compatibilism

[phyllo]

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.

This is some sort of dualism ... a 'you' which exists separately from the physical body.

This is just more Stooge stuff from my perspective.

I'm not responding to any of your "stooge" nonsense.

The rest of the post consists of the same things that you keep repeating. It's all been covered and another reply is not needed.

I might post in this thread if I see something new and interesting.

[iambiguous]

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?

This is some sort of dualism ... a 'you' which exists separately from the physical body.

Of course, many determinists assume exactly the opposite...that the brain is interchangeable with the mind is interchangeable with "I" is interchangeable with the laws of matter.

The rest of the post consists of the same things that you keep repeating. It's all been covered and another reply is not needed.

Note to others:

Click.

Here we go again, right? He's had it with me.

So, maybe...just maybe...he will actually cease and desist this time from reading and than responding to my repetitive nonsense.

On the other hand...

I might post in this thread if I see something new and interesting.

Note to nature:

You owe me, okay? Put a plug in it.

Don't force me to resort to the P word!!!

[BigMike]

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?

Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but my answer is "yes."

[Age]

'Free will' AND a 'determined Universe' BOTH exist, and are 'compatible' because of what these words are referring to, EXACTLY.

Just like 'creation' AND 'evolution' BOTH exist, and are 'compatible', again because of what these words are referring to, EXACTLY.

Just like 'nature' AND 'nurture' BOTH exist, and are 'compatible'.

And which are all like the OTHER 'either/or' philosophical discussions contain BOTH ideas, as BOTH exist, and are 'compatible' with each other and with what IS IRREFUTABLY ACTUALLY True, and Right, and Correct.

When 'free will' just refers to 'the ability to choose', of which, obviously, human beings HAVE.

And,

When 'determined Universe' just refers to absolutely EVERY thing that happens is the result of pre-existing conditions and events, which ultimately 'determine' what WILL and DOES happen, eventually at ALL times.

BOTH exist and, because they BOTH exist and are 'compatible', this is HOW and WHY the Truly Peaceful and Harmonious 'world' WILL and DOES eventually (relative to the days when this was being written) come to ALSO exist.

'This world', after all, is what 'we' ALL Truly WANT and DESIRE anyway, and all after.

[BigMike]

When 'free will' just refers to 'the ability to choose', of which, obviously, human beings HAVE.

But "free will" is more than just "the ability to choose." It is "the ability to choose" freely, irrespective of any prior event or state of the universe.

[Age]

When 'free will' just refers to 'the ability to choose', of which, obviously, human beings HAVE.

But "free will" is more than just "the ability to choose."

And this here is EXACTLY WHY this discussion about 'free will' AND 'determinism' has been going on for SO LONG and WILL continue to go on for SO LONG as well.

ONLY WHEN A definition of 'free will' is AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, THEN, and ONLY THEN, will this DISCUSSION be RESOLVED, ONCE, and FOR ALL.

It is "the ability to choose" freely, irrespective of any prior event or state of the universe.

That is the MISCONCEPTION, and/or if that is the INTERPRETATION one wants to HAVE and HOLD for the term 'free will', the OBVIOUSLY one can EITHER 'choose':

WITHOUT any prior event or state of the Universe, OR, they can NOT.

If one wants to CLAIM that they can NOT, then so be it.

But if one wants to CLAIM that they CAN, then just PROVIDE us with THE EXAMPLE of the TIME when they 'chose', WITHOUT any prior event nor state of the Universe.

Now, if one wants to CLAIM that they CAN 'choose' WITHOUT taking into account ANY prior event nor state of the Universe, like "bahman" does, then, AGAIN, just provide ANY example of WHEN this took place. ("bahman" has FAILED EVERY time when asked to PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE.)

SEE, WHEN ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF is PROVIDED, then absolutely EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT what is being CLAIMED.

But since absolutely NO PROOF has EVER been PROVIDED nor COME FORWARD, in relation to THAT definition of 'free will', then it appears that THAT definition is just some 'thing', which is NOT even a POSSIBILITY, let alone a Fact. Which means one of at least two things now;

That definition is NOT even worthy of being LOOKED AT and DISCUSSED.

Or,

That definition is just USED in order to "justify" one's OWN ALREADY BELIEVED truth about 'determinism', or a 'determined universe'.

[Iwannaplato]

But if one wants to CLAIM that they CAN, then just PROVIDE us with THE EXAMPLE of the TIME when they 'chose', WITHOUT any prior event nor state of the Universe.

Now, if one wants to CLAIM that they CAN 'choose' WITHOUT taking into account ANY prior event nor state of the Universe, like "bahman" does, then, AGAIN, just provide ANY example of WHEN this took place. ("bahman" has FAILED EVERY time when asked to PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE.)

SEE, WHEN ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF is PROVIDED, then absolutely EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT what is being CLAIMED.

I hear you, and fair enough, of course. But then, how in words on a screen (or otherwise, though especially here) could one possibly say something like...

Well, I was having an argument with my son over the state of his room. He told me I know nothing. I was angry. I felt my response was important and....
I chose from between three options. Nothing that happened before this moment DECIDED what I would choose.......

One can say 'I FELT AND KNEW' the pure freedom of being able to choose any of those three options and not even my personality and desires affected my chocie.

But how does one, via a computer screen convey this. And why should others believe it, this feeling, this knowing?

And how can we rule it out?


And this was just my hypothetical example for a hypothetical free will of that kind believer. Perhaps they would 'demonstrate' in some other way. But what words on a screen could constitute a proof?

And not just for free will, but all sorts of things.

There seems to be a radical optimism - less so on your part I would think - that we can demonstrate things here.

I see in these forums a lot of

Oh, yeah, prove it then type challenges, implicit and explicit.

First proofs have more to do with things like math and symbolic logic.

But further it seems like a misunderstanding of things like how we learn and don't learn and then what this medium is capable of.

Determinism would have problems also. Demonstrate that every thing that happens was caused by the prior state. That's a forever task. Sure, you use deduction, but that will always be based on our ontological biases.

[Age]

But if one wants to CLAIM that they CAN, then just PROVIDE us with THE EXAMPLE of the TIME when they 'chose', WITHOUT any prior event nor state of the Universe.

Now, if one wants to CLAIM that they CAN 'choose' WITHOUT taking into account ANY prior event nor state of the Universe, like "bahman" does, then, AGAIN, just provide ANY example of WHEN this took place. ("bahman" has FAILED EVERY time when asked to PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE.)

SEE, WHEN ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF is PROVIDED, then absolutely EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT what is being CLAIMED.

I hear you, and fair enough, of course. But then, how in words on a screen (or otherwise, though especially here) could one possibly say something like...

Well, I was having an argument with my son over the state of his room. He told me I know nothing. I was angry. I felt my response was important and....
I chose from between three options. Nothing that happened before this moment DECIDED what I would choose.......

You just did it. That is; you have, so far, expressed in words, on a screen, what you wanted to say.

One can say 'I FELT AND KNEW' the pure freedom of being able to choose any of those three options and not even my personality and desires affected my chocie.

Now you could say and write 'this', on a screen, as you just did, but that in NO WAY, well not from my perspective anyway, even implies nor comes even remotely close to providing ACTUAL PROOF that 'you' made a 'choice' WITHOUT taking into account absolutely ANY prior event nor state of the Universe.

Maybe if you SHOWED us what the ACTUAL 'choice' WAS, which you made, that might help us SEE 'things' MORE CLEARLY here. But, if you do not want to do that, then it makes it MUCH HARDER for us to FULLY SEE and UNDERSTAND what this 'pure freedom' is, EXACTLY, which you FELT and KNEW.

But how does one, via a computer screen convey this. And why should others believe it, this feeling, this knowing?

ALL of us who have FELT and KNEW 'things', at times, would AGREE WITH this 'feeling' and this 'knowing'. But WITHOUT CONCRETE EXAMPLES we, literally, have absolutely NOTHING to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

I CERTAINLY do NOT dispute that you FELT and KNEW some 'pure freedom', which 'you' had, of being able to choose any of those three options and not even my personality and desires affected my choice.

And I am NEVER going to dispute how one FELT or KNEW some 'thing', NOR when one says they FELT and KNEW that 'thing'. But, if people are NOT Truly OPEN, then we can NOT LOOK AT and SEE the FULL Picture here.

And how can we rule it out?

I am CERTAINLY NOT going to rule out what 'you' FELT and KNEW.

And this was just my hypothetical example for a hypothetical free will of that kind believer. Perhaps they would 'demonstrate' in some other way. But what words on a screen could constitute a proof?

THE WORDS of what ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.

And not just for free will, but all sorts of things.

Like what sorts of 'things', for example?

I will suggest, AGAIN, if one does NOT have the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF for what they WANT to CLAIM, especially on a philosophy forum, BEFORE they make the CLAIM public, then it would be BETTER for them to NOT make the CLAIM AT ALL if they do NOT want to be CHALLENGED nor QUESTIONED over the CLAIM.

There seems to be a radical optimism - less so on your part I would think - that we can demonstrate things here.

If those of 'you', with the so-called 'radical optimism' that 'you' CAN demonstrate 'things' here, THEN just demonstrate 'things' here if, and WHEN, 'you' are CHALLENGED over them.

Oh, and by the way, it was 'you' who was the one just ASKING, "But HOW can 'we' demonstrate PROOF here, on a screen?" and saying it like it was NOT possible.

If one HAS the PROOF, then it is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to 'demonstrate' those 'things' here.

But, if one does NOT have the ACTUAL 'things' NEEDED in order to back up and support what one SAYS or CLAIMS here, then this makes it MUCH HARDER for them to 'demonstrate' THE PROOF.

I would suggest that INSTEAD of introducing terms like 'radical optimism' while NOT PROVIDING ACTUAL PROOF, and they do have ACTUAL PROOF, then they just 'demonstrate' THAT PROOF. So,

I see in these forums a lot of

Oh, yeah, prove it then type challenges, implicit and explicit.

This is A PHILOSOPHY FORUM, WHERE, from my perspective, absolutely EVERY word that is SAID and WRITTEN here NEEDS to be ABLE to be BACKED UP and SUPPORTED WITH ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF. Otherwise, ANY one could SAY and CLAIM absolutely ANY thing, and then NOT have to back up and support what they SAY and CLAIM, with absolutely ANY thing. (Which REALLY is about more or less what ACTUALLY takes place here anyway).

And, this is a PHILOSOPHY FORUM, what did you EXPECT to SEE here?

Were you REALLY NOT EXPECTING to SEE people's views and claims being CHALLENGED?

First proofs have more to do with things like math and symbolic logic.

So, to you, do 'proofs' have absolutely ANY thing AT ALL to do with what is SAID, WRITTEN, and CLAIMED, especially here in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM?

If no, then okay.

But if yes, then HOW MUCH do 'proofs' have to do with 'things' like WORDS and CLAIMS, in a philosophy forum?

Also, what does 'symbolic logic' go back to, if NOT the words that get used?

Numbers can, literally, speak for themselves, but what does 'symbolic logic' speak for if NOT words and/or language?

But further it seems like a misunderstanding of things like how we learn and don't learn and then what this medium is capable of.

What is the 'it' word here in reference to, EXACTLY?

[BigMike]

When 'free will' just refers to 'the ability to choose', of which, obviously, human beings HAVE.

But "free will" is more than just "the ability to choose."

And this here is EXACTLY WHY this discussion about 'free will' AND 'determinism' has been going on for SO LONG and WILL continue to go on for SO LONG as well.

ONLY WHEN A definition of 'free will' is AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, THEN, and ONLY THEN, will this DISCUSSION be RESOLVED, ONCE, and FOR ALL.

It is "the ability to choose" freely, irrespective of any prior event or state of the universe.

That is the MISCONCEPTION, and/or if that is the INTERPRETATION one wants to HAVE and HOLD for the term 'free will', the OBVIOUSLY one can EITHER 'choose':

WITHOUT any prior event or state of the Universe, OR, they can NOT.

If one wants to CLAIM that they can NOT, then so be it.

When I give a definition, it's not up to other people to agree or not agree with it. It's a sentence that explains what I mean by a word or group of words. And what I say in the following regarding that word should be viewed in light of that definition, and no one else's.

[Iwannaplato]

You just did it. That is; you have, so far, expressed in words, on a screen, what you wanted to say.

Were you convinced. I didn't say I couldn't express myself and there are many things I can manage to say. But to prove ontological truths by writing on a screen, that's the part I am skeptical about.

Now you could say and write 'this', on a screen, as you just did, but that in NO WAY, well not from my perspective anyway, even implies nor comes even remotely close to providing ACTUAL PROOF that 'you' made a 'choice' WITHOUT taking into account absolutely ANY prior event nor state of the Universe.

I beleive it's pretty clear from my post that I know that I didn't prove it. In fact that was my point.

Maybe if you SHOWED us what the ACTUAL 'choice' WAS, which you made, that might help us SEE 'things' MORE CLEARLY here. But, if you do not want to do that, then it makes it MUCH HARDER for us to FULLY SEE and UNDERSTAND what this 'pure freedom' is, EXACTLY, which you FELT and KNEW.

I chose to say: let's talk about this tomorrow.
I doubt that that brings it any closer to a proof. Could you give an example of what I chose to do that would bring it closer to a proof. I did notice you said maybe. I just doubt there is any example of a choice that would bring it closer to being a proof.

ALL of us who have FELT and KNEW 'things', at times, would AGREE WITH this 'feeling' and this 'knowing'. But WITHOUT CONCRETE EXAMPLES we, literally, have absolutely NOTHING to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

I CERTAINLY do NOT dispute that you FELT and KNEW some 'pure freedom', which 'you' had, of being able to choose any of those three options and not even my personality and desires affected my choice.

Let me be clear. I don't actually believe in free will. Nor do I disbelieve it. I cam using believe in the way I use the word. I don't know if there is free will or not.

I am skeptical that words on a screen could prove something like this.

THE WORDS of what ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.

Could you prove either determinism or free will with words on a screen? If so, could you lead by example and show me how this is done. Or whatever you think is the ontological case.

And not just for free will, but all sorts of things.

Like what sorts of 'things', for example?

I will suggest, AGAIN, if one does NOT have the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF for what they WANT to CLAIM, especially on a philosophy forum, BEFORE they make the CLAIM public, then it would be BETTER for them to NOT make the CLAIM AT ALL if they do NOT want to be CHALLENGED nor QUESTIONED over the CLAIM.

Oh, ok. I think speculation and presentation of beliefs can be useful. Of course people should expect to be challenged. If they don't want to be challenged, yes, it if probably better for them, given their preference to not do it.

If those of 'you', with the so-called 'radical optimism' that 'you' CAN demonstrate 'things' here, THEN just demonstrate 'things' here if, and WHEN, 'you' are CHALLENGED over them.

Oh, and by the way, it was 'you' who was the one just ASKING, "But HOW can 'we' demonstrate PROOF here, on a screen?" and saying it like it was NOT possible.

If one HAS the PROOF, then it is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to 'demonstrate' those 'things' here.

But if one is correct, one may not have proof. Or one may have a way of demonstrating it, but not via words on a screen. One might be able to say follow these processes for 4 years and you will find you all think X is the case. As one example. I could not, via words on a screen, prove to you that you could in fact ride a bike despite some physical problem or other. We might need to meet.

But, if one does NOT have the ACTUAL 'things' NEEDED in order to back up and support what one SAYS or CLAIMS here, then this makes it MUCH HARDER for them to 'demonstrate' THE PROOF.

Sure, I don't think I've denied that.

This is A PHILOSOPHY FORUM, WHERE, from my perspective, absolutely EVERY word that is SAID and WRITTEN here NEEDS to be ABLE to be BACKED UP and SUPPORTED WITH ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

Prove that sentence.

[BigMike]

Could you prove either determinism or free will with words on a screen? If so, could you lead by example and show me how this is done. Or whatever you think is the ontological case.

I don't understand how anybody could type something on their home computer, hit the submit button, and then have the text that they typed show up on the screen of your computer if it weren't for the rules of physics and determinism.

[Iwannaplato]

Could you prove either determinism or free will with words on a screen? If so, could you lead by example and show me how this is done. Or whatever you think is the ontological case.

I don't understand how anybody could type something on their home computer, hit the submit button, and then have the text that they typed show up on the screen of your computer if it weren't for the rules of physics and determinism.

The key word in that is rules. Can one demonstrate that the rules that govern those processes are universal. Can one prove, via words on a screen, that they hold for all things in all places at all times?

The funny thing is you also mentioned physics. And while some conclusions in physics were done via thought experiences, in general

THERE WERE EXPERIMENTS.

And those experiments were not words on a screen. And people needed to DO THOSE EXPERIMENTS themselves to demonstrate over time, that certain assertions are very strongly supported and can be moved into the category THEORY.

Note: I am not arguing that they do not hold. I am saying that PROOFS on a computer screen is a near impossible criterion to demonstrate somethng is the case. And PROOFS have more to do with math and symbolic logic, though that's a secondary issue.

[BigMike]

Note: I am not arguing that they do not hold. I am saying that PROOFS on a computer screen is a near impossible criterion to demonstrate somethng is the case. And PROOFS have more to do with math and symbolic logic, though that's a secondary issue.

Naturally, you will fail if you take the syntax as proof of anything. But every first-order language also has semantics, or the explanation of what the syntactic symbols imply. Therefore, assuming the words have meaning (a definition), it follows that you can prove or refute statements using words on a screen as long as the reader is aware of both the syntax (symbols and grammar) and semantics.

[Iwannaplato]

Note: I am not arguing that they do not hold. I am saying that PROOFS on a computer screen is a near impossible criterion to demonstrate somethng is the case. And PROOFS have more to do with math and symbolic logic, though that's a secondary issue.

Naturally, you will fail if you take the syntax as proof of anything. But every first-order language also has semantics, or the explanation of what the syntactic symbols imply. Therefore, assuming the words have meaning (a definition), it follows that you can prove or refute statements using words on a screen as long as the reader is aware of both the syntax (symbols and grammar) and semantics.

I think refuting an argument is easier. But I am not saying one cannot prove anything using words on a screen, though, again, I think 'prove' is generally the wrong word. Proof for example is not used that much in science. It's inductive. You get a best explanation, a predponderance of evidence, you get a theory. Something moves from hypothesiss, to well supported hypothesis and ends up as theory or part of theory. Theory. IOW something that can be revised.

But ALL THAT is still too general. I was saying that trying to prove something ontological is online is true is extremely unlikely. Or even if we drop what I think is the wrong word 'prove' and say something like demonstrate or make a solid case for, I still think this is very unlikely. You might flummox someone. You might make a great argument. But to somehow rule out beyond a reasonable doubt that you are incorrect...nah.

[phyllo]

Note: I am not arguing that they do not hold. I am saying that PROOFS on a computer screen is a near impossible criterion to demonstrate somethng is the case. And PROOFS have more to do with math and symbolic logic, though that's a secondary issue.

Naturally, you will fail if you take the syntax as proof of anything. But every first-order language also has semantics, or the explanation of what the syntactic symbols imply. Therefore, assuming the words have meaning (a definition), it follows that you can prove or refute statements using words on a screen as long as the reader is aware of both the syntax (symbols and grammar) and semantics.

"Proof" is not the goal here. It's a question of showing something to be reasonable or unreasonable.

For example, free-willers act within a context, within a time and place. They physical limitations. They have had specific experiences in their lives, which produced motivations and preferences.

Yet, they seem to think that they overcome these motivations and preferences when making a decision.

Is that reasonable?

Another example is Bahman. He thinks that if you don't know the result of a choice then you are choosing freely.

Let's say that he is in a room with 3 doors (red, white, black) and he doesn't know what is behind the doors.

He will have a psychological preference for one color and he will choose based on that. His preference will depend on the culture where he grew up and his other experiences. It's not a free choice.

Is his belief that he is making a free choice reasonable?