Calvinistic predestination.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by promethean75 »

Calvin wuz for the spread of tyrannical ruling class religious ideology into the minds of the propertiless working classes what this guy wuz for the spread of a biological virus.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by promethean75 »

It wuz an instance of that ridiculous crap rulers and their philosophers do when they believe and act as if their rule and the organization of their state not only reflects and mimics the cosmic order, but is also licensed by God, by God's mandate, etc.

Who better did this than Calvin? He was literally like a ninja on a recon mission into the minds of the broke ass proletariat to sabotage, forestall, discourage and passify any violent feelings for uprising or civil disobedience the peasants might feel toward the rulers and property owners.

Accept your lot. It is your fate, and trust in the will of god for he is almighty and good, yada yada. And get back to work.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:11 pm It wuz an instance of that ridiculous crap rulers and their philosophers do when they believe and act as if their rule and the organization of their state not only reflects and mimics the cosmic order, but is also licensed by God, by God's mandate, etc.

Who better did this than Calvin? He was literally like a ninja on a recon mission into the minds of the broke ass proletariat to sabotage, forestall, discourage and passify any violent feelings for uprising or civil disobedience the peasants might feel toward the rulers and property owners.

Accept your lot. It is your fate, and trust in the will of god for he is almighty and good, yada yada. And get back to work.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Did John Calvin Believe in Free Will?
MATTHEW BARRETT at the TGC website
To begin, Calvin points us to the first sin of Adam and, like Paul in Romans 5, connects the dots from Adam to all of humanity. When Adam sinned he “entangled and immersed his offspring in the same miseries.” Calvin defines original sin as “a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God’s wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls ‘works of the flesh.’” The result of descending from Adam’s “impure seed” and being “born infected with the contagion of sin” is the pervasive corruption of man’s nature, so that the “whole man is overwhelmed—as by a deluge—from head to foot, so that no part is immune from sin and all that proceeds from him is to be imputed to sin.” As Calvin states elsewhere, “So depraved is [man’s] nature that he can be moved or impelled only to evil.”
Of course, to the best of my knowledge, Calvin wasn't actually there in the Garden of Eden to observe all of this. Like most, he read the account in the Bible. Which he then presumed it to be true because it is the word of God. And then presumed, what, that he must presume this because he did not possess the free will not to?

Again, that's where it always gets tricky. To reject free will is always to reject your own. So whatever you think, feel, say or do in regard to the Christian God you were never able not to. Only, as with most of us, Calvin was not actually able to demonstrate this such that his own account of Adam was indisputably not one that he had opted for autonomously.

And he can only presume that Adam himself was not compelled by God to bring about Original Sin. Or was he? Does an omniscient God already know that Adam would eat the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good and evil? Was he really ever able to opt freely not to?

How can this not be completely confusing without God Himself setting it all straight?
If man has been corrupted as by a deluge, and if sin permeates every recess so that “no part is immune from sin,” then it follows that man’s will is in bondage to sin. “For the will is so overwhelmed by wickedness and so pervaded by vice and corruption that it cannot in any way escape to honorable exertion or devote itself to righteousness.” Consequently, Calvin, with Augustine, does not hesitate to title the will “unfree.”
And yet there are over 2 billion Christians around the globe who don't seem to grasp that. Or, perhaps, in not grasping it, they are unwittingly in sync with God's will?

Let's face it though, sin takes on a whole new meaning if you were never able not to sin. And if, whether you do or do not, the fate of your eternal soul had already been decided by God...at or around the time of the Big Bang?

Still, it really comes down to how Calvin was actually able to demonstrate this beyond insisting that he was never able to demonstrate it beyond being fated to believe it.

I mean, in all seriously, what could you have told him to get around that?
Post Reply