Compatibilism: What's that About?

[bilby]

Neurons don't think or decide.

A neuron doesn't think or decide. But billions of them do.

A water molecule doesn't carve out spectacular canyons.

A nitrogen molecule doesn't blow houses down.

A termite can't build a six foot high mound.

A snowflake can't bury a village.

A bacterium can't break down a dead horse. But apparently a single person can flog one.

Emergent properties are a real phenomenon.

 

[fromderinside]

Simply said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors that emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.

 

[DBT]

reflex actions overiding

Yes, so think about those reflex actions, and what they are "overriding", "constraining", "making unfree"...

Reflex actions are an override that bypasses rational thought in an emergency. Neither rational thought or reflex action being a matter of free will, just evolved functions that enable adaption and survival.

You jumped to a false conclusion by failing to consider that neurons working together, brain structures, regions, is no less a deterministic process than the function of a single neuron as a mechanism for acquiring and processing information, which was my point.

 

[DBT]

Neurons don't think or decide.

A neuron doesn't think or decide. But billions of them do.

Deterministically. The issue is free will in relation to determinism. If the brain is deterministic, the issue is free will in relation to the brain.

Emergent properties are a real phenomenon.

They are, but if free will is an emergent property of a deterministic brain, it has not been shown. The compatibilist definition doesn't establish free will as an emergent property of a brain, it merely offers a definition of acting without force, coercion or undue influence....yet ignores inner necessity, which fixes all thoughts and actions.


”If the neurobiology level is causally sufficient to determine your behavior, then the fact that you had the experience of freedom at the higher level is really irrelevant.” - John Searle.

''Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes. Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X.'' - Cold comfort in Compatibilism.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

... They are, but if free will is an emergent property of a deterministic brain, it has not been shown. ...

Deliberation and "choosing what we will do" are emergent functions. Free will describes the conditions present during that choosing. Were we free to make that choice for ourselves? Or, was that choice forced upon us against our will, by coercion or other forms of undue influence?

 

[Jarhyn]

... They are, but if free will is an emergent property of a deterministic brain, it has not been shown. ...

Deliberation and "choosing what we will do" are emergent functions. Free will describes the conditions present during that choosing. Were we free to make that choice for ourselves? Or, was that choice forced upon us against our will, by coercion or other forms of undue influence?

More, it describes whether the result satisfied "what we want" to the point that the will is satisfied.

One may ask "did the bear trap close?" In the same way as "was the will free" or even "did the will resolve to success" or even "did these neurons spit dopamine or did these other neurons spit serotonin?"

All of these are in their own way are asking "was the will free".

It just happens that the measure of "freedom" of a will is whether the dream of it's goal describes the inevitable future, and so whether we happen to delusional or deductive to that extent.

 

[DBT]

... They are, but if free will is an emergent property of a deterministic brain, it has not been shown. ...

Deliberation and "choosing what we will do" are emergent functions. Free will describes the conditions present during that choosing. Were we free to make that choice for ourselves? Or, was that choice forced upon us against our will, by coercion or other forms of undue influence?

Deliberation has antecedents.

That conscious mind and thought is an emergent property of the activity of a brain doesn't make it any less deterministic.....as if emergent properties are somehow exempt from the physical properties of the system.

The emergent properties of conscious mind, thoughts, feelings, deliberations are subject to the state of the system that is generating it: drugs alter consciousness, electric stimulation of brain structures can generate feeling of love, hate anger, fear, actions that were not willed, etc: beginning with pioneers such as Delgado, et al,

A demonstration of inner necessity.

For instance, based on his Experiments.
''These have shown, he explained, that "functions traditionally related to the psyche, such as friendliness, pleasure or verbal expression, can be induced, modified and inhibited by direct electrical stimulation of the brain."

For example, he has been able to "play" monkeys and cats 'like little electronic toys" that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleep on command. And with humans under treatment for epilepsy, he has increased word output sixfold in one person, has produced severe anxiety in another, and in several others has induced feelings of profound friendliness—all by electrical stimulation of various specific regions of their brain.''

 

[Jarhyn]

Deliberation has antecedents

So? It's still deliberation.

3d printers are printed. They don't have to print themselves to print other things.

That conscious mind and thought is an emergent property of the activity of a brain doesn't make it any less deterministic.

Compatibilism is not indeterministic, so this statement is rather ill-informed.

drugs alter consciousness, electric stimulation of brain structures can generate feeling of love, hate anger, fear

The fact that our emotions are the result of a physical configuration of material objects is all this establishes.

actions that were not willed

If I'm the one holding the electrode and prodding myself in the brain there, can you really say it was not willed?*

Clearly these changes are the result of a will: the researcher's will.

You really should ask yourself, if a human researcher can play a monkey like a fiddle, why would you imagine that there is no monkey in the monkey playing the monkey like a fiddle when the researcher isn't the one doing it?

Then you should see that you can accurately and absolutely pick out which direction the will is coming from, whether it is the monkey or him, whether the monkey's will is free, or constrained by his will.

I can do the same thing with a "dwarf". I can also conveniently point to the will that the dwarf makes for themselves and as easily say whether it is free or not, to semantic completion.

*You should probably realize at this point that I don't need to crack my skull open and use an electrode to accomplish this most of the time. Rather than speaking via the nerves to my arm to an electrode then back to the nerves in my brain, I COULD just figure out how to prod those nerves with the "electrodes" that are "my other nerves", to be the "monkey in the monkey" as it were

 

[Marvin Edwards]

A demonstration of inner necessity.

For instance, based on his Experiments.
''These have shown, he explained, that "functions traditionally related to the psyche, such as friendliness, pleasure or verbal expression, can be induced, modified and inhibited by direct electrical stimulation of the brain."

For example, he has been able to "play" monkeys and cats 'like little electronic toys" that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleep on command. And with humans under treatment for epilepsy, he has increased word output sixfold in one person, has produced severe anxiety in another, and in several others has induced feelings of profound friendliness—all by electrical stimulation of various specific regions of their brain.''

Actually no. That is a demonstration of external manipulation. It is an undue influence, and a rather extreme one at that. It is the very opposite of free will. But, then again, if we cannot make the distinction between an unfree will, versus a freely chosen will, then we are morally lost.

 

[fromderinside]

Woe, woe, woe. We are lost. Will is an artifact of brain activity, not a state of being. We believe what we do is volitional so we invent will. It's as obvious as cell preceding organism.

The only connection between will and being is the being invented it to set herself apart because she reasoned - another cart before the horse - it impossible that she was a product rather than a source. No change. We're still determined with a fluffy called will inside messing up our ability to distinguish real from imagined.

Woe. We are lost.

 

[DBT]

A demonstration of inner necessity.

For instance, based on his Experiments.
''These have shown, he explained, that "functions traditionally related to the psyche, such as friendliness, pleasure or verbal expression, can be induced, modified and inhibited by direct electrical stimulation of the brain."

For example, he has been able to "play" monkeys and cats 'like little electronic toys" that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleep on command. And with humans under treatment for epilepsy, he has increased word output sixfold in one person, has produced severe anxiety in another, and in several others has induced feelings of profound friendliness—all by electrical stimulation of various specific regions of their brain.''

Actually no. That is a demonstration of external manipulation. It is an undue influence, and a rather extreme one at that. It is the very opposite of free will. But, then again, if we cannot make the distinction between an unfree will, versus a freely chosen will, then we are morally lost.

In this instance it is external manipulation of the mechanisms of the brain that produce these thoughts and feelings. Inputs also induce response, films, ads, propaganda, religion, ideology and marketers capitalize on conditioning, incessant advertising, to embed their products into the minds of consumers.....

The point being that it is not free will, but the non-chosen condition of a brain that produces output in the form of conscious feelings and thoughts, which is inner necessity.

That thoughts and actions are the deterministic product of inputs and neural architecture, information, form and function, not some simplistic, nebulous notion of free will.

 

[Jarhyn]

she was a product rather than a source.

And so goes the false dichotomy.

 

[Jarhyn]

In this instance it is external manipulation of the mechanisms of the brain that produce these thoughts and feelings

The fact that you acknowledge both "external" and "internal" forces means you recognize the boundary we are pointing at. Full stop.

"In this instance" implies in many ways the other instances where it's not.

The point being that it is not free will, but the non-chosen condition of a brain that produces output in the form of conscious feelings and thoughts, which is inner necessity

BUt If tHE ThInG DiDnt ____ ItSelF HoW cAn iT _____ AnYtHing ElSE?

Of course someone can choose aspects of themselves the same way someone chooses any other thing, the same way you have demonstrated others are capable of controlling it: by being neurons capable of prodding those neurons from the inside.

That thoughts and actions are the deterministic product of inputs and neural architecture, information, form and function, not some simplistic, nebulous notion of free will.

There's nothing simplistic or nebulous about it except in perhaps in your own head. Perhaps quit trying to accuse the mirror.

 

[fromderinside]

she was a product rather than a source.

And so goes the false dichotomy.

Sed the mathematical stimulus-click-one to the motivation-emotion teaching area one.

U sed it it. It's up to you to prove it. By prove I mean experimentally prove.

 

[Jarhyn]

she was a product rather than a source.

And so goes the false dichotomy.

Sed the stimulus-click-one to the motivation-emotion teaching area one.

U sed it it. It's up to you to prove it.

More, the lowest hanging fruit on a tree that is already cut to the ground.

You are the one engaging in the claim of product/source dichotomy.

You have to justify what you said, when there is no justification for it. Will you? Almost certainly not.

But she can be both the product of other decisions and the source of her own decisions, in the same way that a 3d printer can be the product of another 3d printer, while also being capable of printing things itself.

IOW, it is false dichotomy.

 

[fromderinside]

she was a product rather than a source.

And so goes the false dichotomy.

Sed the stimulus-click-one to the motivation-emotion teaching area one.

U sed it it. It's up to you to prove it.

More, the lowest hanging fruit on a tree that is already cut to the ground.

You are the one engaging in the claim of product/source dichotomy.

You have to justify what you said, when there is no justification for it. Will you? Almost certainly not.

But she can be both the product of other decisions and the source of her own decisions, in the same way that a 3d printer can be the product of another 3d printer, while also being capable of printing things itself.

IOW, it is false dichotomy.

Wow a false proposition to 'prove' a false claim. Both parts of your proof are flawed. The source of her program is a priori genetic and internally created by her from 'feeling' input, while printers both use the same material program to produce material printers.

Show me the source of will and I will concede. You can't so I won't.

Heck. I'll even give you this very long 'scientific' hand wave for you to find where will etc are located and elicited?

The Neuroendocrine System and Stress, Emotions, Thoughts and Feelings

The philosophy of mind is intimately connected with the philosophy of action. Therefore, concepts like free will, motivation, emotions (especially positive emotions), and also the ethical issues related to these concepts are of abiding interest. However, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But even this has a trap door

Happiness is love. Period! (The fifty-year prospective follow-up empirical evidence for this extraordinary generalisation is in press)

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Woe, woe, woe. We are lost. Will is an artifact of brain activity, not a state of being. We believe what we do is volitional so we invent will. It's as obvious as cell preceding organism.

The only connection between will and being is the being invented it to set herself apart because she reasoned - another cart before the horse - it impossible that she was a product rather than a source. No change. We're still determined with a fluffy called will inside messing up our ability to distinguish real from imagined.

Woe. We are lost.

Yes, you are lost. Living organisms are biologically driven to survive, thrive, and reproduce. Intelligent species get to choose what they will do. In either case, there is a specific intention that motivates and directs their action. The lioness will instinctually pursue her prey to feed herself and her young. A young woman will decide to pursue a career in the space program.

A person's will is their specific intention that motivates and directs their behavior.

 

[Jarhyn]

The source of

The source of a genetic fallacy, perhaps.

It doesn't matter what the source of the configuration is. What matters is the product, and the fact that it does, in fact produce wills.

Where something comes from does not in fact have any power to limit what it actually is in the moment.

You are in fact engaging in a parallel (and utterly dishonest) form of argumentation that I was introduced to (and subsequently encouraged to use, but did not, because it was utterly dishonest) of the form "were you there?"

This argument form is usually used by YECs and goes something like this:

"Our world is old and evolved"

"You say that, but were you there? I have a book by someone who claims to have been and the book says it is a young earth"

It is a demand for an inaccessible piece of evidence as an excuse to reject the facially apparent evidence that one does have.

I wasn't there but the rock was, and it says it's old, through it's structure. Rocks have a harder time lying than humans on account of the fact that rocks can't chaotically reconfigure themselves any which way, whereas humans can.

Which is the point. Where did the will come from? It came from the fact that an "image" is nothing more than an object which has physical properties which when presented to various other objects will act as a transform on some set of object relationships within the various other objects they are presented to.

The paper is a will acting upon the mechanical piano, and is such because it is a set of physical objects arrayed to instruct the behavior of other physical objects.

The array of bits in memory is a will acting upon the dwarf (which also happens to be an array of bits elsewhere in the memory), a set of physical objects arrayed to instruct the behavior of other physical objects.

Some wills merely act, they cannot be unfree (such as Bilby's will over how their dog acts). Other wills can be constrained from reaching certain instructions: the piano's will is free to the end, assuming that I don't stick a pin between the gears. I can constrain it's will, making it unfree, the unfreeness literally being the fact that the force of the spring has no path to transit to the roller.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

A demonstration of inner necessity.

For instance, based on his Experiments.
''These have shown, he explained, that "functions traditionally related to the psyche, such as friendliness, pleasure or verbal expression, can be induced, modified and inhibited by direct electrical stimulation of the brain."

For example, he has been able to "play" monkeys and cats 'like little electronic toys" that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleep on command. And with humans under treatment for epilepsy, he has increased word output sixfold in one person, has produced severe anxiety in another, and in several others has induced feelings of profound friendliness—all by electrical stimulation of various specific regions of their brain.''

Actually no. That is a demonstration of external manipulation. It is an undue influence, and a rather extreme one at that. It is the very opposite of free will. But, then again, if we cannot make the distinction between an unfree will, versus a freely chosen will, then we are morally lost.

In this instance it is external manipulation of the mechanisms of the brain that produce these thoughts and feelings. Inputs also induce response, films, ads, propaganda, religion, ideology and marketers capitalize on conditioning, incessant advertising, to embed their products into the minds of consumers.....

The point being that it is not free will, but the non-chosen condition of a brain that produces output in the form of conscious feelings and thoughts, which is inner necessity.

That thoughts and actions are the deterministic product of inputs and neural architecture, information, form and function, not some simplistic, nebulous notion of free will.

Deliberation and decision making are normal brain functions. Free will refers to decision making that is free from coercion and undue influence, nothing more and nothing less. Ordinary influences that we all experience do not compromise our ability to decide for ourselves what we will do. If television ads were coercive or undue, then we would all be buying every item that is shown on tv. If propaganda were coercive or undue, then we'd all be wearing Trump's MAGA hats.

 

[fromderinside]

Wow free will is determined by lack of:
".... coercion and undue influence ...." and "Ordinary influences that we all experience do not compromise our ability to decide for ourselves what we will do."
paired with
"You say that, but were you there? I have a book by someone who claims to have been and the book says it is a young earth"
are arguments for free will?

Whoooh. I'm so shattered I can't resist laughing.

Marvin Edwards Perhaps you can explain what you mean by coercion and influence in operational terms. You know the operations that give material meaning to the terms. You still haven't provided a suitable cause for there to be something in humans that requires before the fact knowledge to exist. That is to say for one to have will one must know what is coming before what one reacts for one to come to possess such ability. Think as an example for deterministic view stimulus response methodologies. I have no trust in response stimulus methods.


Jaryan I have access to fossils documented and verified to be taken from layers of material radioactively dated by validated operational methods to well before what your author's claims as the beginning of earth. Plus there is historical and evidentiary linkages between beings and earth age gathered from all over the earth and even from the moon. Now are you going all in believing your author's reading of religious texts or you going with the consensus, validated and replicated material evidence of a much old earth.

I mean you are entitled to your opinion if you choose what you just wrote or you can go with the overwhelming evidence contrary to scriptures written by individuals who may or may not be who or what they are described. BTB there are texts older than the scriptures you need to discount as well.

Now for the pudding. Absent knowledge of what is coming one cannot have mechanisms anticipating what is about to happen. Will demands knowledge of what's coming else one can't exercise it. One can respond to what has been sensed. One cannot have what isn't at the ready for what hasn't happened. Even assuming genetic and historical assemblies one cannot produce mechanisms for what one hasn't experienced. Besides humans are responsive by construction and the nature of the world in which they exist.

This thing we've been circling around, the mind is a responsive devise and tool. It builds a world from what is input and experienced. It configures itself as the mover rather than what it is, the responder where it builds a frame putting itself at the center even though it is dependent on what is arriving at it's senses.

Look to the start of a race. The gun goes off the athlete runs. The runner tries to beat others who are in the same situation as his reality.