compatibilism

[phyllo]

Again, I will flat out admit that even though "here and now" I'm still convinced your arguments completely avoid the points that I am making above and are, well, ridiculous, you may in fact be making the more reasonable point...a point that I keep missing.

Others here can decide "decide" or "decide" for themselves.

I just keep coming back to your conversation with Jane. You note what you do to her above...even though, in a world where Mary does not have free will not to abort her as some determinist understand it, she wouldn't even be around to react to it.

Okay others. Have any of you been able to figure out the reasoning here?

Why can't a determined world guy go and research race and racism?

Why is it "ridiculous" to even suggest it?

Why does Mary not have the abortion if she has free-will?

How is her thinking different from the Mary in the determined world who does get an abortion? How/why is her motivation different?

No, the difference is between a brain that really does compel everything that we think, feel, say and do, and a brain that "somehow" ... acquired the capacity to choose what we think, feel, say and do.

Any ideas how this works?

Anything?

[iambiguous]

Again, I will flat out admit that even though "here and now" I'm still convinced your arguments completely avoid the points that I am making above and are, well, ridiculous, you may in fact be making the more reasonable point...a point that I keep missing.

Others here can decide "decide" or "decide" for themselves.

I just keep coming back to your conversation with Jane. You note what you do to her above...even though, in a world where Mary does not have free will not to abort her as some determinist understand it, she wouldn't even be around to react to it.

Okay others. Have any of you been able to figure out the reasoning here?

Why can't a determined world guy go and research race and racism?

Why is it "ridiculous" to even suggest it?

Here -- click -- I can only come back to a hypothetical alien living in a free will sector of the universe observing us down here on Earth living in a wholly determined sector of the universe.

The alien observes Marie going to the library or to the internet to research racism. But the alien notes that this was not something that Marie was ever able not to do.

Or, last night, Marie dreamed she went to the library or to the internet to research racism. She wakes up, however, and recognizes she never really did this at all. Instead, her brain created this "reality" chemically and neurologically in her head while she slept.

Now, how is the waking brain different from the dreaming brain? And, sure, re God or the nature of the universe itself, Marie may have "somehow" acquired free will given the evolution of biological life on Earth. But how exactly do we go about pinning that down for sure?

Why does Mary not have the abortion if she has free-will?

How is her thinking different from the Mary in the determined world who does get an abortion? How/why is her motivation different?

Again, run this by Jane. In a free will world, Mary's friend, of her own volition, chooses to talk to Mary about abortion. Mary chooses of her own free will to listen to her argument and as a result of the points her friend makes, she changes her mind and Jane is now among us.

Compelled or not, we think differently regarding the "for all practical purposes" consequences of human autonomy here.

No, the difference is between a brain that really does compel everything that we think, feel, say and do, and a brain that "somehow" ... acquired the capacity to choose what we think, feel, say and do.

Any ideas how this works?

Anything?

Me? Nope. But I'd be appreciative if someone here who thinks they grasp how Sam Harris -- an actual neuroscientist -- thinks this through would speculate as to what he might say to Jane.

[Flannel Jesus]

How is her thinking different from the Mary in the determined world who does get an abortion? How/why is her motivation different?

After all this time, you still think he has reasons for this kind of thing?

There's no reason. That's well established.

[phyllo]

How is her thinking different from the Mary in the determined world who does get an abortion? How/why is her motivation different?

After all this time, you still think he has reasons for this kind of thing?

There's no reason. That's well established.

I'm still hoping that if he forces himself to go through the mechanics of the situation, then he will recognize the holes in it.

Instead of doing her laundry, Mary's friend freely chooses to go and talk Mary out of having an abortion.

Why does she do it? No reason. If there was a reason, then it would mean that her brain was compelling her to go.

Mary thinks children are boring. She would rather have a challenging career which gives her independence and influence. But her friend changes her mind.

Why? No reason. Her motivations just suddenly switch.

Bad movie, where the writers make the characters do arbitrary things??


The only possible reality is the one that logically follows from the environment. So "freely choosing" and "freely acting" means doing things which don't logically follow.

[Flannel Jesus]

Biggy is not capable of pondering the question "why do I make the abortion happen in the determinism world and the talking-out-of-abortion happen in the free will world?" He doesn't understand the question. He doesn't own any mirrors and cannot see his own biases

[Iwannaplato]

Biggy is not capable of pondering the question "why do I make the abortion happen in the determinism world and the talking-out-of-abortion happen in the free will world?" He doesn't understand the question. He doesn't own any mirrors and cannot see his own biases

I went through this with him once also, patiently (at least for me) and how his repeatedly doing that seems to imply a position of some kind.

I think if you have the position that we can't really know anything and that people who express or seem to any confidence in knowing things are the problem, you're left with implying things all over the place.

You're left with the option of implying a lot of stuff and putting appeals to incredulity in questions and utterances (shameless) since you can't make more direct assertions without hypocrisy.

Extreme skeptics can't really mount philosophical campaigns without this problem coming up.

[iambiguous]

Absolutely shameless!!!






Well, unless, of course, they're right.

Still...

I would be appreciative if someone here -- in or out of Stooge mode -- who thinks he or she does grasp how Sam Harris -- an actual neuroscientist -- thinks this through would speculate as to what he might say to Jane.

[Flannel Jesus]

I would be appreciative if someone here -- in or out of Stooge mode -- who thinks he or she does grasp how Sam Harris -- an actual neuroscientist -- thinks this through would speculate as to what he might say to Jane.[/b]

Easy. Here's what he would say to her.

"Abortion is morally fine. A bunch of cells in your uterus that are not conscious... there's no moral issue terminating that pregnancy, regardless of any "free will" question. Stop beating yourself about it, move on."

[phyllo]

I would be appreciative if someone here -- in or out of Stooge mode -- who thinks he or she does grasp how Sam Harris -- an actual neuroscientist -- thinks this through would speculate as to what he might say to Jane.[/b]

Easy. Here's what he would say to her.

"Abortion is morally fine. A bunch of cells in your uterus that are not conscious... there's no moral issue terminating that pregnancy, regardless of any "free will" question. Stop beating yourself about it, move on."

Err, "Jane" is the name Mary was going to give to the baby if Mary gave birth.

So he is asking you to talk to Jane in some sort of alternate reality.

You're either talking to the Jane if she was not aborted or to a ghost Jane???

I'm not sure which and I'm not sure why we ought to be talking to her. It's a bit too weird.

[Flannel Jesus]

Sorry, I'm not up to date with the mythology biggy likes to bring up.

What would Sam Harris say to a person who was never born and doesn't exist? He probably wouldn't say anything, that's how most people interact with people who were never born and never existed.

[iambiguous]

Why Sam Harris is confused about free will
Dan Jones

This [from above] implies that if someone does something that out of character, then they’re not responsible for it. Acting out of character is hardly unheard of: there are cases of generally law-abiding citizens who for the first 40 or 50 years of their lives do not steal, maim or kill, and then one day turn around and kill their wife (perhaps they found out she was having an affair, or an argument got out of control — neither of which I’m suggesting justifies killing!).

Alas, the part that I keep missing. If we do live in a wholly determined universe, then how can anything that we say or do be out of character? What, nature compelled Joe to behave only as he must behave for 40 or 50 years and then, out of the blue, autonomy switches on in his brain and he says and does things of his own volition? That too can't be explained as but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

As for the author suggesting the killing is not justified, that, as well, might be just another one of nature's dominoes toppling over on cue.

As implausible as it seems to excuse someone from responsibility in such cases merely because it’s not part of their usual behavioural repertoire, Harris actually embraces it:

"If…I had found myself standing in the market naked, intent upon stealing as many tins of anchovies as I could carry, this behaviour would be totally out of character; I would feel that I was not in my right mind, or that I was otherwise not responsible for my actions. Judgments of responsibility, therefore, depend on upon the overall complexion of one’s mind, not on the metaphysics of mental cause and effect."

Okay, where did this new-found intention to steal come from? Is it a manifestation of Sam's brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter? Is it as a result of a brain tumor or mental affliction in an otherwise free will world? Or, for any number of complex circumstantial contexts, did Sam believe that he had no choice but to steal...

As for the nudity, the same thing?

In any event, how could it not make all the difference in the world that Sam either had free will in that market or he didn't?

And what does it mean to argue that Sam was entirely compelled by his brain to strip naked and steal anchovies, but that he is still entirely responsible morally for doing so?

[iambiguous]

I would be appreciative if someone here -- in or out of Stooge mode -- who thinks he or she does grasp how Sam Harris -- an actual neuroscientist -- thinks this through would speculate as to what he might say to Jane.

Easy. Here's what he would say to her.

"Abortion is morally fine. A bunch of cells in your uterus that are not conscious... there's no moral issue terminating that pregnancy, regardless of any "free will" question. Stop beating yourself about it, move on."

Right, like that's the point [mine] here.

In a wholly determined world as some understand it, even Sam explaining that is just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

And if we live in a world where Mary was never able not to abort Jane, Sam is never able to explain anything to Jane. Why? Because she has been aborted. What's left of her is now on the way back to being "star stuff".

And -- click -- given free will, how is his assessment of morality above not but one more set of political prejudices that I root existentially in dasein?

Is it an objective fact that abortion is "morally fine"? That, given human autonomy, so what, there is no moral issue involved in aborting the unborn?

And if Mary lives in a jurisdiction where she is arrested for premeditated first degree murder [along with the doctor who performed the abortion], just "moving on" ought to suffice?

[Flannel Jesus]

And if we live in a world where Mary was never able not to abort Jane, Sam is never able to explain anything to Jane. Why? Because she has been aborted. What's left of her is now on the way back to being "star stuff".

I don't understand this. Jane was aborted. Jane was aborted in this world. There's no "if", there's just the fact: Jane was aborted. Maybe this world is deterministic, maybe it's not, but in either case, Jane was aborted.

Is it an objective fact that abortion is "morally fine"? That, given human autonomy, so what, there is no moral issue involved in aborting the unborn?

You didn't ask for an objective fact about morality. You asked what Sam Harris would say.

[iambiguous]

In a wholly determined world as some understand it, even Sam explaining that is just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

And if we live in a world where Mary was never able not to abort Jane, Sam is never able to explain anything to Jane. Why? Because she has been aborted. What's left of her is now on the way back to being "star stuff".

And -- click -- given free will, how is his assessment of morality above not but one more set of political prejudices that I root existentially in dasein?

I don't understand this. Jane was aborted. Jane was aborted in this world. There's no "if", there's just the fact: Jane was aborted. Maybe this world is deterministic, maybe it's not, but in either case, Jane was aborted.

Again, this may well be a profound and insightful assessment of this distinction. The part I keep missing. But, as with phyllo's own set of assumptions above, I'm inclined to see his as ridiculous in turn. In a free will world as I understand it, there is at least the possibility of Jane not being aborted.

In a wholly determined world as the truly hardcore ilk among us encompass it, Jane was toast going all the way back to...the Big Bang?

And -- click -- given free will, how is his assessment of morality above not but one more set of political prejudices that I root existentially in dasein?

Is it an objective fact that abortion is "morally fine"? That, given human autonomy, so what, there is no moral issue involved in aborting the unborn?

And if Mary lives in a jurisdiction where she is arrested for premeditated first degree murder [along with the doctor who performed the abortion], just "moving on" ought to suffice?

You didn't ask for an objective fact about morality. You asked what Sam Harris would say.

Come on, if we did "somehow" manage to acquire free will when biological matter on Earth "somehow" evolved into us, there either is an objective, deontological morality regarding abortion or there isn't. And Sam and you and I are either able of our own free will able to come to our own conclusions about that, or that's all just another manifestation of the illusion of free will inherently embedded in human psychology itself.

[phyllo]

What set of assumptions am I using?

Out with it.