compatibilism

[BigMike]

I do have a will

Okay, let's talk about that.

You have a will (which I suppose is not part & parcel of consciousness or mind).

How does your will work? Where in your brain is it? How does your brain create it (or the sense of intent you feel when you exercise it)?

You persist in engaging in speculation, then?

Let me first say that is doesn't matter what will is; if it is nonphysical it can not control your actions. Period.

In speculating, I would compare it (our will) to the blueness of the sky, or the greenness of grass. It is the perception of a physical sensation. Take the will to eat, for instance. When the body's energy reserves are sufficiently depleted the stomach will produce a hormone (ghrelin) signaling a sense of pain or discomfort: hunger. As children, after being fed, the pain went away. We quickly learned that at the first sign of hunger pain, we should start looking for something to eat. Our will to eat is "forced" upon us, by necessity, otherwise we die.

Similarly, all of our basic needs (air, water, shelter, etc. ref Maslow's pyramid of needs, for example) get worse and worse unless they are met. If ignored, they will all lead to death. Similarly, safety needs, social needs, etc. drive us to eliminate the pain and suffering associated with each of them. Unmet, they may lead to serious illness, mental disorder, suicide, etc. The basic needs are the source of our will, as I see it. Unmet needs are what motivate us to act; our drive to meet them becomes our "will".

But then again, it really doesn't matter what a will is with respect to the free will question; it is not and cannot be free.

[iambiguous]

you won't actually cite examples of this

From RL? Hell no I won't. Last thing I need is you, after figurin' out where exactly I am, showin' up on my stoop.

Unbelievable! I'm able to note all of the instances in which I came to believe I was wrong about the "big stuff" here in "real life"...

...I once had to admit to myself that I was wrong about Christianity, then wrong about Unitarianism then wrong about Marxism then wrong about Leninism then wrong about Trotskyism then wrong about Democratic Socialism then wrong about the Social Democrats then wrong about objectivism altogether.

...without fearing you will show up on my stoop.

I don't like you much, but I don't wanna shoot your obese, agoraphobic self. I mean, jeez, I don't wanna have to haul your carcass offa my lawn (and I don't wanna pay anyone to do it either).

Note to others:

You tell me what this tells us about him!!

Note to Flash Dangerpants:

I doubt he's readin' this thread: send him a private message.

Better than that, I started a new thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35405

Nothing from you there yet though.

How do you calculate this? Given that those at the other end of the political spectrum will often argue exactly the same thing in regard to a "a well regulated Militia".

How in interpreting the meaning of that does one acquire a point of view such that there is only a remote possibility of them being wrong?

What I suspect of course is that in coming to embody the "psychology of objectivism" above, they believe that which most comforts and consoles them. It's not what they believe about guns but that what they believe about guns allows them to, among other things, voice disdain regarding those fools who don't share their own arrogant and self-righteous convictions.

What do I assert, biggy?

Things like this:

I say I'm a free will with natural rights. If I'm wrong, then I'm a determined meat machine with no right to anything. The calculation, then is pretty clear.

Not clear at all given that you, like all the rest of us, have no way in which to untangle all of the variables here...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

...in order to demonstrate that what you construe to be clarity here is not anything more than than your brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, thinking and posting what it could never have not thought and posted. We're all entangled in the profound mystery that is mindful matter. You "solve" it [given human autonomy] by positing a God that gave you a Soul. A God you "thought up" and in no way, shape or form can actually demonstrate the existence of. Or, rather, to the best of my current knowledge.

What I suspect of course is that in coming to embody the "psychology of objectivism" above, they believe that which most comforts and consoles them. It's not what they/you believe about guns but that what they/you believe about guns allows them/you to, among other things, voice disdain regarding those fools who don't share their/your own arrogant and self-righteous convictions..

Oh, I don't need a gun for that. I'd voice my confident and righteous disdain for you and your schtick to your face, empty-handed (just not on my lawn).

Right, like the objectivists from the other end of the political spectrum aren't voicing the same confident and righteous contempt for you and your ilk. Some empty handed, though others no doubt fully armed with all manner of guns and weapons.

you completely avoid owning up to how this...is also applicable to you.

I don't comment cuz I don't know what you're sayin'.

This again:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

Who else here doesn't understand the point I am making regarding just how surreal this quandary is for us? Brains trying to pin down brains themselves. Going all the way back to fitting them into the existence of existence itself.

This part:

the laws of nature compel your brain to delude you into thinking that your brain is not deluding you into thinking that you post what you do of your own volition.

Well, that seems an awfully convoluted, self-defeatin', anti-evolutionary thing for Nature to do. Of what possible benefit is what you believe is illusion, mind/free will, to a meat machine whose purposes are to move heat around and to reproduce?

Of course, this just brings up the question of teleology. If it's not your God who created an existence enabling mere mortals to contemplate things like "benefits" and "purposes", was it nature itself? Is there a meaning part to Nature?

Whereas I always come back to this here: click.

In other words...

assuming that we do possess free will.

Only that assumption in and of itself may be embedded in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

We're all stuck in the gap between what we think we know about free will and all that there is to be known about it...going back to how the "human condition" itself fits into all we would need to know about the existence of existence itself.

Not me. If you are, you're there by choice.

Not you. In other words, in your head, you believe this. And that need be as far as it goes in order to make it true. And you can demonstrate to us that my choice here is a manifestation of free will...how?

Simple enough perhaps: your brain compels you to assert that it is so.

Please. From the day we are born until well into our teens we are indoctrinated by others to see our life as they do. And then as adults in a free will world how we come to think of our life is profoundly embedded in a particular historical and cultural and experiential context. We come to have particular sets of experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge that commonsense tells us will predispose us to embrace one set of political prejudices rather than another.

I'm sorry your ma & pa abused you (not really).

Once again, allowing yourself to be reduced down to what passes as a..."clever" retort? Prime New ILP material.

What you won't do, in my view, is to examine my point here in depth in regard to your own existential self, your own hopelessly subjective value judgments.

I once had to admit to myself that I was wrong about Christianity, then wrong about Unitarianism then wrong about Marxism then wrong about Leninism then wrong about Trotskyism then wrong about Democratic Socialism then wrong about the Social Democrats then wrong about objectivism altogether.

Well, aren't you the flailin' about lookin' for absolutely any port in a storm sob story!

A hint: you went in the wrong direction.

That's all you can come up with until you go into depth regarding the reasons that you yourself changed your mind about the "big stuff".

And I promise you I won't show up on your stoop if you do.

Then this...

can a nihilist be moral?

Sure. It depends on the extent to which in a No God world [an assumption] a nihilist is able to think him or herself into accepting one or another Humanist moral and political agenda as more or less rational. Not all nihilists are as fractured and fragmented as "I" am.

In other words: no.

Note to others:

How pathetic is this? He asked the question. I gave him an answer. Which he then completely ignores in order to basically insist that the only correct answer [his] is "No.".

[henry quirk]

Let me first say that is doesn't matter what will is(.)

You don't care or know how consciousness or mind works; you don't know or care how will works; you just accept they do and have faith it all boils down to cause & effect.

Well, okay, Dom.

[henry quirk]

Unbelievable! I'm able to note all of the instances in which I came to believe I was wrong about the "big stuff" here in "real life"...

I'm not a lemming.

*

without fearing you will show up on my stoop

I wouldn't cuz I have a life.

*

You tell me what this tells us about him!!

That I wouldn't waste the contents of my bladder to put you out if you were on fire?

*

Better than that, I started a new thread

I saw that.

*

Nothing from you there yet though

I'm not postin' there.

*

Not clear at all

Sure it is.

I'm a free will with natural rights. If I'm wrong, then I'm a determined meat machine with no right to anything. The calculation, then is pretty clear.

Seems clear to me.

*

Who else here doesn't understand the point I am making

I understand your point. It's crap.

*

What you won't do, in my view, is to examine my point here in depth

Your point is a deep as a sheet of loose leaf is thick. It's been examined and dismissed.

*

I gave him an answer.

Which I cleaned up, shortened, and laid out.

[BigMike]

Let me first say that is doesn't matter what will is(.)

You don't care or know how consciousness or mind works; you don't know or care how will works; you just accept they do and have faith it all boils down to cause & effect.

Well, okay, Dom.

To be more precise, I am aware that if consciousness, mind, and free will are physical/material, then they must adhere to the laws of physics and cannot be "free". Alternatively, if they are nonphysical/immaterial, they cannot interact with my brain and therefore cannot control my body's actions. There is nothing mysterious or spooky about this. In this context, I care little about how they are defined or what they are. It is inconsequential.

[henry quirk]

To be more precise, I am aware that if consciousness, mind, and free will are physical/material, then they must adhere to the laws of physics and cannot be "free". Alternatively, if they are nonphysical/immaterial, they cannot interact with my brain and therefore cannot control my body's actions.

Well, we've already established you don't know or care so we can leave that alone. You have faith: I can respect that.

One last thing, though, just to wrap it up: is information material or immaterial?

[Iwannaplato]

To be more precise, I am aware that if consciousness, mind, and free will are physical/material, then they must adhere to the laws of physics and cannot be "free". Alternatively, if they are nonphysical/immaterial, they cannot interact with my brain and therefore cannot control my body's actions.

Well, we've already established you don't know or care so we can leave that alone. You have faith: I can respect that.

One last thing, though, just to wrap it up: is information material or immaterial?

Just to add to this:
physical/material are not longer meaninful words. What they now mean is stuff that is verified as real. Regardless of it's qualities.
In the past we had dualisms and arguments about which substance was the only substance: ideas, matter, spirit...back to the preSocratics with water, etc.

Included as physical are things like particles in superposition, fields, massless particles, things that are waves and particles at the same time. If we decide something is real it gets called physical, even if doesn't share qualites with rocks and chairs.

Further everyone treast science as if it is finished. It ain't finished.

People will also argue that consciousness is only in brains. How do they know that? All they know so far is other functions of neural networks. They assume, for some reason, that only neural networks have consciousness. But they don't know this. They assume that complexity is necessary for consciousness, but they don't know this. They used to assume in science, up until the 70s that animals were machine-like. It was damaging to your career to talk about animal motivations, emotions, intentions, awareness. Now what is conscious has broadened. If I mention that many scientists now believe that plants likely experience, this gets poopooed because people are nto aware of the bias they have have coming out of Descartes and even Christianity.

[BigMike]

One last thing, though, just to wrap it up: is information material or immaterial?

If information doesn't interact with matter, which it doesn't, it's not material.

[henry quirk]

One last thing, though, just to wrap it up: is information material or immaterial?

If information doesn't interact with matter, which it doesn't, it's not material.

Okay. Software (instructions for hardware) is information, which is immaterial. So how does software interact with hardware?

[henry quirk]

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=587789 time=1659480533 user_id=472]
[quote=BigMike post_id=587774 time=1659475493 user_id=22744]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=587768 time=1659473736 user_id=472]
One last thing, though, just to wrap it up: is information material or immaterial?
[/quote]

If information doesn't interact with matter, which it doesn't, it's not material.
[/quote]

Okay. Software (instructions for hardware) is information, which is immaterial. So how does software interact with hardware?
[/quote]

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. That's all there is to it.

[henry quirk]

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. That's all there is to it.

Mebbe so.

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=587804 time=1659489030 user_id=472]
[quote=Advocate post_id=587795 time=1659482817 user_id=15238]
Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. That's all there is to it.
[/quote]

Mebbe so.
[/quote]

If the brain can't do it, the mind can't do it. If it's in a mind, there's a neural correlate.

[BigMike]

One last thing, though, just to wrap it up: is information material or immaterial?

If information doesn't interact with matter, which it doesn't, it's not material.

Okay. Software (instructions for hardware) is information, which is immaterial. So how does software interact with hardware?

Software is a classification of data imprinted on the surface layer of one or more rotating disks using various electronic, magnetic, optical, or mechanical modifications. It is physical. The computer's operating system is hardwired (by humans) to read that information and transfer it to it's internal memory when the user clicks keys in a certain sequence or turns the computer on and it executes the program one line at a time. It may seem like magic to some, but it's not. I myself have written several high quality commercial computer programs that customers have paid to acquire. It's hard work.
When I was studying mathematical logic, we used to distinguish between a logical statement's syntax (the physical black ink depicting letters and symbols on the page of a book) and its semantics (the meaning of those symbols). The syntax is obviously physical, the semantics is not. Computers must be instructed (by humans who made the computer's hardware, its CPU) what to do when it reads the syntax of software, and software writers must make sure that their software complies with those rule. If not, the software may crash.

[Belinda]

Moreover, we can imagine circumstances we've not actually experienced and work to bring them about. We can anticipate dangers we've never actually experienced and lay in defenses or safeguards.

We aren't stuck in what was or what is. We can play with and attempt to make real (or, attempt to keep from becomin' real) what if and what could be.

I couldn't agree more!

So, I can count you as my plus one for the next meeting of the Libertarian Free Willies (AKA: the Screw Determinism Club)?

Determinism means everything that happened in the past had to happen and could not have been otherwise than it was. Determinism does not mean that what happened in the past must happen in the future especially to men who are relatively free men. Relatively free men have many choices, slaves have few choices, whereas inanimate things have no choices at all.