Compatibilism is impossible

[bahman]

I think we can agree on the fact that the brain is a set of neurons that interact with each other. Any mental state, the physical state of the brain, leads into another mental state by following the laws of physics. This is a deterministic chain of causality. Free will on another hand is the ability to initiate or terminate a chain of causality. This is true since we are dealing with two options in an undecided situation which requires an agent to choose one of the options and initiate a chain of causality. This, initiating or terminating a causal chain, is impossible in a physical/deterministic world. Therefore compatibilism is impossible.

Compatibilism is merely a recognition that although wholly deterministic, each of our wills can act as agents to intervene in various chains of causality.
The POV is "compatible" with the notion of "free will" since the meaing of "free" means not complelled by exogenous forces (such as a gun to the head) but where the determination of the individual is endogenously generated.
Such actions of mine are free in that they are not determined by others, but chosen through considerations of endogenous causes such as experience, learning and volition which are personal.

What do you mean by various chains of causality? Any deterministic system evolves according to one chain of causality.

[Atla]

It's a no brainer that there is a deterministic universe, but once a 'brain' is involved, well as Sir Roger Penrose points out, he sees no computation within consciousness, whereas anything determined can be placed within a computational algorithm, consciousness does not appear to be such.

Is it a no-brainer though? Once we include QM, maybe the entire universe stops being 100% computational, with or without human consciousness. Penrose's point seems irrelevant to me.

[attofishpi]

It's a no brainer that there is a deterministic universe, but once a 'brain' is involved, well as Sir Roger Penrose points out, he sees no computation within consciousness, whereas anything determined can be placed within a computational algorithm, consciousness does not appear to be such.

Is it a no-brainer though? Once we include QM, maybe the entire universe stops being 100% computational, with or without human consciousness. Penrose's point seems irrelevant to me.

That's a big maybe and no it doesn't (of course to calculate would be ridiculous, but calculable it is). Perceivable reality IS the universe, our perception--thus, human consciousness is the only thing pertaining to perception of a deterministic universe--and, my dear Atla --that 'consciousness' is what cannot be computed (determined) --- it has internal options.

[Harbal]

I think we can agree on the fact that the brain is a set of neurons that interact with each other. Any mental state, the physical state of the brain, leads into another mental state by following the laws of physics. This is a deterministic chain of causality. Free will on another hand is the ability to initiate or terminate a chain of causality. This is true since we are dealing with two options in an undecided situation which requires an agent to choose one of the options and initiate a chain of causality. This, initiating or terminating a causal chain, is impossible in a physical/deterministic world. Therefore compatibilism is impossible.

Compatibilism is merely a recognition that although wholly deterministic, each of our wills can act as agents to intervene in various chains of causality.
The POV is "compatible" with the notion of "free will" since the meaing of "free" means not complelled by exogenous forces (such as a gun to the head) but where the determination of the individual is endogenously generated.
Such actions of mine are free in that they are not determined by others, but chosen through considerations of endogenous causes such as experience, learning and volition which are personal.

What do you mean by various chains of causality? Any deterministic system evolves according to one chain of causality.

That isn't always the case. Consider the man who was simultaneously hit by two vehicles while crossing the road in a preoccupied state of WhatsApp fascination.

[Flannel Jesus]

That isn't always the case. Consider the man who was simultaneously hit by two vehicles while crossing the road in a preoccupied state of WhatsApp fascination.

I think the argument here is, if this universe all started at the big bang, those two vehicles are ultimately part of the unbroken single chain of causality that started at t=0 and progressed since then according to whatever the laws of physics are.

[Atla]

It's a no brainer that there is a deterministic universe, but once a 'brain' is involved, well as Sir Roger Penrose points out, he sees no computation within consciousness, whereas anything determined can be placed within a computational algorithm, consciousness does not appear to be such.

Is it a no-brainer though? Once we include QM, maybe the entire universe stops being 100% computational, with or without human consciousness. Penrose's point seems irrelevant to me.

That's a big maybe and no it doesn't (of course to calculate would be ridiculous, but calculable it is). Perceivable reality IS the universe, our perception--thus, human consciousness is the only thing pertaining to perception of a deterministic universe--and, my dear Atla --that 'consciousness' is what cannot be computed (determined) --- it has internal options.

Very funny

[attofishpi]

Is it a no-brainer though? Once we include QM, maybe the entire universe stops being 100% computational, with or without human consciousness. Penrose's point seems irrelevant to me.

That's a big maybe and no it doesn't (of course to calculate would be ridiculous, but calculable it is). Perceivable reality IS the universe, our perception--thus, human consciousness is the only thing pertaining to perception of a deterministic universe--and, my dear Atla --that 'consciousness' is what cannot be computed (determined) --- it has internal options.

Very funny

..funny? R U taking the piss?

[Sculptor]

Pretty certain we are on the same money since you mention that our wills act upon the chain of causality.

I mentioned many times earlier in the thread, that we have free-will and we affect causality of the deterministic universe. (compatibilism)

It's a no brainer that there is a deterministic universe, but once a 'brain' is involved, well as Sir Roger Penrose points out, he sees no computation within consciousness, whereas anything determined can be placed within a computational algorithm, consciousness does not appear to be such.

No. Not even consciousness can escape the laws of nature.
If decisions were not determined by your experience , what use would learning be?

Sure, my decisions are based upon experience but more importantly my outlook, what i aspire to see within my FUTURE..it is that where upon my WILL "lies" --->

Yes, your will is determined by who and what you are. That is where you get your aspirations; a condensation of yours needs and experience.

[attofishpi]

No. Not even consciousness can escape the laws of nature.
If decisions were not determined by your experience , what use would learning be?

Sure, my decisions are based upon experience but more importantly my outlook, what i aspire to see within my FUTURE..it is that where upon my WILL "lies" --->

Yes, your will is determined by who and what you are. That is where you get your aspirations; a condensation of yours needs and experience.

Ultimately we 'condition' ourselves. Every analytical choice we make (upon our experience) 'sculpts' ourselves throughout life and is binary all the way to right now and the decision(s) you are making when reading this. It goes beyond a simple, to reply or not to reply as I think you will understand, every decision you make is binary.

[Iwannaplato]

That isn't always the case. Consider the man who was simultaneously hit by two vehicles while crossing the road in a preoccupied state of WhatsApp fascination.

I think the argument here is, if this universe all started at the big bang, those two vehicles are ultimately part of the unbroken single chain of causality that started at t=0 and progressed since then according to whatever the laws of physics are.

You could think of it as an extremely complicated wave, moving forward, forming different patterns as it goes.

[attofishpi]

That isn't always the case. Consider the man who was simultaneously hit by two vehicles while crossing the road in a preoccupied state of WhatsApp fascination.

I think the argument here is, if this universe all started at the big bang, those two vehicles are ultimately part of the unbroken single chain of causality that started at t=0 and progressed since then according to whatever the laws of physics are.

You could think of it as an extremely complicated wave, moving forward, forming different patterns as it goes.

Clearly you are both discounting any free-will affect on the deterministic causal chains.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think the argument here is, if this universe all started at the big bang, those two vehicles are ultimately part of the unbroken single chain of causality that started at t=0 and progressed since then according to whatever the laws of physics are.

You could think of it as an extremely complicated wave, moving forward, forming different patterns as it goes.

Clearly you are both discounting any free-will affect on the deterministic causal chains.

We're both talking in a context where determinism is a given, because of the context of the question and the way it was asked.

It was an "if determinism is true, then..." type of context. So you're right, in that context we absolutely do do that.

[attofishpi]

You could think of it as an extremely complicated wave, moving forward, forming different patterns as it goes.

Clearly you are both discounting any free-will affect on the deterministic causal chains.

We're both talking in a context where determinism is a given, because of the context of the question and the way it was asked.

It was an "if determinism is true, then..." type of context. So you're right, in that context we absolutely do do that.

..and? I still don't know where U stand within that strand of DNA? Determinism or Compatibilism? ...not even sure what or how 'free-will' can as IC claims, knock compatibilism out of the equation. It's D or C IMO.

[Flannel Jesus]

..and? I still don't know where U stand within that strand of DNA? Determinism or Compatibilism? ...not even sure what or how 'free-will' can as IC claims, knock compatibilism out of the equation. It's D or C IMO.

I don't feel like most of those words are pertinent to the things I was saying.

[attofishpi]

..and? I still don't know where U stand within that strand of DNA? Determinism or Compatibilism? ...not even sure what or how 'free-will' can as IC claims, knock compatibilism out of the equation. It's D or C IMO.

I don't feel like most of those words are pertinent to the things I was saying.

Just interested in where you stand, what your opinion is, Determinism or Compatibilism?