Solve the Riddle of Compatibilism, Win Big Prize

[shunyadragon]

How did you come up with that? Cite your sources. None of the scholarly works on compatibilism that I've read indicate that compatibilism proposes an idiosyncratic definition of determinism.

From: Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Compatibilism

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

 

[Willamena]

Sorry to ask, but what is this Big Prize?

The prize is realising the futility of arguing against someone who is stubborn.

 

[Nous]

Simply the definition of compatibilism does not use an idiosyncratic definition of determinism. Strict determinism does not allow free will. Cpmpatibiilsm does allow free will choices within the causal chain of determinism.

So your claim that the thesis of compatibilism entails some peculiar idea of determinism is just something you pulled out of some orafice?

The definition of determinism is not multiple choice. There is only one rigorous definition of determinism, and it is provided in the OP. The riddle of compatibilism is the fact that it holds that free will is ostensibly unharmed by determinism. If you were to do any reading on the topic of compatibilism, you would discover, as pointed out among the first posts of this thread, that compatibilists generally propose some impotent or otherwise confounding idea of free will.

 

[Purple1]

So your claim that the thesis of compatibilism entails some peculiar idea of determinism is just something you pulled out of some orafice?

The definition of determinism is not multiple choice. There is only one rigorous definition of determinism, and it is provided in the OP. The riddle of compatibilism is the fact that it holds that free will is ostensibly unharmed by determinism. If you were to do any reading on the topic of compatibilism, you would discover, as pointed out among the first posts of this thread, that compatibilists generally propose some impotent or otherwise confounding idea of free will.

I see you ignored my previous message. Why is that? I think I did answer the question, not directly some might say. But you choose not to answer. Was it free will or determinism? The answer is: both.

Simply put:

“Pure free will” is conceptual, and does not exist.

The problem is one of language.

If you had “pure free will” you could fly – with just your body – or teleport anywhere on the planet or the galaxy in an instant.

“Pure free will” does not exist and is an error in language.

Like “Pure perfection”, it doesn’t exist unless it’s inside boundaries, inside a frame.

If we would define it as such and such; we could have a “Perfect shot” in basketball.

So the “perfect shot” would exist inside the boundaries or frame of its definition, of it's happening.

“Free will” does exist, but within a frame; a deterministic frame.

Therefor; compatibilism.

There is no such thing as “pure free will”; it is an error of/in language.

 

[Nous]

I see you ignored my previous message. Why is that? I think I did answer the question, not directly some might say. But you choose not to answer. Was it free will or determinism? The answer is: both.

Simply put:

“Pure free will” is conceptual, and does not exist

The problem is one of language.

If you had “pure free will” you could fly – with just your body – or teleport anywhere on the planet or the galaxy in an instant.

Presumably I didn't respond to your claims because they're just too crazy and irrelevant. If you were to read any of the scholarly literature on free will, you would see that it has nothing to do with lunatic ideas of humans doing things that are physically impossible such as growing wings and flying, etc.,

“Pure free will” does not exist and is an error in language.

The error is entirely yours. Neither the phrase "pure free will" nor your ideas about that phrase occur in the OP or anywhere else on this thread until you came along.

 

[Purple1]

Presumably I didn't respond to your claims because they're just too crazy and irrelevant. If you were to read any of the scholarly literature on free will, you would see that it has nothing to do with lunatic ideas of humans doing things that are physically impossible such as growing wings and flying, etc.,

The error is entirely yours. Neither the phrase "pure free will" nor your ideas about that phrase occur in the OP or anywhere else on this thread until you came along.

I happen to have read "scholarly literature on free will" in fact, I’ve read a lot of “scholarly literature on philosophy” and “scholarly literature on psychology”-Yet my answers don’t satisfy you, and you even accuse me of being lunatic… sure? I don't see your point. In fact, all I see is a sophistical rhetoric here. Accusing me of this and that.

What is your point?

You ask a question in OP; then, most of your answer to people falls in: Others are wrong or delusional or stupid.

I must be pretty stupid, because, to me, all I wrote here does make sense. Even the stuff about being a Paranoid Schizophrenic – but yeah, maybe too subtle? And some of what others have written too, makes sense.

So, let’s have a conversation, please? ((edit: not in this message we won't))

Free will?
VS
Determinism?

Complete Free will vs Complete determinism; those are extremes.

(and again, sorry for inserting “weird words”, like “complete” – I assume I will get punished for it again, but my free will definition and my determinism definition, as far as I know, doesn’t correspond to yours.) – ((but I hope I didn’t lose you here by saying that.))

Compatibilism is a combination of both. A compromise, if you will.

And I know that you know that, but you don't adhere to it.

"Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.” Is that a coherent thesis? I have often asked people who've ostensibly espoused compatibilism to explain it, but to no avail, and even philosophical works attempting to defend this thesis generally leave me with at least as many questions as I had to begin with.

So what is your question exactly?

Found it.

In any case, his claims relating to compatibilism just raise the same old, same old questions: If our reasons and mental states deterministically churn out our behaviors, and our reasons and mental states are themselves the unavoidable effects of deterministic processes, then where is one's freedom to choose one's deeds?

Btw, instead of obnoxiously bashing others, you could [insert argument here].

So your claim that the thesis of compatibilism entails some peculiar idea of determinism is just something you pulled out of some orafice?

Because you clearly don’t demolish what I’m writing or prove it invalid, you just bring me down as a person (or try to) with your words targeted at me and not my idea.

Of course, I’m a simple-minded lunatic. Of course.


But hey, I’m a good player – and even though I’m a bit insulted by what you said to me, and find insulting some of the stuff that you said to others; I will play your game and I will answer the correct exact words you are looking for in a complete deterministic (hmmm…?) way, if that makes sense. (Sorry I couldn’t resist.)


As lunatic as I may be, I am serious here. Just give me time to prepare my answer.

 

[Purple1]

In any case, his claims relating to compatibilism just raise the same old, same old questions: If our reasons and mental states deterministically churn out our behaviors, and our reasons and mental states are themselves the unavoidable effects of deterministic processes, then where is one's freedom to choose one's deeds?

Let me first examine your question (to make sure I understand it):

“If our reasons and mental states deterministically churn-out our behaviors,

churn-out; define churn (or churn-out) for me please. It is unclear to me, at this point, what it means exactly.

and our reasons and mental states // are themselves the unavoidable effects of deterministic processes,//

then where is one’s freedom to choose one’s deeds?"

Define “churn / churn-out” for me please. I can’t find a proper definition that lets me fully understand the meaning of that word in this present context.

And don’t go and assume that I didn’t read/have knowledge on the subject; the problem here is one of language – I am French/not from France – and although I’ve also read a lot in English; I don’t remember coming across that word and I don’t know what it means exactly, so please: define it. I have an idea about what it means, but I want to be certain of what you mean.

I need to understand this word to be able to answer the question.

 

[Purple1]

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In a world under sway of determinism, all of my pondering and deliberation over what socks to wear is an inexplicable waste of energy

I could go even further, and say that all of your pondering and deliberation over what socks to wear is not an inexplicable waste of energy: it is you in a world under the sway of determinism.

The world is governed by determinism meaning that the specific way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Therefor, you had no choice to ponder and deliberate about what socks to wear, because the world is under the sway of determinism and you are part of this world or in this world. Thinking that pondering and deliberating about what socks to wear tomorrow is an inexplicable waste of time and that tomorrow’s socks are already decided in advance, is thinking that you have a free will; the free will of thinking. Else, why would it be a waste of time? It wouldn’t.

If the socks that you will wear tomorrow at time is already decided; why would it be any different for the “fake decision process; aka pondering and deliberation/waste of energy and time”? I could argue that this pondering is fixed by a causal deterministic chain; by the natural law.

If your actions are governed by a deterministic natural law; why wouldn’t your thoughts also be governed by a deterministic natural law?

After all, your thoughts are also events; mental events. Aren’t they?

As the definitions make clear, determinism cannot be true if in the universe there occurs even a single event that has not been fully determined by prior conditions.

 

[blü 2]

Sorry for the delay ─ I missed this one.

You "feel" that you "own" your decisions?

Indeed. Are you saying you do not?

Is that statement intended to avoid stating that you make your own decisions?

Outside of this conversation, as far as I'm concerned I make my own decisions. But if we're looking at the theory of decision-making, as I said, I can't see how any brain can make a decision independently of (complex chains of) cause&effect, possibly with a sprinkling of quantum randomness.

Are you able to choose to wear one color of socks that you have in your drawer rather than another color that you have in your drawer?

As far as my subjective sense of self, the 'me' who's writing this, goes, "I" can "choose". If I take an objective outside-looking-in view, I see only cause&effect (and possible randomness).

If so, then you are denying the thesis of determinism.

No, just the relevance of it to me as I go about living.

 

[Purple1]

The definition of determinism is not multiple choice. There is only one rigorous definition of determinism, and it is provided in the OP. The riddle of compatibilism is the fact that it holds that free will is ostensibly unharmed by determinism. If you were to do any reading on the topic of compatibilism, you would discover, as pointed out among the first posts of this thread, that compatibilists generally propose some impotent or otherwise confounding idea of free will.

Just to be clear here, I said it before, and I’m saying it now. This problem is one of language. One of definition.

Compatibilist don’t have the same definition of free-will; they therefor aren’t talking about the same “free will” that Determinist are talking about.

Also, there isn’t only one definition of Determinism, be certain of that. And I will use your own dumb sophistical argument here: It shows that you haven’t read any “serious literature” on the object of discussion.


I mean common man, there are obviously many definition of the same word; therefor different theories. And when you quote (in OP) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; you’re doing half-a-quote, because yes, you give a definition of Determinism, but you don’t give the author’s definition of that definition:

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It should have been quoted, at least, as such:

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“Recall that we loosely defined causal determinism as follows, with terms in need of clarification italicized:


Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.”

///

Futhermore, in the Introduction, this is said :
Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“In order to get started we can begin with a loose and (nearly) all-encompassing definition as follows:


Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.


The italicized phrases are elements that require further explanation and investigation, in order for us to gain a clear understanding of the concept of determinism.”

///

My question is: Do you, or do you not understand the meanings of the words construct: “(…) loose and (nearly) all-encompassing (…)”

This clearly means, that this definition is LOOSE and NEARLY ALL-EMCOMPASING (therefor NOT TOTALLY ENCOMPASSING) therefor NOT FINAL NOR PERFECT; therefor (insert your own thoughts here)


I’m sorry but I’m not even sure at this point that you read this whole article and that your obnoxious claims and accusation that others haven’t read any “serious literature" on the object of discussion are sad sad projections of your own defective study, knowledge on the object of discussion and thinking and reading defects; which would explain your idiosyncratic negative attitude towards most people that would “dare” to reject your proposition – because let’s be honest, this is your proposition and not some certain proposition (I even point out a problem (in my previous message) in the first paragraph of your OP that seems to have magically escaped your “Oh so genius Mind”, and that you will most probably reject as soon as you lay eyes on it; be it that it’s a complete lunatic statement, coming from a lunatic; another possible-proof of your obvious lack of knowledge on the object of discussion.). And you, and you alone (not even the author of the – most probably – sole text you have read on the object of discussion) assume this definition of determinism as the one and only valid definition that stands valid.

Do you even read bruh?

He warped back an era but that was before I broke his jaw.
His eyes are crooked and so is his vision;
and having no vision makes his thoughts go uneven.

 

[Nous]

I happen to have read "scholarly literature on free will" in fact, I’ve read a lot of “scholarly literature on philosophy” and “scholarly literature on psychology”-

You haven't come across any scholar who claims that free will entails humans growing wings to fly, have you?

 

[Nous]

Let me first examine your question (to make sure I understand it):

“If our reasons and mental states deterministically churn-out our behaviors,

churn-out; define churn (or churn-out) for me please. It is unclear to me, at this point, what it means exactly.

and our reasons and mental states // are themselves the unavoidable effects of deterministic processes,//

then where is one’s freedom to choose one’s deeds?"

Define “churn / churn-out” for me please. I can’t find a proper definition that lets me fully understand the meaning of that word in this present context.

And don’t go and assume that I didn’t read/have knowledge on the subject; the problem here is one of language – I am French/not from France – and although I’ve also read a lot in English; I don’t remember coming across that word and I don’t know what it means exactly, so please: define it. I have an idea about what it means, but I want to be certain of what you mean.

I need to understand this word to be able to answer the question.

Geez, substitute "cause" for "churn out" in this sentence, then answer the question it asks:

In any case, his claims relating to compatibilism just raise the same old, same old questions: If our reasons and mental states deterministically churn out our behaviors, and our reasons and mental states are themselves the unavoidable effects of deterministic processes, then where is one's freedom to choose one's deeds?​

 

[Nous]

Sorry for the delay ─ I missed this one.

I think I have recently failed to some alerts that I should have gotten. Perhaps there's a glitch.

Indeed. Are you saying you do not?

I'm unsure what you mean by "feeling" that you "own" your decisions.

Outside of this conversation, as far as I'm concerned I make my own decisions. But if we're looking at the theory of decision-making, as I said, I can't see how any brain can make a decision independently of (complex chains of) cause&effect, possibly with a sprinkling of quantum randomness.

What is "the theory of decision-making" insofar as a decision is dependent upon "complex chains of cause and effect, possibly with a sprinkling of quantum randomness"? Where and how does a decision to wear black socks rather than white socks happen in that machinery?

As far as my subjective sense of self, the 'me' who's writing this, goes, "I" can "choose". If I take an objective outside-looking-in view, I see only cause&effect (and possible randomness).

What exactly are you claiming to see here?

If so, then you are denying the thesis of determinism.

No, just the relevance of it to me as I go about living.

You should deny the thesis of determinism because the empirical evidence shows it to be false.

 

[Nous]

Just to be clear here, I said it before, and I’m saying it now. This problem is one of language. One of definition.

Compatibilist don’t have the same definition of free-will; they therefor aren’t talking about the same “free will” that Determinist are talking about.

Provide these definitions of the compatibilist's "free will" and the determinist's "free will" While you're at it, provide the definition of the libertarian's "free will"--since the OP makes that an essential issue.

Why should anyone bother with what the determinist thinks about free will anyway, since we know that the thesis of determinism is false?

And when you quote (in OP) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; you’re doing half-a-quote, because yes, you give a definition of Determinism, but you don’t give the author’s definition of that definition:

If you have a different definition of "determinism" than that stated in the SEP, then provide it.

 

[blü 2]

I'm unsure what you mean by "feeling" that you "own" your decisions.

I mean that I'm emotionally undisturbed by my intellectual awareness that I make decisions by cause&effect (and randomness, if any). I have a very strong sense that I (my sense of self) make my decisions.

That, incidentally, doesn't mean I think I make all my decisions consciously. I'm aware that the parts of my brain that go about their functions out of sight of my conscious mind, do virtually all the heavy lifting. An example would be, where are these words I'm typing in the millisecond before I type them? Certainly not in my conscious brain. You may know Auden's dictum along those lines, 'How do I know what I think till I hear what I say?' None of this disturbs my sense of the unity of my body, brain and sense of self.

What is "the theory of decision-making" insofar as a decision is dependent upon "complex chains of cause and effect, possibly with a sprinkling of quantum randomness"? Where and how does a decision to wear black socks rather than white socks happen in that machinery?

I'd have to go on the net and look up the latest research on mapping our brain functions onto our brains. But I'll be extremely surprised if it's not a function of my neurons, biochemistry and bioelectricity.

What exactly are you claiming to see here?

A coherent concept, so far as reading the science news can convey that, of the brain as biomechanism.

You should deny the thesis of determinism because the empirical evidence shows it to be false.

Why? On this subject I'm emotionally unruffled by what I think I know intellectually, so I have no motivation towards that.

I can't recall ever meeting anyone who in any way appeared to live their life otherwise.

 

[Purple1]

Determinism - Wikipedia

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

The problem I have with this definition is the following (and please, correct me if I’m wrong*):

The way things are at time t, fixes the way things go thereafter.

In other words;

If we look at the time line as the alphabet; time a comes before time b comes before time c… and so on. (also meaning; time v follows time u follows time t follows time s…)

Time a = ta

- .ta, tb, tc … ts, tt, tu, tv…

The way things are at time t, fixes the way things are at time u.

The way things are at time u, fixes the way things are at time v.

And so on.


This means that:

The way things are at time t, were fixed by the way things were at time s;

Or, in other words:

The way things are at time s, fixes the way things are at time t.

And so on.


So, if we accept this proposition (and definition of determinism)

It means we must accept the following proposition:

The way things are at time a, fixes the way things are at time u.


Because the way things are at time a, fixes the way things are at time b. And the way things are at time b fixes the way things are at time c and so on until the way things are at time t fixes the way things are at time u.


Therefore the way things are at time a, fixes the way things are at time u and so on.


Meaning that if the world is governed by (or under the sway of) determinism, and the way things are at time t, and that time t fixes the way things are thereafter: the things at time a define every subsequent way the things are at time (next) until it ends.


Meaning that whatever causes the creation of the universe at time A, causes me to write this exact word at this exact TIME NOW.


It seems a little (if not a whole lot) far fetched to me.
I suppose the position is defendable; but it doesn’t mean it is true.


I suppose believing in this "hard determinism" (if this is what it is) would make one feel like he has no power whatsoever on his existence and his existence and sense of self would have no meaning. But maybe I am wrong. To me, removing the concept of free will from one’s belief; would make one feel like he isn’t in control of his life, self, thoughts and actions. Or would it be the opposite? As in one would believe in this version of "hard determinism" because he feels like he has no power/control over his existence?


And maybe this isn’t what you are defending, but this is what I see and understand when I read this question and relate to the said definition of Causal Determinism:

In any case, his claims relating to compatibilism just raise the same old, same old questions: If our reasons and mental states deterministically churn out our behaviors, and our reasons and mental states are themselves the unavoidable effects of deterministic processes, then where is one's freedom to choose one's deeds?

So, please: Enlighten me.

 

[Purple1]

Why should anyone bother with what the determinist thinks about free will anyway, since we know that the thesis of determinism is false?

So your belief is that the thesis of determinism is false?

 

[blü 2]

The way things are at time a, fixes the way things are at time u.

Yes, under that definition. I add that this may (or may not) be subject to tiny variations due to quantum randomness.

Meaning that [...] the things at time a define every subsequent way the things are at time (next) until it ends.

Yup.

Meaning that whatever causes the creation of the universe at time A, causes me to write this exact word at this exact TIME NOW.

In the absence of randomness, yup.

I suppose the position is defendable; but it doesn’t mean it is true.

The trick is to think of a credible alternative.

I suppose believing in this "hard determinism" (if this is what it is) would make one feel like he has no power whatsoever on his existence and his existence and sense of self would have no meaning.

I can't think of a credible alternative, but for the reasons I've been telling nous, it doesn't worry me at all. Or make me feel disempowered or automation-like.

 

[Deidre]

Every time I see the title of this thread, I keep seeing the word "cannibalism." Lol

 

[Deidre]

As to the actual OP, I think the two can only be compatible in that we believe we have free will which is ultimately an illusion, whilst determinism exists alongside free will. But I actually believe in free will, we all make choices and whether in the end, it's all an illusion, we still are responsible for our choices. So why fret?