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 »

Daniel Dennett is Wrong About Free Will
by Daniel Miessler
Taking action

Harris can’t take credit for the luck of his birth, his having had a normal moral education—that’s just luck—but those born thus lucky are informed that they have a duty or obligation to preserve their competence, and grow it, and educate themselves, and Harris has responded admirably to those incentives.

He keeps making the same error.
Actually, luck is only really relevant in a world where human beings are able to either experience it in a free will world or discuss it. In a determined universe as some understand it, good luck and bad luck are entirely interchangeable because how human beings do either experience it or assess it is but a necessary component of the only possible reality in the only possible world.

And, given free will, my own question to those like Harris and Dennett would how, in a determined universe, they themselves imagine a discussion of luck would unfold...should unfold?

Same with morality and education. They either are what they can only ever be if the human brain is interchangeable with all other matter or "somehow" the human brain is...different.
Let’s try it with Robots:

Robots can’t take credit for the luck of their birth and their normal moral education—that’s just luck—but those born thus lucky are informed that they have a duty or obligation to preserve their competence, and grow it, and educate themselves, and the robots has responded admirably to those incentives.

Taking input and formulating a complex response is not freedom. Plants do it. Animals do it. Computers do it. That is not the standard, and if it were then most living things would qualify; it’d just be a question of degree.
They're programmed in other words. By human beings. Who may or may not themselves be programmed by nature. The tricky part then revolves around the extent to which in educating themselves they become more and more like us.

And that's the point: the extent to which matter wholly in sync with its own immutable laws can go. All the way to us?

Only brain matter has evolved to the point where it is able to question the nature of brain matter itself. And to ponder how in a No God world it may well have "somehow" acquired autonomy.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Agent Smith »

The mirror first cracked, the crack traced a path like lightning Lichtenberg figures, in all directions from the point of maximum pressure and then shattered into a million pieces. I still use that mirror? No, no, of course not, but the new mirror is just the old mirror ... uncracked, unshattered.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Trouble with Compatibilism
Marcus Arvan at the Philosopher's Cocoon
But of course here's what puzzles me, and what seems to puzzle most of compatibilism's opponents as far as I can tell: how compatibilism is supposed to be at all interesting, regardless of how we spell it out. After all, suppose I said to you: "All of your actions were determined billions of years ago. But, don't worry, you can make a real difference in the world. I have a philosophical analysis of 'making a difference' that proves it!"
Exactly. A philosophical analysis consisting of an argument comprised of words that a philosopher will define the meaning of by defining the meaning of yet more words still to defend them. But [for me] the unfathomable mystery of how, if my actions were determined going back to the existence of matter itself 13.7 billion years ago, any differences that I do make in the world were not just the only differences I was never able not to make.

I mean, come on, what does making a difference mean when you could never opt freely not to make it?
The obvious enough rejoinder seems to me to be this: "Well, of course. Surely there has to be a sense in which I can make a difference in the world. My actions are mine, after all -- they belong to me -- and there's clearly a sense in which they do make a difference in what happens. If the laws of nature cause me to drink a Coke, then, indeed, I have made a difference in the world: there is one less Coke to drink. But so what? It's one thing to say that there's a sense in which I can make a difference in the world. It's another thing to show that it is a sense worth philosophically caring about."
Okay, but what if this "sense" is itself just another inherent manifestation/component of the only possible world? Necessarily intertwined in the only possible actions you are capable of. Yes, they make a difference. On the other hand, when you are watching a movie the actor's behavior creates differences too. But the actor acts solely in accordance with the director's instructions. They mouth scripted lines in scripted contexts. Well, think of nature itself as the mother of all directors. Only wrap your head around the possibility that what you do think here is no less embedded as well in a wholly determined world.

As for caring philosophically [about anything], it's the same thing: compelled by brains entirely in sync with the laws of matter.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Trouble with Compatibilism
Marcus Arvan at the Philosopher's Cocoon
Now, I know compatibilists think they have arguments that compatibilism is interesting and fruitful. They may say, perhaps, that Frankfurt-cases show that we can be morally responsible even in cases where we couldn't behave otherwise.
Harry Frankfurt cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_cases

"The principle of alternate possibilities (PAP) forms part of an influential argument for the incompatibility of responsibility and causal determinism, often called the core argument for incompatibilism. This argument is detailed below:

PAP: An agent is responsible for an action only if said agent could have done otherwise.
An agent could have done otherwise only if causal determinism is false.
Therefore, an agent is responsible for an action only if causal determinism is false.


In other words, the compatibilists may think and say what they do [about responsibility or anything else] but only because this too is an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality. It's like they accept determinism...but not really. But noting this is in turn just another necessary component of a determined universe.
Yet I have to confess that I've always been baffled by how Frankfurt cases are used in the debate. Here, after all, is the classic Frankfurt case set-up. We are supposed to (A) imagine a person making a choice P, and then (B) imagine a mechanism which, if the person tried to make some alternative choice Q, would force the person to instead choose P. Here, for instance, is a typical case (copied from Wikipedia):

Donald is a Democrat and is likely to vote for the Democrats; in fact, only in one particular circumstance will he not: that is, if he thinks about the prospects of immediate American defeat in Iraq just prior to voting. Ms White, a representative of the Democratic Party, wants to ensure that Donald votes Democratic, so she secretly plants a device in Donald's head that, if activated, will force him to vote Democratic. Not wishing to reveal her presence unnecessarily, Ms White plans to activate the device only if Donald thinks about the Iraq prior to voting. As things happen, Donald does not think about Iraq prior to voting, so Ms White thus sees no reason to activate the device, and Donald votes Democratic of his own accord. Apparently, Donald is responsible for voting Democratic although, owing to Ms. White's device, he lacks freedom to do otherwise.
Got that? Well, if you get only what your brain compelled you to get...congratulation? But the compatibilists insist you are still responsible for getting it that way instead of another way. But: Not being free to say otherwise?
Here is the problem. Frankfurt cases are strongly disanalogous to physical determinism. In a Frankfurt case, the person's action is not determined by any actual physical laws.
Or it is determined by physical laws, but their brain is also determined by physical laws to think about it differently
The sense in which the person "cannot do otherwise" is entirely counterfactual. It is that if they tried to choose otherwise, someone (or some mechanism) would step in and ensure that they don't succeed. But this "trying" isn't even possible under physical determinism. It's not the case that if I tried to behave otherwise than I do, physical laws would step in and stop me. It's that I can't even try to behave otherwise if physical determinism is true (it is not a physical possibility).
In other words, as I understand it [compelled or not], nothing that we think, feel, say or do is exempt from the laws of matter themselves. Even if we strongly embrace the belief that we are both determined and morally responsible this is only because "somehow" the human brain has evolved on planet Earth to delude some into thinking this. When in fact it's not. We think we are trying to behave otherwise but that too is just an illusion.
This, then, is the problem with Frankfurt cases. They push certain intuitions -- that we can be morally responsible for our actions even if we couldn't do otherwise -- because, contrary to determinism, they smuggle in libertarian intuitions.
The, "I just know I have free will and nothing you say is going to change my mind!"

The sheer mystery embedded in why or how the human brain did evolve in this manner. If it's true. That memes are a manifestation of both nature and nurture.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

The Dogmatic Determinism of Daniel Dennett
Eyal Mozes
BOOK REVIEW: Daniel C. Dennett, Freedom Evolves.
at The Atlas Society
THE CONCEPT OF "MEME"
Though, in my view, so much more to the point in a free will world is the part where we find ourselves interacting with others out in a particular world bursting at the seams with a plethora of actual accumulating historical, cultural and experiential memes. Many of them often understood in very different ways.

Whereas in a wholly determined world both genes and genes are entirely in sync with the laws of matter. Dennett discussing them only as he was ever able to discuss them. And the author here reacting to him only as he was ever able to.

Thus...
In explaining the evolution of human culture, Dennett employs the concept of "meme," coined by Richard Dawkins. A meme is an idea viewed as an agent seeking to reproduce itself in people's minds and competing with other memes through a cultural version of Darwinian natural selection.
...reflecting the only possible reality. And here I am typing these words and you reading them as but inherent components of material/phenomenological Reality in turn.

The "competition" is part and parcel of the illusory nature of human autonomy. You, me, Dennett, Dawkins and Mozes toppling over onto each other within the one and the only overall ontological parameters of existence itself. Only brain matter is particularly mystifying because to the best of our knowledge [whatever that means in a determined universe] brain matter is the only matter able to broach teleology as well. With or without GOD.
The idea of memes is an incoherent theory, and its adoption by writers such as Dennett and Dawkins demonstrates their desperation to avoid ascribing causal efficacy to the mind.
No, what is incoherent to some are those like Rand who insist that however others understand such things as genes and memes, they are necessarily wrong if they don't subscribe to her own definitions and meanings. Even more preposterous how they are applicable to all human interactions where moral and political conflicts unfold. For all practical purposes in particular. Only her own mind is ultimately synonymous with the most "causal efficacy" that human minds are capable of.
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
Philosophers and scientists have been debating the concept of free will for centuries.
On the other hand, in debating the concept of free will, they will, sooner or later, have to get around to connecting the dots between their technical conclusions and their actual behaviors. Either alone or in social, political and economic interactions with others.

Although here of course some never do.

Also, whatever they "think up" in a world of words will eventually have to be taken to the scientists that study the functioning brain experientially and experimentally.

Still, even in debating free will "theoretically" philosophers have failed to reach a consensus regarding human autonomy. Some argue in the general direction of the libertarians, some in the general direction of the determinists, some in the general direction of the compatibilists.

Meanwhile the "hard guys and gals" aren't really any closer to pinning it all down either.

To the best of my current knowledge.
While there are many nuances and subtleties, there are generally three main positions.

1] Libertarian Free Will is the idea that we have a completely free will that is not significantly determined by our makeup or our surroundings. Basically, our choices are our own, and physics and environment might have an influence but don’t ultimately determine anything.
Then there are those who refuse to make a distinction between empirical truths and moral truths. Not only are we free to choose what we think, feel, say and do but if we do so rationally, we can arrive at an objective truth in regard to value judgments. Their own of course.
Most modern believers in Libertarian free will believe in a supernatural God that gave them this freedom.
I don't know about that. Sure, there are Christian Libertarians. And henry quirk is a Deist Libertarian. But there are also Objectivists who are adamantly atheists.
2] Compatibilists believe the world is deterministic—meaning that outcomes are ultimately determined by a set of initial conditions combined with the laws of physics (which likely include randomness). But they believe we can still have free will within this deterministic framework, i.e., they believe free will is compatible with determinism.
Again, that sound you hear is me groping to understand how anyone can actually believe this other than because in a wholly determined universe they were never able not to.
Incompatibilists also believe the universe is deterministic, but they believe that a world constrained in this way offers no room for a free will.
Though, as well, there are those here who seem to embrace this while at the same time appearing to argue that those who don't think like they do really are fools.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Free Will Is Real and Materialism Is Wrong
Michael Egnor
I’ve written before in reply to materialist Jerry Coyne’s assertion that free will is an illusion. The gist of Coyne’s denial, shared by others of course, is that nature is deterministic and that the mind is a wholly material process, yoked to the laws of physics and to an organism’s evolutionary history. Thus, our choices are completely determined and free will is an illusion.
The classic philosophical argument of course. Words telling us what other words mean without actually connecting them to a definitive experiential -- scientific -- understanding of how the human brain does in fact function in doing what, to the best of our current knowledge, no other matter in the universe does: think philosophically.

The words go around and around subjectively in circles: "This is what I think about determinism philosophically. What do you think about determinism philosophically?"

Then when asked to explain how we would go about demonstrating that what we believe "in our head" philosophically about these things corresponds with the laws of matter in regard to physics and chemistry and biology we can go "shopping" for a neuroscientist that comes closest to our own subjective philosophical prejudices. This too perhaps being "beyond our control" in the only possible world.

This guy too...
I’ve already pointed out his error on the question of determinism. Today I’ll focus on his error regarding the materiality/immateriality of the will.
As though he can pin down definitively whether Coyne has in fact made an error in a world where errors themselves reflect the only possible reality. If philosophically Coyne can only conclude what he must, well, what kind of an error is that? Same with Egnor's conclusion. Maybe he is correct about Coyne. But if he was compelled by his own brain to argue that he was, well, what kind of a correct is that? How to nature [whatever that means] is it not interchangeable with Coyne's error?

Now more philosophy...
We have a variety of mental capabilities (or powers). We have sensation and perception, memory, imagination, intellect, and will. Philosophers since Aristotle have noted that intellect and will differ qualitatively from other mental powers. The difference is in the substrate on which intellect and will act, on the one hand, and sensation, perception, memory, imagination, and desire act, on the other.
That's not the point say some determinists. Yes, we have all of these things. And we do distinguish them in different ways. But if both human intellect and will [along with instincts, drives, libidos etc.] are inherent components of brain matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter themselves then...then in a No God world how do we explain how and why that is the case?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 1:05 pm Free Will Is Real and Materialism Is Wrong
Michael Egnor
I’ve written before in reply to materialist Jerry Coyne’s assertion that free will is an illusion. The gist of Coyne’s denial, shared by others of course, is that nature is deterministic and that the mind is a wholly material process, yoked to the laws of physics and to an organism’s evolutionary history. Thus, our choices are completely determined and free will is an illusion.
The classic philosophical argument of course. Words telling us what other words mean without actually connecting them to a definitive experiential -- scientific -- understanding of how the human brain does in fact function in doing what, to the best of our current knowledge, no other matter in the universe does: think philosophically.

The words go around and around subjectively in circles: "This is what I think about determinism philosophically. What do you think about determinism philosophically?"

Then when asked to explain how we would go about demonstrating that what we believe "in our head" philosophically about these things corresponds with the laws of matter in regard to physics and chemistry and biology we can go "shopping" for a neuroscientist that comes closest to our own subjective philosophical prejudices. This too perhaps being "beyond our control" in the only possible world.

This guy too...
I’ve already pointed out his error on the question of determinism. Today I’ll focus on his error regarding the materiality/immateriality of the will.
As though he can pin down definitively whether Coyne has in fact made an error in a world where errors themselves reflect the only possible reality. If philosophically Coyne can only conclude what he must, well, what kind of an error is that? Same with Egnor's conclusion. Maybe he is correct about Coyne. But if he was compelled by his own brain to argue that he was, well, what kind of a correct is that? How to nature [whatever that means] is it not interchangeable with Coyne's error?

Now more philosophy...
We have a variety of mental capabilities (or powers). We have sensation and perception, memory, imagination, intellect, and will. Philosophers since Aristotle have noted that intellect and will differ qualitatively from other mental powers. The difference is in the substrate on which intellect and will act, on the one hand, and sensation, perception, memory, imagination, and desire act, on the other.
That's not the point say some determinists. Yes, we have all of these things. And we do distinguish them in different ways. But if both human intellect and will [along with instincts, drives, libidos etc.] are inherent components of brain matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter themselves then...then in a No God world how do we explain how and why that is the case?
'you' START by UNDERSTANDING that 'brain matter' is the EXACT SAME as ABSOLUTELY ALL 'matter' IS.

HOW, and WHY, ALL 'things exist, in 'concept' ONLY, but which ALL ARE just perceived 'parts' OF the One ONLY ACTUAL 'Thing' CAN, WAS, and WILL BE, AGAIN, EXPLAINED IN VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'terms', that is; IF, and WHEN, ABSOLUTE INTEREST and REAL CURIOSITY prevails.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

:lol:

No, seriously.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Grow up biggy. Write something that means something.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Stooge wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 4:45 pm Grow up biggy. Write something that means something.
I'll leave it up to other members here to decide for themselves if I post "something that means something".

Here, for example:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34285
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34247
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=34306
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34319
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34271
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35199
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=39982
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=34260

My threads have garnered hundreds of replies and thousands of views. And I've only been posting on a daily basis now for about 15 months.

Look, you don't like me. I have my own conjectures regarding why that is. So, you snipe at me in the manner in which I construe to be that of a Stooge.

Instead of actually engaging in a substantive exchange regarding the ideas I pose. Though I'm sure you have your own conjectures regarding why that is the case.

It's really rather pathetic from my vantage point.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 4:19 pm :lol:

No, seriously.
These posts don't mean anything.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 5:14 pm
iambiguous wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 4:19 pm :lol:

No, seriously.
These posts don't mean anything.
That's just an inside joke between Age and myself.

Now, if you want posts that truly don't mean anything, note the ones we get From Satyr over at ILP in reaction to the stuff I post there.

For example:

ME:

Moral Nihilism and its Implications
Marc Krellenstein
Northeastern University
Consider, for example, arguments over abortion that set the absolute sanctity of any form of unique human life against the absolute right of control over one’s own body, or debates in “trolley” problems over diverting a runaway trolley to kill one person in order to save the five in its path.
Again, in my view, the key point here is not that such absolutes are embraced by those on both sides of the morality wars, but that the main goal of the objectivists is the belief that such absolutes do in fact exist. And that this is the case because, well, those on both sides already claim to embody them.

The point is that in believing this it enables both liberals and conservatives to sustain the comfort and that consolation that comes with being able to divide the world up between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys].

Also, it allows those on both sides to insist that their value judgments here are not just "political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein" but instead reflect [philosophically or otherwise] the most rational manner in which to understand the issue.
The variation in moral beliefs across and within cultures also argues against the possibility that there exist absolute moral obligations that all people recognize. No attempt to rationalize these differences has succeeded.
Please. As the objectivists among us [from both sides] make crystal clear, if they believe that there are in fact absolute moral truths that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace, then that need be as far as they go. Then it simply comes down to how much political power they have in any particular community or nation. For example, the Catholics on the United States Supreme Court. Now, in America, laws can be passed criminalizing behaviors that were once permitted.
It could be argued that the belief that there are no absolute foundations is itself an absolute belief. But, rather than being absolute, it is an observation that no rational argument has established absolute values. It leaves open the possibility that evidence may yet be offered that proves otherwise.
Yes, if someone argues that there are no absolute moral truths in regard to abortion how is that not just as indefensible? On the other hand, it is the obligation of those who claim that there are to demonstrate this. And, from my frame of mind, that involves demonstrating that, in fact, the arguments made by the other side are not reasonable.

So, given the pro/con arguments regarding the legality of abortion -- https://abortion.procon.org/ -- anyone here care to try?[/quote]

HIM:
Lorikeet/Satyr wrote:Whoever believes this Karen can be "healed"....or reasoned with.....is suffering from Abrahamism they haven't, yet, fully reconverted from.
:lol:

No, seriously.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

It's not an inside joke between you and age. You write "no, seriously" all the time, to all sorts of people. It's an idiom that you misuse - that doesn't mean to other people the thing you intend to mean by it. There are a lot of aspects of the way you write that are like that. You fairly consistently misuse figures of speech in a way that is very particular to you, and very hard to understand for anybody that isn't you.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6212
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 5:24 pm It's not an inside joke between you and age. You write "no, seriously" all the time, to all sorts of people. It's an idiom that you misuse - that doesn't mean to other people the thing you intend to mean by it. There are a lot of aspects of the way you write that are like that. You fairly consistently misuse figures of speech in a way that is very particular to you, and very hard to understand for anybody that isn't you.
To be fair, if you are throwing misused idioms at Age that's just farting fire with fiber.
Post Reply