compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:03 pm Me and biggy been goin' at each for a while, across multiple threads. If, today, I'm unphilosophical here or there with him it's cuz civility was exhausted a while back elsewhere.

'nuff said.
Perhaps you misunderstood. There was nothing in my post that was critical of you. And then I topped it off with a question about the topic. If he controlled you a bit, as you mentioned, perhaps flippantly, near the end of your post, how much control do external things/people have over you (us)?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: compatibilism

Post by henry quirk »

Perhaps you misunderstood.
Entirely possible.
If he controlled you a bit, as you mentioned, perhaps *flippantly, near the end of your post, **how much control do external things/people have over you (us)?[
*Yes.

**Oh, attention can be captured, sure. A loud noise in what was a quiet room, turns your head, for example. But it doesn't have to. A steely mind can be aware, but unmoved. Or the wailin' of a soap boxer. You can be drawn to his complaints for any number of reasons, but you can write him off and walk on; or engage, find he's a one-trick pony who'll talk at but not to you, and walk on; or -- like some mean-spirited types -- you can keep engagin' well past the point of any meaningful return just cuz you like pokin' at the deficient.

No matter what you do, though, it's on you. You consented. You're responsible for your end.
and -- yes -- I'm one of those mean-spirited types
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:05 am *Yes.

**Oh, attention can be captured, sure. A loud noise in what was a quiet room, turns your head, for example. But it doesn't have to. A steely mind can be aware, but unmoved. Or the wailin' of a soap boxer. You can be drawn to his complaints for any number of reasons, but you can write him off and walk on; or engage, find he's a one-trick pony who'll talk at but not to you, and walk on; or -- like some mean-spirited types -- you can keep engagin' well past the point of any meaningful return just cuz you like pokin' at the deficient.

No matter what you do, though, it's on you. You consented. You're responsible for your end.
and -- yes -- I'm one of those mean-spirited types
Sure, you can be a steely mind, but probably not the first time. If someone does the interpersonal equivalent of making loud noises in a quiet room - and which of us doesn't do that at some point? - you probably whip your head around to look at that person. It would be odd if, certainly as a child, you were already primed to not react. In fact it's probably a dangerous trait to have. OK, later your learn. But now you are a person who does not react to loud noises. If nothing else if you had a mom who played that trick on you, she would, after a time have failed to make you whip your head around. She could no longer affect you with her little maternal pranks.

But now you are a guy who reacts less to sudden noises. (not pointing out that this is a problem, though it would be one. rather I am saying that her pranks affected you by getting you to train against a natural response. She affected you. From here you could, yes, train yourself, to react when she can't possibly be around, to reduce the negative side effects of NOT being controlled by her. But on some fundamental level her intention to control you succeeded, if not quite in the way intended.)
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: compatibilism

Post by henry quirk »

In the way you mean, we're probably, each of us, controlled from time to time, and controllers from time to time.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:57 pm In the way you mean, we're probably, each of us, controlled from time to time, and controllers from time to time.
So, is there a degree of free will or is it 100%?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: compatibilism

Post by henry quirk »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 1:35 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:57 pm In the way you mean, we're probably, each of us, controlled from time to time, and controllers from time to time.
So, is there a degree of free will or is it 100%?
I guess that depends on how you see free will. If it's a quality or property then I'm guessin' it would vary from person to person. If, however, like me, you don't take it as a quality or property but, instead, see yourself as a free will (as in, I don't have free will, I am a free will), then the question becomes meaningless. Being a free will doesn't mean you have perfect control or insight, nor does it guarantee you make perfect choices or successful choices. It means you can choose (often for reasons unrooted in yesterday); can cause; can begin, end, and bend causal chains. It means you, in very important ways, aren't a slave to cause & effect. It means you're influenced by yesterday but not determined by it. And, of course, it means you're responsible for your choices and the consequences of those choices.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

Henry Quirk discussed free will:
It means you, in very important ways, aren't a slave to cause & effect.
The best way not to be a "slave to cause and effect" is to know as much about causes as you can.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

It astounds and terrifies me that some people continue to believe they can move objects with their minds. It is complete voodoo nonsense.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: compatibilism

Post by henry quirk »

The best way not to be a "slave to cause and effect" is to know as much about causes as you can.
Knowledge is a good thing, but, B: no amount of knowledge will turn a determined meat machine into a free will.

-----
It astounds and terrifies me that some people continue to believe they can move objects with their minds. It is complete voodoo nonsense.
Don't worry, Dom: I haven't forgot about you. Tomorrow looks to be an easy day for me, so I'll jump back in with a review of our positions and then we can get to tusslin' again.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

Belinda wrote:
The best way not to be a "slave to cause and effect" is to know as much about causes as you can.
Henry Quirk wrote:
Knowledge is a good thing, but, B: no amount of knowledge will turn a determined meat machine into a free will.
Belinda replies:
It's impossible for a man to be a machine because a man is more than his past history. A machine is nothing but its past history until some man comes along and does something with it.

What makes a man more than his past history is not so-called Free Will, it's man's ability to know there is going to be a future. It's the nature of a man to know there is going to be a future. Machines don't have futures until some man comes along and uses them.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: compatibilism

Post by henry quirk »

It's impossible for a man to be a machine because a man is more than his past history. A machine is nothing but its past history until some man comes along and does something with it.
If a man is not a free will (note that: I didn't say if a man does not have free will), then he's a meat machine, no more capable of doing something with his past than a Rhoomba.
What makes a man more than his past history is not so-called Free Will, it's man's ability to know there is going to be a future. It's the nature of a man to know there is going to be a future. Machines don't have futures until some man comes along and uses them.
A man anticipates and imagines...becuz he is a free will.

-----

Today, Dom... 👍
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:03 pm Me and biggy been goin' at each for a while, across multiple threads. If, today, I'm unphilosophical here or there with him it's cuz civility was exhausted a while back elsewhere.

'nuff said.
Look, I can't even get him to acknowledge that, like all the rest of us, in regard to free will...

"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."

Which is why, over and again, he won't respond substantively -- even "philosophically" -- 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.
Of course, the surreal part revolves around the fact that, if we do live in a determined universe as some understand it, then henry was never able to not post what he does here. Anymore than I am able to not read what he posts.

We. Just. Don't. Know.

On the other hand, in being a polemicist myself, I enjoy jousting with others. It's just that some are more, uh, challenging than others?

That I reduce henry down to Mr. Wiggle and Mr. Snippet over and again speaks volumes regarding how challenging he is.

With others, however, he can sustain substantive exchanges. Why? Because, in my view, unlike me, they start with the assumption that in regard to conflicting goods or the Big Questions like free will, there are objective conclusions to reach. Their own in particular.

What I explore instead is not what we believe in regard to the is/ought world or in regard to the big "metaphysical questions", but how existentially we come to acquire those beliefs given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

And henry never goes there, right? 8)
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:49 pm
It's impossible for a man to be a machine because a man is more than his past history. A machine is nothing but its past history until some man comes along and does something with it.
If a man is not a free will (note that: I didn't say if a man does not have free will), then he's a meat machine, no more capable of doing something with his past than a Rhoomba.
What makes a man more than his past history is not so-called Free Will, it's man's ability to know there is going to be a future. It's the nature of a man to know there is going to be a future. Machines don't have futures until some man comes along and uses them.
A man anticipates and imagines...becuz he is a free will.

-----

Today, Dom... 👍
Men anticipate and imagine not because they are absolutely free wills but because anticipating and imagining define men. Archaeology increasingly shows that the very earliest men in pre -historical times anticipated and imagined.
A man is like a machine relative to the degree of freedom he lacks or has.
However you said
If a man is not a free will (note that: I didn't say if a man does not have free will)
this is to define a man as different from not only machines but also all the other animals .
That idea is pure Descartes. That Cartesian idea has been responsible for horrible cruelty to animals. I urge you to think again.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Look, folks. You people are all over the place. I have attempted to reduce the issue down to what nailed it for me. Please consider the following four points and indicate with which one you disagree:

1 Only physical objects can interact with physical objects.

2 All such interactions are governed by the four fundamental forces of nature.

3 If free will is not physical, it cannot cause ions, neurotransmitters, and other atoms and molecules to move and thus trigger nerve signals and actions.

4 If will is physical, it is subject to the laws of physics and is not free.

In either case there is no free will. The real challenge is how to deal with it.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: compatibilism

Post by henry quirk »

I have attempted to reduce the issue down to what nailed it for me.
And you saved me the trouble... 👍
1 Only physical objects can interact with physical objects.
And yet information, which we both agree is immaterial, regularly interacts with the material or physical.
2 All such interactions are governed by the four fundamental forces of nature.
According to the standard model (which has holes), yes.
3 If free will is not physical, it cannot cause ions, neurotransmitters, and other atoms and molecules to move and thus trigger nerve signals and actions.
And yet, as I say, information, which we both agree is immaterial, regularly interacts with the material or physical.
4 If will is physical, it is subject to the laws of physics and is not free.
I agree.
Post Reply