compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

How about this rendition of determinism...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/opin ... ation.html

"For these reasons, I’ve sat out many of the debates about the simulation hypothesis that have been bubbling through tech communities since the early 2000s, when Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford, floated the idea in a widely cited essay.

"But a brain-bending new book by the philosopher David Chalmers — “Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy” — has turned me into a hard-core simulationist.

"After reading and talking to Chalmers, I’ve come to believe that the coming world of virtual reality might one day be regarded as every bit as real as real reality. If that happens, our current reality will instantly be cast into doubt; after all, if we could invent meaningful virtual worlds, isn’t it plausible that some other civilization somewhere else in the universe might have done so, too? Yet if that’s possible, how could we know that we’re not already in its simulation?

"The conclusion seems inescapable: We may not be able to prove that we are in a simulation, but at the very least, it will be a possibility that we can’t rule out. But it could be more than that. Chalmers argues that if we’re in a simulation, there’d be no reason to think it’s the only simulation; in the same way that lots of different computers today are running Microsoft Excel, lots of different machines might be running an instance of the simulation. If that was the case, simulated worlds would vastly outnumber non-sim worlds — meaning that, just as a matter of statistics, it would be not just possible that our world is one of the many simulations but likely. Chalmers writes that “the chance we are sims is at least 25 percent or so.

"Chalmers is a professor of philosophy at New York University, and he has spent much of his career thinking about the mystery of consciousness. He is best known for coining the phrase “the hard problem of consciousness,” which, roughly, is a description of the difficulty of explaining why a certain experience feels like that experience to the being experiencing it. (Don’t worry if this hurts your head; it’s not called the hard problem for nothing.)

"Chalmers says that he began thinking deeply about the nature of simulated reality after using V.R. headsets like Oculus Quest 2 and realizing that the technology is already good enough to create situations that feel viscerally real.

"Virtual reality is now advancing so quickly that it seems quite reasonable to guess that the world inside V.R. could one day be indistinguishable from the world outside it. Chalmers says this could happen within a century; I wouldn’t be surprised if we passed that mark within a few decades.

"Whenever it happens, the development of realistic V.R. will be earthshaking, for reasons both practical and profound. The practical ones are obvious: If people can easily flit between the physical world and virtual ones that feel exactly like the physical world, which one should we regard as real?"




So, if we are in some extraterrestrial alien's "sim world", how would that be the same or different from hard determinism as the embodiment of nature itself?

Well, in part, I suppose, it would depend on whether this alien civilization was no less the embodiment of the laws of matter. Nature "programed" them to "program" us. And then going back to how it all fits into the ontological -- teleological? -- understanding of existence itself.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by promethean75 »

Yeah that article is toying with the question of the nature of reality, what is real, not with the concept of causation. So SIMS or not, I still agree with Harris: freewill is an impossibility in any conceivable material system.The universe does not play dice.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Skepdick »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:58 am Yeah that article is toying with the question of the nature of reality, what is real, not with the concept of causation. So SIMS or not, I still agree with Harris: freewill is an impossibility in any conceivable material system.The universe does not play dice.
What if you are the dice?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Skepdick »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:12 pm So, if we are in some extraterrestrial alien's "sim world", how would that be the same or different from hard determinism as the embodiment of nature itself?

Well, in part, I suppose, it would depend on whether this alien civilization was no less the embodiment of the laws of matter. Nature "programed" them to "program" us. And then going back to how it all fits into the ontological -- teleological? -- understanding of existence itself.
This doesn't in any way answer the actual question of determinism vs free will.

Being in a simulation doesn't in any way imply that the simulation is deterministic OR non-deterministic.
Being in a simulation doesn't preclude one from having free will either.

Creating a simulation doesn't in any way imply that the simulation is deterministic OR non-deterministic.
Creating a simulation doesn't bestow free will either.

The question of free will vs determinism suffers from the worst self-deceiving sleight-of-hand there is - the mind-projection fallacy.

Determinism and non-determinism are both properties of the algorithms running in the simulation.
They are NOT properties of the simulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterm ... rogramming

It remains fundamentally true that a deterministic; or a non-deterministic algorithm cannot determine whether the universe in which it finds itself is deterministic or non-deterministic!

The phrase "laws of nature" is also a mind-projection fallacy. Laws are mental constructs. They are properties of language and grammar. Laws of logic. Laws of arithmetic. Laws of geometry. Laws of the fundamental theory one is using to explain and interpret nature - laws of physics.

For all we know nature doesn't have any laws.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by promethean75 »

Yeah Hume pretty much settled the fact that causation cannot be an 'a posteriori' concept derived from experience. But I'd still maintain it on 'a priori' gounds along the same lines as Spinoza. Causation is more of an ontological necessity for material systems that exist in space/time. This has everything to do with the nature of the existing things (modifications), how they come to possess their properties, and how they interact in space.

Really the only way to make an indeterminate system conceivable would be to imagine every massive object in space/time as a kind of leibnizean 'monad' that is completely isolated from all contact with other monads (thereby being conditioned by nothing but itself). But, if this were the case, for every individual monad, you'd have an ontologically distinct fundamental substance. But this makes no sense, because composite objects are modifications of a single substance through which they are conceived. Take an atom, for instance. It is a collection of parts, and does not exist unless this arrangement of parts exists... so it cannot be said to be fundamental. In that case, an atom certainly can't be an isolated and unconditioned monad determined by nothing but itself.

'a priori' knowledge of causation comes axiomatically from an examination of what constitutes existing things, which spinoza lays out quite well in The Ethics.

Bless-ed is he whom with which such adequate knowledge is obtained, shall see the world clearly through the lens of the master grinder...

(really the theory of freewill is ridiculous. There's nothing to it. When you hear someone hollerin' 'freewill!', three things are happening. A) they're tryna make someone feel guilty to control them, B) they're tryna solicit praise so a nigga will like em, C) they're just a dummy, or D) they're scurred and feel powerless.)
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Skepdick »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:10 am Really the only way to make an indeterminate system conceivable would be to imagine every massive object in space/time as a kind of leibnizean 'monad' that is completely isolated from all contact with other monads (thereby being conditioned by nothing but itself).
"other monads" is non-sensical. The Monad is the global state transition function of the entire universe.

Given the global state of the universe at a particular point in time the monad is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent function which enacts all the global changes necessary to produce the global state of the world at the next point in time.

Liebniz's Monad is the Abrahamic God. Hence Monism
Age
Posts: 20198
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:47 pm
I think you sense the emptiness of that second description. Why would "autonomy" be present in a world of mindless matter and material laws? That explanation just "pops it in" gratuitously, as a "somehow."
Well, as with most of us here, I am not a neuroscientist. I don't have either the education or the experiential/experimental background to grasp how the human brain, given the evolution of life on Earth, did come to acquire actual volition/autonomy/free will. What else is there really [for those like me] but "somehow" it happened.
Your first mistake here is ASSUMING or BELIEVING that it is the human brain that acquired actual volition/autonomy/free will.

The human brain does NOT work like that.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pm I understand. But I have read at least some of the neuroscientific research and some of the philosophical reflection on that question, as well. And I can assure you that the best answers they've been able to come up with are not better than the one you offer: they have no idea either how a "mind" or a "consciousness," or an "identity" or a "morality" simplly "pop into" existence.
But those 'things', like thee Universe and Life also, NEVER "popped into" existence. To ASSUME ANY of them did is WHY ALL of 'you' have been led ASTRAY, are LOST, and CONFUSED. And, the reason WHY ALL of 'you' have NO idea how ANY of these 'things' simply "popped into" Existence is because they DID NOT and they COULD NOT.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pm They use the term "epiphenomenal" to refer to it, but even that term means no more, really, than "thing that happens suddenly, when an organism reaches a certain level of development, but without any mechanical or natural or causal connection that we know."
The Natural 'cause' of EXACTLY HOW ALL of these 'things' are connected and created, through evolution, is ALREADY KNOWN.

Some people, however, are just NOT 'ready' NOR 'prepared' for this LEARNING, and KNOWING.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pm What's remarkable is how intractable these things (mind, consciousness, etc.) have proven to be.
But what is MORE remarkable is just how quick and easy it REALLY is to come to KNOW EXACTLY HOW these 'things' EXIST.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pm We make great strides in neurphysiology, and none of them seem to help us make any progress on how these "epiphenomena" can actually come about.
And this is just because of the ABSURD and RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS 'you', adult human beings, HOLD ONTO.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pm I think that fact is a powerful reason to question the merely-mechanical or causal-physical model of the universe.
ANY "model" that has "a beginning" of EVERY thing, from NO thing, or from some thing called God or a Big Bang, which is somehow OUTSIDE of the Universe, or itself came from NO thing, is, OBVIOUSLY, bound to FAIL, and NEEDED questioning, 'from the very beginning', as some would say.

And, if you want to question 'things' here "immanuel can", then go on ahead and START questioning. Until then 'you' WILL REMAIN as CONFUSED and as CLOSED as you are right now, when this is being written.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pm There are things that happen here -- real things, things you and I experience every day -- that simply do not seem to be pliable to analysis by that model.
OF COURSE NOT. As I was saying, ANY model that, SUPPOSEDLY, came from SOME 'thing' that itself can NOT be EXPLAINED is DOOMED to FAIL from the outset.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pm
Mindful matter in the human brain has got to be one of the most profound mysteries of all.
Quite so. That's just the point worth noting.
But there is NO "mindful matter" IN the human brain.

AGAIN, here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of WHY these human beings, in the OLD DAYS when this was being written were SO CONFUSED.

ASSUMING things like they OBVIOUSLY did here just kept leading them FURTHER and FURTHER ASTRAY.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pm
I am an atheist myself. Well, "here and now" as I like to say. And to the extent that God is involved here two points...

1] did God Himself create the laws of matter or are the laws of matter such that even God Himself is compelled to abide by them
Sorry...I meant by identifying myself merely to let you place me on the spectrum of perspectives on Determinism, not to side-track the discussion into a debate on the merits of Theism. I've done plenty of that on other threads, and don't need to force the conversation that way here.

Nevertheless, let me briefly honour your question, if I may: the Supreme Being, if such exists, is by necessity and definition both, an uncreated Being. When we use the term "laws" we refer to regularities perceived by human observers, not to some set of ironclad rules the universe itself requires. Thus, the Supreme Being can interrupt, suspend or "rewrite" any such "laws" at His pleasure. Nevertheless, the "laws" are there so that human beings can navigate their cosmos and make investigations of it, so normally they remain intact, and by human beings, they are non-alterable.
2] if God is thought to be omniscient then how is human autonomy squared with that? How can God "know all" and that not include everything that we think, feel, say and do?
Again, at the risk of being unsatisfactory, I'll render an abbreviated answer, if I may, so as not to disregard your question. But we can explore that idea further in another discussion if you would prefer. Still, I think the "compatibilism" argument you have presented has merit, so I want to avoid derailing that train...however, this subtopic does have a little relevance to that question.

My answer is as follows: to "know" and to "arrange" are two different verbs. To say that God "knows" something does not imply He also "makes it happen." So Determinism does not automatically follow from God's foreknowledge. For that, people use a different word: "foreordination." However there is no indication that God "foreordains" all the events in the universe, and in fact every indication He does not. That means free will is a reality, within a Theistic framework.

For a Materialist one, I have no "Compatiblist" solution.
...for me it's how compatibilists make this crucial distinction [for them] between external and internal compulsion. That just doesn't make sense to me. That you know or do not know something that you were never able to know or not know other than in accordance with the only possible reality...?
That's astute, I think. You're right.

If Materialism is true, then "internal" compulsion is just the sum of prior material forces, just as "external" is thought to be. Perhaps the idea of "internality" makes them confuse themselves as the the nature of what holding to the Materialist / Physicalist sort of worldview demands, and makes them think some secret space has opened up for free will; but that seems obviously untenable to me, too.

So we're sort of left like this: most of us think, and all of us act as if free will exists. It's both routine and universal. But Materialism / Physicalism makes it absolutely certain that no free will can possibly exist, because any such exception would defeat their fundamental claim that their mechanics are comprehensive and explanatory of everything. So free will exists, and we have no idea how to explain it by those rules.

The simplest conclusion must surely be, "Then those rules are not correct." However comprehensive they may look, and however adequate for merely material things they may be, they don't seem to be doing any work for us on other important things. For if a paradigm or worldview cannot explain something that's so universal and natural as free will, some element must be missing from that paradigm. There are real things it's not explaining to us.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by promethean75 »

Actually no, leibniz talks of individual monads made up of unique substances, which doesn't square with spinoza's substance monism. Here's the famous dispute: https://frankdevita.wordpress.com/2012/ ... d-spinoza/

One of the difficulties with spinoza is understanding what is meant by 'substance', tho. It appears to be an abstract term for 'matter', but he denies that in fact and alludes to the notion of substance as 'that which stands beneath'. Look spinz'll get pretty fuckin cryptic at times so you gotta watch em.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Skepdick »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:58 am Actually no, leibniz talks of individual monads made up of unique substances, which doesn't square with spinoza's substance monism. Here's the famous dispute: https://frankdevita.wordpress.com/2012/ ... d-spinoza/

One of the difficulties with spinoza is understanding what is meant by 'substance', tho. It appears to be an abstract term for 'matter', but he denies that in fact and alludes to the notion of substance as 'that which stands beneath'. Look spinz'll get pretty fuckin cryptic at times so you gotta watch em.
The debate is moot. What one means by "substance" and what one means by "meaning" is a debate over connotation not denotation.

To a Monist "substance", "matter" and "energy" and "the universe" connote AND denote the same damn thing. Is just words.

The stupidity of it all is born right in the question "What is the nature of the world?". The question is what triggers the very state of confusion.

What is the nature of the world?
What is the nature of nature?
What is nature?
What is the world?
Nature is nature!
The world is the world!
Nature is the world!

Part and parcel of the confusion is the notion of "a priori" vs "a posteriori". Such a metaphysic does not account for time itself being a metaphysical phenomenon.

There is no such thing as "time" to any metaphysician without memory. But memory is space. But space and time can be traded off against each other!

Uh! Oh! Down the infinite regress hole we go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space%E2% ... e_tradeoff
Age
Posts: 20198
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:14 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:20 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:22 pm From Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue by Clifford Williams.



Yep, that is basically my own reaction to compatibilism. We have "conceptual"/"theoretical" freedom, but, for all practical purposes, we have no control over what we do because "internal" and "external" are seamlessly intertwined re the laws of matter.
So, if 'you' end up living in a Truly peaceful, harmonious, AND pollution free world, then it would be of absolutely NO doing on and from 'you', human beings.

Or, if 'you' end up living in a Truly pollution riddled world, which then leads to the extinction of 'you', human beings, was of absolutely NO 'freedom' of 'you' being able to CHOOSE what to do or what NOT to do.

'you' just do what you do without absolutely ANY 'freedom' at all to do otherwise.

To you, if 'you' and 'your' fellow human beings, end up creating a 'world' or 'way of life' that leads to ALL of 'you' going extinct, then 'you' had absolutely NO control over ANY of this AT ALL, correct?
You ask me these questions as though you expect that I am able to actually provide you with definitive answers.
Well you made the 'assertions' as though because you 'asserted' it, then that made it actually true. I was just asking you some CLARIFYING questions to SEE if you could ACTUALLY back up and support YOUR 'assertions', and CLAIMS. You now appear to NOT be able to do this AT ALL.

And, since I KNOW what the DEFINITIVE answers ARE to ALL of these questions, then WHY do you NOT KNOW, YET?

WHY can I KNOW and you STILL NOT?

WHAT do you ENVISION could be the REASON for this?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:14 pm My point is that even this exchange itself may be unfolding in the only possible manner because we live in the only possible world given that the human brains concocting it are no less the embodiment of matter embedded in "immutable laws".
Well this is what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

What you are YET TO LEARN is what the words 'free will' ACTUALLY mean or refer to, EXACTLY, which could FIT INTO a UNIFIED VIEW of Everything.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:14 pm The profound mystery
LOOK, and SEE if you are ABLE TO 'comprehend' AND 'understand' 'this'.

There is NO 'profound mystery' NOR ANY just 'mystery' to 'me' here. Do 'you' UNDERSTAND 'this'? Or, are those BELIEFS 'there' getting in the way of 'you' 'comprehending' AND 'understanding' 'this'?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:14 pm revolves around the human brain itself.
It is ACTUALLY the DISTORTED views, BELIEFS, AND ASSUMPTIONS, (within the brain), that is STOPPING and PREVENTING 'you', human beings, from being ABLE TO SEE and UNDERSTAND what thee ACTUAL Truths ARE HERE.

HOW the human brain works is REALLY VERY, VERY SIMPLE and EASY.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:14 pm And the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has been able to provide us with the definitive argument that resolves the age-old debate regarding free will and determinism.
I have TOLD 'you' ALREADY "iambiguous" the VERY REASON WHY that "age-old debate" (like all of the OTHER "age-old debates") will NEVER get RESOLVED.

And, it is for the VERY SIMPLE REASON that ANY 'debate' revolves around some PICKING "one side" and some PICKING "another side", and then 'you' ARGUE/FIGHT for the "side" that one has PICKED.

It is 'debating', itself, which is CAUSING 'things' to NOT be RESOLVED here.

And, the DEFINITIVE, or just SOUND and VALID, 'argument' that RESOLVES ALL of the "this" OR/VERSUS "that" ISSUES, in so-called "philosophical discussions", is FOUND, and KNOWN, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

The DEFINITIVE ARGUMENT that resolves that ONE very little issue INVOLVES BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXISTING TOGETHER. Which has ALREADY been PROVED IRREFUTABLY True.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:14 pm And I know this because had someone accomplished this that's all we would be discussing around the globe in venues like this.
But most of 'you', people, especially in venues like this, STILL BELIEVE that it HAS TO BE 'one' OR 'the other'. And, the reason WHY 'you' STILL BELIEVE this is true is because of the BELIEF 'you' HAVE that the "side" you PICKED HAS TO BE right because you BELIEVE it is true ALREADY.

And, this ALSO has ALREADY been PROVED IRREFUTABLY True, by just LOOKING BACK at the writings within this venue/forum.

The issue of 'free will' AND 'determinism' HAS ALREADY been RESOLVED, IS ALREADY KNOWN, IRREFUTABLY, and thus is ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED, once and for ALL. BUT, just like it was ALREADY KNOWN that the sun does NOT revolve around the earth at some particular point in history, it can take some human being MANY, MANY, MANY, years before they 'come around' to SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, ALSO.

I have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' that the DEFINITIVE ARGUMENT, of which absolutely NO one could REFUTE has ALREADY been FORMULATED, and thus ACCOMPLISHED, and that this 'issue' has ALREADY been RESOLVED. But, some, like "yourself", just will NOT 'accept' this Fact. Just like some did NOT 'accept' that ACTUALLY the earth revolves around the sun. Some, after all, do take MANY years to 'comprehend' and 'understand' some 'things' that "others" can 'comprehend' AND 'understand' almost immediately.

And then there are "others" who because of their well-maintained BELIEFS just NEVER 'come around' to SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, no matter how much ACTUAL PROOF is put BEFORE them. After all some STILL BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that the earth is flat.

But you were absolutely True, Right, AND Correct about the, "to the best of my knowledge no one has been able to provide a definitive argument that resolves the age-old debate regarding free will and determinism". But, NEVER FORGET that, "to the best of your knowledge" you have absolutely NO WAY of KNOWING what thoughts ACTUALLY exist within "OTHER" human heads. For all you know the DEFINITIVE ARGUMENT that resolves that little issue about 'free will' AND 'determinism' could have ALREADY been FORMULATED.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:14 pm On the other hand, it's all that much more surreal because even if someone had accomplished it and it was declared that human beings do have free will, that in and of itself might well be wholly determined.
As I have ALREADY ALLUDED to that a species will evolve some time with 'free will' WAS ALREADY DETERMINED.

If that species USES that 'free will' to PREVENT and STOP itself from becoming extinct, however, is ANOTHER issue/question. BUT, if that species does NOT, then it is of absolutely NO concern AT ALL to thee Universe - God- Itself, because at some OTHER time ANOTHER species will ALSO evolve with the ABILITY of 'free will' and with the INTELLIGENCE to be ABLE TO create thee WAY OF LIFE that 'it' Truly WANTS for itself, that EVENTUALLY 'this' will COME-TO-BE.

After all, within an infinite and eternal Universe, absolutely ANY thing is POSSIBLE, and so CAN come to fruition.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:14 pm We are stuck with brains trying to figure brains out going all the way back to the existence of existence itself.
If 'you', human beings, use the brain ONLY, then you will progress as SLOWLY as you have been, and will end up getting STUCK exactly where you are now, when this is being written.

The human brain is LIMITED, and so 'your' LEARNING will be VERY LIMITED ALSO.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:14 pm Why something instead of nothing? Why this something and not something else? Then the part about God.
Just so you are FULLY AWARE thee ACTUAL True, Right, and/or Correct ANSWERS for these questions has ALREADY been ANSWERED, and the DEFINITIVE, IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENTS for these answers are, ALSO, ALREADY AVAILABLE.

But, ONCE AGAIN, this is ONLY for thee Truly CURIOS of 'you'.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:14 pm Or the part about "reality" embedded in solipsism, or sim worlds, or dream worlds, or something out of the Matrix.
Age
Posts: 20198
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:18 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:59 am
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am

Well, as with most of us here, I am not a neuroscientist. I don't have either the education or the experiential/experimental background to grasp how the human brain, given the evolution of life on Earth, did come to acquire actual volition/autonomy/free will. What else is there really [for those like me] but "somehow" it happened.
What has ACTUALLY happened and occurred is REALLY VERY SIMPLE to EXPLAIN and VERY EASY to UNDERSTAND.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am Only I have no way of pinning down if even the words I am typing now I was ever able to opt not to type.
WHY can you NOT work out if what you are doing is your choice or not?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am Here I often come back to dreams. About a week ago I had this particular vivid dream -- a "work dream" -- in which I'm back at my old job. I'm about to be fired in the dream and there I am writing this letter to Will my boss. When I woke up I was astonished at how I was there in the dream writing this letter...as real to me then as my typing these words now. I still remember some of what I "wrote" about others I felt were responsible for the fate of the company.

Yet all of this "unfolded" by way of my brain alone.
Did it?

How do you KNOW this but do NOT KNOW if you can choose or not.

By the way who and/or what is the 'you', and, who and/or what is the one that has "its" 'brain'?

Work out all of this and then 'you' will be CLOSER to what it is that you are SEEKING here.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am Though, sure, I am no less convinced as most are that my "waking brain" is different. But, again, only different "somehow".

Mindful matter in the human brain has got to be one of the most profound mysteries of all.
LOL If you LOOK AT 'things' like you are here, then 'that' will REMAIN a MYSTERY forever.

There is NO 'mystery' here AT ALL, to some of us.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am

Yes, but, alas, I suspect that I will almost certainly "go to the grave" none the wiser.
Thinking or BELIEVING that there was "mindless matter" but somehow 'now' there is NOT will LEAVE 'you', people, completely AND utterly LOST and CONFUSED here.

'you' talk like you KNOW what you are saying but if questioned about your CLAIM of "mindless matter" 'you' would, literally, be COMPLETELY UNABLE to EXPLAIN ANY thing AT ALL that matches in with what is ACTUALLY True.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am

I am an atheist myself. Well, "here and now" as I like to say.
These people could NOT be MORE Wrong.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am And to the extent that God is involved here two points...

1] did God Himself create the laws of matter or are the laws of matter such that even God Himself is compelled to abide by them
Define what God is or refers to EXACTLY? Question WHY 'you' would call God, Itself, a "him", and then 'you will UNDERSTAND MORE how the 'laws of Nature' are related to God, Itself.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am 2] if God is thought to be omniscient then how is human autonomy squared with that?
VERY, VERY SIMPLY, and VERY, VERY EASILY.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am How can God "know all" and that not include everything that we think, feel, say and do?
LOL
LOL
LOL

WHY is there some PRESUMPTION that those things are NOT included?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am Logic is tricky because it revolves around the rules of language.
AND, it is the WORDS you USE and the WAY you USE them WHY you have been 'tricked' or 'fooled' the way you HAVE BEEN.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am And language revolves around the human species.
Well human language does, but this is just PLAIN OBVIOUS, and REALLY would NOT need saying, would it?

This would be like saying, 'Dolphin language revolves around the dolphin species'. Or, are you saying that ALL animal languages revolve around the human species?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am Or so it seems unless there are other intelligent life forms "out there".
Then they would have their OWN language, correct.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am But, from the perspective of most atheists, human beings have only been around for a tiny sliver of time cosmologically. Then back to how mindless matter evolved into living biological matter evolving into us.
WHERE is this ASSUMPTION that there was "mindless matter" coming from EXACTLY?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am

Yes, that's the deep mystery.
LOL AGAIN, there is NO 'mystery' AT ALL. Well to me anyway.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am But for me it's how compatibilists make this crucial distinction [for them] between external and internal compulsion. That just doesn't make sense to me.
OF COURSE it would NOT make sense, to you. This is because of the BELIEFS that you currently have and are MAINTAINING.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am That you know or do not know something that you were never able to know or not know other than in accordance with the only possible reality...?
But, if as some CLAIM absolutely EVERY thing HAPPENS because of 'determinism", then that 'I' KNOW 'things' that 'you' do NOT YET KNOW is because this is what WAS going to happen ALL ALONG.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am

Well here I always come back to two assumptions:
And here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY this one is STILL so LOST and STILL so CONFUSED. That is; ASSUMING will only lead you ASTRAY.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am 1] "the gap". The gap between what we think we know about determinism and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself.
2] "Rummy's Rule". Donald Rumsfeld conjecture that...

"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."

And the assumption that's no less applicable to human autonomy.
ALL just MORE DISTRACTION.

We clearly have a "failure to communicate" here. So, I'll leave it at that.
YES. I say and write 'things' here, and you FAIL COMPLETELY to 'comprehend' and 'understand' those 'things', correct?
Age
Posts: 20198
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:22 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:18 pm We clearly have a "failure to communicate" here. So, I'll leave it at that.
I'm sad to say that those words could be written across any conversation anybody here has ever tried to have with "Age."
YES, and for the EXACT SAME REASON. That is; I say and write 'things' here, and 'you', posters, ALL FAIL COMPLETELY to 'comprehend' and 'understand' those 'things'.

Which is Truly AMAZING considering just how SIMPLE 'my wording' REALLY IS.

And, when LOOKED BACK OVER, Truly OPENLY, EVERY word I have said and written here is REALLY VERY, VERY SIMPLE and EASY to 'comprehend' AND 'understand'.
Age
Posts: 20198
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:26 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am

Well, as with most of us here, I am not a neuroscientist. I don't have either the education or the experiential/experimental background to grasp how the human brain, given the evolution of life on Earth, did come to acquire actual volition/autonomy/free will. What else is there really [for those like me] but "somehow" it happened.
I understand. But I have read at least some of the neuroscientific research and some of the philosophical reflection on that question, as well. And I can assure you that the best answers they've been able to come up with are not better than the one you offer: they have no idea either how a "mind" or a "consciousness," or an "identity" or a "morality" simplly "pop into" existence. They use the term "epiphenomenal" to refer to it, but even that term means no more, really, than "thing that happens suddenly, when an organism reaches a certain level of development, but without any mechanical or natural or causal connection that we know."
Indeed, the more you delve into it, the more perplexing -- exasperating -- it can become.
Whereas, I say the exact opposite, as the more I am delving into this the MORE SIMPLISTIC it is ALL Truly becoming.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:26 pm An antinomy. On the one hand, it seems clear that if the brain is but more matter, it is not the exception to the laws of matter.
But all one has to do is just LOOK AT the brain, to, literally, SEE that 'it' is NOTHING more than just 'physical matter', and can only and does only follow the so-called 'laws of matter'.

How the brain ACTUALLY WORKS PROVES this True.

However, when one LOOKS INTO 'thoughts' and thee 'Mind', then there is a completely OTHER 'picture' of 'things'.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:26 pm On the other hand, it seems certain that we are in fact able to freely choose among options.
OF COURSE 'you' ARE.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:26 pm It's somewhat analogous to the inhabitants of Flat World trying to grapple with the existence of our own three dimensional world. How to finally connect the two both theoretically and "for all practical purposes".
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pmWhat's remarkable is how intractable these things (mind, consciousness, etc.) have proven to be. We make great strides in neurphysiology, and none of them seem to help us make any progress on how these "epiphenomena" can actually come about.

I think that fact is a powerful reason to question the merely-mechanical or causal-physical model of the universe. There are things that happen here -- real things, things you and I experience every day -- that simply do not seem to be pliable to analysis by that model.
Then the part where "for all practical purposes" those who lead successful, accomplished lives insist that it is all of their own doing, while those who lead lives that are anything but can think to themselves "well, it's all 'beyond my control' anyway".
But "successful" and "accomplished" are just Truly 'relative'.

In other words, what one considers a "successful" and "accomplished" life "another one" would NOT.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:26 pm
And to the extent that God is involved here two points...

1] did God Himself create the laws of matter or are the laws of matter such that even God Himself is compelled to abide by them
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pm...the Supreme Being, if such exists, is by necessity and definition both, an uncreated Being. When we use the term "laws" we refer to regularities perceived by human observers, not to some set of ironclad rules the universe itself requires. Thus, the Supreme Being can interrupt, suspend or "rewrite" any such "laws" at His pleasure. Nevertheless, the "laws" are there so that human beings can navigate their cosmos and make investigations of it, so normally they remain intact, and by human beings, they are non-alterable.
Well, when it comes to the existence of the existence of God, it's somewhat analogous to QM. There are just things we do not understand. Perhaps can never understand.
2] if God is thought to be omniscient then how is human autonomy squared with that? How can God "know all" and that not include everything that we think, feel, say and do?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pmAgain, at the risk of being unsatisfactory, I'll render an abbreviated answer, if I may, so as not to disregard your question. But we can explore that idea further in another discussion if you would prefer. Still, I think the "compatibilism" argument you have presented has merit, so I want to avoid derailing that train...however, this subtopic does have a little relevance to that question.

My answer is as follows: to "know" and to "arrange" are two different verbs. To say that God "knows" something does not imply He also "makes it happen." So Determinism does not automatically follow from God's foreknowledge. For that, people use a different word: "foreordination." However there is no indication that God "foreordains" all the events in the universe, and in fact every indication He does not. That means free will is a reality, within a Theistic framework.
Here, of course, in the absence of a God, the God revealing Himself, we are dealing with sheer speculation. If, an hour ago, God knows I am going to be typing these words, how could I not be typing them? What can omniscience really mean if it does not include a knowledge of everything past, present and furure? How, in turn, does He not make it happen?

Though, sure, the way I "think it through" makes sense only given the assumptions I start out with. Others begin with different assumptions. But what doesn't change [for me] is the absence of demonstrable evidence that a God, the God does in fact exist. The One with the "final answer".

Same thing with regard to theodicy. Theodicy and so-called "acts of God". Natural disasters here on planet Earth that have destroyed the lives of millions. If God was only able to create planet Earth in accordance with the laws of matter then He is not really responsible for the natural disasters themselves.
...for me it's how compatibilists make this crucial distinction [for them] between external and internal compulsion. That just doesn't make sense to me. That you know or do not know something that you were never able to know or not know other than in accordance with the only possible reality...?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:11 pmThat's astute, I think. You're right.

If Materialism is true, then "internal" compulsion is just the sum of prior material forces, just as "external" is thought to be. Perhaps the idea of "internality" makes them confuse themselves as the the nature of what holding to the Materialist / Physicalist sort of worldview demands, and makes them think some secret space has opened up for free will; but that seems obviously untenable to me, too.

So we're sort of left like this: most of us think, and all of us act as if free will exists. It's both routine and universal. But Materialism / Physicalism makes it absolutely certain that no free will can possibly exist, because any such exception would defeat their fundamental claim that their mechanics are comprehensive and explanatory of everything. So free will exists, and we have no idea how to explain it by those rules.

The simplest conclusion must surely be, "Then those rules are not correct." However comprehensive they may look, and however adequate for merely material things they may be, they don't seem to be doing any work for us on other important things. For if a paradigm or worldview cannot explain something that's so universal and natural as free will, some element must be missing from that paradigm. There are real things it's not explaining to us.
I think it comes back again to the mystery of mind itself. It's easy to grasp "external" constraints/compulsions in our life. Someone puts a gun to your head or circumstances all around you unfold such that you really have no viable option but to behave in a particular way. But "internally" your thoughts and feelings just seem -- viscerally -- to be all your own. In a way that is different from external factors. But suppose there is no difference? Suppose the dreaming mind and the waking mind are six of one, half a dozen of another?

Then back to how we can finally know for sure. Only even when we do convince ourselves that we finally know for sure that might be only because given the laws of matter no less applicable to the human brain we were never able not to convince ourselves of this.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Sculptor »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:22 pm From Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue by Clifford Williams.
Frederick [Mr. Free Will]: Can you explain why in your sense a person can be both free and determined?

Carolyn [Ms. Compatibilist]: Yes. A person can be free and determined because what he does can be caused by something that goes on inside him even though he is not forced by some circumstances outside of him to act as he does. If he is not forced by circumstances outside of himself to act as he does, then he acts freely. Yet his action could nonetheless be caused by something inside him, such as an unconscious motive or a brain state.

Frederick: ...a person could have freedom in your sense even though he had no control over anything he does. Let me explain. If everything a person does is caused by unconscious motives, as you say, then he would have no control over anything that he does. Unknown to him, he would be buffeted about by the workings of his unconscious mind. Yet such a person would have freedom in your sense of freedom because no external circumstances would prevent him from doing what he consciously wants to do. That means your conception of freedom is a sham --- a person who has freedom in your sense does not have control over what he does.
Yep, that is basically my own reaction to compatibilism. We have "conceptual"/"theoretical" freedom, but, for all practical purposes, we have no control over what we do because "internal" and "external" are seamlessly intertwined re the laws of matter.
Any free act has to be the result of internal causes. Where else is there? You are mistaking what "we" is. We are a microcosm of the universe and act like all other things in the universe. What the "we" is in your sentence are individuated agents of change. And what we want directs our actions that can change the world around us. If we are not forced or compelled from outside forces then we are free.
WE have control over the outside world. Being free mean doing what we will but how can we will as we will. It matters not how many times you think back on the paths of causality, eventually you have to confront determinism within.
When I make a choice it is thankfully based on antecedant factors such as motivation, volition, education, experience. and so on. When I act, I act determinedly, not by a whim, not capriciously, but determined by my will.

Consider this thought experiment.
I am on a pathway about to choose between several different pathways. Then...
The world is in an instant duplicated so that there are two exact versions.
Word A and world B - in each every molecule and state of energy is in the same state.
How would it be possible that the two worlds separate by me making a free choice, or am I bound to act the same in each?
If you think I would choose differently say how and why.
Age
Posts: 20198
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:27 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:58 am Indeed, the more you delve into it, the more perplexing -- exasperating -- it can become. An antinomy. On the one hand, it seems clear that if the brain is but more matter, it is not the exception to the laws of matter. On the other hand, it seems certain that we are in fact able to freely choose among options. It's somewhat analogous to the inhabitants of Flat World trying to grapple with the existence of our own three dimensional world. How to finally connect the two both theoretically and "for all practical purposes".
Right. And yet, we have to. Because you and I have to wake up each day, and decide whether "choosing" something is worth doing. So as tough as it is, it's not the sort of question that we can shelve until we find a practical application for it; the practical application is, in fact, everything we do, every day.

How ironic.
Then the part where "for all practical purposes" those who lead successful, accomplished lives insist that it is all of their own doing, while those who lead lives that are anything but can think to themselves "well, it's all 'beyond my control' anyway".
Yes, you've got it. And this brings us to the point where the ethicists become involved. For it's a matter of what they call "praise" and "blame."

To illustrate, if I win the Academy Award for best picture...do I deserve it? I'd like to think, yes. But if my production was merely the cumulation of previous inevitable forces, why am I on the podium, taking the award and smiling?
Because 'you', adult human beings, are GREEDY and SELFISH.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:27 pm Should not every Academy Award simply be given to "the Universe"? :wink:

And on the other hand, if I am caught standing over a body, with a bloody knife in my hands, and I say, "Well, her death was inevitable, given the previous causal-material chains in play," is that an excuse for my actions? Should the only entity in jail actually be "the Universe," too?
If, an hour ago, God knows I am going to be typing these words, how could I not be typing them?
You obviously ARE going to be typing them, then. But again, we need to realize what the shape of the problem really is: it's not with God's foreknowledge, or "omniscience," but only with the conjunction of omniscience with some sort of divine action of compulsion or force.

To say again: "knowing" is not "making." For you see, I did anticipate that you would, in some form, respond to this message. You might say I knew you would respond -- and as it turns out, it seems that my knowledge of that fact was correct, too. You might say I had "perfect foreknowledge" that you would respond.

Of course, my knowledge is never "perfect." Still, in this case, it was verifiably correct, and we cannot now doubt it, can we?

But my question to you might be this: "Did my knowing MAKE you write back to me?" Did I seize your hand, and move it on the keyboard for you? Did I compel the surges in your brain, through my foreknowing of what you would do, so that you no longer had a choice but had to write back?

Or is the case much simpler? Can I know what you're going to do, and not make you do it?
Same thing with regard to theodicy. Theodicy and so-called "acts of God". Natural disasters here on planet Earth that have destroyed the lives of millions. If God was only able to create planet Earth in accordance with the laws of matter then He is not really responsible for the natural disasters themselves.
Well, He'd at least be responsible for starting the causal chain and setting up the law-conditions that made the disaster possible. But you're right: it wouldn't necessarily mean he had personally engineered the rockslide or the tidal wave.

But as far as theodicy goes, Susan Neiman, in her book Evil In Modern Thought, comes up with a useful distinction between personal disasters (like murder or fraud, say, where there is a definite human agent involved) and natural disasters (like avalanches, earthquakes and cancers, where there is no discernable human agent responsible for what happened). And she says (quite rightly, I think) that any proper theodicy would have to deal with both kinds of "evil," not just shift everything to one or the other.

So that's a good way to structure the theodicy problem, I would think.
I think it comes back again to the mystery of mind itself. It's easy to grasp "external" constraints/compulsions in our life. Someone puts a gun to your head or circumstances all around you unfold such that you really have no viable option but to behave in a particular way. But "internally" your thoughts and feelings just seem -- viscerally -- to be all your own. In a way that is different from external factors.
That's nicely put. I think that's right: we do seem to feel a kind of "existential" difference, don't we? And it's something that a Materialist or Physicalist explanation is going to have to say is nonsense. For them, it cannot be the case that internal and external inducements have any real difference, since ultimately, both must originate externally.

The short step toward the internal, just before we act, must be something that creates or induces the illusion of difference...but no real difference actually exists, they would have to say. Our "internality," like "externalities," are just physical-material actions.
But suppose there is no difference?

Yes, that would have to be what they would have to insist.
Then back to how we can finally know for sure.

Here we do get into epistemology.

For we then have to ask, is that a reasonable expectation on our part? How much of what we call "knowledge" do we actually possess on a "for sure" basis? And if we don't need, in order to get up in the morning, to know "for sure" that there will be a floor beneath our feet when we put them down, how important is it for human creatures to possess "for sure" knowledge?

Doesn't high-probabilty knowledge function for us as if it were "for sure" in most things we do? Don't we feel quite secure in putting our feet down to the floor in the morning? And wouldn't we regard it as a little petty and "philosophical" in the worst sense of that word, if somebody were to say, "Well, you really didn't know for sure that the floor would be there"?
Only even when we do convince ourselves that we finally know for sure that might be only because given the laws of matter no less applicable to the human brain we were never able not to convince ourselves of this.
Ah, yes...this is a major, major problem.

If my knowledge is actualy reporting to me not on the basis of things true but on the basis of whatever previous material-physical chains caused me to think, why should I trust the pronouncements of my own brain?

This is a very serious, but little realized, critique of the Materialist or Physicalists worldviews: if Materialism is true, then science is not a matter of truths being discovered; rather, its products are simply whatever the material-physical causes dumped into my material-physical brain. How should I privilege scientific "dumpings" of that kind above any regular "dumpings" of ordinary events?

It's like we would have to say, "The reason Galileo knew the Earth moved is because the material-physical causes of the universe made him think so," instead of, "Galileo knew the Earth moved because he had observed and calculated it." We would have to say it was material happenstance, not scientific knowledge, that was behind his discovery.

And, of course, the same would be true for all science. None of it would be anything other than material-causal phenomena. And material-casual phenomena do not, themselves have any view of whether it's better for us to see truth or delusions.
Post Reply