compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:57 pm You cannot have your cake and eat it.
Either PZs cannot talk about consciousness because they do not have conscious experience of it.
That's not what I am saying. It's that they have no reason to bring it up.
Yet when it comes to the panoply of other shite about which they can have no experience then you invent some other reason.
No, I didn't do that.
The trouble with your version of a PZ, is that they would have to be completely struck dumb and totally imobile.
In other words your PZs would just be dead.
Immediately your entire thought experiment collapses.
I don't see that. I dont have a version of PZs. But someone with a version of PZs would have to explain why they - the PZ culture - would bring up consciousness. Their version may fail for other reasons. That's on the PZ version creators.
I don't believe in PZ's. I'm not ruling them out, but i am focused on one flaw with saying they would act just like us.
And there are reasons why dead things remain dead.
None of this advances a case for or against compatibilism.
I never thought it did. I thought my earlier question would have made that clear. You said you didn't bring up PZs. I was mistaken that it was you. It wasn't me either.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Sculptor »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:16 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:57 pm You cannot have your cake and eat it.
Either PZs cannot talk about consciousness because they do not have conscious experience of it.
That's not what I am saying. It's that they have no reason to bring it up.
Yet when it comes to the panoply of other shite about which they can have no experience then you invent some other reason.
No, I didn't do that.
The trouble with your version of a PZ, is that they would have to be completely struck dumb and totally imobile.
In other words your PZs would just be dead.
Immediately your entire thought experiment collapses.
I don't see that. I dont have a version of PZs. But someone with a version of PZs would have to explain why they - the PZ culture - would bring up consciousness. Their version may fail for other reasons. That's on the PZ version creators.
I don't believe in PZ's. I'm not ruling them out, but i am focused on one flaw with saying they would act just like us.
And there are reasons why dead things remain dead.
None of this advances a case for or against compatibilism.
I never thought it did. I thought my earlier question would have made that clear. You said you didn't bring up PZs. I was mistaken that it was you. It wasn't me either.
1
You are ruling out PZs. Because your objections render them mute and inanimate, since they would have no reason to do anything. This has more to do with your assumptions concerning consciousness than anything else.

2
If this has nothing to do with compatibilism then why are you arguing about it?
Please refer to the title of the thread.

3
Who brought this up!!!
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Agent Smith »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:51 pm
Agent Smith wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:32 am And God said, "let there be compatibilism and there was compatibilism". Halellujah!
I think you have that wrong.
The non-existent God declares there to be free will, as without it there an can no faith and without faith there is no god.

Without free will there can only be Calvinism.
The doctor didn't say a word, he simply looked the patient in the eye and everybody in San Diego understood.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Sculptor »

Agent Smith wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 4:20 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:51 pm
Agent Smith wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:32 am And God said, "let there be compatibilism and there was compatibilism". Halellujah!
I think you have that wrong.
The non-existent God declares there to be free will, as without it there an can no faith and without faith there is no god.

Without free will there can only be Calvinism.
The doctor didn't say a word, he simply looked the patient in the eye and everybody in San Diego understood.
The reference is lost on me.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Agent Smith »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 12:04 pm
Agent Smith wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 4:20 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:51 pm

I think you have that wrong.
The non-existent God declares there to be free will, as without it there an can no faith and without faith there is no god.

Without free will there can only be Calvinism.
The doctor didn't say a word, he simply looked the patient in the eye and everybody in San Diego understood.
The reference is lost on me.
We're all (not) lost. Now, if only I could recall what I hadta ... what I hadta ... (not) say? (not) do? ((not) not ...). El rachum.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Sculptor »

Agent Smith wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 12:15 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 12:04 pm
Agent Smith wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 4:20 am

The doctor didn't say a word, he simply looked the patient in the eye and everybody in San Diego understood.
The reference is lost on me.
We're all (not) lost. Now, if only I could recall what I hadta ... what I hadta ... (not) say? (not) do? ((not) not ...). El rachum.
Are you high?
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Agent Smith »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 2:58 pm
Agent Smith wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 12:15 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 12:04 pm

The reference is lost on me.
We're all (not) lost. Now, if only I could recall what I hadta ... what I hadta ... (not) say? (not) do? ((not) not ...). El rachum.
Are you high?
Difficult question.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Moral Responsibility Without Libertarianism
Lynne Rudder Baker
The terms ‘compatibilism’ and ‘libertarianism’ standardly refer to positions on the question of free will. However, compatibilist vs. libertarian accounts of free will lead to compatibilist vs. libertarian conditions of moral responsibility. Since, as I said, my concern here is with the conditions for moral responsibility, I’ll use the terms ‘compatibilism’ and ‘libertarianism’ to distinguish two positions on what is required for moral responsibility. As we shall see, what libertarians insist on, and what compatibilists deny, is that moral responsibility for an action requires that the agent be the source or originator of the action in a way that precludes determinism.
So, both embrace moral responsibility. But they disagree regarding the nature of the "agent"? The libertarian agent "somehow" acquired free will when the human brain itself "somehow" acquired it. Free will here being the way most of us imagine it. I do what I do because of my own volition I opted to do it. End of story. Whereas the compatibilist agent is a still a determinist but "somehow" the laws of matter encompassing his or her brain resulted in the agent being the source or originator of an action in a way that precludes determinism?

The part that still makes no sense to me. Although, again, I'm always willing to admit that it does make sense and -- click -- I am simply unable to grasp it.

On the other hand, neither one is actually able to explain how the human brain did evolve biologically into whatever it is that "in their head" they think it is when we do this instead of doing that.

And just once I'd like the author of an article like this [one defending compatibilism] to tackle head on the question of whether what they write about they themselves were the source or originator of in a way that includes determinism. Given how their brain actually functions here while they are writing it, what for all practical purposes does that mean?
I shall defend compatibilism in two steps: First, I shall argue that libertarianism is false: no one has libertarian freedom. So, if moral responsibility entails libertarianism, then we are never morally responsible for anything that we do.
Here, of course, I suggest that, even given libertarian freedom as many understand it in the is/ought world, this often revolves around dasein. We are free to opt for particular behaviors, but...but the behaviors that we do opt for are rooted existentially [more or less] in our indoctrination as children and in the historical and cultural contexts in which we acquire experiences as adults.

And, even in the either/or world, the Benjamin Button Syndrome can have a profound impact on how our lives unfolds.
Second, since I do believe that we are morally responsible for certain of our actions, I shall propose nonlibertarian (i.e., compatibilist) conditions for moral responsibility—a Reflective­Endorsement view. I shall add to Harry Frankfurt’s compatibilist conditions to make them sufficient for moral responsibility. Then, I shall defend compatibilism against a recent sustained attack by Derk Pereboom. Finally, I shall comment on the pervasiveness of luck. Along the way, I shall show how compatibilism can accommodate certain libertarian intuitions.
Okay, but given particular contexts?

Stay tuned.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2577
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:18 pm Whereas the compatibilist agent is a still a determinist but "somehow" the laws of matter encompassing his or her brain resulted in the agent being the source or originator of an action in a way that precludes determinism?

The part that still makes no sense to me.
Of course it didn't make sense. You didn't read the words correctly. Focus on the word "deny" for a second.

"As we shall see, what libertarians insist on, and what compatibilists deny.."
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:53 pm
iambiguous wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:18 pm Whereas the compatibilist agent is a still a determinist but "somehow" the laws of matter encompassing his or her brain resulted in the agent being the source or originator of an action in a way that precludes determinism?

The part that still makes no sense to me.
Of course it didn't make sense. You didn't read the words correctly. Focus on the word "deny" for a second.

"As we shall see, what libertarians insist on, and what compatibilists deny.."
Click.

Back to Mary aborting Jane...

If one were to read the words correctly, would or would not Mary be morally responsible for killing Jane given how determinism is understood by a compatibilist as you understand one.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2577
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:08 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:53 pm
iambiguous wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:18 pm Whereas the compatibilist agent is a still a determinist but "somehow" the laws of matter encompassing his or her brain resulted in the agent being the source or originator of an action in a way that precludes determinism?

The part that still makes no sense to me.
Of course it didn't make sense. You didn't read the words correctly. Focus on the word "deny" for a second.

"As we shall see, what libertarians insist on, and what compatibilists deny.."
Click.

Back to Mary aborting Jane...

If one were to read the words correctly, would or would not Mary be morally responsible for killing Jane given how determinism is understood by a compatibilist as you understand one.
I don't think the answer to the question depends on your ability to interpret text correctly.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:15 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:08 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:53 pm

Of course it didn't make sense. You didn't read the words correctly. Focus on the word "deny" for a second.

"As we shall see, what libertarians insist on, and what compatibilists deny.."
Click.

Back to Mary aborting Jane...

If one were to read the words correctly, would or would not Mary be morally responsible for killing Jane given how determinism is understood by a compatibilist as you understand one.
I don't think the answer to the question depends on your ability to interpret text correctly.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Not that you were ever able not to. :wink:
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2577
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:23 pm
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Not that you were ever able not to. :wink:
Do you see your own reply as wiggling? I mean, rather than saying "oh yes flannel, I see that I interpreted that text incorrectly, perhaps I misread a word" you changed the subject to some entirely other thing.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:27 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:23 pm
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Not that you were ever able not to. :wink:
Do you see your own reply as wiggling? I mean, rather than saying "oh yes flannel, I see that I interpreted that text incorrectly, perhaps I misread a word" you changed the subject to some entirely other thing.
Click.

Huh?

You say I misinterpreted the meaning of the words in the text above. The word "deny" in particular.

So, naturally, I'm curious as to what you believe the correct interpretation to be.

Given a particular context:
Back to Mary aborting Jane...

If one were to read the words correctly, would or would not Mary be morally responsible for killing Jane given how determinism is understood by a compatibilist as you understand one.
Sure, I may well have misunderstood the author's point in a free will world. I would never deny that. But if someone says that I did, well, would or would not they be inclined to interpret it correctly for me?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2577
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:36 pm Sure, I may well have misunderstood the author's point in a free will world. I would never deny that. But if someone says that I did, well, would or would not they be inclined to interpret it correctly for me?
I thought what I said would have made the interpretation obvious.

"Whereas the compatibilist agent is a still a determinist but "somehow" the laws of matter encompassing his or her brain resulted in the agent being the source or originator of an action in a way that precludes determinism?

The part that still makes no sense to me."

You're talking about compatibilist beliefs like they preclude determinism, and yet the text clearly says that compatibilists deny the part that precludes determinism.

I mean, of course compatibilists deny that free will precludes determinism. That's literally what compatibilism means.

So no, compatibilists don't believe the stuff you said in a way that precludes determinism, literally by definition. Compatibilists deny that Determinism is precluded, as indicated in the text you quoted.

Is that clear enough?
Post Reply