compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Free will, the Holocaust, and The Problem of Evil
David Kyle Johnson
"Wenn es einen Gott gibt muß er mich um Verzeihung bitten."
anonymous

This German quote, which translates as “If there is a God, he will have to beg my forgiveness,” appears in a documentary about the Mauthausen concentration camp.
Who among us would dare to go that far? What if we do have free will and we have it because God intended us to have it. On Judgement Day, after He explains exactly how our free will can be reconciled with His own omniscience, will we be given the chance to judge Him?

Starting with the Holocaust for some and for others starting with this...
...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...
Or does our free will revolve entirely around worshipping and adoring Him despite all of the things it might seem reasonable for Him to ask our forgiveness for.

Or has Harold Kushner himself having just died recently now been able to confirm that in fact God is not in the least omnipotent?
It was supposedly written by an unknown prisoner there, on the wall, during the holocaust. Because the walls have long since been painted over, the veracity of this claim is difficult to verify—but there is little reason to doubt it. The events of the holocaust have long raised questions about God’s existence, and why (if he exists) God would allow such suffering; so it’s not hard to imagine that a prisoner in one of Hitler’s concentration camps, in the throes of despair, would have etched such a thing on the wall of their prison cell.
It would be interesting to know the reaction of the other prisoners after reading it. Would some, smack dab in the middle of a death camp that an omnipotent God permitted to exist, consider it to be blasphemy? Would the prisoner who wrote it be hounded into taking it off the wall...to recant and beg forgiveness from God?
Now this quote is far from a clearly articulated argument with a specific conclusion. But once we realize that conditional (if… then) statements like this can be translated into disjunctive (either…or) statements, the potential conclusions the prisoner might have had in mind become clear. So translated, the quote becomes this:

"Either God doesn’t exist or he will have to beg for my forgiveness"

If we add in the assumption that God certainly exists, then the conclusion becomes that God will have to beg the prisoner for forgiveness. And from there, it is a short step to the conclusion that God is morally imperfect (I); any divine being that has done something to apologize for, by definition, cannot be morally perfect.
On the other hand, it's not for nothing that the arguments of those like Harold Kushner manage to comfort the faithful. It's not that God is morally imperfect but that He is not omnipotent. He created the Heavens and the Earth but He found Himself unable to fully control it. For example, suppose in creating the laws of matter, God Himself is not permitted to transcend the consequences of them in regard to those "natural disaster" above?

So, when you die and Judgment Day arrives, if you truly do worship and adore God, then your soul is saved and you are in Heaven. And once there all of the souls of the faithful who perished in those "natural disasters" are there as well.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by popeye1945 »

God was there, he was wearing an SS uniform. Hard to miss among the wretched.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by promethean75 »

For those unfamiliar with Libet's experiment, of which there are few if any I hope, Harris, Sam will give u the low down @ 16:32
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

promethean75 wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 2:29 pm For those unfamiliar with Libet's experiment, of which there are few if any I hope, Harris, Sam will give u the low down @ 16:32
"Were you free to choose that which did not occur to you to choose?"

I think that's a really interesting thought experiment. It may not necessarily prove anything one way or the other depending on who you're talking to and how they conceptualise free will, but it's an interesting thing to be aware of, I think no matter how you conceptualise free will.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

promethean75 wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 2:29 pm For those unfamiliar with Libet's experiment, of which there are few if any I hope, Harris, Sam will give u the low down @ 16:32
Of course, how far back does Harris take this himself?

Did his own brain compel him "beyond his control" as, say, libertarians understand this, to make the points that he did in that argument?

This is what I cannot wrap my own head around. How far back can this "gap" be taken? Clearly the brain is "in charge" regarding the preponderance of functions that autonomically our body parts [down to the billion billion billion atoms in it] perform routinely day after day after day.

But is there any part of Sam's argument that "somehow" allows him to legitimately think that his points are more rational than those who oppose them?

Or is all of that just an illusion as well?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Free Will’s Absurdist Paradox
How Camus’ Absurdism unifies Compatibilism and Incompatibilism
Daniel Miessler
And finally we have the big one. The very concept of “should” is completely inert in a world where free will does not exist.

Why do we try to be better people?
Why do we dislike bad people?
Why do we try to create anything?
Why not lay in bed and wait for the universe to just happen?
Inert:

1] "having no inherent power of action, motion, or resistance (opposed to active): inert matter."
2] "inactive...by habit or nature."


Okay, but as some determinists [compelled or not] understand this, we are inert as all other matter is...having no power whatsoever to do anything other than what our material brain does compel us to do.

Those aliens in the free will part of the universe may observe us choosing things just as they do. But they know that we are to laws of matter in the wholly determined part of the universe what actors are to a film director...doing what we're told. What we are directed to do by the script.

Only our own brains are simply not capable of pinning down what that actually means. And may never be able to.

And then the part where even if we do "somehow" have free will who gets to say what makes people better, or what makes them bad? When and where and why?

In the interim, we are left noting things like this:
As logically-minded Incompatibilists we simply must accept that believing there is no free will must invalidate the entire concept of “should”, including everything that comes with it.

Planning. Praise. Punishment—all these concepts pivot on the belief that there are options in human behavior.
Well, that settles...what exactly? After all, here I am posting thoughts that I find it absolutely ridiculous to believe are not my own. But then I'm back to what "here and now" my brain notes regarding the truly persuasive arguments of the determinists. So, I think/"think" that I am one of them.

And then in regard to this thread my reaction/"reaction" to the compatibilists who insist that even if my brain does compel me to think what I do about what I do think about determinism I am still responsible for thinking it.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: compatibilism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=iambiguous post_id=645555 time=1685546218 user_id=4948]
Free Will’s Absurdist Paradox
How Camus’ Absurdism unifies Compatibilism and Incompatibilism
Daniel Miessler

[quote]And finally we have the big one. The very concept of “should” is completely inert in a world where free will does not exist.

Why do we try to be better people?
Why do we dislike bad people?
Why do we try to create anything?
Why not lay in bed and wait for the universe to just happen?[/quote]

[b]Inert:

1] "having no inherent power of action, motion, or resistance (opposed to active): inert matter."
2] "inactive...by habit or nature."[/b]

Okay, but as some determinists [compelled or not] understand this, we are inert as all other matter is...having no power whatsoever to do anything other than what our material brain [i]does[/i] compel us to do.

Those aliens in the free will part of the universe may observe us choosing things just as they do. But they know that we are to laws of matter in the wholly determined part of the universe what actors are to a film director...doing what we're told. What we are directed to do by the script.

Only our own brains are simply not capable of pinning down what that actually means. And may never be able to.

And then the part where even if we do "somehow" have free will who gets to say what makes people better, or what makes them bad? When and where and why?

In the interim, we are left noting things like this:

[quote]As logically-minded Incompatibilists we simply must accept that believing there is no free will must invalidate the entire concept of “should”, including everything that comes with it.

Planning. Praise. Punishment—all these concepts pivot on the belief that there are options in human behavior.[/quote]

Well, that settles...what exactly? After all, here I am posting thoughts that I find it absolutely ridiculous to believe are not my own. But then I'm back to what "here and now" my brain notes regarding the truly persuasive arguments of the determinists. So, I [i]think[/i]/"think" that I am one of them.

And then in regard to this thread my [i]reaction[/i]/"reaction" to the compatibilists who insist that even if my brain does compel me to think what I do about what I do think about determinism I am still responsible for thinking it.
[/quote]

We feel as free as we remain Ignorant of causality.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by promethean75 »

"Were you free to choose that which did not occur to you to choose?"  - Harris, Sam

"I think that's a really interesting thought experiment. It may not necessarily prove anything" - Jesus, Flannel

in fact that statement alone doesn't prove or disprove freewill becuz not being able to choose what u aren't able to choose is a meaningless tautology. what we're interested in is whether we're able to choose with freewill what we can do.

you're not not free becuz u can't fly. not being able to fly doesn't prove u don't have freewill.

We'll let Harris, Sam get away with it tho becuz it doesn't detract from his overall argument there... his thing about analyzing experience and noticing how 'thoughts just appear' without any forethought, etc., and how, incidentally, there are so many things u can't choose to think becuz they don't occur to u... and if they do occur to u, u don't choose for them to occur, etc.

"Cairo just wasn't in the cards"
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Free Will’s Absurdist Paradox
How Camus’ Absurdism unifies Compatibilism and Incompatibilism
Daniel Miessler
For logically-minded Compatibilists, the impact comes with the realization that you can’t hold people responsible for having brain tumors or bad genes that affect and control their behavior. And then extending that out to realize—in accordance with Determinism—that the entire world is just a large, comprehensive set of those constraints that we also don’t control.
That's always my point: how far back does determinism go? Okay, we don't hold other animals responsible for what they do because their behaviors are propelled almost entirely by biological imperatives beyond their control. The same with human beings who are afflicted with brain tumors or crippling mental illnesses.

But "somehow" the brains of healthy human beings are presumed to be different. With them [God or No God] everything revolves around responsibility. And even though we can imagine that perhaps everything is beyond our control as well we certainly do not presume to live our lives as though that is case.
So think about where that leaves us as humans.

We’re speeding along on a molten rock, in the middle of vast emptiness, with the universe happening to us. We’re not making it happen. We’re observers. But because of the trick that evolution played on us, we experience our choices as if we made them.

This is the Absurdist Paradox of Free Will.
Basically, my own point as well. Only it is always difficult to capture this [philosophically or otherwise] because we can never be sure if the attempt itself either is or is not beyond our control. We then take these existential leaps of faith to one frame of mind or another. But how is that not also embedded in the paradox? Again: how far back does determinism go? Especially given that the universe itself had been around over 13 billion years before the matter that became human beings came on the scene.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Free will, the Holocaust, and The Problem of Evil
David Kyle Johnson
...one might even argue that a moral imperfection that allows God to permit the holocaust makes God downright evil. If, however, we add the assumption that God is, by definition, morally perfect and thus cannot do anything deserving of an apology, then the prisoner’s statement becomes part of an argument that God doesn’t exist.

"Either God doesn’t exist or he will have to beg for my forgiveness. If God exists, he is morally perfect. And if God is morally perfect, he cannot ever have to beg for my forgiveness. Thus, God does not exist."
Click.

And around and around some will go in this direction or around and around others will go reconciling the Holocaust with a morally perfect existing God.

How?

Of course: a morally perfect existing God, the morally perfect existing God, my morally perfect existing God's mysterious ways.

So, Mr. Atheist, go ahead, prove this is wrong.

Not only that but atheists of my ilk, in rejecting God and religion, are left dealing with the existential reality of living in an essentially meaningless and purposeless world, being fractured and fragmented morally and awaiting their own tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Sure, some will take pride in having the intellectual mettle and integrity to accept the consequences of living in a No God world. Me, I'm rather partial myself to finding a way back onto the path that leads to immortality and salvation.
Now, it’s entirely possible that the prisoner didn’t know which assumption to make, and thus which conclusion to draw. But it is the latter argument that is more interesting. After all, anyone can “tweak” their definition of God, after the evidence has already come in against him, so that they can continue to say that God exists. But it is another thing entirely to reject God’s existence all together.
Of course, here even the staunchest atheist is "for all practical purposes" an agnostic. After all, in a free will world, whether you entirely accept or reject God's existence you're still stuck with "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule".

Starting here:

* Why something instead of nothing?
* Why this something and not something else?
* Where does the human condition fit into the whole understanding of this particular something itself?
* What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
* What of the multiverse?
Indeed, the latter argument is essentially a version of the problem of evil, the classic argument which suggests that God must not exist because evil does. And what I would like to explore here is whether the evil of the holocaust can be used as a reason to justifiably conclude that God does not exist.
In other words, philosophically.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Free Will’s Absurdist Paradox
How Camus’ Absurdism unifies Compatibilism and Incompatibilism
Daniel Miessler
Just as Camus talked about with the lack of intrinsic meaning in the universe, and how we must live on despite that lack of meaning, we must also accept that we are not ultimately in control of anything in our lives.

The entire human endeavor—to survive, to interact, and to better ourselves—is unalterably immune to our choices and actions.
Come on, did Camus really believe that ultimately we are not in control of anything in our lives? And yet if we do live in a determined universe as some understand it then, ultimately, we aren't. There may be the psychological illusion of free will, sure, but we don't call things illusions for nothing.

What's crucial from the perspective of the existentialists is that in regard to our moral and political value judgments, "existence is prior to essence". There does not appear to be a God or an "intrinsic meaning" we can anchor our thoughts and feelings and behaviors to. We create our own meaning by living our lives along a particular subjective/subjunctive trajectory. The part I explore here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

And, of course, our "choices and actions" can have a profound impact on others around us. And theirs on us. But given some measure of free will that too, in my view, is rooted existentially in dasein and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome.
The difference between Existentialism, Nihilism, and Absurdism

Thus, the debate between the Incompatibilists and Compatibilists ends unrewardingly in paradox. It’s not that one is right or one is wrong. They’re both wrong because they collide with either reality or life as a human being.
Right, whatever that means. For all practical purposes, say? Instead, the profoundest of all the mysteries here still pertains to the mind-boggling conundrum that is the human brain itself. Matter like no other matter there has ever been.

Next to God?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Confession of a Reformed Philosopher: Why I Am a Compatibilist about Determinism and Moral Responsibility
BY JOHN C. WINGARD JR.
I, an evangelical Christian philosopher, am a compatibilist about morally significant free agency and determinism. There, I’ve said it. I’ve fessed up. Compatibilism is currently not in vogue among Christian philosophers. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration, I think, to say that within the community of Christian philosophers, incompatibilism in its libertarian form is the generally recognized norm.
Here of course [for some] there are two discussions. One revolves around compatibilism as many scientists and philosophers pursue it...somehow reconciling determinism and moral responsibility philosophically and scientifically. And then for those who take a leap of faith to the Christian God...somehow reconciling God's omniscience with human autonomy.

Of course the Christian incompatibilists insist that the absence of free will as the hard determinist encompass it is wrong because, well, back to God, right?

On the other hand, at least the Christians are able to point to a God, the God, my God as the explanation for autonomy. And the scientists can note that they continue to pursue the quandary experientially, experimentally, empirically. And the philosophers? What do they have offer if not by and large their definitions and deductions...their "worlds of words".
Within our community, especially among those who self-identify as evangelicals, the libertarian view is all but taken for granted, with the consequence that much of the effort these days is spent teasing out the implications of that view for any number of other philosophical and/or theological issues. Even many philosophers whose roots are in the Reformed tradition and who otherwise generally align themselves with that tradition are happy to jettison the compatibilist part of the tradition and join the ranks of the libertarians.
So, one way or the other, free will is compatible with an omniscient God because, well, when you are blessed with "mysterious ways" there really isn't anything at all that you can't pull out of the hat.
So, a philosopher like me who is both a Christian and a compatibilist seems a bit out of step with the Christian philosophical community at large. It doesn’t help that a majority of non-Christian philosophers are allegedly compatibilists of some sort or other.
We certainly seem to have our fair share of them here. Though again, in my view, their arguments are comprised of the circular logic I've come to expect from those who predicate their conclusions on deductions derived from definitions. Definitions connected by and large to other definitions. Words defending other words.

And, in not being a brain scientist myself, that includes my own set of assumptions here. But at least I own up to it.

Start here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=198472
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

For Whom Does Determinism Undermine Moral Responsibility? Surveying the Conditions for Free Will Across Cultures
From Frontiers in Psychology
Introduction

Philosophers have long debated whether, if determinism is true, we should hold people morally responsible for their actions since in a deterministic universe, people are arguably not the ultimate source of their actions nor could they have done otherwise if initial conditions and the laws of nature are held fixed.
See what I mean? Philosophers [and scientists] have long debated this question. And, to the best of my knowledge, these truly learned men and women have not exactly come to a truly learned consensus of opinion.

So, what are the odds that any of us here have finally arrived at the optimal conclusion?

Still, the question is so fascinating [and important] most of us will never really let it go.
The question of whether free will is compatible with determinism has fueled an intricate debate among philosophers (Strawson, 1963; Frankfurt, 1969; Fischer et al., 2009), which recent scientific work on human volition has enlivened (Dennett, 2004; Mele, 2008; Caruso, 2012). The crux of the free will problem can be outlined succinctly: In a deterministic universe, all events are the consequence of past events and the laws of nature. Then, if our universe is deterministic and every human action is the consequence of past events and the laws of nature, do people exercise control over their behavior in the way required for moral responsibility?
"No", I believe. Here and now. But then [for me] straight back to this:

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.

So, sure, I'm the first to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the correct answer is "yes".

Then back to the enigma that is the human brain itself. How could matter in a No God world naturally evolve from the Big Bang into us?
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by popeye1945 »

Determinism certainly is impressive, and in the struggle between God and Satin it would seem they are of equal powers, seeing as God cannot defeat the old bastard even given eons to do so. I say in all humanity we must assume the credibility of determinism, for even on a level of a time span of decades it seems to hold true. There is no such thing as an even playing field for the innocence brought into this world, and what context they are born into can twist the human spirit out of all recognition. Oh but, how could we ever do without SIN? I suggest we try it as an experiment in human evolution. This in no way means we give up the right to protect society from the unfortunate workings of hostile and horrific contexts and what they can do to our brothers and sisters. If we show no compassion to them, how are we different from the worst of them? No, society can be protected without denying the greater reality of the human condition. Pluck thy hatred out of thine own eye and let's get on with it.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

For Whom Does Determinism Undermine Moral Responsibility? Surveying the Conditions for Free Will Across Cultures
From Frontiers in Psychology
According to the principle of alternate possibilities, free will and moral responsibility depend upon the ability to do otherwise. Since determinism implies that agents could not have done otherwise once initial conditions and the laws of nature are held fixed, it follows that free will and moral responsibility are incompatible with determinism.
That's one way to assess it when all you have at your disposal are words that define and defend other words.

I do the same thing 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 what?

Another "thought experiment"?
This conclusion was challenged when philosopher Harry Frankfurt (1969) – in an ingenious appeal to counterfactual intervention – provided an influential argument against the principle of alternate possibilities, illustrated in the following thought experiment: Suppose that I want to stay home all day on Sunday to rest for the busy week ahead. Come Sunday, I cancel my plans to go hiking with friends. Instead, I spend the day watching a movie, cooking a meal, and taking a long nap on the couch. Unbeknownst to me, the door to my apartment was jammed and I would not have been able to go hiking, or leave at all, had I tried. In this circumstance I could not have done otherwise; but did I freely stay home anyway? According to the principle of alternate possibilities, I did not; but Frankfurt had the influential insight that we should think of my behavior as being freely willed despite my lack of alternate possibilities. Do people ordinarily conceive of free will as Frankfurt does? Some evidence has shown that North Americans typically agree with Frankfurt’s assessment that alternate possibilities are unnecessary for free will or moral responsibility.
Which brings me back to my brain compelling me to react to that thought experiment just as Frankfurt's brain compelled him to think up that thought experiment in the first place. Once you conclude that the human brain itself is just more matter in thrall to the laws of matter it makes no difference what you think, feel, say and do. It's all that you were ever able to think, feel, say and do.

Thus to challenge another's assessment of moral responsibility in a wholly determined universe might be called ingenious...but what does being ingenious mean in a world where you are never able not to challenge it other than as your brain compels you to?

Though, sure, I'm the first to admit that I am not thinking this through correctly given a free will world.
Post Reply