compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:34 pm
they could say 'I am compelled to assert this as if I am sure'. But I don't hear that often
I've never heard or read such a thing come from the mouth or fingers of a determinist.
Right, so it becomes a kind of cake and eat it too situation.
Seems like, over the years, I'd have heard or read such a thing at least once (and not a cagey response, but simply as an admission...phyllo, for example, could declare now Henry, I'm a bio-robot, but, rightfully, I would suspect him of just bein' a contrarian, not that he actually believes he is, or lives as, a bio-robot).
I think I have heard some people compare themselves to complicated machines. Even chemical machines. But I haven't seen anyone admit that this should make one extremely skeptical about one's own rationality and the reasonableness of one's arguments. They can accept, some of them, that they are complicated machines, but not that engaging in philosophical discourse, especially if one asserts things with anything like certainty, it ironic and kind of silly.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

phyllo wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:43 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:24 pm
phyllo wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:29 pm I have no idea what that means.

What would this person be doing that's different from a person with free-will?
I think it would be odd, if one understood determinism, to somehow at the same time speak with great certainty about one's arguments. If one is utterly determined, then one's sense one made sense is utterly determined. The quale that says, that was a good argument, is utterly determined. You might be being rational. You might not be, but once you admit or really assert that you are utterly determined this entails that you can't really tell why you draw the conclusions you do. You are compelled to make them and compelled to think you are making sense. I could see someone saying 'It sure seems like everything is determined, including me, but I really can't know.'

Of course, they could say 'I am compelled to assert this as if I am sure'. But I don't hear that often.

And if one wants to respond that free will doesn't seem to offer a foundation for rationality, that's a separate topic.


So, obviously a determinist could act like they KNOW and think this makes sense with determinism. But it doesn't. A person could be freely choosing to not make sense or a person could be compelled to not make sense, sure. But man it's odd determinists tend not to notice this problem, regardless of what the universe is like.
Free-will isn't some magic power. It doesn't stop you from being wrong. It doesn't stop you from thinking you are right when you are wrong.

Stupid people with free-will are still stupid.

The Dunning-Kruger effect still applies.
Despite my now bolded statement you went ahead and shifted to a different topic. I am NOWHERE asserting that free will entails anything, and not infallibility either. Further I am not saying that determinists have a problem because they are not infallible. You response is not to my post. There can be problems with asserting things as a determinist regardless of whether there are problems for people supporting free will.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

I am NOWHERE asserting that free will entails anything, and not infallibility either.
If you say that determinism entails something, then you are saying that free-will entails something else, otherwise they are the same.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

phyllo wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:55 pm
I am NOWHERE asserting that free will entails anything, and not infallibility either.
If you say that determinism entails something, then you are saying that free-will entails something else, otherwise they are the same.
Doesn't matter. I am not even sure what free will means. I am looking at what is entailed by claiming to being determined. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I am right. But it is a change of topic to bring in free will. If you are right about free will, for example, being fallible, it means nothing at all in relation to what I argued. Perhaps asserting free will entails problems. Perhaps not. It's another topic. Perhaps they are the same. I don't know. I am focused on what is entailed by asserting determinism.

I see this as a regular pattern on the internet and elsewhere. If someone says Trump is an idiot, it is irrelevant whether Biden is or not. Perhaps they both are. If moral nihilism is critiqued for entailing X, it is not a defense to say that moral realism entails X or y or B.

We can still look at the problems of asserting one position. With the arguments. With the consequences/implications of one.

You're not addressing my argument. You saying it means something about Free Will or Free Will ideas have problems. I don't really care about that here. You're not saing anything is wrong with what I argued.

But you write as if it is a critique of what I wrote, while it isn't.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

No. That is not true. I am not even sure what free will means. I am looking at what is entailed by claiming to being determined. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I am right. But it is a change of topic to bring in free will. If you are right about free will, for example, being fallible, it means nothing at all in relation to what I argued. Perhaps asserting free will entails problems. Perhaps not. It's another topic. Perhaps they are the same. I don't know. I am focused on what is entailed by asserting determinism.
You're not saying anything that is unique to determinism or determinists.

It's not a characteristic of determinism. It applies equally to free-will. Which is what I'm pointing out.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

henry quirk wrote:
Feels like iambiguous all over again.

Just waitin' for the daesin to drop.
Big laughs, right Biggus?

To think that you and I are coming from the same direction, that our arguments are the same. :shock:
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

How does your point above make any of that go away? Unless, of course, both our points are inherent, necessary manifestations of the human brain wholly in sync -- "somehow" -- with the laws of matter going all the way back to what [who?] brought them into existence in the first place.

"Somehow"? Yeah, until scientists, philosophers and/or theologians do pin down the definitive explanation.

Have they? Link me to it.

Again, imagine you had a dream and an exchange of this sort unfolded between us. You wouldn't wake up and argue that you had free will then, would you? And I have had any number of dreams myself in which exchanges unfolded with others similar to ours. Perhaps your dreams are different.
phyllo wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:26 pm We're not even talking about the same thing.

I'm interested in the practical implications of free-will and determinism.

You're interested in "the definitive explanation" of how something came into existence.
Right, like until we can determine how and why -- scientifically, philosophically, theologically, etc. -- the matter that is the human brain is or is not capable of embodying free will, we can just skip that part and be "practical" about it.

Are you even capable of grasping how ridiculous that is? Perhaps more or less ridiculous than my point? For "all practical purposes"?

And are you actually arguing that we can simply forget about our utter lack of understanding regarding why something rather than nothing exists, and why it is this something and not something else, and just skip to the part where the "human condition" here on planet Earth "somehow" came into existence. That is what you are saying?

After all, isn't it precisely at this point that the religious folks interject with a God, the God, their God.

Don't you?

That would certainly be one "definitive explanation", right? God creates Souls and these Souls have free will. God knows all but you can still choose freely.

And, aside from those like IC here, most are quite willing to believe that in one or another existential "leap of faith".

Don't you?
Having an explanation here tells us nothing either ontologically or teleologically about whether the explanation itself is derived either from free will or determinism. Here we are still back to subjective, existential leaps of faith that our own assumptions are more reasonable.

Right?
phyllo wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:26 pmAgain. We're not even on the same page.
Again, we are on the only page we could ever be on if the human brain is just more matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter. I'm just more than willing to acknowledge that I have no capacity to actually demonstrate this.

Do you have the capacity to demonstrate your own conclusions? Aren't they basically what you have thought yourself into believing that your brain "somehow" acquired the capacity to think "freely"?

Then this part:
Again, imagine you had a dream and an exchange of this sort unfolded between us. You wouldn't wake up and argue that you had free will then, would you? And I have had any number of dreams myself in which exchanges unfolded with others similar to ours. Perhaps your dreams are different.
Are your dreams different?

In fact, last night I had one of my "work dreams". In the dream, I am arguing with my old employer about how the business should go in the direction of school stores rather than mass market retail. A really, really detailed discussion! Yet I wake up and immediately realize that it was entirely created by my brain instead!!!

Oh, I know, the waking brain is just "somehow" different.

And, sure, there's doubt that it could be. But how exactly would we go about pinning that down?
That's not the point. The point is that, like me, you have no scientific, philosophical or theological evidence that settles the matter once and for all.
phyllo wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:26 pmAnd again.

Okay. I understand that you have different interests. But you don't have to keep restating that we need evidence to settle it "once and for all".

I would like to see a discussion that progresses beyond that one point.
Unbelievable. Well, to me. Over and over and over again in our interactions in the either/or world [assuming free will] we can get into situations where we damn well do insist on evidence to prove something. To doctors, to lawyers, to engineers, to teachers, to family and friends.

You tell me the car you want to sell me is in great condition. I ask you to prove it and you complain that I don't just take your word for it.

The surgeon tells you that an operation is the only option and you just shrug and and tell her, "well, if you say so."
phyllo wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:26 pm Okay, we don't have the ultimate, absolute evidence. What can we say based on what we do have and what we do know?
Come on, you know me. My focus is always on those who insist that what they do know settles it. The objectivists. The moral and political and religious objectivists in particular but also those who make arguments about the Big Questions like this one as well. Call it, say, the "peacegirl Syndrome".

Or the Immanuel Can/henry quirk Syndrome here?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: compatibilism

Post by henry quirk »

phyllo wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:47 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Feels like iambiguous all over again.

Just waitin' for the daesin to drop.
Big laughs, right Biggus?

To think that you and I are coming from the same direction, that our arguments are the same. :shock:
Not the same message, no: mebbe the same method, though?

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

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Right, like until we can determine how and why -- scientifically, philosophically, theologically, etc. -- the matter that is the human brain is or is not capable of embodying free will, we can just skip that part and be "practical" about it.

Are you even capable of grasping how ridiculous that is? Perhaps more or less ridiculous than my point? For "all practical purposes"?
You're going to be sitting around twiddling your thumbs until you get a definitive explanation.

And that's not ridiculous?

Well then carry on.
Are your dreams different?
Dreams are not reality.
Unbelievable. Well, to me. Over and over and over again in our interactions in the either/or world [assuming free will] we can get into situations where we damn well do insist on evidence to prove something. To doctors, to lawyers, to engineers, to teachers, to family and friends.

You tell me the car you want to sell me is in great condition. I ask you to prove it and you complain that I don't just take your word for it.

The surgeon tells you that an operation is the only option and you just shrug and and tell her, "well, if you say so."
The kind of ultimate, absolute, definite evidence that you insist on is not available.

Deal with it and move on.

What's so hard to understand about that?
Come on, you know me. My focus is always on those who insist that what they do know settles it. The objectivists. The moral and political and religious objectivists in particular but also those who make arguments about the Big Questions like this one as well. Call it, say, the "peacegirl Syndrome".

Or the Immanuel Can/henry quirk Syndrome here?
Okay, stick to IC and HQ.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

phyllo wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 5:35 pm
You're not saying anything that is unique to determinism or determinists.
1) first of all you seemed to interpret what I wrote as saying that determinists were fallible. That was not my point at all. You responded by saying that free will doesn't preclude errors, as if that was a response to what I wrote. It wasn't a response to what I wrote. If you want to read my original post you responded to and see this fine.
It's not a characteristic of determinism.
I wrote about what is entailed by the belief in determinism. Specifically entailed by that belief. Similar things may be entailed by other beliefs. But that's not relevant. I was pointing out, in part to determinists what is entailed by their belief that they do not seem to realize and also communicating to Henry Quirk about that issue.

Something is entailed by their belief that they do not seem to realize which makes their behavior in forums like this odd. Of course, if they are right about determinism, they can't help it.

I don't have a position on free will vs. determinism. I was focused on the irony of the determinist asserting things and considering their arguments logical and sound. It's not that they might make mistakes. Its that they should know they cannot have any idea if they are being rational or not.

It applies equally to free-will. Which is what I'm pointing out.
You asserted it. You asserted that people with free can make errors. You have not shown that people with free will cannot possibly know if they are rational or not given their belief. This is different from what is entailed by determinism. And note: I am not saying that one need be 100% sure. I am saying they should not they can't even weigh evidence, since their sense 'I make a logical argument' is an utterly determined quale and they can have no idea why it is determined, since every conclusion even about their own qualia is utterly determined.

If you want to demonstrate not simply that people with free will are fallible, but they can have no idea if they are evaluating their arguments correctly. Have at it. Regardless of how well you do this, it is not relevant. Perhaps all positions (and there are a number of ways people explain and justify free will positions) entail one cannot know. But that wouldn't take away from the irony related to determinists. I might say, oh, good job, you showed that people believing in free will on those grounds and explaining it that was also cannot possibly evaluate their own rationality. That wouldn't take away from my argument.

If Biden sucks and this can be demonstrated, it doesn't mean that Trump is good. If I mount an argument that Trump sucks and you say that is true about Biden, it doesn't take away from my points about Trump and vice versa. Perhaps there is a third candidate in the free will/determinism debate. I don't know. But it doesn't matter.

I can look at a philosophical position and point out its faults or what it entails. If the other position also entails something that is the same, that doesn't take away the tiniest from what I have done. Even if that is the only other position. Here we are dealing with a number of free will positions, so one has some serious work. And since you seemed to think I was pointing our mere fallibility you haven't started at all.

Then after you have shown that free entails the same as what I said, not what you seemed to think I have said, you'd also have to show that those are the only possible positions. I would agree that it certainly seems so, but you'd need to demonstrate that.

BUT......if I am write the reasons for what the positions entail is likely not the same. So, my argument would still be different because it is based on why DETERMINISM entails what it entails. Perhaps free will entails the same thing, but I'd be a little suprised it would be for the SAME REASON. But that would be interesting.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: compatibilism

Post by henry quirk »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:46 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:34 pm
they could say 'I am compelled to assert this as if I am sure'. But I don't hear that often
I've never heard or read such a thing come from the mouth or fingers of a determinist.
*Right, so it becomes a kind of cake and eat it too situation.
Seems like, over the years, I'd have heard or read such a thing at least once (and not a cagey response, but simply as an admission...phyllo, for example, could declare now Henry, I'm a bio-robot, but, rightfully, I would suspect him of just bein' a contrarian, not that he actually believes he is, or lives as, a bio-robot).
I think I have heard some people compare themselves to complicated machines. Even chemical machines. But **I haven't seen anyone admit that this should make one extremely skeptical about one's own rationality and the reasonableness of one's arguments. They can accept, some of them, that they are complicated machines, but not that engaging in philosophical discourse, especially if one asserts things with anything like certainty, it ironic and kind of silly.
*I take it as a bold lie: the hard determinist knows damn well he is a free will, but will insist otherwise come hell or high.

**Even more so (and I apologize for beatin' the horse again), at least some of these folks -- if man truly is determined -- ought to say or post things like I am a determined being...nuthin' of me is anything more than canned responses...I am a bio-automaton. Instead, every last one will argue for a man-envelopin' determinism, and every last one will argue for it as a free will would (cuz, of course, that's what every last one of them are).
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

... will argue for a man-envelopin' determinism ...
Whatever that means :?
... will argue for it as a free will would ...
Whatever that means :?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: compatibilism

Post by henry quirk »

phyllo wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 3:06 pm
... will argue for a man-envelopin' determinism ...
Whatever that means :?
... will argue for it as a free will would ...
Whatever that means :?
*sniff*

I smell biggie stank.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Do you guys have your own secret codes on this site so that the regulars know what all these things mean but anyone new coming in is just mystified? :evil:

Is that it?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: compatibilism

Post by henry quirk »

phyllo wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 3:16 pm Do you guys have your own secret codes on this site so that the regulars know what all these things mean but anyone new coming in is just mystified? :evil:

Is that it?
Can you read? Seems you can. Can you consider what you read in context? If so: do so.

Or: *just keep actin' like biggie-lite.
*the penalty box is big
Post Reply