compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

Mother Nature willing, one of these days she'll compel you to stop wiggling and bring all of your conclusions about compatibilism down to Earth. And explore them with Mary.

Wait a sec, you're the one who said you wanted to understand compatibilism! Are you now admitting that was all a ruse? You don't care to understand the position at all?

Interesting...

[iambiguous]

There seems to be some confusion.

Mary decides to have an abortion because she wants to have a career rather than to be a housewife raising children.

This is caused by her experiences, her upbringing, the messages she gets from her society and her culture.

Express this in terms of "following conservation laws". Express it in terms of quantum mechanics.

You can't because it makes no sense to do so.

Determinism is not some strange mind control by subatomic particles.

We live in a physical reality so somewhere under experience, motivation and attitude, there are some atoms moving around. But that's not what defines determinism.

Determinism is simply a person responding to his/her environment. Much of that environment is out of our control. Therefore, as Schopenhauer says "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

"What he wills" is a product of the environment rather than something of his own choosing.

But Schopenhauer isn't talking about atoms or physical laws. He's talking about motivation and attitude.

This is why a purely physical or materialistic approach is not required for determinism. And why focusing on the physical leads nowhere.

Note to nature:

If you say so.

[Flannel Jesus]

There seems to be some confusion.

Mary decides to have an abortion because she wants to have a career rather than to be a housewife raising children.

This is caused by her experiences, her upbringing, the messages she gets from her society and her culture.

Express this in terms of "following conservation laws". Express it in terms of quantum mechanics.

You can't because it makes no sense to do so.

Determinism is not some strange mind control by subatomic particles.

We live in a physical reality so somewhere under experience, motivation and attitude, there are some atoms moving around. But that's not what defines determinism.

Determinism is simply a person responding to his/her environment. Much of that environment is out of our control. Therefore, as Schopenhauer says "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

"What he wills" is a product of the environment rather than something of his own choosing.

But Schopenhauer isn't talking about atoms or physical laws. He's talking about motivation and attitude.

This is why a purely physical or materialistic approach is not required for determinism. And why focusing on the physical leads nowhere.

Subatomic particles/waves show that what we call "determinism" is at least at the
subatomic level probabilistic. If 'determinism' is probabilistic at the subatomic level then maybe it's probabilistic at our level. What is a probable outcome of Mary's decision is therefore based on Mary's choice based partly on reason and knowledge and partly on chance, (fortune, or a gamble, or a guess).
The classic billiard balls prediction is 100% reasoned as the rule stipulates "If you could know everything that bears on the billiard ball's next movement then you could predict 100%." The hypothesis is constructed to omit any variables ( such as the player is unskilled, or maybe a mouse has nibbled holes in the table cover) except the ones you can control. In real life you don't get to add on hypotheses except in wishful thinking. You are right that much of that environment in which choosing happens is out of our control.All choices are compounded of reasoned choice and unreasoned chance, and that's the same as probabilistic.

Our freedom to choose with power to accomplish is based on reason and knowledge, it's not based on random chance. No sane gambler is silly enough to stake her money when the odds are heavily stacked against her, unless she is desperate. There is no evidence that humans have Free Will such as can alter actual circumstances. There is evidence that the doctrine of Free Will is for the punitive strategy for maintaining law and order.



The more the choice is reasoneed

I appreciate this post. You've clearly reasoned that free will cannot come from randomness, and decided to throw out free will altogether, which is imo a completely valid approach.

I've been on the fence about free will myself for years. I've only started entertaining compatibilism recently, but I've been sympathetic to compatibilism for a long time because of the randomness issue.

[iambiguous]

Mother Nature willing, one of these days she'll compel you to stop wiggling and bring all of your conclusions about compatibilism down to Earth. And explore them with Mary.

Wait a sec, you're the one who said you wanted to understand compatibilism! Are you now admitting that was all a ruse? You don't care to understand the position at all?

Interesting...

Absolutely shameless!!!

You know, if it is.

Anyway -- click -- here's my suggestion:

Is there anyone here who thinks that they do understand compatibilism? Okay, first explain how you untangled 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.

...and arrived at the conclusion that what you did conclude about determinism you concluded of your own volition.

Next, given a world where Mary was never able not to abort Jane, how is it reasonable to conclude that she is still morally responsible for doing so.

Sure, go up into the technical clouds and explain how, logically, epistemologically etc., you arrived at your conclusion. But end your post re that discussion with Mary, please.

[Flannel Jesus]

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.

You keep on asking this with no foreplay. Pinch my nipples you fucking coward, kiss me like you mean it and bite my lip!

By that I mean, the question is so heavily loaded with meaning specifically to you, and you have not done any of the work to get your audience in the same headspace as you, to understand what the question even means in the same way you do.

Autonomy, in particular, is a word that you're throwing around rather lightly without defining it. What does that mean to you, that the matter in our brain has "autonomy"? That's way too heavy conceptually for you to just throw it around without pinching my nipples first

[iambiguous]

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.

You keep on asking this with no foreplay. Pinch my nipples you fucking coward, kiss me like you mean it and bite my lip!

By that I mean, the question is so heavily loaded with meaning specifically to you, and you have not done any of the work to get your audience in the same headspace as you, to understand what the question even means in the same way you do.

Simply unbelievable!!!

You know, if it actually is.

Click.

How can anyone not understand this profound mystery in the same way? First [they tell us] was the Big Bang. Then eventually stars. Then eventually stars big enough to produce supernovas. Then out of those supernovas came all the heavier elements that eventually became the planets. Then "somehow" these heavier elements eventually produced living matter "somehow" produced conscious matter "somehow" produced us. That's what the astronomers mean when they tell us we are all born of "star stuff".

With a God, the God thrown in there or not. God thrown in because -- presto! -- instant answer.

How preposterous can it be to actually assert definitively conclusions about human brains "here and now" without grasping how human brains themselves were able to evolve in the first place. Sure, we do it because we can. But why can we?

Autonomy, in particular, is a word that you're throwing around rather lightly without defining it. What does that mean to you, that the matter in our brain has "autonomy"? That's way too heavy conceptually for you to just throw it around without pinching my nipples first

Again, shrugging all the points I raised above and just assuming that when we define things we define them autonomously. As though being able to define things actually proves that we are defining them autonomously.

Meanwhile Mary, in having no free will, is compelled to abort Jane. But "somehow" the compatibilists define compatibilism such that she is still morally responsible for doing so. Depending I suppose on how they define "moral" and "responsibility".

As for this...

"You keep on asking this with no foreplay. Pinch my nipples you fucking coward, kiss me like you mean it and bite my lip!"

Note to others:

You tell me.

[Flannel Jesus]

What in the world are you even talking about?

[iambiguous]

What in the world are you even talking about?

Note to nature:

You tell him.

Or her?

[BigMike]

There seems to be some confusion.

Mary decides to have an abortion because she wants to have a career rather than to be a housewife raising children.

This is caused by her experiences, her upbringing, the messages she gets from her society and her culture.

Express this in terms of "following conservation laws".

Mary's decision to get an abortion so she can focus on her career is based on a number of things, such as her past experiences, her upbringing, and the messages she gets from her society and culture, as you said. These things can change how different parts of her brain work, which in turn affects how she makes decisions.

For example, experiences and cultural messages can change how the prefrontal cortex works. This part of the brain is involved in making decisions, controlling impulses, and acting in a way that helps her reach her goals. These experiences can also change how the limbic system works. This is the part of the brain that processes emotions and motivation and helps guide behavior.

Mary's experiences and culture have shaped her beliefs, values, and goals, which can stimulate the anterior cingulate cortex and the insula. These are parts of the brain that help process information about the self and create feelings of reward or satisfaction. She may have decided to put her career goals ahead of starting a family because these feelings of reward and satisfaction made her feel good.

It's also possible that Mary's decision was influenced by the social and cultural norms she has been exposed to. This can change the activity of the mirror neuron system, which is a network of neurons that respond to the actions and intentions of others. This can change how she thinks about what's right to do in her community, which can affect what she does and how she acts.

Mary's decision to have an abortion is based on a complex mix of things, such as her experiences, cultural influences, beliefs, and values. All of these things can affect how different parts of her brain work and change how she acts.

The way that her past experiences, her upbringing, and the messages she gets from her society and culture affect the different parts of her brain is by changing her synapses in a way that is permanent. All of these changes are caused by physical processes that follow the conservation laws of energy, electric charges, momentum, and so on. In fact, every law of physics, except for pure definitions like "F = m a," is a specific conservation law or a combination of such laws.

Because of this, she has permanent changes in her brain that affect her logic and the conclusions she comes to.

If you want me to, I can tell you how brain signals move from one neuron to the next. I can also explain how neurons can grow new axon terminals to make new and stronger synaptic connections when they are stimulated in the right way. But for now, I hope this is enough to answer your questions.

[Iwannaplato]

Yet another "general description intellectual contraption" about...about me of course.

LOL, I followed the format of your post about me and FJ.. See how these things go? And I think it is utterly bizzarre that you saw that response as intellectual. I just copied your post and pointed out what I think is obvious on a concrete level about what you were doing and we were doing. I know it's bad when other people do what you do. I've never understood why it's bad when we do it and not when you do. But I know you think it's bad.

My interest in compatibilism revolves around the extent to which technical philosophical arguments regarding free will can be made applicable to actual human behaviors. And since some argue that determinism is compatible with moral responsibility why not go right to the top: abortion.

And that's a perfectly reasonable interest. It's not as if I think you shouldn't have that interest.

Though, sure, if pedantry is more your thing, and it's really important that others envy your capacity to sound like a "serious philosopher"

Right, moral judgments galore (and mindreading) about an on topic discussion/interaction Flannel Jesus and I were having which you could easily maneuver around.

, by all means, keep it all up in the clouds.[/quote]How come you are fractured and fragmented about everything except the psychology of people you disagree with or who don't focus on topics the way you want? There you just present a unified front. Y

Why are you so confident about your beliefs about what goes on in other people's minds my motives and psychology, even to the point where you refuse to believe their sense of what is going on in their minds?

Somehow you solved the problem of other minds.

Me, personally, the determinism free will issue does not affect the way I view concrete decisions (re:abortion). I've said this before. I don't know if we have free will or determinism. I see problems with both positions. Tonight I was working with a theater group. There's one guy in the group who is so senstive to pressure or 'pressure' from others that even asking him if he wants to be in the next performance is considered (by some others who helped him through a breakdown) to be a potential threat to his mental health. It put me in a weird position. I needed to know as director. Do I ask him? How much weight do I put into these people's estimates of his vulnerability? How do I weigh this against my/our need to move forward in planning? I decided I had to ask, but I put it in a kind of I'm assuming you still want to wait to perform and that's fine, just let me know if you change your mind. To me, a fairly senstive person myself, that seemed like no pressure. Not what others thought, but I went with my gut.

That could be viewed as a moral decision and certainly I feel responsibility and I don't want to hurt anybody.

How do my thoughts on free will and deteminism affect my decision making? Zero as far as I can tell. Perhaps better put: I did not consider that issue. I don't think I have a clear stand on it. I certainly think that my actions have effects. Sometimes my thinking is fairly deterministic. Sometimes it's not. In some sense I think of him as responsible and me as responsible. He could or is it 'could' leave the group. Associating with people entails pressures. We all have wants. So, I allow in my thinking that he has responsibility to take care of himself and can't expect me to reliquish groups needs for clarity. Does that mean I believe he has free will? Yes, no.

If I read a proof tomorrow that convinced me we had free will (and explained what that meant) or I read one that proved determinism (or indetermism which offers nothing to people beleiving in free will) would this change my behavior. I can't see how. Hard to know. But I see no reason for it. Next week faced with a similar issue and a close deadline, I won't suddenly have a new way of dealing with this guy.

How could we be responsible if everything is utterly determined? That's viewing language in a rigid container sort of way. I put information into words and send them out. Not for me. I think it is practical to think of causes coming from certain sources. That's an effective heuristic as far as I can tell, regardless of fw vs. d. I find out there's determinism I am not going to put my hand on the turned on stove because that was always going to happen. I will still hold myself responsible for not hurting myself and others. I will decide, God I hope so, not to put my hand on a hot burner. I will still get mad at people who shit on me. I don't think that suddenly becomes irrational behavior if there is no free will.

I'd need someone to show me - care to? - what practical losses I would have if I continued to think, often, of myself as responsible for effects of what I do and other people for effects of what they do. If you can show me how in a deterministic world this is bad, let me know. And not in the abstract. Not because it is wrong, but because it would lead to bad things. Be specific. And, of course, I could always blame all the causes before me for my way of thinking. What could the determinist say to that? But that's just snotty.

What's wrong with acting this way if it turns out we have free will or it turns out everything is determined?

I am not saying it should make no difference or you shouldn't care. I am just going on what I experience, which is that I will still get up tomorrow and try to get things to go well for me and others around me, regardless of any proofs I am convinced by. I'll try to minimize harm, try to have meaninful experiences and follow my interests and desires.

If I'd been in an abortion situation, well, I might try to filter FW vs D through that. But I haven't.

What do you think? Do you think I should be more concerned about finding a resolution to free will vs determinism? Would it change things for you if you saw a proof that one or the other was the case? What would you do if you had that proof? Would you change your speech? How? Be specific, please. You can explain how you would handle Mary's abortion if you knew that answer each way. Concrete. What would be wrong with acting like people are responsible? What would it change if you KNEW!!

Oh, and just out of curiosity, why "Iwannaplato"? You want a Plato? Now there was a serious philosopher!! A philosophical realist!!!

The straight, flat answer as to why IwannaPlato is that it was part of a joke based on Abbot and Costello's Who's on first bit? Our version had names and terrible puns from philosophy. Tell me who's playing second base. Kant? Why not? and so on. I don't even remember the full routine, but the friend who came up with this routine with me passed away and it's an homage to him. A private joke cast out into the ether.

And what are you on about in relation to Plato...he's a philosophical realist? He wasn't. But maybe that's what the italics meant. Was it sarcastic? aimed at whom or what?

[BigMike]

I'd need someone to show me - care to? - what practical losses I would have if I continued to think, often, of myself as responsible for effects of what I do and other people for effects of what they do. If you can show me how in a deterministic world this is bad, let me know. And not in the abstract. Not because it is wrong, but because it would lead to bad things. Be specific. And, of course, I could always blame all the causes before me for my way of thinking. What could the determinist say to that? But that's just snotty.

What's wrong with acting this way if it turns out we have free will or it turns out everything is determined?

According to writer and information security professional Daniel Miessler, if you believe in free will, you most likely believe "that those who don't get an education, make poor financial decisions, use drugs, join gangs, work low-paying jobs all their life, etc.— deserve the pitiful lives they lead. If they end up on food stamps, or in prison, or homeless on the street— the answer is elegant and powerful: they should have made better decisions."

After all, they would have a good education, a good job, and all the joys and benefits that come with it if they had followed in your footsteps and done the same things you did. This means you impose your moral values and habits on others, regardless of their unique circumstances. Then you judge them in the same way that you would judge yourself. Of course, everything would be fine if your moral beliefs were universally correct. But most people get it wrong. This is where they trip up: they believe they have free will.

Miessler further suggests that when you don't believe in free will, you tend to take a different position, i.e., that "there are causes and reasons for these poor decisions that lie outside of the control of those making them. Broken families, child abuse, a lack of education, peer pressure in poor neighborhoods, etc. The narrative says these factors combine to create environments that retard and harm children's future ability to grow up and make good decisions about education, peers, mates, when to have kids, when to buy a house, how to finance it, etc., and thus poor decisions will be made."

[Iwannaplato]

According to writer and information security professional Daniel Miessler, if you believe in free will, you most likely believe "that those who don't get an education, make poor financial decisions, use drugs, join gangs, work low-paying jobs all their life, etc.— deserve the pitiful lives they lead. If they end up on food stamps, or in prison, or homeless on the street— the answer is elegant and powerful: they should have made better decisions."

1) but those aren't philosophers. They are not necessarily taking a stand on free will in the way a philosopher would. IOW if you kept asking them, to follow the reasons why they did X, because they felt Y, I doubt most of these people - many religious - would end up finding causes for everything they do. They think of free will as not being controlled by what is outside them, at least entirely. They aren't taking an ontological stand, for the most part. Most of the people you are describing.

2) I am talking about what it should make me do or feel differently. Which is not the what you've answered. You've answered via statistics and in relation to people who already believe X, tend to think.

I'd also be interested in his testing protocols (or is it deduction?).

I couldn't find the specific article or text where he says this. I did find his writings and interestingly he describes a mixed approach to the issue not at all unlike my personal one. For example, here...
https://danielmiessler.com/blog/functio ... ajor%20way.
Now, he's committed to ontological level determinism but in practice he mixes views and defends this. In practice. So, I cannot see how his beliefs about what people who are free willers has to do with what I said.

After all, they would have a good education, a good job, and all the joys and benefits that come with it if they had followed in your footsteps and done the same things you did. This means you impose your moral values and habits on others, regardless of their unique circumstances. Then you judge them in the same way that you would judge yourself. Of course, everything would be fine if your moral beliefs were universally correct. But most people get it wrong. This is where they trip up: they believe they have free will.

Put this in the context of the specific situation I raised with the guy in the theater group. I have no fixed position on determinism vs. free will. Please tell me how I would behave and think differently if I was shown a proof of one over the other.

Miessler further suggests that when you don't believe in free will, you tend to take a different position, i.e., that "there are causes and reasons for these poor decisions that lie outside of the control of those making them. Broken families, child abuse, a lack of education, peer pressure in poor neighborhoods, etc. The narrative says these factors combine to create environments that retard and harm children's future ability to grow up and make good decisions about education, peers, mates, when to have kids, when to buy a house, how to finance it, etc., and thus poor decisions will be made."

I think he's radically oversimplifying it. He's got it nicely running along liberal vs conservative lines. Or you are interpreting him this way.

But notice: do the liberals understand and feel sympathy for the causes that lead their conservative opponents to hold those opinions in terms of determinism? Not usually. There they treat their opponents as making bad choices. And notice: conservative are deadly concerned about all sorts of decadence and sex ed and other people's sex lives CAUSING their children and society and people in general to become worse.

So, if you actually track both sides, they have mixed beliefs, sometimes applying free will assessments, sometimes determinism.

He's taking people's official positions as their actual positions. He's conflating folk theories of free will with the ontological form of free will bandied about in philosophical discussions.

And none of what you wrote has to do with what I wrote.

How should I change my behavior based on finding out that free will is true or determinism is true? How should I wake up changed? What rational change does each belief entail?

EDIT: ok I found the article you quoted from of his. And my guess was right, he's seeing this down political lines and also he is definitely dealing with people whose idea of free will is not the pure form bandied about in philosophy. Further he gives no support anything like believing in free will entails or believing in determinism entails X.

[BigMike]

Oh. I was unaware that you only wanted responses from philosophers. I'm merely a mathematician. Sorry about that.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh. I was unaware that you only wanted responses from philosophers. I'm merely a mathematician. Sorry about that.

I didn't say that at all. What I said was that those people do not believe in ontological free will. They are not thinking about it like philosophers do. They mean they have free will in response to external factors.

I've seen you include internal factors and all the way down.

They, the conservatives in his articles, are not actually arguing that there are no causes for their choices. Ask them. Ask them if their values and experiences and desires and morals didn't lead to the actions.

I'm not a philosopher or a mathematician. Sorry about that.

[Iwannaplato]

What I like to do in regard to discussions such as this is to bring them "down to Earth".

For example, suppose you have a friend who is pregnant but doesn't want to be. She has decided to have an abortion. In fact, she has the abortion.

What then of her behavior given the manner in which you understand free will, determinism and compatibilism?

From my frame of mind, if the human brain is entirely in sync with the laws of matter, then there was never any possibility of this friend not choosing the abortion.

Whether that is as a result of someone putting a gun to her head and compelling her to have it or as a result of her brain chemically and neurological compelling her to have it, externally or internally, she is going to abort the zygote, embryo or fetus.

There is either the reality unfolding only as it ever can, or "somehow" when mindless matter evolved into living, biological matter on planet Earth the laws of matter configured into human autonomy.

In a way we simply don't understand. Yet. Or, for some, can be attributable to God.

Great, here's your intellectual analysis of what determinism might mean in relation to abortion. So, let's say you find proof determinism is the case? How does that change you in relation to actions in the world? In practical down to earth ways, what does certainty that determinism is the case necessarily lead to? IOW what should that lead all rational people to do? Likewise with free will. What should a proof that we have free will lead you to do differently in relation to Mary? (and yes, I understand that determinism would mean that however you react would be determined. My root question is: why does this matter? And note: I understand that it might have lots of emotional effects finding out, for sure, that everything is determined, but why is it important to work this out? How would it change your view of Mary and how you would have acted then?

I see you asking for people to be down to earth. Show us how it's done. I gave it a shot in relation to a guy in my theater group. Show us what you are looking for and why you consider this issue important in relation to Mary.

And explain why we should also change and act the ways these proofs would lead you to? Why your reactions to those proofs are the ones all rational people should have?

Note: I am not asking you to prove determinism or free will. I am asking why you think the issue is important and what actions should be entailed in the abortion situation you lay out?

Or perhaps I've misinterpreted. Perhaps you don't think it entails anything, either proof. Perhaps you don't think it has any practical importance. Let me know.