compatibilism

[iambiguous]

Okay, so you don't know. All you know is, Jane was aborted. Maybe this IS a free will world, and therefore maybe she was aborted in a free will world. And therefore, every time you say "Jane would not be aborted in a free will world, because Mary's friend would talk her out of it," maybe you're saying the exact opposite of the truth.

When did I say, "Jane would not be aborted in a free will world?"

I speculated instead that in a free will world, taking into account dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome, there is at least the possibility of Jane not being aborted. Though, sure, Mary's friend, of her own volition, might have attempted to talk Mary out of the abortion, but Mary of her own volition is not persuaded. Jane is aborted.

But in a wholly determined world, Jane was never not going to be aborted. One inevitable outcome versus a far more problematic world given human autonomy.

[Flannel Jesus]

Okay, so you don't know. All you know is, Jane was aborted. Maybe this IS a free will world, and therefore maybe she was aborted in a free will world. And therefore, every time you say "Jane would not be aborted in a free will world, because Mary's friend would talk her out of it," maybe you're saying the exact opposite of the truth.

When did I say, "Jane would not be aborted in a free will world?"

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.

Those are your words. Perhaps you MEANT to say that you were just talking about a possibility, but of course what you meant to say isn't always what you did in fact say. You did in fact say the above quote, which isn't about what Mary might do in a few will world, but any what Mary would in fact do in a few will world.

[phyllo]

But in a world where "somehow" human brains acquired autonomy, women agonizing over an unwanted pregnancy can at least encounter points of view other than their own, prompting them to change their mind. In a wholly determined world, past, present and future, all abortions are in sync with the only possible reality.

This is a key part.

Somehow, in a determined world, women don't "encounter points of view other than their own,prompting them to change their mind".

That in spite of the fact that both determinists and compatibilists, in general, believe that happens all the time. In fact, that's how determinism works. The encounter is the cause which produces an effect in the woman.

[iambiguous]

Okay, so you don't know. All you know is, Jane was aborted. Maybe this IS a free will world, and therefore maybe she was aborted in a free will world. And therefore, every time you say "Jane would not be aborted in a free will world, because Mary's friend would talk her out of it," maybe you're saying the exact opposite of the truth.

When did I say, "Jane would not be aborted in a free will world?"

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.

Those are your words. Perhaps you MEANT to say that you were just talking about a possibility, but of course what you meant to say isn't always what you did in fact say. You did in fact say the above quote, which isn't about what Mary might do in a few will world, but any what Mary would in fact do in a few will world.

A few will world?

In a free will world, abortion as a medical procedure is the same for all of us. An objective truth. But as a moral issue, different people living very different lives can of their own volition come to entirely conflicting assessments of it. The part in a free will world I root existentially in dasein. The part the moral objectivists among us root in one or another "my way or the highway" Ism.

John and I didn't know what Mary would do about her own unwanted pregnancy until she told us. John tried to talk her out of it.

But what's crucial is that, in a free will world, among our own species, the possibilities are there to choose from. Jane may or may not be aborted. But in a wholly determined universe, it is as though John and Mary and I were acting in a movie. We were directed to follow the script.

Only with nature and its laws of matter, as some understand them, everything that we think and feel and say and do is entirely scripted by, well, whatever or whoever concocted the laws of matter in the first place.

Whatever that means?

[iambiguous]

But in a world where "somehow" human brains acquired autonomy, women agonizing over an unwanted pregnancy can at least encounter points of view other than their own, prompting them to change their mind. In a wholly determined world, past, present and future, all abortions are in sync with the only possible reality.

This is a key part.

Somehow, in a determined world, women don't "encounter points of view other than their own, prompting them to change their mind".

No, in a wholly determined world as some construe it, women may encounter views other than their own, but these views are in turn but an inherent component of the only possible reality. Jane's friend may have attempted to talk her out of aborting Jane but only because she was never able to choose not to. And Jane is fated/destined to be shredded in any event.

That in spite of the fact that both determinists and compatibilists, in general, believe that happens all the time. In fact, that's how determinism works. The encounter is the cause which produces an effect in the woman.

Only Jane is still among us. And how on Earth is that possible in a world where Mary was never able to choose not to abort her?

That's the part I'd like to grasp in regard to Sam Harris's determinism. Sam and Jane discussing her actual existence in a world where Mary was determined by her brain to abort her.

Again, admittedly, the part I keep missing here.

[phyllo]

You explained your understanding of determinism here:

But in a wholly determined universe, it is as though John and Mary and I were acting in a movie. We were directed to follow the script.

Only with nature and its laws of matter, as some understand them, everything that we think and feel and say and do is entirely scripted by, well, whatever or whoever concocted the laws of matter in the first place.

Maybe FJ wants to tackle it.

[Iwannaplato]

This is a key part.

Somehow, in a determined world, women don't "encounter points of view other than their own, prompting them to change their mind".

No, in a wholly determined world as some construe it, women may encounter views other than their own, but these views are in turn but an inherent component of the only possible reality. Jane's friend may have attempted to talk her out of aborting Jane but only because she was never able to choose not to. And Jane is fated/destined to be shredded in any event.

You disagreed with the word 'No.' So, are you saying that in a deterministic world people don't encounter views other than their own and change their minds. You said No, but what Phyllo said fits determinism perfectly. Conversations can change minds. It doesn't mean that X or Y could each have happened. But in determinism, which means that every set of causes has one possible, inevitable outcome, conversations are also causal.

Only Jane is still among us. And how on Earth is that possible in a world where Mary was never able to choose not to abort her?

Or he's talking to Sally who wasn't aborted because someone talked to her mother.

No one is denying that in determinism what happens was always going to happen.

But you seem to be denying that conversations can be causal. In determinism no less.

That's the part I'd like to grasp in regard to Sam Harris's determinism.

Why do you want to grasp this? What is it you think you aren't grasping?

Can you reword that sentence? I don't know what it means.

What has Sam Harris said that doesn't make sense to you now?

I think you take Phyllo's response as meaning:

A number of results are possible, that at least some things are not in fact determined in advance.

He's not saying that.

He's simply saying what you quoted above.

Discussions are amongst the causes.

When you always present the fetus/baby being aborted in the determined universe
and
the conversation that stops the abortion in the free will universe

it is as if you are saying that babies are less likely to get aborted in a free will universe.

If Jane is a real fetus in your life that was aborted, well, she was aborted. That happened period. Regardless of conversations or lacks of them.

But in general, in a deterministic universe conversations can change the minds of pregnant women.

And in free will universes, people can perversely reject a friend's advice even if they are right that you want a baby.

None of this demonstrates the liklihood of abortions in free will vs. deterministic universes.

It's all rather banal. Yes, if everything is determined, then what happened was always going to happen. I don't think anyone here is denying that determininsm entails that.

You seem to assume that if we disagree with something you say, it means that determinism doesn't determine brains. Despite being told otherwise time and again.

[phyllo]

Only Jane is still among us. And how on Earth is that possible in a world where Mary was never able to choose not to abort her?

Or he's talking to Sally who wasn't aborted because someone talked to her mother.

No one is denying that in determinism what happens was always going to happen.

But you seem to be denying that conversations can be causal. In determinism no less.

I think the wording is telling ... "never able to choose not to abort".

That is not correct.

Until the abortion takes place, there is the possibility to abort or not abort.

When it takes place ... the abortion or the birth ... that result becomes "fate", it becomes "determined", it becomes "the only reality". All the factors come together only at that instant.

The present moment is constructed by the participants.

But he thinks the abortion is scripted somewhere ahead of time and therefore there has to be an abortion. The "actors" don't make anything or change anything.

[iambiguous]

You explained your understanding of determinism here:

But in a wholly determined universe, it is as though John and Mary and I were acting in a movie. We were directed to follow the script.

Only with nature and its laws of matter, as some understand them, everything that we think and feel and say and do is entirely scripted by, well, whatever or whoever concocted the laws of matter in the first place.

Maybe FJ wants to tackle it.

A scene from Woody Allen's Another Woman:

Man: How arrogant! How self-centered and feelingless!
Woman: I told you I didn't want a baby!
Man: What do you mean, "didn't want a baby"? It was partly mine!
Woman: Except it's my life that gets derailed. You go on doing what you want and I have to stop and bring it up.
Man: But we'd share the responsibility.
Woman: You know it would devolve down to me.
Man: I wanted this baby!
Woman: I told you, it was not part of my plan.
Man: But you [aborted it] it without consulting me.
Woman: Consulting you?! It's my baby! Do I have to consult you for every move I make? It's only your ego that's hurt.
Man: You said you wanted children.
Woma: I do, but not now.
Man: I don't have the future stretched out in front of me indefinitely.
Woman: It's easy for you to say. You've done your work. I'm just starting out, trying to make something of myself!
Man: But you could do it without asking me! Or giving me a chance to argue you out of it!
Woman: I didn't want to be argued out of it. We've talked this to death! lt was unwanted! Do you want to bring a child into this world? Really, you're the one that hates it so much, forever lecturing me on the pointlessness of existence.
Man: I hate you so! To be capable of such a lack of feeling! Knowing how I felt!

In other words, the gap between what the actors are conveying in following Allen's script and how in "real life" these actors feel about abortion.

In a wholly determined world it's all interchangeable some argue. But in a world where the actors do have free will their "personal opinions" about the morality of abortion are, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein.

And, most crucially, given new experiences, they are minds that might be changed. But in a wholly determined universe minds might change as well. But they were never able not to change.

[phyllo]

In other words, the gap between what the actors are conveying in following Allen's script and how in "real life" these actors feel about abortion.

In a wholly determined world it's all interchangeable some argue. But in a world where the actors do have free will their "personal opinions" about the morality of abortion are, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein.

Movie analogies fail when you ask yourself ...

Why are the actors saying and doing what they are saying and doing?

and

Why are real people saying and doing what they are saying and doing?

And you realize that someone gave the actors a script which they are required to say the words and execute the actions.

But real people are formed through experiences ... these experiences are the foundation of their words and actions.

[iambiguous]

This is a key part.

Somehow, in a determined world, women don't "encounter points of view other than their own, prompting them to change their mind".

No, in a wholly determined world as some construe it, women may encounter views other than their own, but these views are in turn but an inherent component of the only possible reality. Jane's friend may have attempted to talk her out of aborting Jane but only because she was never able to choose not to. And Jane is fated/destined to be shredded in any event.

You disagreed with the word 'No.'

Again, the point some determinists bring up -- because they were never able not to? -- is that I disagreed with the word "No" because I lacked the autonomy, volition, free will etc., to agree with it. So, whatever I am disagreeing with doesn't change the fact it was never going to unfold other than only as it ever could unfold in the only possible reality.

So, are you saying that in a deterministic world people don't encounter views other than their own and change their minds. You said No, but what Phyllo said fits determinism perfectly.

No, I'm suggesting that, given determinism as some understand it, people can encounter other points of view and change their minds. But only because all of the parties involved are wholly in sync with the laws of matter. Jane is is going to be aborted because she was never able not to be.

Conversations can change minds. It doesn't mean that X or Y could each have happened. But in determinism, which means that every set of causes has one possible, inevitable outcome, conversations are also causal.

And if the conversations are entirely scripted by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

You watch a movie and the actors exchange scripted lines about abortion as in Another Woman above. But what of the actors themselves? Are their opinions about abortion derived existentially from their own personal experiences? If so, could not new experiences change their minds? Or are they inherently [like all the rest of us] just nature's dominoes toppling over on cue in a world where everything they think and feel and say and do regarding abortion is "beyond their control"? As, say, Libertarians understand being or not being in control of your life?

Only Jane is still among us. And how on Earth is that possible in a world where Mary was never able to choose not to abort her?

Or he's talking to Sally who wasn't aborted because someone talked to her mother.

No one is denying that in determinism what happens was always going to happen.

But you seem to be denying that conversations can be causal. In determinism no less.

If the conversations were never able to be other than what they must be, Jane is still aborted. Jane could never not be aborted because causality encompasses everything that we say and do. The conversations won't/don't/can't change that. Only in a world where conversations can be are causal is there the possibility of one of them resulting in Jane being among us.

That's the part I'd like to grasp in regard to Sam Harris's determinism.

What has Sam Harris said that doesn't make sense to you now?

"If we cannot assign blame to the workings of the universe, how can evil people be held responsible for their actions? In the deepest sense, it seems, they can’t be. But in a practical sense, they must be. I see no contradiction in this. In fact, I think that keeping the deep causes of human behavior in view would only improve our practical response to evil. The feeling that people are deeply responsible for who they are does nothing but produce moral illusions and psychological suffering."

How does this pertain to Jane being aborted by Mary? What does he mean by "in the deepest sense" here? What does he mean by "evil" in a world where our behaviors are wholly determined? How does he differentiate a discussion of Jane being aborted philosophically from the practical reality of her being snuffed out in a world where Mary was never free to opt not to abort her?

These "deep causes"...is that interchangeable with his own understanding of the "internal components" of the human brain? As long as nobody puts a gun to Mary's head and says, "abort the baby or you die", there's, what, a part of Mary that still makes her morally responsible?

I think you take Phyllo's response as meaning:

A number of results are possible, that at least some things are not in fact determined in advance.

He's not saying that.

He's simply saying what you quoted above.

Fine, let him explain all that to Jane. Let him explain how Mom was never able not to give birth to her, but here she is.

Now, a libertarian might suggest instead that, "you are with us now, Jane, because your mother did have free will and a friend of hers persuaded her not to abort you".

Different possibilities are likely in both a determined and in a free will world. But only in the free will universe are they attributable to men and women who were able to opt among conflicting possibilities.

After all, why on Earth do any number of free will advocates come back again and again to insisting that human autonomy is crucial in order to hold people morally responsible for their behaviors?

When you always present the fetus/baby being aborted in the determined universe and the conversation that stops the abortion in the free will universe it is as if you are saying that babies are less likely to get aborted in a free will universe.

But I am more than willing to go the other way. In other words, that, in a wholly determined universe, Mary was never able to abort Jane. The only reason Jane is toast in my assessment here is that Mary did abort her unborn baby.

If Jane is a real fetus in your life that was aborted, well, she was aborted. That happened period. Regardless of conversations or lacks of them.

It happened because John's argument did not persuade her. But that's not to say that another argument from another person would also have been rejected. What's crucial from the perspective of the truly hardcore determinists is that any arguments from anyone at all were futile because Mary's brain compelled her to abort Jane. John and myself and others involved were but more dominoes toppling over on cue.

But in general, in a deterministic universe conversations can change the minds of pregnant women.

And in free will universes, people can perversely reject a friend's advice even if they are right that you want a baby.

Sure, but in a determined universe everyone involved is interacting per the immutable laws of matter. Nothing can really be perverse if it was inevitable. And, in a free will universe, we stumble on perverse things all the time. People do things that make no sense whatsoever to us. But from their own frame of mind they do it anyway.

It's all rather banal. Yes, if everything is determined, then what happened was always going to happen. I don't think anyone here is denying that determininsm entails that.

Then back to the compatibilists among us who argue that everything we do is determined but we are still morally responsible for doing it anyway.

[phyllo]

Fine, let him explain all that to Jane. Let him explain how Mom was never able not to give birth to her, but here she is.

"Jane, you're here because your mother didn't abort you"

Happy now?

After all, why on Earth do any number of free will advocates come back again and again to insisting that human autonomy is crucial in order to hold people morally responsible for their behaviors?

Most people behave as compatibilists. They punish those who break the rules ... they hold them responsible for their actions.
I posted a study about this either at ILP or here. I suppose it's pointless to look for it and repost it.

These anonymous "free will advocates" are arguing 'moral responsibility' from their comfy couches. If some serial rapist was stalking their neighborhood, they would lock him up whether he had autonomy or not. Right?

It happened because John's argument did not persuade her. But that's not to say that another argument from another person would also have been rejected. What's crucial from the perspective of the truly hardcore determinists is that any arguments from anyone at all were futile because Mary's brain compelled her to abort Jane. John and myself and others involved were but more dominoes toppling over on cue.

Maybe she would reject every argument.

Maybe she doesn't want a child under any circumstances.

A child is what you and John want.

You seem to have no respect for what Mary wants. You don't seem to consider that what Mary does, is fulfilling Mary's real desires in the situation.

The idea that "Mary's brain compelled her to abort", denies the possibility that Mary's brain represents her will.

[Iwannaplato]

These anonymous "free will advocates" are arguing 'moral responsibility' from their comfy couches. If some serial rapist was stalking their neighborhood, they would lock him up whether he had autonomy or not. Right?

It seems to me this is never adequately responded to, whether bears or rapists. I have not read all posts, but it seems like raising this kind of issue leads to a lament:

But those people who put the rapist in prison and the rapist himself could only have done what they have done....etc.

IOW pretty direct questions around this and also the use of examples around this simply elicit a kind of philosophical bemoaning.

Rather than an actual stand: 1) No, if it was proven to me that determinism is the case, I would be against imprisonment of people for crimes, since it was always going to happen.
or
2) Yes, I see your point. I would want to incarcerate them, though perhaps....

It just ends up, mysteriously, triggering the repetitions of we don't know, I can't see, if someone could show what I am missing, big bang autonomous brain, it's all really hopeless, lamentation and then more questions and request for hallucinated dialogue. What do we tell Jane? What would Sam Harris say.

As if someone had the luxury of not actually being on earth already, so everything is utterly hypothetical. But break into his home at night determined or otherwise, this armed veteran will decide in practical terms to hold the intruder responsible for his actions or he won't.

Will we ever find out? Hm.

[iambiguous]

In other words, the gap between what the actors are conveying in following Allen's script and how in "real life" these actors feel about abortion.

In a wholly determined world it's all interchangeable some argue. But in a world where the actors do have free will their "personal opinions" about the morality of abortion are, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein.

And, most crucially, given new experiences, they are minds that might be changed. But in a wholly determined universe minds might change as well. But they were never able not to change.

Movie analogies fail when you ask yourself ...

Why are the actors saying and doing what they are saying and doing?

and

Why are real people saying and doing what they are saying and doing?

What, actors aren't "real people" when acting? And the human condition is the one exception to the rule in regard to the laws of matter?

Back to God? Your own, perhaps? Or how about pantheists speculating that "somehow" the universe itself managed to create living biological matter that acquired free will?

Your set of assumptions here are simply more, uh, ontologically sound than mine?

And you realize that someone gave the actors a script which they are required to say the words and execute the actions.

Actually, in a free will world, the actors choose of their own volition to be scripted. Perhaps Philip Bosco is prochoice in "real life". Or perhaps Woody Allen was compelled to script his movies in the only possible reality. Are you one those here who believe that how you understand all of this does in fact reflect the most rational assessment?

But real people are formed through experiences ... these experiences are the foundation of their words and actions.

Now -- click -- you are arguing as I would. Different people can have very different experiences in regard to things like abortion. Experiences derived from very different historical and cultural and personal interactions with others.

But that's when others will argue, "no, philosophers are technically able to define the words needed to form a deontological ethics in regard to the morality of abortion".

God or No God?

[phyllo]

In other words, the gap between what the actors are conveying in following Allen's script and how in "real life" these actors feel about abortion.

In a wholly determined world it's all interchangeable some argue. But in a world where the actors do have free will their "personal opinions" about the morality of abortion are, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein.

And, most crucially, given new experiences, they are minds that might be changed. But in a wholly determined universe minds might change as well. But they were never able not to change.

Movie analogies fail when you ask yourself ...

Why are the actors saying and doing what they are saying and doing?

and

Why are real people saying and doing what they are saying and doing?

What, actors aren't "real people" when acting? And the human condition is the one exception to the rule in regard to the laws of matter?

Back to God? Your own, perhaps? Or how about pantheists speculating that "somehow" the universe itself managed to create living biological matter that acquired free will?

Your set of assumptions here are simply more, uh, ontologically sound than mine?

And you realize that someone gave the actors a script which they are required to say the words and execute the actions.

Actually, in a free will world, the actors choose of their own volition to be scripted. Perhaps Philip Bosco is prochoice in "real life". Or perhaps Woody Allen was compelled to script his movies in the only possible reality. Are you one those here who believe that how you understand all of this does in fact reflect the most rational assessment?

But real people are formed through experiences ... these experiences are the foundation of their words and actions.

Now -- click -- you are arguing as I would. Different people can have very different experiences in regard to things like abortion. Experiences derived from very different historical and cultural and personal interactions with others.

But that's when others will argue, "no, philosophers are technically able to define the words needed to form a deontological ethics in regard to the morality of abortion".

God or No God?

You can't even stick with your movie analogy for more than one post without drifting off to something else ... pantheists, dasein, morality, god, ontology, deontology.

Are actors people? You introduced the idea that actors and people are somehow different ... that was your comparison of determined world and free-will world. Remember? It was yesterday.

And then your off-hand, back-hand shit:

Your set of assumptions here are simply more, uh, ontologically sound than mine?

Are you one those here who believe that how you understand all of this does in fact reflect the most rational assessment?

Who needs that? It's not philosophy.