compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 8:04 pm
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?
And, compelled by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter, around and around and around we go.

It's not what I opt to do here but whether I was ever able to opt not to do it. Freely as it were.

In fact -- click -- this whole thread [for me] revolves around how on Earth compatibilists demonstrate [even to themselves] how Mary is still morally responsible for aborting Jane in a universe "set up" such that she was never able to opt not to abort her.

If I was never able to not write those scenarios would not the reasons for writing them also be included in nature's "package deal". After all, the ideas themselves are derived from brain matter no less embedded in the only possible reality.

Only brain matter is clearly very, very peculiar matter indeed.

Then this part: How peculiar? The part that, among others, brain scientists [compelled or not] are grappling with experimentally.
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 8:04 pm I can't pin it down. But then, that has nothing to with what you wrote.
Really? The fact that even the folks in the scientific community itself are not able to pin it down yet, it still has nothing to do with definitively understanding why I wrote what I did and why you read what I wrote?

Click.

I am clearly missing your point then.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 8:04 pmWhy did you mention a phone call changing her mind in the second scenario, for example?
Either because my brain compelled me to mention it or because, given some measure of free will, it seemed reasonable to me at the time to note one possible explanation for why Mary changed her mind and brought Jane into the world.
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?

[/b]Again, as I noted above, it's not the outcomes.[/b] 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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 8:04 pm Then why did you write outcomes?
"Either because my brain compelled me to write them or because, given some measure of free will, it seemed reasonable to me at the time to write them".
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 8:04 pmUm, yeah. I understand what determinism entails. You could still explain why you chose to describe the two scenarios the way you did.
"Either because my brain compelled me to describe them as I did or because, given some measure of free will, it seemed reasonable to me at the time to describe them as I 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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:06 pmOr in the determined universe she couldn't help but change her mind via the phone call.
Exactly. The key word being determined.
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 pmOK, 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.
Yes, I am claiming that. If we live in a wholly determined universe as I understand it, the laws of matter make us think, feel, say and do everything.

And, for some, compelled or not, that's rather comforting. While, for others, compelled or not, that's very, very disturbing. The part that, given free will, I root in dasein.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Jun 12, 2022 5:25 pm And, compelled by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter, around and around and around we go.

It's not what I opt to do here but whether I was ever able to opt not to do it. Freely as it were.
I really do understand what determinism entails. Your wording shifts slightly each time, but more or less describes the same interpretation. You really never need say it to me again.

Did you see that I thanked you for answering my question? Did you come to understand how your statements could mean to even quite careful readers something other than you intended?

Anyway, you finally answered my questions, I thanked you for that and see now what you meant and that it fits with what you said elsewhere even if it was worded in ways that made confusion likely.

For what it's worth you seem, to me at least, attached to me and others not understanding what determinism entails. That we must not get it. It ends up being condescending, not saying that is your intent, but the assumption that others don't get what you get is something you might find worth dropping. Or not.

And the fact that you finally communicated about what I asked posts ago and I appreciated it seems not to matter at all to you.

I'll let you return to your incredulity, which I suppose I share, about compatiblism being something positive or meaningful in terms of resolving the dillemma in a way that makes much difference.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Mon Jun 13, 2022 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Yes, I am claiming that. If we live in a wholly determined universe as I understand it, the laws of matter make us think, feel, say and do everything.
The universe is making you think, feel, say and do stuff?

Stuff that you don't want to do?

You would rather do something else?

As if there is a 'you' which is somehow separate from the universe, separate from the laws of matter.

Who is this 'you'?

It seems that you are an integral part of the universe. You are manifesting the laws of nature as much as everything and everyone else.

You are creating a universe by what you think, feel, say and do.

Oh, I know ... it's in my head ... I haven't demonstrated it so that everyone is obligated to believe it ... I have haven't proven that it's the optimal way of thinking ... I'm insisting that everyone who does not think like me is wrong and stupid ... and I'm a dangerous and nasty objectivist. LOL

Oops, I forgot ... I could never have not written this. ROFL
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jun 12, 2022 9:17 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Jun 12, 2022 5:25 pm And, compelled by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter, around and around and around we go.

It's not what I opt to do here but whether I was ever able to opt not to do it. Freely as it were
.
In fact -- click -- this whole thread [for me] revolves around how on Earth compatibilists demonstrate [even to themselves] how Mary is still morally responsible for aborting Jane in a universe "set up" such that she was never able to opt not to abort her.

If I was never able to not write those scenarios would not the reasons for writing them also be included in nature's "package deal". After all, the ideas themselves are derived from brain matter no less embedded in the only possible reality.

Only brain matter is clearly very, very peculiar matter indeed.

Then this part: How peculiar? The part that, among others, brain scientists [compelled or not] are grappling with experimentally.
I really do understand what determinism entails. Your wording shifts slightly each time, but more or less describes the same interpretation. You really never need say it to me again.
But, again, my point is that I have no way in which to determine and then to demonstrate whether I am in fact able of my own free will to think, feel, say or do anything at all. If my brain wholly compels me to say what I do...and in fact to be typing these very words here and now...then your brain is likely to be compelling you in turn to read them here and now.

Now what?

It's how surreal these discussions can quickly become given the gap between what we think we know about these things and all that there actually is to be known about them.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jun 12, 2022 9:17 pmFor what it's worth you seem, to me at least, attached to me and others not understanding what determinism entails. That we must not get it. It ends up being condescending, not saying that is your intent, but the assumption that others don't get what you get is something you might find worth dropping. Or not.
For what it's worth, you have your understanding of this and I have mine. But how on earth could I possibly know what determinism entails -- "involving (something) as a necessary or inevitable part or consequence" -- given what I don't know myself about the existence of existence. Like you [compelled or not], I lived a particular life that, existentially, brought me into contact with philosophy that brought me into contact with questions like this. I had a set of experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge that predisposed me to think as I do here and now. Then the mystery [for all of us] of how the human brain may or may not have acquired autonomy.

As noted, for those like phyllo, it all seems to be connected "somehow" to God and to one or another spiritual path. See if you can yank that explanation out of him.

Well, compelled to or not of course.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 1:15 pm
Yes, I am claiming that. If we live in a wholly determined universe as I understand it, the laws of matter make us think, feel, say and do everything.
The universe is making you think, feel, say and do stuff?

Stuff that you don't want to do?

You would rather do something else?
Well, barring such things as sim worlds and Matrix conundrums, like you, yes, I exist in the universe. Perhaps but one of an infinite number of others. And, as with all other matter in the universe, human beings do stuff. Only human matter is also able to think, feel and say stuff about doing stuff.

This happened "somehow" some insist when living matter came into existence here on planet Earth. Others insist as well it's because of a God, the God, their God. They have been blessed with an autonomous soul built right into them at conception.

On the other hand, is this universe "making me" do stuff?

After all, what "for all practical purposes" does that even mean given the gap between what I think about the universe and all that can be known about it.

How about you? Might that insight not in turn be applicable to you as well?
phyllo wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 1:15 pmAs if there is a 'you' which is somehow separate from the universe, separate from the laws of matter.

Who is this 'you'?

It seems that you are an integral part of the universe. You are manifesting the laws of nature as much as everything and everyone else.

You are creating a universe by what you think, feel, say and do.
Yeah, you come back to this "deep insight" over and over and over again. As though it makes this truly fascinating philosophical antinomy discussed and debated down through the ages by esteemed philosophers just go away.

Nope, the debate -- at times still fierce and ferocious -- marches on.

Compelled to or otherwise.
phyllo wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 1:15 pmOh, I know ... it's in my head ... I haven't demonstrated it so that everyone is obligated to believe it ... I have haven't proven that it's the optimal way of thinking ... I'm insisting that everyone who does not think like me is wrong and stupid ... and I'm a dangerous and nasty objectivist. LOL
Well, are you?

An objectivist here as I understand it is simply someone who believes that he or she is in sync with the Real Me...a Core Self...and, further, that even in regard to moral and political and spiritual value judgments and the Really Big Questions like these, they are in sync in turn with either the optimal understanding or, for some, the one and the only rational understanding that there is.
phyllo wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 1:15 pmOops, I forgot ... I could never have not written this. ROFL
Sure, turn it all into a joke.

See how far that gets you in this or any other philosophy forum. Or among those exploring the human brain in the scientific community. Or how about taking it back over to the New ILP: take it up with ecmandu and menu and her.

Get back to us on that.

Well, "click" of course.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It
Andrea Lavazza at the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience website
Thus defined [see post above], free will is a kind of freedom that we are willing to attribute to all human beings as a default condition. Of course there are exceptions: people suffering from mental illness and people under psychotropic substances.
Of course, this gets tricky because in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, mental health and mental illness are themselves interchangeable. Brains are brains are brains. And if they act in ways that we construe to be examples of mental illness they are construed that way by us only because we were never able to not construe them in that manner. If someone believes that they are Napoleon their beliefs are actually on par with Napoleon believing it himself.

That's how surreal it gets once you go all the way out on the limb here. Meanwhile going out there itself may well be no less a manifestation of the only possible reality.
Nevertheless, the attribution of free will as a general trend does not imply that all decisions are always taken in full freedom, as outlined by the three conditions illustrated above: “We often act on impulse, against our interests, without being fully aware of what we are doing. But this does not imply that we are not potentially able to act freely. Ethics and law have incorporated these notions, adopting the belief that usually people are free to act or not to act in a certain way and that, as a result, they are responsible for what they do, with the exceptions mentioned above”
Of course, when the discussion gets around to this, at times, considerably more opaque "reality", I shift gears from the either/or to the is/ought world. Even granting some measure of autonomy, there does not appear to be an objective reality that we can fall back on in order to establish what free men and women ought to think and feel and say and do. There we are all on our own as individuals. In other words, re dasein, with all of the many, many different and conflicting assumptions we make about right and wrong and good and evil.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 5:35 pm But, again, my point is that I have no way in which to determine and then to demonstrate whether I am in fact able of my own free will to think, feel, say or do anything at all. If my brain wholly compels me to say what I do...and in fact to be typing these very words here and now...then your brain is likely to be compelling you in turn to read them here and now.
Truly amazing. I tell you that I understand determinism and what it entails several times, and yet again, you tell me what it entails. I mean, the least you could do is explain why you think you need to keep repeating yourself. But you don't. You just keep repeating it as if I and most people here do not understand that determinism would mean that all your actions and thoughts would be determined in advance and you have no way of knowing if this is the case. Stunning.

For what it's worth, you have your understanding of this and I have mine.
You have described over and over what you think it entails and it is exactly what I think it entails.
But how on earth could I possibly know what determinism entails -- "involving (something) as a necessary or inevitable part or consequence" -- given what I don't know myself about the existence of existence. Like you [compelled or not], I lived a particular life that, existentially, brought me into contact with philosophy that brought me into contact with questions like this. I had a set of experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge that predisposed me to think as I do here and now. Then the mystery [for all of us] of how the human brain may or may not have acquired autonomy.
And now you repeat it a second time in the same post and then repeat what you have said to me and other many times about not knowing how the brain might possibly or not come to have free will.

I suppose it doesn't matter to you much what people say. And, yes, ha ha, maybe you are compelled to repeat yourself over and over. But then others seem to at least be compelled to respond to what is written to them and also to repeat themselves less. Determined or free, I find that more interesting. And, ya, perhaps I am compelled to think they are more interesting than you.
I might have been compelled to get snarky. Or maybe I am free to be snarky. I don't know either.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 5:35 pm But, again, my point is that I have no way in which to determine and then to demonstrate whether I am in fact able of my own free will to think, feel, say or do anything at all. If my brain wholly compels me to say what I do...and in fact to be typing these very words here and now...then your brain is likely to be compelling you in turn to read them here and now.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 6:46 pmTruly amazing. I tell you that I understand determinism and what it entails several times, and yet again, you tell me what it entails. I mean, the least you could do is explain why you think you need to keep repeating yourself. But you don't. You just keep repeating it as if I and most people here do not understand that determinism would mean that all your actions and thoughts would be determined in advance and you have no way of knowing if this is the case. Stunning.
Here we go again. Me speculating that if determinism is as I am compelled to think it to be, I was never able to not think that. Anymore than you were ever able to not post what you do above.

But how would we go about pinning something like that down given that, in turn, anyway we might go about it was but another inherent, necessary component of the only possible reality in the only possible world.

Ever and always coming back to the human brain as matter itself. Did it "somehow" acquire autonomy when lifeless matter evolved into living matter here on planet Earth? Did a God, the God provide it to us when He created our souls?

And my explanation for why I keep repeating myself is that my brain compels me to. That profoundly problematic and peculiar matter that is like no other matter around.
But how on earth could I possibly know what determinism entails -- "involving (something) as a necessary or inevitable part or consequence" -- given what I don't know myself about the existence of existence. Like you [compelled or not], I lived a particular life that, existentially, brought me into contact with philosophy that brought me into contact with questions like this. I had a set of experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge that predisposed me to think as I do here and now. Then the mystery [for all of us] of how the human brain may or may not have acquired autonomy.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 6:46 pmAnd now you repeat it a second time in the same post and then repeat what you have said to me and other many times about not knowing how the brain might possibly or not come to have free will.
Note to nature:

You explain it to him. Or her.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 6:46 pmI suppose it doesn't matter to you much what people say. And, yes, ha ha, maybe you are compelled to repeat yourself over and over. But then others seem to at least be compelled to respond to what is written to them and also to repeat themselves less. Determined or free, I find that more interesting. And, ya, perhaps I am compelled to think they are more interesting than you.
From my frame of mind [compelled or not] you seem to be convinced that you are pointing out something really, really important to me here. Something that, what, if I grasped it I would stop repeating myself and respond more like you and others do here? In a more interesting manner?
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 6:46 pmI might have been compelled to get snarky. Or maybe I am free to be snarky. I don't know either.
How about [compelled or not] we leave it at that?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: compatibilism

Post by attofishpi »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 5:35 pm But, again, my point is that I have no way in which to determine and then to demonstrate whether I am in fact able of my own free will to think, feel, say or do anything at all. If my brain wholly compels me to say what I do...and in fact to be typing these very words here and now...then your brain is likely to be compelling you in turn to read them here and now.

I believe in compatibilism (after bothering to just look it up), unless it's one of those terms with a myriad of 'definitions'.

Since the big-bang, the ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form. The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.

If you agree with that statement, I think you must agree with compatibilism, almost.

Further to this, as we understand classical physics, cause and effect, determinism...well, according to Sir Roger Penrose, consciousness is non-computational, non algorithm, its essential functioning is at the quantum level. This then suggests that our consciousness is non-deterministic, that indeed our conscious mind is not determined, that it has free will.

Sir Roger Penrose – Quantum Physics of Consciousness
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43vuOpJY46s

Stuart Hammerof - Quantum Physics of Consciousness
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfmcEbD64XY
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It
Andrea Lavazza at the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience website
Throughout the centuries, despite its conceptual progress, philosophy hasn’t been able to solve this dilemma. As a result, today there are different irreconcilable positions about human free will: determinism is not absolute and free will exists; free will does not exist for a number of reasons, first of all (but not only) determinism; free will can exist even if determinism is true.
Exactly my point! If there really was a definitive argument able to solve this profound conundrum, wouldn't it be well accepted by now? Let alone one derived from an accumulation of experiential and/or experimental evidence.

On the other hand, come on, even if we all did agree on one and only one argument how exactly would we go about determining for certain that this in and of itself was not but the only possible reality in the only possible world?

Suppose nature itself can play God?
A little more than 30 years ago, neuroscience and empirical psychology came into play. Although biological processes cannot be considered strictly deterministic on the observable level of brain functioning (nerve signal transmission), new methods of investigation of the brain, more and more precise, have established that the cerebral base is a necessary condition of behavior and even of mental phenomena. On the basis of these acquisitions, neuroscience has begun to provide experimental contributions to the debate on free will.
Strictly deterministic. And how to pin that down even among brain scientists themselves. What definitively does it mean to speak of "the cerebral base is a necessary condition of behavior and even of mental phenomena". Is the mental phenomena I am using now to point this out also included in the cerebral base? Might not the experimental contributions be as well?

Or how about the "soul"...God's own contribution?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 5:35 pm But, again, my point is that I have no way in which to determine and then to demonstrate whether I am in fact able of my own free will to think, feel, say or do anything at all. If my brain wholly compels me to say what I do...and in fact to be typing these very words here and now...then your brain is likely to be compelling you in turn to read them here and now.
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 11:11 pm
Since the big-bang, the ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form. The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.

If you agree with that statement, I think you must agree with compatibilism, almost.
Let's bring this down to Earth. Back to Mary and her abortion above.

She is wondering if the choice to abort her fetus was in fact predicated on her own autonomy or was wholly determined by her brain...wholly in sync with the laws of matter. And she is wondering how the compatibilists can argue that even if she was never able not to abort the fetus she is still morally responsible for aborting it.

What hard evidence derived from the scientific method could one provide her that would confirm that this...

Since the big-bang, the ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form. The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.

...is what did in fact happen?

Same here:
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 11:11 pmFurther to this, as we understand classical physics, cause and effect, determinism...well, according to Sir Roger Penrose, consciousness is non-computational, non algorithm, its essential functioning is at the quantum level. This then suggests that our consciousness is non-deterministic, that indeed our conscious mind is not determined, that it has free will.

Sir Roger Penrose – Quantum Physics of Consciousness
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43vuOpJY46s

Stuart Hammerof - Quantum Physics of Consciousness
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfmcEbD64XY
What do these men tell Mary is unfolding in her brain and at the abortion clinic?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: compatibilism

Post by attofishpi »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 5:35 pm But, again, my point is that I have no way in which to determine and then to demonstrate whether I am in fact able of my own free will to think, feel, say or do anything at all. If my brain wholly compels me to say what I do...and in fact to be typing these very words here and now...then your brain is likely to be compelling you in turn to read them here and now.
..well, the thing is consciousness is not purely of "brain" matter. The creation of the brain matter is a result of causality, I don't believe consciousness is.

iambiguous wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:13 pm
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 11:11 pm
Since the big-bang, the ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form. The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.

If you agree with that statement, I think you must agree with compatibilism, almost.
Let's bring this down to Earth. Back to Mary and her abortion above.

She is wondering if the choice to abort her fetus was in fact predicated on her own autonomy or was wholly determined by her brain...wholly in sync with the laws of matter. And she is wondering how the compatibilists can argue that even if she was never able not to abort the fetus she is still morally responsible for aborting it.
I'd say, the longer she leaves it, the less moral her decision, should she abort.

Does Mary consider these:
1. Does Mary have the capacity to provide love and shelter for the baby, and the child as it grows?
2. Does Mary have faith in humanity, should she decide to give birth and allow adoption (there are some tragic stories for these children)
3. Does Mary believe in God, and if so, should she consider it less of a moral issue to abort (since the eternal soul would be returned to God, to re-implant into the womb of somone that does have the conditions of point 1.)
4. Should Mary watch a video such as this, where clearly most of these people (now walking stombies) were NOT given love and shelter for their entire childhood. https://youtu.be/Bi1Kf-1qd6Y

iambiguous wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:13 pmWhat hard evidence derived from the scientific method could one provide her that would confirm that this...
So, why don't you just ask, how does the scientific method prove the hard problem of consciousness?

iambiguous wrote:
attofishpi wrote: Since the big-bang, the ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form. The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.
...is what did in fact happen?
Eh?

iambiguous wrote:Same here:
attofishpi wrote: Further to this, as we understand classical physics, cause and effect, determinism...well, according to Sir Roger Penrose, consciousness is non-computational, non algorithm, its essential functioning is at the quantum level. This then suggests that our consciousness is non-deterministic, that indeed our conscious mind is not determined, that it has free will.

Sir Roger Penrose – Quantum Physics of Consciousness
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43vuOpJY46s

Stuart Hammerof - Quantum Physics of Consciousness
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfmcEbD64XY
What do these men tell Mary is unfolding in her brain and at the abortion clinic?
I doubt they'd bother, even if they were certain of it - but if I could hazard a guess, they'd say that the decision is yours, you do have free will to chose.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:09 am
iambiguous wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 5:35 pm But, again, my point is that I have no way in which to determine and then to demonstrate whether I am in fact able of my own free will to think, feel, say or do anything at all. If my brain wholly compels me to say what I do...and in fact to be typing these very words here and now...then your brain is likely to be compelling you in turn to read them here and now.
..well, the thing is consciousness is not purely of "brain" matter. The creation of the brain matter is a result of causality, I don't believe consciousness is.
How can I possibly be any clearer, here?

I'm less interested in what you believe about the relationship between human consciousness and brain matter, and more interested in what you can demonstrate experientially and experimentally that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

I flat out acknowledge that I am unable to provide this demonstration regarding what I believe.

"Somehow" in the universe lifeless matter evolved into living matter evolved into conscious matter evolved into us. And, to the best of my current knowledge, no scientist or philosopher or theologian around is able to fully explain it. Let alone to demonstrate definitively whether or not this resulted in free will, volition, human autonomy.

We just don't know.

Indeed, some here will insist the explanation lies with God. Their God, for example. Free will? Look no further than the human soul.

Well, until you ask them to demonstrate the existence of that.

iambiguous wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:13 pm
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 11:11 pm
Since the big-bang, the ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form. The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.

If you agree with that statement, I think you must agree with compatibilism, almost.
Let's bring this down to Earth. Back to Mary and her abortion above.

She is wondering if the choice to abort her fetus was in fact predicated on her own autonomy or was wholly determined by her brain...wholly in sync with the laws of matter. And she is wondering how the compatibilists can argue that even if she was never able not to abort the fetus she is still morally responsible for aborting it.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:09 amI'd say, the longer she leaves it, the less moral her decision, should she abort.
You'd say this. But how exactly would you go about demonstrating to us that you said this of your own volition and not as a result of brain matter compelling you to say it given the only possible reality in the only possible world.

What, you yourself are not stuck inside this centuries-old scientific and philosophical conundrum like all the rest of us?

Same with Mary...
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:09 amDoes Mary consider these:
1. Does Mary have the capacity to provide love and shelter for the baby, and the child as it grows?
2. Does Mary have faith in humanity, should she decide to give birth and allow adoption (there are some tragic stories for these children)
3. Does Mary believe in God, and if so, should she consider it less of a moral issue to abort (since the eternal soul would be returned to God, to re-implant into the womb of somone that does have the conditions of point 1.)
4. Should Mary watch a video such as this, where clearly most of these people (now walking stombies) were NOT given love and shelter for their entire childhood. https://youtu.be/Bi1Kf-1qd6Y
It's not what Mary considers here but whether you or anyone else is able to demonstrate that anything she considers at all she was in fact free to opt not to consider.
iambiguous wrote:Same here:
attofishpi wrote: Further to this, as we understand classical physics, cause and effect, determinism...well, according to Sir Roger Penrose, consciousness is non-computational, non algorithm, its essential functioning is at the quantum level. This then suggests that our consciousness is non-deterministic, that indeed our conscious mind is not determined, that it has free will.

Sir Roger Penrose – Quantum Physics of Consciousness
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43vuOpJY46s

Stuart Hammerof - Quantum Physics of Consciousness
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfmcEbD64XY
What do these men tell Mary is unfolding in her brain and at the abortion clinic?
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:09 amI doubt they'd bother, even if they were certain of it - but if I could hazard a guess, they'd say that the decision is yours, you do have free will to chose.
Unless, of course, they are both in the same boat we're in: To freely doubt or not to freely doubt. To freely hazard a guess or not to freely hazard a guess.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: compatibilism

Post by attofishpi »

HOLY CRAP!! I am pretty certain the entirety of your above post can be stated with the one thing that you OMITTED from my post:
iambiguous wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:13 pmWhat hard evidence derived from the scientific method could one provide her that would confirm that this...
So, why don't you just ask, how does the scientific method prove the hard problem of consciousness?

(why you feel the need to bang on and on about hypothetical Mary is beyond me)
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:09 am...well, the thing is consciousness is not purely of "brain" matter. The creation of the brain matter is a result of causality, I don't believe consciousness is.
iambiguous wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:07 pmHow can I possibly be any clearer, here?

I'm less interested in what you believe about the relationship between human consciousness and brain matter, and more interested in what you can demonstrate experientially and experimentally that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

I flat out acknowledge that I am unable to provide this demonstration regarding what I believe.

"Somehow" in the universe lifeless matter evolved into living matter evolved into conscious matter evolved into us. And, to the best of my current knowledge, no scientist or philosopher or theologian around is able to fully explain it. Let alone to demonstrate definitively whether or not this resulted in free will, volition, human autonomy.

We just don't know.

Indeed, some here will insist the explanation lies with God. Their God, for example. Free will? Look no further than the human soul.

Well, until you ask them to demonstrate the existence of that.
To which -- compelled or not? -- we get nothing from you.

Instead -- compelled or not? -- we get this:
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:13 am HOLY CRAP!! I am pretty certain the entirety of your above post can be stated with the one thing that you OMITTED from my post:
iambiguous wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:13 pmWhat hard evidence derived from the scientific method could one provide her that would confirm that this...
So, why don't you just ask, how does the scientific method prove the hard problem of consciousness?
But my own point here remains the same. How would either of us go about demonstrating whether anything that I might ask here, I had the option not to ask. Or the option to ask something else?

That centuries-old scientific and philosophical quandary here doesn't just -- poof! -- go away, right?

Instead, some do insist it's "solved" because a God, the God, their God planted a "soul" inside us at conception. Instant free-will. Then those who argue that their God is omniscient also have to "think up" how an all-knowing God and human autonomy are compatible.
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:13 am(why you feel the need to bang on and on about hypothetical Mary is beyond me)
Well, assuming that my brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, didn't compel me to "bang on and on here" about Mary [who is not hypothetical at all], and assuming that "somehow" when lifeless matter evolved into living matter evolved into us here on Earth nature itself [chemically and neurologically] made human autonomy possible, my main interest in compatibilism revolves around those compatibilists who argue that Mary was never able not to abort her fetus but that she is still morally responsible for doing so.

How do they make sense of that? Other than in being compelled to by their brains.
Post Reply