compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

We'll need a context of course.
We already have one : Mary's abortion dilemma.
phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 8:37 pm
I can't be "compelled by my brain" because I'm not free-floating separately from my brain. My thoughts are the thoughts of my brain. "Compelled by my brain" is the same as saying "compelled by myself". What sort of compulsion is that?
How about if you make this applicable to posting here. You and your brain and your posting the above. Hard evidence that you opted of your own free will to post what you did. I certainly flat-out admit that I can't provide hard evidence that you were compelled to.
I've been talking to you for more than 10 years. Not once did I claim to have free-will.

And yet here you are, saying a bunch of nonsense about me "opting of my own free will to post what I did".

WTF :shock:
No, I'm only pointing out that so far those exploring the functioning human brain scientifically and experimentally can't seem to pin down definitively one way or the other whether the thinking here is different. Let alone superior. All I surmise then is that if it can be determined objectively that Mary does in fact have free will there is at least the possibility that Jane will see the light of day like all the rest of us here. Whereas if Mary's thinking is wholly determined by the laws of matter that compel Jane to be aborted, she gets shredded into oblivion. Unlike all the rest of us here.
Mary has the baby if she has free-will but she gets an abortion if she doesn't have free-will???

That's utter nonsense. You're just writing that particular version of events because you think it suits your argument.

It's entirely possible that free-will Mary has an abortion and determined Mary doesn't have an abortion.


And there are two other cases that are possible.

Show why your version is the most likely.
What am I missing here? One decides because, at least up to a point, her reasons are her own. She is able to think through the pros and the cons and make a more or less informed decision because "somehow" the human brain became matter that is seemingly like no other matter that ever exist
Her reasons are "her own"? In what way are determined Mary's reasons not "her own"?
You argued that, "Stupid people with free-will are still stupid."

How does that not imply that in regard to Communism and abortion and henry's bazookas, smart and stupid can in fact be differentiated?
Yeah, it can be differentiated. But that wasn't my point in that post.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:45 pm
See, there he goes again. Assuming that we do have the capacity to freely weigh in on this without the irrefutable empirical evidence to back it up.
If you're waiting for "irrefutable empirical evidence", then you're never going to do anything.
Note to others:

Again, my point is that he, like all the rest of us, does what he does without having access to a full understanding of whether he does what he does of his own free will or was never able to not do it.

That's all. We just don't know.

And that is either more or less important to us as individuals. The part I root in dasein. Knowing that we don't have a full understanding of that either.

Now, what exactly is his point here?
And [of course] insisting that there is a correct interpretation? Why? Because he just gave it to us. His own.
phyllo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:45 pmI wrote the original quote. I damn well know what I meant to say.
You damn well know. Well that settles it then. This definitely proves that when matter evolved into life on Earth it evolved into brains that evolved into human life that unequivocally included free will. The proof? Simple enough. You believe that it is. You mean what you say, after all

Or does it all come back to what you believe about God? God providing you with an autonomous soul?
And my point of course is that given free will "somehow" becoming a component of the human brain, having it doesn't establish that how he feels about Communism and abortion or how henry quirk feels about buying and selling bazookas, a necessarily smarter or wiser or more knowledgeable frame of mind.

That, instead, our value judgments here seem more reasonably rooted in particular political prejudices we acquire as a result of the lives that we lived. Our indoctrination as children and our uniquely personal sets of experiences.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong. Which, unlike the objectivists among us, I am more than willing to acknowledge. Indeed, in the absence of God or an equivalent "transcending font", there does not appear [to me] to be an optimal argument around able to establish such things.
phyllo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:45 pmSo you're not even talking about compatibilism, determinism or free-will.

Good to know.
Back again to this: huh?!

I made the assumption that "somehow" we do possess free will. And then, based on that assumption, I speculated about conflicting value judgments. Even acknowledging that this is no less a subjective, existential leap on my part. I am certainly not claiming that this is how others other to think about it.
We'll need a context of course.

Again, how about Mary aborting Jane. His own understanding of Jane's fate if Mary was never able not to abort her and Jane's fate if Mary is able to opt not to.
phyllo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:45 pmOkay, go ahead and lay out how it works if Mary has free-will and if Mary doesn't have free-will.
Again, you come back to this as though the way in which I make that distinction is, what, completely irrelevant to your point?

But, sure, again.

Given my own understanding of a wholly determined universe, Mary aborting Jane was never not going to be the fate of both of them. Jane is shredded out of existence.

Given my own understanding of free will, Mary is intent on aborting Jane but she gets a call from a friend who is able to persuade her not to. Jane is still around today.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Given my own understanding of a wholly determined universe, Mary aborting Jane was never not going to be the fate of both of them. Jane is shredded out of existence.

Given my own understanding of free will, Mary is intent on aborting Jane but she gets a call from a friend who is able to persuade her not to. Jane is still around today.
In a wholly determined universe, Mary also gets calls from friends who try to persuade her not to have an abortion. She responds to them in some way based on her physical makeup and life experiences.

That's what determinism is. It's not some invisible force making you act in spite of the people and things that you encounter.

If you examine Mary's reaction to the friend's argument, you will find reasons why she accepts or rejects it.

And if in this hypothetical case free-will Mary and determined Mary are identical, then they will accept or reject it for the same reasons. IOW, the decision will be the same in the free-will and the determined universe.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:32 am Given my own understanding of a wholly determined universe, Mary aborting Jane was never not going to be the fate of both of them. Jane is shredded out of existence.
I may not understand the point of these two examples (are they examples and of what?). But sure, this could be the case in determinism and would be fair description. It was always going to turn out that way.
Given my own understanding of free will, Mary is intent on aborting Jane but she gets a call from a friend who is able to persuade her not to. Jane is still around today.
But there is some missing step in this example of the scenario in a universe with free will. Is it that the friend chose to call, but in the deterministic universe could not? Did the friend call in the deterministic universe, but it had no effect, here in this free will one, Jane chose to listen? I am not sure what is being gotten at.

People can make phone calls in deterministic universe. You added a causal chain to the second scenario. Determinism includes causal chains (I am sure you know this, just trying to get an idea of what you meant).
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:33 pm I can't be "compelled by my brain" because I'm not free-floating separately from my brain. My thoughts are the thoughts of my brain. "Compelled by my brain" is the same as saying "compelled by myself". What sort of compulsion is that?
How about if you make this applicable to posting here. You and your brain and your posting the above. Hard evidence that you opted of your own free will to post what you did. I certainly flat-out admit that I can't provide hard evidence that you were compelled to.
phyllo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:33 pm I've been talking to you for more than 10 years. Not once did I claim to have free-will.

And yet here you are, saying a bunch of nonsense about me "opting of my own free will to post what I did".
Yes, I have indeed misunderstood you then. In our discussions relating to objective morality and religion, to Communism and abortion, I never once sensed that you were acknowledging that determinism may well have been propelling our exchanges. That everything we posted or read might have been an inherent, necessary component of the only possible reality in the only possible world.

So, do we agree then that given the gap between what we think we know [compelled or not] about lifeless matter configuring into living matter with conscious brains here on Earth, and all that would need to be known about it in order to pin down definitively whether or not we have free will, your guess is as good as mine?

That, when confronting Mary, we would both shrug and tell her, "and your guess is as good as ours too"?

But then this part...
No, I'm only pointing out that so far those exploring the functioning human brain scientifically and experimentally can't seem to pin down definitively one way or the other whether the thinking here is different. Let alone superior. All I surmise then is that if it can be determined objectively that Mary does in fact have free will there is at least the possibility that Jane will see the light of day like all the rest of us here. Whereas if Mary's thinking is wholly determined by the laws of matter that compel Jane to be aborted, she gets shredded into oblivion. Unlike all the rest of us here.
phyllo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:33 pm Mary has the baby if she has free-will but she gets an abortion if she doesn't have free-will???

That's utter nonsense. You're just writing that particular version of events because you think it suits your argument.
But, according to you above [if I understand you], you are agreeing that my argument here itself could have been wholly determined by the laws of matter. There isn't my version or your version...merely the "brute facticity" of the only possible version there was ever going to be. That ever could be.

But again: we just don't know which beyond all doubt.
phyllo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:33 pm It's entirely possible that free-will Mary has an abortion and determined Mary doesn't have an abortion.
So what? In a wholly determined universe it's six of one, half a dozen of the other as far as Jane is concerned.

Only there is no "free will Mary". There are just the minds of mere mortals compelled by the laws of matter to "think up" the illusion of free will.

Instead, if it turns out that human brains do possess the capacity to choose autonomously, Jane may well end up among us on this side of the womb.
phyllo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:33 pm And there are two other cases that are possible.

Show why your version is the most likely.
All I can do here [compelled or not] is to assume we have free will and give reasons [rooted existentially in dasein] why I think one thing and not another.

Then around and around we go...
What am I missing here? One decides because, at least up to a point, her reasons are her own. She is able to think through the pros and the cons and make a more or less informed decision because "somehow" the human brain became matter that is seemingly like no other matter that ever exist
phyllo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:33 pm Her reasons are "her own"? In what way are determined Mary's reasons not "her own"?
Again, explain that to Jane. If material reality is such that Mary was never able to not abort her, she wouldn't be around to explain anything at all to. Only if "somehow" matter evolving into human consciousness created minds able to weigh the pros and the cons of actual alternative options available to us, is there the possibility of Jane making it out of the womb.

Though, again, I am more than willing to acknowledge I am just not thinking this through correctly. Presuming we do live in a free will world and thinking it through correctly is an option for me.
You argued that, "Stupid people with free-will are still stupid."

How does that not imply that in regard to Communism and abortion and henry's bazookas, smart and stupid can in fact be differentiated?
phyllo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:33 pm Yeah, it can be differentiated. But that wasn't my point in that post.
Look, if -- click -- you say that smart and stupid can be differentiated objectively [given that you are a believer in objective morality in what might be a free will world], then, in regard to those issues how are some not smart and others stupid?

Or will you be charitable and note that while those who don't think exactly like you do aren't smart, they may well be just ignorant and not stupid. Once you explain to them how all smart people are obligated to think about them then they have the option to be smart too.

Something like that?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:59 pm
Given my own understanding of a wholly determined universe, Mary aborting Jane was never not going to be the fate of both of them. Jane is shredded out of existence.

Given my own understanding of free will, Mary is intent on aborting Jane but she gets a call from a friend who is able to persuade her not to. Jane is still around today.
In a wholly determined universe, Mary also gets calls from friends who try to persuade her not to have an abortion. She responds to them in some way based on her physical makeup and life experiences.

That's what determinism is. It's not some invisible force making you act in spite of the people and things that you encounter.

If you examine Mary's reaction to the friend's argument, you will find reasons why she accepts or rejects it.
Of course the problem we have here goes straight back to the fact that neither of us are able to know unequivocally whether we do in fact possess free will.

In my rendition of free will, Mary's friend opts freely to call her. Mary is free to listen to her arguments against aborting Jane. Perhaps her friend knows someone unable to conceive who would be willing to adopt Jane if Mary gives birth to her.

In my rendition of determinism, all of our "physical makeups and life experiences" are only as they ever could have been. Thus, nothing is not unfolding other than in the only possible reality. Determinism is very much visible. Just look around you. Everything that is happening is happening only because there was never the possibility of it not happening.

And that certainly includes our reactions and reasons.
phyllo wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:59 pmAnd if in this hypothetical case free-will Mary and determined Mary are identical, then they will accept or reject it for the same reasons. IOW, the decision will be the same in the free-will and the determined universe.
Note to others:

All I can do here is to appeal to you. What crucial point is he making such that [to me] he seems to be arguing that as far as Jane is concerned, free will Mary and wholly determined Mary are, what, interchangeable?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:26 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:32 am Given my own understanding of a wholly determined universe, Mary aborting Jane was never not going to be the fate of both of them. Jane is shredded out of existence.
I may not understand the point of these two examples (are they examples and of what?). But sure, this could be the case in determinism and would be fair description. It was always going to turn out that way.
Given my own understanding of free will, Mary is intent on aborting Jane but she gets a call from a friend who is able to persuade her not to. Jane is still around today.
But there is some missing step in this example of the scenario in a universe with free will. Is it that the friend chose to call, but in the deterministic universe could not? Did the friend call in the deterministic universe, but it had no effect, here in this free will one, Jane chose to listen? I am not sure what is being gotten at.

People can make phone calls in deterministic universe. You added a causal chain to the second scenario. Determinism includes causal chains (I am sure you know this, just trying to get an idea of what you meant).
A causal chain. One in which Mary will abort Jane because every cause and effect in the universe goes back to what we still don't know about the laws of matter.

Rummy's Rule:

"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."

Merely the assumption [by some, compelled or not] that when matter evolved into living, conscious human minds here on Earth, "somehow" free will "happened". Which, of course, many attribute to God.

We just don't know.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

So, do we agree then that given the gap between what we think we know [compelled or not] about lifeless matter configuring into living matter with conscious brains here on Earth, and all that would need to be known about it in order to pin down definitively whether or not we have free will, your guess is as good as mine?

That, when confronting Mary, we would both shrug and tell her, "and your guess is as good as ours too"?
No we don't agree.
But, according to you above [if I understand you], you are agreeing that my argument here itself could have been wholly determined by the laws of matter. There isn't my version or your version...merely the "brute facticity" of the only possible version there was ever going to be. That ever could be.
Determinism doesn't mean that everything becomes the same. You're still writing one possible version of what might happen to Mary among several possibilities.
It's entirely possible that free-will Mary has an abortion and determined Mary doesn't have an abortion.
So what? In a wholly determined universe it's six of one, half a dozen of the other as far as Jane is concerned.

Only there is no "free will Mary". There are just the minds of mere mortals compelled by the laws of matter to "think up" the illusion of free will.

Instead, if it turns out that human brains do possess the capacity to choose autonomously, Jane may well end up among us on this side of the womb.
You realize that we are not Mary or Jane ... we are not living those lives. :shock:

We're comparing Mary's decision in the determined world and the free-will world. Or at least I'm trying to.

So it matters very much what Mary is doing.

How else can it be discussed?
phyllo wrote: ↑
Her reasons are "her own"? In what way are determined Mary's reasons not "her own"?

Again, explain that to Jane.
Jane is a fictional character.

You and I are talking here. I'm not explaining anything to a fictional character.
In my rendition of free will, Mary's friend opts freely to call her. Mary is free to listen to her arguments against aborting Jane. Perhaps her friend knows someone unable to conceive who would be willing to adopt Jane if Mary gives birth to her.

In my rendition of determinism, all of our "physical makeups and life experiences" are only as they ever could have been. Thus, nothing is not unfolding other than in the only possible reality. Determinism is very much visible. Just look around you. Everything that is happening is happening only because there was never the possibility of it not happening.
That's basically the same thing you said before.

I guess that you are unwilling or unable to go any farther.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 5:34 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:26 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:32 am Given my own understanding of a wholly determined universe, Mary aborting Jane was never not going to be the fate of both of them. Jane is shredded out of existence.
I may not understand the point of these two examples (are they examples and of what?). But sure, this could be the case in determinism and would be fair description. It was always going to turn out that way.
Given my own understanding of free will, Mary is intent on aborting Jane but she gets a call from a friend who is able to persuade her not to. Jane is still around today.
But there is some missing step in this example of the scenario in a universe with free will. Is it that the friend chose to call, but in the deterministic universe could not? Did the friend call in the deterministic universe, but it had no effect, here in this free will one, Jane chose to listen? I am not sure what is being gotten at.

People can make phone calls in deterministic universe. You added a causal chain to the second scenario. Determinism includes causal chains (I am sure you know this, just trying to get an idea of what you meant).
A causal chain. One in which Mary will abort Jane because every cause and effect in the universe goes back to what we still don't know about the laws of matter.

Rummy's Rule:

"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."

Merely the assumption [by some, compelled or not] that when matter evolved into living, conscious human minds here on Earth, "somehow" free will "happened". Which, of course, many attribute to God.

We just don't know.
I can't see how what you wrote relates to what I wrote. If I look at the two quotes of yours I responded to it seemed like you were saying that two different outcomes will happen if it is a deterministic universe or it is one with free will. I am not sure that's what you were saying. Were you? I asked a couple of questions in my previous post. If you answered those questions, I didn't catch it.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:41 pm
Yes, I have indeed misunderstood you then. In our discussions relating to objective morality and religion, to Communism and abortion, I never once sensed that you were acknowledging that determinism may well have been propelling our exchanges. That everything we posted or read might have been an inherent, necessary component of the only possible reality in the only possible world.

So, do we agree then that given the gap between what we think we know [compelled or not] about lifeless matter configuring into living matter with conscious brains here on Earth, and all that would need to be known about it in order to pin down definitively whether or not we have free will, your guess is as good as mine?

That, when confronting Mary, we would both shrug and tell her, "and your guess is as good as ours too"?
No we don't agree.
Then we'll have to leave it at that. Assuming of course that leaving it at that is an actual option for us as autonomous human beings.

You noted, "not once did I claim to have free-will". Okay, what do you claim then? How is it not what all of the rest of us are only able to claim: that we have no definitive evidence to establish one way or the other whether we do in fact have free will?
But, according to you above [if I understand you], you are agreeing that my argument here itself could have been wholly determined by the laws of matter. There isn't my version or your version...merely the "brute facticity" of the only possible version there was ever going to be. That ever could be.
phyllo wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:41 pmDeterminism doesn't mean that everything becomes the same. You're still writing one possible version of what might happen to Mary among several possibilities.
No, in a determined universe as I understand it, my brain [as but more matter] is writing the only possible version that there is...the version wholly in sync with the only possible reality. How you or others reconcile "several possibilities" in a world that unfolds in all respects only as it ever could is beyond my grasp. Unless, of course, I'm right and up until now it was never not going to be within my grasp.
It's entirely possible that free-will Mary has an abortion and determined Mary doesn't have an abortion.
So what? In a wholly determined universe it's six of one, half a dozen of the other as far as Jane is concerned.

Only there is no "free will Mary". There are just the minds of mere mortals compelled by the laws of matter to "think up" the illusion of free will.

Instead, if it turns out that human brains do possess the capacity to choose autonomously, Jane may well end up among us on this side of the womb.
You realize that we are not Mary or Jane ... we are not living those lives. :shock:

We're comparing Mary's decision in the determined world and the free-will world. Or at least I'm trying to.

So it matters very much what Mary is doing.

How else can it be discussed?
Going back years at ILP, I always referred to the woman I knew who had aborted her fetus. And Jane is derived from the fact that John the father was going to name the baby Jane if it was a girl. Mary and John however are not their real names.

And, again, while not claiming that you do have free will, you are still making this distinction as though in fact you do. And that is what matters...whether what you and Mary did/do was/is an actual option in a free will universe.

At least until someone else here is able to explain to me what great insight you are making that I keep missing.

And my frame of mind is always such that I can acknowledge this may well be the case. My own assessment of free will, like yours, is derived existentially from my own experiences and from my own access to information about it.
Her reasons are "her own"? In what way are determined Mary's reasons not "her own"?
Again, explain that to Jane.
phyllo wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:41 pmJane is a fictional character.
Right, like there aren't many, many actual flesh and blood women faced with an unwanted pregnancy agonizing over what their moral responsibility is in aborting it.
In my rendition of free will, Mary's friend opts freely to call her. Mary is free to listen to her arguments against aborting Jane. Perhaps her friend knows someone unable to conceive who would be willing to adopt Jane if Mary gives birth to her.

In my rendition of determinism, all of our "physical makeups and life experiences" are only as they ever could have been. Thus, nothing is not unfolding other than in the only possible reality. Determinism is very much visible. Just look around you. Everything that is happening is happening only because there was never the possibility of it not happening.
phyllo wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:41 pmThat's basically the same thing you said before.

I guess that you are unwilling or unable to go any farther.
Like you, if I come upon an argument that seems more reasonable than mine, I'll respond accordingly.

Indeed, over at ILP, I was once arguing from the other side with those like Volchok. He was the hardcore determinist and I was more inclined to advocate free will.

Or in regard to abortion, it was Moreno who made me realize that while I championed moral nihilism in the Philosophy threads I was
basically arguing as a hardcore liberal in the Society, Government, and Economics threads.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 2:52 am
You realize that we are not Mary or Jane ... we are not living those lives. :shock:

We're comparing Mary's decision in the determined world and the free-will world. Or at least I'm trying to.

So it matters very much what Mary is doing.

How else can it be discussed?
Going back years at ILP, I always referred to the woman I knew who had aborted her fetus. And Jane is derived from the fact that John the father was going to name the baby Jane if it was a girl. Mary and John however are not their real names.

And, again, while not claiming that you do have free will, you are still making this distinction as though in fact you do. And that is what matters...whether what you and Mary did/do was/is an actual option in a free will universe.

At least until someone else here is able to explain to me what great insight you are making that I keep missing.
I think he is reacting to the same thing I reacted to.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:32 am
Given my own understanding of a wholly determined universe, Mary aborting Jane was never not going to be the fate of both of them. Jane is shredded out of existence.

Given my own understanding of free will, Mary is intent on aborting Jane but she gets a call from a friend who is able to persuade her not to. Jane is still around today.
1) you present two different outcomes, one in the determined universe, one in the free will universe.
2) you explain, it seems, or imply, it seems, that the difference in the free will universe is that Mary doesn't abort because she got a phone call.

I could be wrong, but I think phyllo is wondering why the outcomes need be different? further given that in the free will scenario a phone call causes Mary to change her mind, how is this different from what would happen in a determined universe if Mary got the call. A phone call in a determinist universe would change Mary's mind (if that's the way the causes to effects went).

It is as if in a free will universe a person can have their mind changed by someone else but not in a determined universe.

Whether Phyllo is reacting to the same thing I am or not, I certainly am, and I find it confusing.

Are you saying it is more likely she wouldn't get an abortion in a free will universe?
Are you saying phone calls to Mary are the result of free will?
Are you saying that there would be more people trying to disuade her in a free will universe?
Are you saying that she is more likely to be affected by a phone call in a free will universe?

Both scenarios (what happens) in your understandings of those two types of universes could happen in both types.
So, what are your examples meant to demonstrate?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 10:13 pmI can't see how what you wrote relates to what I wrote. If I look at the two quotes of yours I responded to it seemed like you were saying that two different outcomes will happen if it is a deterministic universe or it is one with free will. I am not sure that's what you were saying. Were you? I asked a couple of questions in my previous post. If you answered those questions, I didn't catch it.
From my frame of mind [and that's all it is my own subjective assessment], it's not what the outcomes will be so much as how we understand the outcomes in a world where every outcome can only ever be wholly in sync with the only possible reality...or the outcomes are derived from human brains as matter that "somehow" acquired free will.

Only one outcome here was ever possible if you were never not able to post the above and I was never not able to react to it other than how my brain compels me to.

But if, for reasons neither scientists nor philosophers nor theologians have yet to provide us definitively establishing human autonomy, we can freely opt to post or not to post, to read or not to read, to react or not react among options...that changes everything.

Right?

Only how do we establish which one it is?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 6:29 pm From my frame of mind [and that's all it is my own subjective assessment], it's not what the outcomes will be so much as how we understand the outcomes in a world where every outcome can only ever be wholly in sync with the only possible reality...or the outcomes are derived from human brains as matter that "somehow" acquired free will.

Only one outcome here was ever possible if you were never not able to post the above and I was never not able to react to it other than how my brain compels me to.
Yes, I understand what determinism entails.
Only how do we establish which one it is?
I have no idea. My gut reaction is we can't. And there is a third option, not that it would give anyone comfort, which would be indeterminism (given qm) which is not free will, as far as I can tell.

I am still confused by your two scenarios, one in the free will universe, one in the determinism one, with the abortion. But I went into that in more detail in my previous post.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pm I think he is reacting to the same thing I reacted to.
Given my own understanding of a wholly determined universe, Mary aborting Jane was never not going to be the fate of both of them. Jane is shredded out of existence.

Given my own understanding of free will, Mary is intent on aborting Jane but she gets a call from a friend who is able to persuade her not to. Jane is still around today.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pm1) you present two different outcomes, one in the determined universe, one in the free will universe.
2) you explain, it seems, or imply, it seems, that the difference in the free will universe is that Mary doesn't abort because she got a phone call.
Yes, but over and over and over and over again, I make it clear I have no capacity to demonstrate whether in presenting outcomes or in explaining why I present them as I do, I am doing so only because my brain as matter wholly in sync with the immutable laws of matter compels me to...or if "somehow" my brain did acquire the capacity to exercise volition, autonomy, free will and I could have opted not to present what I did but, in thinking it through further, opting to present something else instead.

I don't know how to make this any plainer if, in fact, I am, of my own volition, able to. Now, what if I'm not?

You tell me. Where's your pile of empirical, experimental, scientific, philosophical, theological, etc., evidence to finally pin it down?
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pmI could be wrong, but I think phyllo is wondering why the outcomes need be different? further given that in the free will scenario a phone call causes Mary to change her mind, how is this different from what would happen in a determined universe if Mary got the call. A phone call in a determinist universe would change Mary's mind (if that's the way the causes to effects went).
Then I'm back to wondering if anything that phyllo thinks, feels, says or does is or is not in fact only as he ever could think, feel, say and do...or whether someone here is able to provide us with, what, the ontological -- teleological? -- "theory of everything" going back to the existence of existence itself?

Finally pinning down where the "human condition" itself fits into the staggering vastness of "all there is"? And beyond all dispute?

Again, as I noted above, it's not the outcomes...it's the part where the human brain "somehow" acquired the capacity to participate in human interactions leading up to any and all outcomes autonomously that matters most.

If John and Mary and Jane and the friend are all inherently, necessarily "at one" with the only possible reality, in the only possible universe, there is only the outcome. Period. Nature's outcome.

Whatever that means.

Of course with phyllo there is also a spiritual/religious component. See if you can grasp how he intertwines all of this into that. Into...God? After all, with God, free will is just another manifestation of the Soul, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pmIt is as if in a free will universe a person can have their mind changed by someone else but not in a determined universe.
Again, back to dreams. A few weeks ago I had a particular intense dream in which I changed mind about going to an old friend Danny's house. And, as a result of that [in the dream], my friend Danny committed suicide. Then I wake up and realize that while this dream reflects an actual experience in my life, here it was all unfolding chemically and neurologically re my brain itself.

Now, how is that different from the actual experience I had "in reality" some years ago? Changing my mind about something in a dream, changing my mind about something in the waking world.

Same brain, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pmAre you saying it is more likely she wouldn't get an abortion in a free will universe?
I'm saying that in a free will world the actual option not to abort is there! In a determined universe where Mary cannot not abort Jane, it's not. Jane is shredded into oblivion. I don't understand why this distinction puzzles some.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pmAre you saying phone calls to Mary are the result of free will?
No, I'm saying that in a free will world, the friend has the option to call Mary. And that call persuades Mary not to abort Jane. In a determined universe, the friend is either compelled to call or not call. But the call [or any other factor] doesn't alter the fact that all of the variables involved here are necessarily at one with the laws of matter precipitating the only possible reality: abortion.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pmAre you saying that there would be more people trying to disuade her in a free will universe?
With my Mary, only John was trying to dissuade her.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pmAre you saying that she is more likely to be affected by a phone call in a free will universe?
Again, if she lives in a free will universe, the calls will be made autonomously. In a wholly determined universe the calls will or will not be made as a manifestation of the only possible reality.

Again, there must be something that I am missing in regard to reactions like phyllo's and yours. If, of course, my reactions are, in fact, autonomous at all
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pmBoth scenarios (what happens) in your understandings of those two types of universes could happen in both types.
So, what are your examples meant to demonstrate?
I've explained my own distinction here over and again. You and others are either compelled to react to them only as you must, or you have the option to freely think through my points here and maybe change your mind about them. Or change my mind about them.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pm I think he is reacting to the same thing I reacted to.
Given my own understanding of a wholly determined universe, Mary aborting Jane was never not going to be the fate of both of them. Jane is shredded out of existence.

Given my own understanding of free will, Mary is intent on aborting Jane but she gets a call from a friend who is able to persuade her not to. Jane is still around today.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pm1) you present two different outcomes, one in the determined universe, one in the free will universe.
2) you explain, it seems, or imply, it seems, that the difference in the free will universe is that Mary doesn't abort because she got a phone call.
Yes, but over and over and over and over again, I make it clear I have no capacity to demonstrate whether in presenting outcomes or in explaining why I present them as I do, I am doing so only because my brain as matter wholly in sync with the immutable laws of matter compels me to...or if "somehow" my brain did acquire the capacity to exercise volition, autonomy, free will and I could have opted not to present what I did but, in thinking it through further, opting to present something else instead.
Wait, are you opting to not take any responsibility for what you wrote? You don't have any idea why you wrote those scenarios like that?
You tell me. Where's your pile of empirical, experimental, scientific, philosophical, theological, etc., evidence to finally pin it down?
I can't pin it down. But then, that has nothing to with what you wrote.

Why did you mention a phone call changing her mind in the second scenario, for example?
Again, as I noted above, it's not the outcomes.
Then why did you write outcomes?

If John and Mary and Jane and the friend are all inherently, necessarily "at one" with the only possible reality, in the only possible universe, there is only the outcome. Period. Nature's outcome.
Um, yeah. I understand what determinism entails. You could still explain why you chose to describe the two scenarios the way you did.

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pmIt is as if in a free will universe a person can have their mind changed by someone else but not in a determined universe.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pmAre you saying it is more likely she wouldn't get an abortion in a free will universe?
I'm saying that in a free will world the actual option not to abort is there! In a determined universe where Mary cannot not abort Jane, it's not. Jane is shredded into oblivion. I don't understand why this distinction puzzles some.
Or in the determined universe she couldn't help but change her mind via the phone call.
No, I'm saying that in a free will world, the friend has the option to call Mary. And that call persuades Mary not to abort Jane. In a determined universe, the friend is either compelled to call or not call. But the call [or any other factor] doesn't alter the fact that all of the variables involved here are necessarily at one with the laws of matter precipitating the only possible reality: abortion.
OK, thank you for trying to answer my question. From what you were saying I thought you were going to raise other issues and claim that determinism made you write what you wrote.

I think you could have written the scenarios much clearer, but now I understand what you were getting at.

Again, there must be something that I am missing in regard to reactions like phyllo's and yours. If, of course, my reactions are, in fact, autonomous at all
I have no idea what you are missing.
I've explained my own distinction here over and again.
And then you said something that seemed to go against what you had written. I asked for clarification. Thank you for clarifying.
Post Reply