compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

BigMike wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 8:05 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:23 pm Over and again, from my frame of mind, the manner in which you note this would seem to be predicated on some measure of free will.
I'm sorry I don't have time to read all your historical posts to find the answer, but what is your "frame of mind"? Would you say, for example, that you are a libertarian, a determinist, a compatibilist, or an indeterminist -- or what?
That's not the point of course. Not on this thread.

The point for some determinists is that whatever I say that I am I was never able to not say it.

You're the one who says he's a determinist but says it as though he had opted of his own free will to say it.

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

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 9:15 pm
BigMike wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 8:05 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:23 pm Over and again, from my frame of mind, the manner in which you note this would seem to be predicated on some measure of free will.
I'm sorry I don't have time to read all your historical posts to find the answer, but what is your "frame of mind"? Would you say, for example, that you are a libertarian, a determinist, a compatibilist, or an indeterminist -- or what?
That's not the point of course. Not on this thread.

The point for some determinists is that whatever I say that I am I was never able to not say it.

You're the one who says he's a determinist but says it as though he had opted of his own free will to say it.

Next! :wink:
Aha, now I see where you're stuck.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

BigMike wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 10:04 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 9:15 pm
BigMike wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 8:05 am

I'm sorry I don't have time to read all your historical posts to find the answer, but what is your "frame of mind"? Would you say, for example, that you are a libertarian, a determinist, a compatibilist, or an indeterminist -- or what?
That's not the point of course. Not on this thread.

The point for some determinists is that whatever I say that I am I was never able to not say it.

You're the one who says he's a determinist but says it as though he had opted of his own free will to say it.

Next! :wink:
Aha, now I see where you're stuck.
On the other hand, you see only what you must see, right? And if I'm stuck, que sera, sera?

Still, it's like you are looking for a loophole in the laws of matter.

And, if there is one, the human brain is certainly the first place that one would go to look for it, isn't it?

Only, as with those like bahman, your search seems more "metaphysical" than experiential.

Let's ask the scientists.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:27 am
On the other hand, you see only what you must see, right? And if I'm stuck, que sera, sera?
Correct. And I have no problem with that. None, whatsoever. You are the one who appears astounded by the fact that the world is material, not I.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:27 am Still, it's like you are looking for a loophole in the laws of matter.
No, I'm not.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:27 am And, if there is one, the human brain is certainly the first place that one would go to look for it, isn't it?
Listen: there is none. Basta.
Only, as with those like bahman, your search seems more "metaphysical" than experiential.
Really? I'm not searching for anything.
Let's ask the scientists.
They have already spoken. When will you accept their answer?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:24 am
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:27 am
On the other hand, you see only what you must see, right? And if I'm stuck, que sera, sera?
Correct. And I have no problem with that. None, whatsoever. You are the one who appears astounded by the fact that the world is material, not I.
See, there you go again. Claiming that I'm the one who appears astonished as though I ever had the option to appear any way other than how my brain compelled me to appear.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:27 am Still, it's like you are looking for a loophole in the laws of matter.
BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:24 amNo, I'm not.
Okay, but the laws of matter compel me to think that you are.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:27 am And, if there is one, the human brain is certainly the first place that one would go to look for it, isn't it?
BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:24 amListen: there is none. Basta.
And of course you have traced this all the way back to a complete and definitive understanding of existence itself. Enough indeed perhaps if you can provide us with the details.
Only, as with those like bahman, your search seems more "metaphysical" than experiential.
BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:24 amReally? I'm not searching for anything.
In that case then, your explanation. You assert things to be true by asserting things to be true. bahman is particularly prone to do this. He calls it metaphysics. But like all the rest of us in a wholly determined universe, he too is off the hook.
Let's ask the scientists.
BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:24 amThey have already spoken. When will you accept their answer?
When my brain compels me to? And I suspect that the scientific community has not reached a definitive consensus on the free will/determinism conundrum...antinomy? Why? Because if they had, that would be the sort of story that would explode across the media. Everyone would be talking about it.

On the other hand, even if one day we turn on the news and that is at the top of the newscast, how exactly would we go about demonstrating that this too is not just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

Ask you to confirm it?
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:27 am
Let's ask the scientists.

BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:24 amThey have already spoken. When will you accept their answer?
When my brain compels me to? And I suspect that the scientific community has not reached a definitive consensus on the free will/determinism conundrum...antinomy?
They have. You just don't get it, do you?
Why?
Perhaps because you lack the necessary intellectual capacity? Due to physical limitations, of course.
Because if they had, that would be the sort of story that would explode across the media. Everyone would be talking about it.
Not if "everyone" is unable to understand it due to a lack of neural connections.
On the other hand, even if one day we turn on the news and that is at the top of the newscast, how exactly would we go about demonstrating that this too is not just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?
Why would you wish to demonstrate that this too is "just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?" If science demonstrates that everything adheres to the laws of physics and, consequently, there is only one "possible reality" how often do you wish to reiterate that this, too, is "just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality"? Just accept the facts, and move on.
Ask you to confirm it?
Confirm what? Verify what? What science has already proven? Do you need someone to confirm the confirmation of science? Or confirmation of confirmation of confirmation? Stop your foolishness!
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

There is no "loophole in the laws of matter". The laws of matter include human reason which is the only track that leads to freedom. Human reason includes scientific knowledge and empathy. Freedom is cooperation with the laws of matter.

Besides knowledge of the laws of matter, individuals can benefit from uncertainty.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 10:04 am The laws of matter include human reason which is the only track that leads to freedom.
Freedom from what? Human reasoning is brain matter reasoning.
Freedom is cooperation with the laws of matter.
Are you suggesting that "the laws of matter" negotiate with "Freedom"? What does the cooperation look like?
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by bobmax »

Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 10:04 am The laws of matter include human reason which is the only track that leads to freedom.
This anthropocentric idea dies hard...

By now it should be evident that there is no substantial difference between us humans and the rest of the world.

There are always and only quantitative differences, never qualitative.
There may be greater or lesser complexity, greater or lesser rationality, but never anything substantially different.

Man is an animal that has evolved by chance, more than others, probably due to the vocal cords and prehensile hands with opposable thumbs.
We thus have a brain that is much more performing than others, but not at all different in substance from that of the lowest animal.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

bobmax wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:48 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 10:04 am The laws of matter include human reason which is the only track that leads to freedom.
This anthropocentric idea dies hard...

By now it should be evident that there is no substantial difference between us humans and the rest of the world.

There are always and only quantitative differences, never qualitative.
There may be greater or lesser complexity, greater or lesser rationality, but never anything substantially different.

Man is an animal that has evolved by chance, more than others, probably due to the vocal cords and prehensile hands with opposable thumbs.
We thus have a brain that is much more performing than others, but not at all different in substance from that of the lowest animal.
I think she may have meant that very differently from your interpretation.

I think you've interpreted it to mean that there are special laws specifically for human reason.

I think she means it in the way of like, there are laws of matter, and all physical implementations of human reasoning are just the normal physical laws behaving normally.

Emergent, if you will, weakly.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by bobmax »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 2:36 pm
bobmax wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:48 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 10:04 am The laws of matter include human reason which is the only track that leads to freedom.
This anthropocentric idea dies hard...

By now it should be evident that there is no substantial difference between us humans and the rest of the world.

There are always and only quantitative differences, never qualitative.
There may be greater or lesser complexity, greater or lesser rationality, but never anything substantially different.

Man is an animal that has evolved by chance, more than others, probably due to the vocal cords and prehensile hands with opposable thumbs.
We thus have a brain that is much more performing than others, but not at all different in substance from that of the lowest animal.
I think she may have meant that very differently from your interpretation.

I think you've interpreted it to mean that there are special laws specifically for human reason.

I think she means it in the way of like, there are laws of matter, and all physical implementations of human reasoning are just the normal physical laws behaving normally.

Emergent, if you will, weakly.
If so, why "human reason" and not simply "reason"?
Which is the only path that leads to freedom...

Matter is not free, but man is because he walked the path?

Freedom is the annihilation of every physical law!
So that freedom, if real, is a supernatural event.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

I think she may not be conceptualising freedom in a similar way to you. But that's only a guess. When you get to very abstract concepts like that, it's more than likely that you two are using the same word to refer to extremely different ideas.

It looks to me like Belinda is saying human minds are the result of the behaviour of human brains, and human brains are made of matter that is fundamentally entirely the same as other matter in the universe, and invariably obeys the same laws.

Often people contrast free will with determinism, as if a lack of determinism (and thus imo a presence of randomness) grants a person more freedom somehow. But many people find it useful to flip that idea on its head, and see randomness as the true prison, and determinism the source of freedom. I can go into more detail if you like, but that's the sort of path I think Belinda is implying.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

bobmax wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:48 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 10:04 am The laws of matter include human reason which is the only track that leads to freedom.
This anthropocentric idea dies hard...

By now it should be evident that there is no substantial difference between us humans and the rest of the world.

There are always and only quantitative differences, never qualitative.
There may be greater or lesser complexity, greater or lesser rationality, but never anything substantially different.

Man is an animal that has evolved by chance, more than others, probably due to the vocal cords and prehensile hands with opposable thumbs.
We thus have a brain that is much more performing than others, but not at all different in substance from that of the lowest animal.
Bobmax, this conversation is within the general discussion of Free Will or Determinism. There is no animal except man that is credited with originating events.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

BigMike wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:27 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 10:04 am The laws of matter include human reason which is the only track that leads to freedom.
Freedom from what? Human reasoning is brain matter reasoning.
Freedom is cooperation with the laws of matter.
Are you suggesting that "the laws of matter" negotiate with "Freedom"? What does the cooperation look like?

Relative Freedom from restrictions of choice.There is no such thing as total freedom.
When someone cooperates with nature and with other living creatures they try to understand the other by means of knowledge and empathy. You surely know what acquiring and employing knowledge and empathy looks like.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:54 pm I think she may not be conceptualising freedom in a similar way to you. But that's only a guess. When you get to very abstract concepts like that, it's more than likely that you two are using the same word to refer to extremely different ideas.

It looks to me like Belinda is saying human minds are the result of the behaviour of human brains, and human brains are made of matter that is fundamentally entirely the same as other matter in the universe, and invariably obeys the same laws.

Often people contrast free will with determinism, as if a lack of determinism (and thus imo a presence of randomness) grants a person more freedom somehow. But many people find it useful to flip that idea on its head, and see randomness as the true prison, and determinism the source of freedom. I can go into more detail if you like, but that's the sort of path I think Belinda is implying.
Flannel Jesus, I imply freedom relative to nature , and your contrasting nature with randomness takes the theory a step further than I implied, and with which I agree. I'd not before thought of randomnness as the true prison. Thank you.
Post Reply