Solve the Riddle of Compatibilism, Win Big Prize

[idav]

Why don't you provide a link to whatever argument you are referring to? It doesn't sound like it's an argument that solves the riddle of compatibilism.

In most probability functions, you do have variables, when they are known, to give more accurate approximations but in quantum wave function this can't necessarily be implied, all potentialities would be equal in the distribution.

Edit: just like the old argument about the wave distribution not having unknowns

 

[Nous]

In most probability functions, you do have variables, when they are known, to give more accurate approximations but in quantum wave function this can't necessarily be implied, all potentialities would be equal in the distribution.

Edit: just like the old argument about the wave distribution not having unknowns

Is something you've said here supposed to solve the riddle of compatibilism?

(I do think it is well established that determinism is false, which, as I noted in the OP, only makes one wonder what is the purpose of compatibilism these days.)

 

[The magical volleyball]

It seems to me compatibilism means that choices available to a person are determined by external and past causes, but the person has the free will to decide which one of the limited choices available to make next. The problem i see with compatibilism is that when you blend the two ideas each idea loses the fundamental claim they are based on. Sort of in the same way mixing the colors blue and yellow produce the color green. Once the color of green has been created you are then unable to recognize the individual yellow and blue parts.

 

[blü 2]

So apparently what you're saying that you lack the ability to choose between stating, say, a true proposition and a false one. Like Epiphenomenalism, Denial of Free Will is Self-Stultifying

I have a normal strong and central sense of self and I feel that I own my decisions. If I don't own them, that's of no concern to me outside of discussions like this.

The method by which I make choices is wholly invisible to me. Moreover, the outcome of any choice I'm going to make can only be predicted statistically from my past conduct, and may be wrong. No precise description of the process of choosing is presently available, and if it were, it would lead to so complex an operation, not just to calculate but to set up in the first place, that the result wouldn't be known till long after the event.

But since this is one of those occasions when I think about such things, I'm forced to conclude that it's the result of cause&effect and possibly some quantum randomness.

As for epiphenomenalism, all my neurons exist as biochemical and bioelectrical phenomena, and I see no reason why they should be regarded as not causative. For example, my brain may process olfactory input, detect smoke, and order up a flush of adrenaline. The chains of cause&effect are dependent on the nature of the brain cells, and because the brain cells have that nature and nothing else does, it's fair to think they're sine qua non to causation, the release of the adrenalin.

And for the reasons I set out above, I don't feel stultified. I've had the views I've expressed (except regarding epiphenomenalism, which I haven't encountered before) for enough years to think I'll stay unstultified.

Besides, what's the alternative explanation?
.

 

[Willamena]

You're not jumping on the bandwagon of science?

With any knowledge of science theory, one would have to align themselves with a position independent of the bandwagon.

 

[Purple1]

Sorry to ask, but what is this Big Prize? Doesn't seem to me, like solving this issue - thus giving you the answer that you are looking for - could provide me with anything worth it and would only provide you with an answer to a problem that's been troubling many people for a long time.

Then again, they say I have paranoid schizophrenia.

...Of course this is assuming I am even capable of solving such a riddle.

But maybe I am. And I’m not sure I want to answer, as it’s a complex answer and I wouldn’t want my understanding of it to be stolen from me.

Is this Ego? Paranoia? or Common Sense? …?

Is this free will or determinism?

I truly wonder.

And I can’t help thinking now, that I might have already said too much – but this, surely is, paranoia. Or is it? Such is paranoia. And does it even matter anyway?

Tell me what it implies to share my ideas on the subject, and what is this so called big-prize, then I might consider opening up.

In other words, what are your intentions here?

Sorry not sorry.

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems to me compatibilism means that choices available to a person are determined by external and past causes, but the person has the free will to decide which one of the limited choices available to make next. The problem i see with compatibilism is that when you blend the two ideas each idea loses the fundamental claim they are based on. Sort of in the same way mixing the colors blue and yellow produce the color green. Once the color of green has been created you are then unable to recognize the individual yellow and blue parts.

I believe the view of determinism that compatibilism is compatible with is fundamental determinism that is the basis for the natural sciences, which Nous rejects with a wave of his hand in the opening post. Free Will in compatibilism results from the evolved intellect of humanity. Dennett described the free will as the 'Elbow Room' of possible human choices within biological boundaries that results in there is always room for choice. This reflects the reality of what we observe in the human nature of our decision making process.

An interesting example is the choice of church or religious or non-religious belief system in our culture. In some other cultures the choice of an alternate belief system is punishable by death, or prison so people rarely make an alternate choice. In our culture the search is far more open, but nonetheless, but a limited number make the choice outside the accepted sense of community of the culture, and yes a limited number of people make choices'outside the box,' but yes they do so dominantly seeking a 'sense of belonging' decision that leads most people to make a choice that is comfortable to them. Many people do indeed 'church shop' within this limited range of choices to pick one that they are comfortable with. They are not deterministic robots, but by far most indeed make limited free will choices within a limited number churches that meet the limited predetermined social and cultural framework. Of course, the majority make the choices of their parents, and grandparents, still within Dennett's 'elbow room.'

The problems with free will in this deterministic chain of events is the reason I describe it as 'potential free will.'

Within the deterministic causal chain of events within a cultural and social there are limited free will choices that people make. Dennett describes this as 'elbow room' within a deterministic frame work where people make choices.

 

[Nous]

It seems to me compatibilism means that choices available to a person . . .

Again, as made explicit by the definition of determinism given in the OP, the thesis of determinism does not allow for multiple possible different futures. The thesis of determinism means that there is not the possibility that you can choose to order tea or coffee when the waiter asks for your order.

 

[Nous]

I have a normal strong and central sense of self and I feel that I own my decisions.

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

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

 

[Nous]

Sorry to ask, but what is this Big Prize? Doesn't seem to me, like solving this issue - thus giving you the answer that you are looking for - could provide me with anything worth it and would only provide you with an answer to a problem that's been troubling many people for a long time.

You're right; my question was a bait-and-switch scam--a solution to the conundrum of compatibilism doesn't really provide anything worthwhile, the primary reason being that we already know that the thesis of determinism is false. Therefore, as noted in the OP, trying to square free will with determinism is not more necessary than trying to square the dinosaur fossil evidence with a 6000-year-old planet.

 

[Nous]

I believe the view of determinism that compatibilism is compatible with is fundamental determinism that is the basis for the natural sciences, which Nous rejects with a wave of his hand in the opening post.

If you are able to state something that isn't delusional and childish, then do so. You didn't accomplish that in the above post.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again, as made explicit by the definition of determinism given in the OP, the thesis of determinism does not allow for multiple possible different futures. The thesis of determinism means that there is not the possibility that you can choose to order tea or coffee when the waiter asks for your order.

The philosophy of compatibilism does not accept the conclusions of strict determinism. In compatibilism determinism is the foundation of existence in both the Theist and none Theist perspective. In the Theist perspective God is the determiner of everything, In the philosophical naturalist perspective Nature is the determiner of everything. Form the objective view by human perspective can be proved.

The free will of compatibilism ls a product of the evolved intellect of humanity that by the evidence we do make contrary choices within a deterministic framework.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you are able to state something that isn't delusional and childish, then do so. You didn't accomplish that in the above post.

Failure to respond with substance demonstrates you are assuming a combative position based on a biased Theist position that assumes an irrational illogical belief in a literal Biblical account of existence, and the libertarian free will belief that is also irrational and illogical, and cannot be defended except with unsupported assumptions.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're right; my question was a bait-and-switch scam--a solution to the conundrum of compatibilism doesn't really provide anything worthwhile, the primary reason being that we already know that the thesis of determinism is false. Therefore, as noted in the OP, trying to square free will with determinism is not more necessary than trying to square the dinosaur fossil evidence with a 6000-year-old planet.

This demonstrates your irrational, illogical conclusion that our existence is 6;000 years old.

 

[Nous]

The philosophy of compatibilism does not accept the conclusions of strict determinism.

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.

 

[Nous]

Failure to respond with substance demonstrates you are assuming a combative position based on a biased Theist position that assumes an irrational illogical belief in a literal Biblical account of existence, and the libertarian free will belief that is also irrational and illogical, and cannot be defended except with unsupported assumptions.

This is delusional.

 

[Nous]

This demonstrates your irrational, illogical conclusion that our existence is 6;000 years old.

Apparently you have a problem comprehending what is written in black and white.

 

[blü 2]

Apparently you have a problem comprehending what is written in black and white.

Where does it say in black and white that the earth is 6,000 years old?

Both the Tanakh and the NT say in black and white that the earth is flat and the sun goes round it, but I somehow missed the 6,000 years bit.

 

[Nous]

Where does it say in black and white that the earth is 6,000 years old?

GEEEZE! The idea that the earth is 6,000 years old is false!! That's the point. It's false just like the idea of determinism is false. We don't need to try to square dinosaur fossil evidence with the idea of a 6,000-year-old planet, because the idea of a 6,000-year-old planet is false. Likewise, we don't need to try to square free will with the thesis of determinism, because the thesis of determinism is false. See findings cited in #11 and #19.

 

[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.

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.