According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[DBT]

The Basics, once again

The Core Problems With Compatibilism​

The Redefinition Fallacy of Compatibilism​

Compatibilism’s central move is to redefine what ‘free will’ is so that it fits in a deterministic universe. The traditional notion — that free will means the ability to have genuinely done otherwise, with choices not predetermined by prior causes — is abandoned. Instead, compatibilism offers a watered-down version: free will now means acting according to your desires, intentions, or internal motivations, even if these factors are themselves determined outside of one’s control.

By doing so, compatibilists don’t solve the problem of free will under determinism, they simply evade it, by offering alternate definitions to core terms. The question now is not “Can determinism and genuine free will coexist?, but “Can we call something ‘free will’ even when it is clearly not what is traditionally meant by the term?”

It’s like changing the definition and meanings of variables half-way through solving a maths problem. It’s just creating an easier question to avoid the original, more difficult one. This is exactly why I call compatibilism the “stupidest compromise ever.”

The Illusion of Choice​

Compatibilism claims we have ‘free will’ because we can act on our desires and intentions. But the desires which are mentioned here are themselves determined by prior causes completely beyond our control. So the freedom compatibilism celebrates is just the illusion of choice — the feeling of deciding freely when everything is pre-set. As Arthur Schopenhauer once said:

“You can do what you will, but you cannot will what you will.” 1

This illusion doesn’t solve the problem. Saying “you acted freely because it matched your desires” is just relabelling determinism, repackaging it, and then calling it ‘free will’. Real freedom would require control over those desires themselves (which cannot be granted here as compatibilism affirms determinism, and affirms Schopenhauer’s previously mentioned quote) — something compatibilism denies.

 

[Jarhyn]

Compatibilism’s central move is to redefine what ‘free will’ is so that it fits in a deterministic universe

Not really, no. More, the move is to recognize you committed a syntax error in the discussion of the sea battle.

Determined outside of one’s control

Yet again there's this myth of the absence of automatic control, as of autonomy isn't a thing!

We have covered this and DBT just acts like it wasn't discussed at all.

Your posts are full of religious foolishness DBT, and there is very little that could convince me otherwise than that it is a personal failing for you.

You post this trash again and again and never actually answer to the fact that I have exposed multiple times the direct presence and cause of autonomous self-modification, and the fact that the actual determination, the very process of it, is under the control of things that exist under determinism: you yourself acting and making decisions on your own behalf.

It's right fucking there.

This shouldn't take more than an hour to understand, let alone 10 years.

 

[steve_bank]

Out of all the -isms, -ologies, and -osophies over history which are robust and unshakeable?

Unconditionally predictable.

 

[BSilvEsq]

Compatibilism’s central move is to redefine what ‘free will’ is so that it fits in a deterministic universe

Not really, no. More, the move is to recognize you committed a syntax error in the discussion of the sea battle.

Determined outside of one’s control

Yet again there's this myth of the absence of automatic control, as of autonomy isn't a thing!

We have covered this and DBT just acts like it wasn't discussed at all.

Your posts are full of religious foolishness DBT, and there is very little that could convince me otherwise than that it is a personal failing for you.

You post this trash again and again and never actually answer to the fact that I have exposed multiple times the direct presence and cause of autonomous self-modification, and the fact that the actual determination, the very process of it, is under the control of things that exist under determinism: you yourself acting and making decisions on your own behalf.

It's right fucking there.

This shouldn't take more than an hour to understand, let alone 10 years.

If you truly have Free Will, you might want to consider thinking more about how to exercise it in a courteous manner. If you have no choice in the matter, your mode of communication is understandable. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand how you make the choices you insist to be freely made.

 

[BSilvEsq]

Compatibilism is an illogical, but understandable, construct...

Can you list the premises on which you base this conclusion?

I may be misreading you but I'm struggling to see how your argumentation pertains to compatibilism as I understand it.

No problem, and thanks for asking.

As I understand it, compatibilism is the name given to the notion that Hard Determinism is true and Libertarian Free Will exists. It is a concept developed at a time that predates Newtonian Determinism and Quantum Physics, and does not use those concepts to justify itself.

Within compatibilism (as it exists historically, and not as some folks on this board seek to redefine it to fit their personal narratives, (i) Hard Determinism, which is assumed to be true, is a paradigm in which all activity of the universe, including human cognition, is the inexorable consequence of antecedent activity such that all activity following some undefined initiating action is predetermined from time immemorial, and (ii) Free Will, which also is assumed to exist, is the ability of human beings to, somehow, think and act independent of antecedent activity, such that they have some sort of personal control over their thoughts and actions. These are no my definitions of Determinism and Free Will. Rather, they are the definitions established by philosophers (and not scientists or physicists) over the course of history.

Using the foregoing definitions, compatibilists (as that term is historically defined in philosophy) posits both that (i) Determinism is true (i.e., it accurately describes the operation of the universe), and (ii) human beings have Free Will. In a sense, compatibilism views human beings as separate and apart from nature, such that their thoughts and actions are not controlled by the forces of nature that the compatibilist accepts to control everything else in the universe.

Before I move on, I note that there are folks on this board who disagree with the foregoing explanations of Determinism and Free Will. That is their prerogative. But, in so doing, they are using definitions that are different from those developed and utilized historically within philosophy to define Determinism and Free Will. By rewriting the rules, they are able to make arguments that bypass the historical debate and, as a friend of mine is fond of saying, they put the rabbit in the hat.

To dive a bit more deeply into the matter using the definitions of Determinism and Free Will set out above (and not different definitions that others on this board insist upon using), then, as I have previously written in this thread (and elsewhere):

Free Will either exists or it does not exist. The same is true of Determinism. The two cannot, however, co-exist.

Compatibilism is an illogical, but understandable, construct that is embraced by either (i) people who lack Free Will and are compelled to embrace Compatibilism despite its illogical underpinnings, or (ii) people who have Free Will and mistakenly believe that Determinism rules the universe.

Determinism posits that all activity in the universe is both (i) the effect of [all] antecedent activity, and (ii) the only activity that can occur given the antecedent activity. That is what is meant by saying that everything is “determined” (or “pre-determined”) — it is the inexorable consequence of activity that preceded it. In a wholly deterministic universe, everything that has ever occurred, is occurring, and will occur since the universe came into existence (however that might have occurred) can only occur exactly as it has occurred, is occurring, or will occur, and cannot possibly occur in any different manner. This mandated activity necessarily includes all human action, including all human cognition.

As I understand the notion of Free Will, it posits that a human being, when presented with more than one course of action, has the freedom or agency to choose between or among the alternatives, and that the state of affairs that exists in the universe immediately prior to the putative exercise of that freedom of choice does not eliminate all but one option and compel the selection of only one of the available options.

Based on the foregoing:

1. If Determinism is true (i.e., the universe is truly and entirely deterministic), then humans lack Free Will because the truth of Determinism means that (a) humans lack the ability to think in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside of their control, as human cognition is simply a form of activity that is governed by Determinism, and (b) there are no such thing as true “options” or “alternatives” because there is one, and only one, activity that can ever occur at any given instant; and
   
   
2. If Free-Will exists in its pure form, then Determinism is not true because the existence of Free Will in its pure form depends upon (a) the existence of true “options” or “alternatives,” and (b) humans being capable of thinking (and acting) in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside their control.

As I understand Determinism and Free Will, they are irreconcilably incompatible unless (i) Determinism is defined to exclude human cognition from the inexorable path of causation forged through the universe long before human beings came into existence, and/or (ii) Free Will is defined to be include the illusion of human cognition that is a part of the path of Determinism.

As William James aptly observed:

“The issue . . . is a perfectly sharp one, which no eulogistic terminology can smear over or wipe out. The truth must lie with one side or the other, and its lying with one side makes the other false.”

I could write many pages describing the varied attempts of by Compatibilists to harmonize the irreconcilable concepts of Determinism and Free Will, but it is unnecessary for me to do so, as there is an excellent discussion of this subject on-line at Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). It should suffice to say that none of the various arguments for Compatibilism courageously presented on the Stanford website is satisfying, and all suffer from the same flaw identified above — namely, a stubborn refusal to come to grips with the true and complete nature of Determinism and Free Will. Or, as William James less generously observed, all efforts to harmonize Determinism and Free Will are a “quagmire of evasion.”

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if people do, in fact, lack Free Will, then the true and only reason that anyone believes in Compatibilism is because that is what such people are compelled to believe by forces outside of their non-existent control. By the same token, if Free Will does exist, then the people who freely choose to believe in Compatibilism do so based on the mistaken belief that Determinism is true, combined with an emotion-driven irrational effort to harmonize their mistaken belief in Determinism with their psychological desire to believe (correctly) in their own Free Will.

I am not setting this forward to recommence the circular debate with folks on this board who reject that Determinism involves a belief in predetermination or fatalism and/or that Free Will can be exercised despite the fact that antecedent activity controls the thought process that leads to such exercise. I understand that these folks contend that determinism (as defined by philosophers in history) is illogical, silly, meaningless, and all sorts of other pejorative assertions, and they insist on defining determinism as a construct that simply explains how an action occurred looking backward, but has nothing to do with the future. Unsurprisingly, when new definitions are substituted for the old ones, the arguments that flow from the old definitions are no longer valid. But, that does not impact the validity of the historical debate. Rather, and as William James aptly observed, it is a quagmire of evasion -- albeit one wrapped in a claim of scientific and mathematical proof.

I hope you find my answer to be responsive to your question. If not, however, that is fine. Either way, I have no intention of re-entering the circular debate that fills so many pages of this board.

Lastly, I wish you a healthy and restful Thanksgiving filled with gratitude for all that is, all that has been, and all that will be -- whatever the reason for any of it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Real freedom would require control over those desires themselves

This sounds like a personal problem if you have no self control over your own desires; a complete personal failing.

If you want to learn how to control your desires, take a class on behavioral modification. It's not even hard.

At worst, it just takes a bit of help getting over that initial hump of training yourself to actually keep training yourself according to that enduring will, so as to free yourself of your own laziness or lack of motivation in that regard. This is doable. I have said actual material processes that you can perform that will change you in well-understood ways.

Compatibilism’s central move is to redefine what ‘free will’ is so that it fits in a deterministic universe

Not really, no. More, the move is to recognize you committed a syntax error in the discussion of the sea battle.

Determined outside of one’s control

Yet again there's this myth of the absence of automatic control, as of autonomy isn't a thing!

We have covered this and DBT just acts like it wasn't discussed at all.

Your posts are full of religious foolishness DBT, and there is very little that could convince me otherwise than that it is a personal failing for you.

You post this trash again and again and never actually answer to the fact that I have exposed multiple times the direct presence and cause of autonomous self-modification, and the fact that the actual determination, the very process of it, is under the control of things that exist under determinism: you yourself acting and making decisions on your own behalf.

It's right fucking there.

This shouldn't take more than an hour to understand, let alone 10 years.

If you truly have Free Will, you might want to consider thinking more about how to exercise it in a courteous manner. If you have no choice in the matter, your mode of communication is understandable. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand how you make the choices you insist to be freely made.

Rather, I made the choice that I would rather discuss this in the way I already do.

Have you ever thought that maybe I don't WANT to be liked? That I made a conscious decision to be be vaguely repellent?

I want to test my ideas against reason rather than any other thing. I do not want people to listen "because they like me". I would rather say it in a way that provokes efforts at reasonable rejection!

I just don't see any such reasonable rejection here. All I see is religion.

As I understand it, compatibilism is the name given to the notion that Hard Determinism is true and Libertarian Free Will exists

It is not, it has never been, and you consistently slander every compatibilist here, who stand in the majority, in saying so.

Compatibilism rejects both libertarianism AND fatalism.

You have been arguing with compatibilists here for weeks now who consistently tell you this.

I assert since the very beginning, history about the compatibilists has been recorded by the hard determinists and libertarians who to this day seem incapable of understanding that we think you are both wrong.

And even if you were right, the vast majority of compatibilists here and everywhere else agree with us.

Your fraudulent straw men (and I say fraudulent because you appear to be a classic mirror-accuser) do you no service and earn you as much respect as I have given you.

I am not setting this forward to recommence the circular debate with folks on this board who reject that Determinism involves a belief in predetermination or fatalism

Boo fucking hoo.

That's what compatibilism is and is founded upon.

If you do not like it, and don't want to discuss compatibilism with the compatibilists, why are you even here?

Determinism is not a belief in Fatalism and predeterminiation.

IF you want to present that belief, call it pre-determinism, or fatalism. Use descriptive words rather than deceptive ones, and accept that belief in pre-determination is a belief in "necessity" which here just reduces to "the set of all sets" or "God".

 

[DBT]

Compatibilism’s central move is to redefine what ‘free will’ is so that it fits in a deterministic universe

Not really, no. More, the move is to recognize you committed a syntax error in the discussion of the sea battle.

Determined outside of one’s control

Yet again there's this myth of the absence of automatic control, as of autonomy isn't a thing!

We have covered this and DBT just acts like it wasn't discussed at all.

Your posts are full of religious foolishness DBT, and there is very little that could convince me otherwise than that it is a personal failing for you.

You post this trash again and again and never actually answer to the fact that I have exposed multiple times the direct presence and cause of autonomous self-modification, and the fact that the actual determination, the very process of it, is under the control of things that exist under determinism: you yourself acting and making decisions on your own behalf.

It's right fucking there.

This shouldn't take more than an hour to understand, let alone 10 years.

Is it too difficult for you to understand that there is no homunculus or autonomous agent present or at work within the brain?

"Within the brain" is your key to understanding.

That is the point. No separate entity doing autonomous things within the brain.

Not in relation to other people or objects, but brain agency. That the brain is the sole agent of thought and action, that it is its condition that determines thought and behaviour.

Your attitude does you no favours. Especially in light of your inability to understand the nature of brain function, determinism or how compatibilists define free will.

 

[DBT]

Real freedom would require control over those desires themselves

This sounds like a personal problem if you have no self control over your own desires; a complete personal failing.

If you want to learn how to control your desires, take a class on behavioral modification. It's not even hard.

At worst, it just takes a bit of help getting over that initial hump of training yourself to actually keep training yourself according to that enduring will, so as to free yourself of your own laziness or lack of motivation in that regard. This is doable. I have said actual material processes that you can perform that will change you in well-understood ways.

Compatibilism’s central move is to redefine what ‘free will’ is so that it fits in a deterministic universe

Not really, no. More, the move is to recognize you committed a syntax error in the discussion of the sea battle.

Determined outside of one’s control

Yet again there's this myth of the absence of automatic control, as of autonomy isn't a thing!

We have covered this and DBT just acts like it wasn't discussed at all.

Your posts are full of religious foolishness DBT, and there is very little that could convince me otherwise than that it is a personal failing for you.

You post this trash again and again and never actually answer to the fact that I have exposed multiple times the direct presence and cause of autonomous self-modification, and the fact that the actual determination, the very process of it, is under the control of things that exist under determinism: you yourself acting and making decisions on your own behalf.

It's right fucking there.

This shouldn't take more than an hour to understand, let alone 10 years.

If you truly have Free Will, you might want to consider thinking more about how to exercise it in a courteous manner. If you have no choice in the matter, your mode of communication is understandable. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand how you make the choices you insist to be freely made.

Rather, I made the choice that I would rather discuss this in the way I already do.

Have you ever thought that maybe I don't WANT to be liked? That I made a conscious decision to be be vaguely repellent?

I want to test my ideas against reason rather than any other thing. I do not want people to listen "because they like me". I would rather say it in a way that provokes efforts at reasonable rejection!

I just don't see any such reasonable rejection here. All I see is religion.

As I understand it, compatibilism is the name given to the notion that Hard Determinism is true and Libertarian Free Will exists

It is not, it has never been, and you consistently slander every compatibilist here, who stand in the majority, in saying so.

Compatibilism rejects both libertarianism AND fatalism.

You have been arguing with compatibilists here for weeks now who consistently tell you this.

I assert since the very beginning, history about the compatibilists has been recorded by the hard determinists and libertarians who to this day seem incapable of understanding that we think you are both wrong.

And even if you were right, the vast majority of compatibilists here and everywhere else agree with us.

Your fraudulent straw men (and I say fraudulent because you appear to be a classic mirror-accuser) do you no service and earn you as much respect as I have given you.

I am not setting this forward to recommence the circular debate with folks on this board who reject that Determinism involves a belief in predetermination or fatalism

Boo fucking hoo.

That's what compatibilism is and is founded upon.

If you do not like it, and don't want to discuss compatibilism with the compatibilists, why are you even here?

Determinism is not a belief in Fatalism and predeterminiation.

IF you want to present that belief, call it pre-determinism, or fatalism. Use descriptive words rather than deceptive ones, and accept that belief in pre-determination is a belief in "necessity" which here just reduces to "the set of all sets" or "God".

What do you think your own definition of determinism implies?

Jarhyn - ''A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.'

Do you think it allows any old thing to happen? Do you think it implies that you can take any option at any point in the decision making process?

 

[Jarhyn]

Real freedom would require control over those desires themselves

This sounds like a personal problem if you have no self control over your own desires; a complete personal failing.

If you want to learn how to control your desires, take a class on behavioral modification. It's not even hard.

At worst, it just takes a bit of help getting over that initial hump of training yourself to actually keep training yourself according to that enduring will, so as to free yourself of your own laziness or lack of motivation in that regard. This is doable. I have said actual material processes that you can perform that will change you in well-understood ways.

Compatibilism’s central move is to redefine what ‘free will’ is so that it fits in a deterministic universe

Not really, no. More, the move is to recognize you committed a syntax error in the discussion of the sea battle.

Determined outside of one’s control

Yet again there's this myth of the absence of automatic control, as of autonomy isn't a thing!

We have covered this and DBT just acts like it wasn't discussed at all.

Your posts are full of religious foolishness DBT, and there is very little that could convince me otherwise than that it is a personal failing for you.

You post this trash again and again and never actually answer to the fact that I have exposed multiple times the direct presence and cause of autonomous self-modification, and the fact that the actual determination, the very process of it, is under the control of things that exist under determinism: you yourself acting and making decisions on your own behalf.

It's right fucking there.

This shouldn't take more than an hour to understand, let alone 10 years.

If you truly have Free Will, you might want to consider thinking more about how to exercise it in a courteous manner. If you have no choice in the matter, your mode of communication is understandable. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand how you make the choices you insist to be freely made.

Rather, I made the choice that I would rather discuss this in the way I already do.

Have you ever thought that maybe I don't WANT to be liked? That I made a conscious decision to be be vaguely repellent?

I want to test my ideas against reason rather than any other thing. I do not want people to listen "because they like me". I would rather say it in a way that provokes efforts at reasonable rejection!

I just don't see any such reasonable rejection here. All I see is religion.

As I understand it, compatibilism is the name given to the notion that Hard Determinism is true and Libertarian Free Will exists

It is not, it has never been, and you consistently slander every compatibilist here, who stand in the majority, in saying so.

Compatibilism rejects both libertarianism AND fatalism.

You have been arguing with compatibilists here for weeks now who consistently tell you this.

I assert since the very beginning, history about the compatibilists has been recorded by the hard determinists and libertarians who to this day seem incapable of understanding that we think you are both wrong.

And even if you were right, the vast majority of compatibilists here and everywhere else agree with us.

Your fraudulent straw men (and I say fraudulent because you appear to be a classic mirror-accuser) do you no service and earn you as much respect as I have given you.

I am not setting this forward to recommence the circular debate with folks on this board who reject that Determinism involves a belief in predetermination or fatalism

Boo fucking hoo.

That's what compatibilism is and is founded upon.

If you do not like it, and don't want to discuss compatibilism with the compatibilists, why are you even here?

Determinism is not a belief in Fatalism and predeterminiation.

IF you want to present that belief, call it pre-determinism, or fatalism. Use descriptive words rather than deceptive ones, and accept that belief in pre-determination is a belief in "necessity" which here just reduces to "the set of all sets" or "God".

What do you think your own definition of determinism implies?

Jarhyn - ''A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.'

Do you think it allows any old thing to happen? Do you think it implies that you can take any option at any point in the decision making process?

I already showed exactly what I meant by that and exactly why it does not entail fatalism and necessity of the sea battle.

Yes it allows any old metaphysically possible things to happen wherever that is physically how things are.

It does not entail to "necessity" or "must".

It does imply that "I" can because the "I" that "can" is a set defined by some metaphysical property of some actual thing.

I already pointed out the error in saying I can't:

When you ask "could X be Y", if this was a program, you would NOT be asking Is X = Y. A programmer would (or at least SHOULD) slap someone who honestly and persistently says as much or tries to write that into a language!

Instead, "Could X be Y" would be interpreted as "of values under Type(X), does any value = Y" or "does Type Set of X contain Y".

X doesn't have to be Y for "could X contain Y" to be true.

 

[bilby]

We have been over it. Far too many times. Yet the problem is still the same, that even adequate determinism does not permit alternate actions.

Of course it doesn't. The only action permitted is the one I choose.

My freedom to choose doesn't require me to do something other than what I choose; That would be crazy.

How you 'choose' - the means and mechanisms of decision making - is the point at which compatibilism fails.

Is it? How?

Compatibilism fails to account for will itself being set, shaped, formed or fixed by antecedents.

No, it doesn't. It says that being "being set, shaped, formed or fixed by antecedents" is compatible with the position. The clue is in the name.

That will is not free and the actions that follow are inevitable.

Compatibilists are not libertarians, so we understand that will is not free in the libertarian sense.

The actions are not only freely performed,

BINGO!

but necessarily performed.

Indeed. It can be, and is, BOTH. ie, these facts are not incompatible, they are compatible. The clue (again) is in the name.

Given determinism, neither will, be it related to habits, addictions, desires or fears, or the related actions are examples of free will.

Indeed; Once again, compatibilists are not libertarians. We have will, and do as we will, but our wills are shaped by the past.

'Acting without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced does not qualify as free will.

Not to a libertarian, no. But comparibilism isn't libertarianism, even if you really, really, really wish that it was. It would certainly help your counterargument if we were; But we aren't, so you will need a new counterargument.

Determined will is not free will.

Sure it is, as long as the will is that of the determiner.

Given determinism, what you decide is inevitable,

OK. I agree that I will, inevitably, do what I choose, rather than doing something else. And I also agree that I inevitably chose that thing, and would do so again given the exact same starting conditions.

Like Marty McFly's parents, I will not change any of the decisions I make, unless something changes. But any change, no matter how tiny, might have huge consequences.

We all understand this.

If we all understand this, there would be nobody left to argue for compatibilism. Decisions change because conditions change according to how the system, if deterministic, progresses and evolves without deviations or alternate actions.

What you fail to understand is that a person is massively too complex to model as a series of interactions at the particle physics level. You are trying to build a suspension bridge using a set of watchmaker's tools, and it's only possible in principle - in practice, it can't be done.

A person is a deterministic system, that exhibits free will, in the same way that a box full of warm gas is a deterministic system that exhibits increasing entropy.

not willed, certainly not freely willed.

Why not? I am making choices. I can't not make choices; I am the kind of thing that makes choices, just as a rock rolls down a hill, because it's the kind of thing that rolls down hills, and it can't not roll down hill.

As it is a matter of the state of the brain

Which is "me",

Sure, but if determinism is real, just not a me that has free will.

Not libertarian free will, no. But free will, nonetheless.

and unconscious information processing

Which is also "me",

A me that has no awareness of the unconscious activity of information acquisition and processing that shapes, forms and generates this me -self identity, thoughts, feelings, etc - in conscious form.

Yes indeed. So what?

Why not? It is me, making choices; And then doing what I chose to do. It can't not happen that way.

It has to be that way, because I am a deterministic choice making system. Making choices, and acting upon them, is what I must, inevitably, do.

For the reasons outlined above.

None of which are actually reasons, and most of which just consist of the strawman fallacy that compatibilists must be libertarians.

 

[The AntiChris]

As I understand it, compatibilism is the name given to the notion that Hard Determinism is true and Libertarian Free Will exists.

At the outset it's clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding. I'll try to explain.

Libertarian free will (libertarianism) is the notion that free will is logically incompatible with determinism. Its an incompatibilist position ( Incompatibilism). Incompatibilists are also known as hard determinists.

Compatibilist free will (compatibilism) is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. It's a compatibilist position ( Compatibilism).

Taking these uncontroversial definitions you must see that the quote above makes no sense.

​

 

[Jarhyn]

What you fail to understand is that a person is massively too complex to model as a series of interactions at the particle physics level. You are trying to build a suspension bridge using a set of watchmaker's tools, and it's only possible in principle - in practice, it can't be done.

I disagree.

One of my hobbies is seeing the pathway to do just that. Part of us already does that, in terms of understanding what we will do before we end up doing it.

Even if someone did it in practice somehow, it wouldn't change the fact that being able to do it in theory or in practice directly indicates the power to decide on your own wants and desires, not even in some indirect way but a direct one.

It means that there would be much more indirect or abstract means to accomplish the same thing buried in the human brain, as this is "the structure by which learning happens".

Understanding this is important to understanding how to make systems which feel more interesting things than what they were programmed with at compile time, and in being able to acknowledge the feelings are there.

 

[BSilvEsq]

As I understand it, compatibilism is the name given to the notion that Hard Determinism is true and Libertarian Free Will exists.

At the outset it's clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding. I'll try to explain.

Libertarian free will (libertarianism) is the notion that free will is logically incompatible with determinism. Its an incompatibilist position ( Incompatibilism). Incompatibilists are also known as hard determinists.

Compatibilist free will (compatibilism) is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. It's a compatibilist position ( Compatibilism).

Taking these uncontroversial definitions you must see that the quote above makes no sense.

​

I accept that to be your understanding, and I appreciate why you would have difficulty with my analysis in light of that understanding. I do, however, respectfully submit that your understanding of the meaning of Compatibilism is mistaken -- at least when assessed by the historical debate in philosophy about the concepts we are discussing here.

By way of example, the introductory chapter of the 2003 book "Freedom and Determinism" by Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke, and David Shier," published by M.I.T., explains that there are five schools of thought in this arena -- namely, (i) Compatibilism, (ii) Incompatibilism, (iii) Soft Determinism, (iv) Hard Determinism, and (v) Libertarianism.

"Freedom and Determinism" (like many other respected texts on the subject) uses the term "Determinism" as I have described / defined it above. More specifically:

“Determinism” is a metaphysical paradigm that posits that all activity in the universe is both (i) the effect of all antecedent activity, and (ii) the only activity that can occur given the antecedent activity. That is what is meant by saying that everything is “determined” — it is the inexorable consequence of activity that preceded it. In a deterministic universe, everything that has ever occurred, is occurring, and will occur since the universe came into existence (however that might have occurred) can only occur exactly as it has occurred, is occurring, or will occur, and cannot possibly occur in any different manner.

and

“Free Will” is a philosophical and theological concept that posits that a human being, when presented with more than one course of action, has the freedom or agency to choose between or among the alternatives, and that the state of affairs that exists in the universe immediately prior to the putative exercise of that freedom of choice does not eliminate all but one option and compel the selection of only one of the available options.

As explained in the introductory chapter to "Freedom and Determinism":

1. "Compatibilism" is the name given to the philosophical proposition that (i) it is unknown whether Determinism is true or Free Will exists, and (ii) it is possible for both (x) Determinism to be true and Free Will to exist.

2. "Incompatiblism" is the name given to the philosophical proposition that (i) it is unknown whether Determinism is true or Free Will exists, and (ii) it is not possible for both (x) Determinism to be true and Free Will to exist.

3. "Soft Determinism" is the name given to the philosophical proposition that (i) some form of Determinism is true, and (ii) some form of Free Will exists.

4. "Hard Determinism" is the name given to the philosophical proposition that (i) Determinism is true, and (ii) Free Will does not exist.

5. "Libertarianism" is the name given to the philosophical proposition that (i) Determinism is false, and (ii) Free Will does exist

Using the the five terms defined above, I am an Indeterminist. As I have explained multiple times in multiple posts, I have no view about whether Determinism is a true or false construct or whether Free Will exists, and (ii) I believe that the simultaneous truth of Determinism and the existence Free Will are logically irreconcilable. In that regard, it is important to note that some posters on this board consistently seek to recast my view as being that Determinism is true and Free Will does not exist. That is a false construct by those posters. As defined in "Freedom and Determinism," the view the posters ascribe to me is that of Hard Determinism, and that is not my view because, as I have said multiple times, I have no view on the question of whether Determinism is true or Free Will exists. The only view I have espoused (and done so repeatedly) is that the two concepts are logically irreconcilable.

Despite the fact that some posters on this board insist that they are Compatibilists, they do so without regard to the fact that their repeated description of the components of their beliefs shows that they are Soft Determinists. I say this because the putative Compatibilists on this Board (i) abjectly deny the truth of Determinism as it is defined in philosophy (and for purposes of the definition of Compatibilism), (ii) ascribe to a form of Determinism that leaves room for future alternatives, and (iii) insist they have Free Will of some sort, but not necessarily full Libertarian Free Will. That is textbook "Soft Determinism" and NOT "Compatibilism." And the fact that some folks on this board (even a majority of them) believe otherwise does not change the fact that they are mistaken in their use of the terminology. [And, I am not counting you among them. This is about others.] They are no more Compatibilists than would people who believe in Allah and the teaching of Muhammed be Roman Catholic simply because they call themselves Roman Catholic and then debate other about the teachings of Jesus (which the name they mistakenly give to Muhammed) and argue (wrongly) that Jesus preached about war and violence as a tenet of Catholicism. What they would be is Islamic people who mistakenly believe their religion is called Roman Catholicism, and who further believe that they must be correct in their belief of the proper term for their views because a majority of them are of that view. Another word for such people might be delusional if they were to continue to insist that they are Roman Catholic after learning from the theological scriptures that their beliefs were in fact that of Islam.

Finally, the position you describe as Libertarianism is, according to the definitions I have set forth, actually Indeterminism. As explained in "Determinism and Freedom" (among other places), a Libertarian believed that Free Will does, in fact, exist and that Determinism is a false construct.

Returning to my original answer to your question, and using the various definitions I have provided (which are not my definitions, but the definitions of the philosophical discipline being discussed):

I ascribe to Incompatibilism” because (1) if Determinism is true (i.e., accurately describes the state of the universe), then humans lack Free Will, because both (a) human beings lack the ability to think in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside of their control, as human cognition is simply a form of activity that is governed by the mechanism that makes Determinism true, and (b) there are no such thing as true “options” or “alternatives” because there is one, and only one, activity that can ever occur at any given instant; and (2) If human beings have Free-Will, then Determinism is not true, because both (a) a person with Free Will is capable of thinking in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside such person’s control, and (b) the existence of Free Will depends upon the existence of true “options” or “alternatives” that do not exist if Determinism is true. Again, Incompatibilism does not take a position as to whether Determinism is true or Free Will exists — or neither. Rather, Incompatibilism simply stakes out a position respecting the relationship between Determinism and Free Will, and posits that the two concepts cannot coexist (to the extent that either exists).

Concomitantly, I reject “Compatibilism” as a false construct because its validity depends upon (i) watering down the meaning of Free Will to include the illusion of choice that exists prior to the inexorable occurrence of determined activity that is not and cannot be known until after it occurs, or (ii) watering down Determinism to exclude human cognition from the inexorable path of causation forged through the universe long before human beings came into existence — or by watering down both concepts. Like Incompatibilism, Compatibilism does not take a position as to whether Determinism is true or Free Will exists — or neither. Rather, Compatibilism simply stakes out a position respecting the relationship between Determinism and Free Will, and posits that the two concepts can coexist (to the extent that either or both exist).

The difference between Incompatibilism and Compatibilism is conceptual or ideological and not simply semantic. The law of the excluded middle mandates that only one or the other of these two positions can be true, and that the truth of one of these two positions mandates that the other is false.

“Hard Determinism” and "Libertarianism" both accept Incompatibilism, the difference between them being that (i) "Hard Determinism" also posits that Determinism is true (which logically necessitates a belief that Free Will does not exist), and (ii) "Libertarianism" also posits that Free Will exists (which logically necessitates Determinism is a false costruct).

“Soft Determinism” (which posters on this board confuse with Compatibilism) accepts Compatibilism and also posits both that Causal Determinism is true and that Free Will exists.

As with Incompatibilism and Compatibilism, the difference between Hard Determinism and Soft Determinism is conceptual or ideological and not simply semantic. If Hard Determinism is true, then (i) Soft Determinism is false, (ii) Compatibilism is False, and (iii) Free Will does not exist. If Soft Determinism is true, then (i) Hard Determinism is false, (ii) Incompatibilism is false, and (iii) Causal Determinism is true, and (iv) Free Will exists.

Although there are not names for the positions (or “isms”), it also is possible to believe that (i) Determinism and Free Will are conceptually incompatible, and neither is true or exists, (ii) Determinism and Free Will are conceptually compatible, but only Determinism is true and Free Will does not exist (for reasons other than the truth of Causal Determinism), or (iii) Determinism and Free Will are conceptually compatible, but only Free Will exists and Determinism is false (for reasons other than the existence of Free Will). Perhaps, the first position can be called “Compatibilistic Nihilism,” the second position can be called “Compatibilistic Determinism,” and the third position can be called “Compatibilistic Free Will.”

Again, if I use your definitions, I tend to agree with your views. I would hope that are equally capable of seeing the rationality of the view I have been expressing based on the definitions I am using. Interestingly, in the law, most disputes (especially contract disputes) are the result of disputing parties having a different understanding of the meaning of words they are using in common. In the end, however, one meaning takes precedence over the other, and the meaning that is controlling is the one that is commonly used in the industry in question, and not the mistaken meaning that one party might have based on common parlance or how the words are used in some other context (such as science or physics).

 

[BSilvEsq]

AntiChris:

As I understand it, compatibilism is the name given to the notion that Hard Determinism is true and Libertarian Free Will exists.

At the outset it's clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding. I'll try to explain.

Libertarian free will (libertarianism) is the notion that free will is logically incompatible with determinism. Its an incompatibilist position ( Incompatibilism). Incompatibilists are also known as hard determinists.

Compatibilist free will (compatibilism) is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. It's a compatibilist position ( Compatibilism).

Taking these uncontroversial definitions you must see that the quote above makes no sense.

​

I accept that to be your understanding, and I appreciate why you would have difficulty with my analysis in light of that understanding. I do, however, respectfully submit that your understanding of the meaning of Compatibilism is mistaken -- at least when assessed by the historical debate in philosophy about the concepts we are discussing here.

By way of example, the introductory chapter of the 2003 book "Freedom and Determinism" by Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke, and David Shier," published by M.I.T., explains that there are five schools of thought in this arena -- namely, (i) Compatibilism, (ii) Incompatibilism, (iii) Soft Determinism, (iv) Hard Determinism, and (v) Libertarianism.

"Freedom and Determinism" (like many other respected texts on the subject) uses the term "Determinism" as I have described / defined it above. More specifically:

“Determinism” is a metaphysical paradigm that posits that all activity in the universe is both (i) the effect of all antecedent activity, and (ii) the only activity that can occur given the antecedent activity. That is what is meant by saying that everything is “determined” — it is the inexorable consequence of activity that preceded it. In a deterministic universe, everything that has ever occurred, is occurring, and will occur since the universe came into existence (however that might have occurred) can only occur exactly as it has occurred, is occurring, or will occur, and cannot possibly occur in any different manner.

and

“Free Will” is a philosophical and theological concept that posits that a human being, when presented with more than one course of action, has the freedom or agency to choose between or among the alternatives, and that the state of affairs that exists in the universe immediately prior to the putative exercise of that freedom of choice does not eliminate all but one option and compel the selection of only one of the available options.

As explained in the introductory chapter to "Freedom and Determinism":

1. "Compatibilism" is the name given to the philosophical proposition that (i) it is unknown whether Determinism is true or Free Will exists, and (ii) it is possible for both (x) Determinism to be true and Free Will to exist.

2. "Incompatiblism" is the name given to the philosophical proposition that (i) it is unknown whether Determinism is true or Free Will exists, and (ii) it is not possible for both (x) Determinism to be true and Free Will to exist.

3. "Soft Determinism" is the name given to the philosophical proposition that (i) some form of Determinism is true, and (ii) some form of Free Will exists.

4. "Hard Determinism" is the name given to the philosophical proposition that (i) Determinism is true, and (ii) Free Will does not exist.

5. "Libertarianism" is the name given to the philosophical proposition that (i) Determinism is false, and (ii) Free Will does exist

Using the the five terms defined above, I am an Indeterminist. As I have explained multiple times in multiple posts, I have no view about whether Determinism is a true or false construct or whether Free Will exists, and (ii) I believe that the simultaneous truth of Determinism and the existence Free Will are logically irreconcilable. In that regard, it is important to note that some posters on this board consistently seek to recast my view as being that Determinism is true and Free Will does not exist. That is a false construct by those posters. As defined in "Freedom and Determinism," the view the posters ascribe to me is that of Hard Determinism, and that is not my view because, as I have said multiple times, I have no view on the question of whether Determinism is true or Free Will exists. The only view I have espoused (and done so repeatedly) is that the two concepts are logically irreconcilable.

Despite the fact that some posters on this board insist that they are Compatibilists, they do so without regard to the fact that their repeated description of the components of their beliefs shows that they are Soft Determinists. I say this because the putative Compatibilists on this Board (i) abjectly deny the truth of Determinism as it is defined in philosophy (and for purposes of the definition of Compatibilism), (ii) ascribe to a form of Determinism that leaves room for future alternatives, and (iii) insist they have Free Will of some sort, but not necessarily full Libertarian Free Will. That is textbook "Soft Determinism" and NOT "Compatibilism." And the fact that some folks on this board (even a majority of them) believe otherwise does not change the fact that they are mistaken in their use of the terminology. [And, I am not counting you among them. This is about others.] They are no more Compatibilists than would people who believe in Allah and the teaching of Muhammed be Roman Catholic simply because they call themselves Roman Catholic and then debate other about the teachings of Jesus (which the name they mistakenly give to Muhammed) and argue (wrongly) that Jesus preached about war and violence as a tenet of Catholicism. What they would be is Islamic people who mistakenly believe their religion is called Roman Catholicism, and who further believe that they must be correct in their belief of the proper term for their views because a majority of them are of that view. Another word for such people might be delusional if they were to continue to insist that they are Roman Catholic after learning from the theological scriptures that their beliefs were in fact that of Islam.

Finally, the position you describe as Libertarianism is, according to the definitions I have set forth, actually Indeterminism. As explained in "Determinism and Freedom" (among other places), a Libertarian believed that Free Will does, in fact, exist and that Determinism is a false construct.

Returning to my original answer to your question, and using the various definitions I have provided (which are not my definitions, but the definitions of the philosophical discipline being discussed):

I ascribe to Incompatibilism” because (1) if Determinism is true (i.e., accurately describes the state of the universe), then humans lack Free Will, because both (a) human beings lack the ability to think in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside of their control, as human cognition is simply a form of activity that is governed by the mechanism that makes Determinism true, and (b) there are no such thing as true “options” or “alternatives” because there is one, and only one, activity that can ever occur at any given instant; and (2) If human beings have Free-Will, then Determinism is not true, because both (a) a person with Free Will is capable of thinking in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside such person’s control, and (b) the existence of Free Will depends upon the existence of true “options” or “alternatives” that do not exist if Determinism is true. Again, Incompatibilism does not take a position as to whether Determinism is true or Free Will exists — or neither. Rather, Incompatibilism simply stakes out a position respecting the relationship between Determinism and Free Will, and posits that the two concepts cannot coexist (to the extent that either exists).

Concomitantly, I reject “Compatibilism” as a false construct because its validity depends upon (i) watering down the meaning of Free Will to include the illusion of choice that exists prior to the inexorable occurrence of determined activity that is not and cannot be known until after it occurs, or (ii) watering down Determinism to exclude human cognition from the inexorable path of causation forged through the universe long before human beings came into existence — or by watering down both concepts. Like Incompatibilism, Compatibilism does not take a position as to whether Determinism is true or Free Will exists — or neither. Rather, Compatibilism simply stakes out a position respecting the relationship between Determinism and Free Will, and posits that the two concepts can coexist (to the extent that either or both exist).

The difference between Incompatibilism and Compatibilism is conceptual or ideological and not simply semantic. The law of the excluded middle mandates that only one or the other of these two positions can be true, and that the truth of one of these two positions mandates that the other is false.

“Hard Determinism” and "Libertarianism" both accept Incompatibilism, the difference between them being that (i) "Hard Determinism" also posits that Determinism is true (which logically necessitates a belief that Free Will does not exist), and (ii) "Libertarianism" also posits that Free Will exists (which logically necessitates Determinism is a false costruct).

“Soft Determinism” (which posters on this board confuse with Compatibilism) accepts Compatibilism and also posits both that Causal Determinism is true and that Free Will exists.

As with Incompatibilism and Compatibilism, the difference between Hard Determinism and Soft Determinism is conceptual or ideological and not simply semantic. If Hard Determinism is true, then (i) Soft Determinism is false, (ii) Compatibilism is False, and (iii) Free Will does not exist. If Soft Determinism is true, then (i) Hard Determinism is false, (ii) Incompatibilism is false, and (iii) Causal Determinism is true, and (iv) Free Will exists.

Although there are not names for the positions (or “isms”), it also is possible to believe that (i) Determinism and Free Will are conceptually incompatible, and neither is true or exists, (ii) Determinism and Free Will are conceptually compatible, but only Determinism is true and Free Will does not exist (for reasons other than the truth of Causal Determinism), or (iii) Determinism and Free Will are conceptually compatible, but only Free Will exists and Determinism is false (for reasons other than the existence of Free Will). Perhaps, the first position can be called “Compatibilistic Nihilism,” the second position can be called “Compatibilistic Determinism,” and the third position can be called “Compatibilistic Free Will.”

Again, if I use your definitions, I tend to agree with your views. I would hope that are equally capable of seeing the rationality of the view I have been expressing based on the definitions I am using. Interestingly, in the law, most disputes (especially contract disputes) are the result of disputing parties having a different understanding of the meaning of words they are using in common. In the end, however, one meaning takes precedence over the other, and the meaning that is controlling is the one that is commonly used in the industry in question, and not the mistaken meaning that one party might have based on common parlance or how the words are used in some other context (such as science or physics).

In writing the post above, I realize that the formulation of Compatibilism in my prior post was mistaken -- just as you stated. Accordingly, I appreciate the correction, and apologize for any confusion I caused by that answer that I quickly jotted out.

I previously had written that "compatibilism is the name given to the notion that Hard Determinism is true and Libertarian Free Will exists." As you correctly noted, that statement was incorrect. Compatibilism takes no position on the truth or falsity of Determinism or the existence or non-existence of Free Will. Compatibilism simply states that the truth of Determinism and existence of Free Will are logically compatible -- whether or not Determinism is true or Free Will exists. That is the conceptualization of Compatibilism that forms the basis for my prior posts, but I miserably misstated it in haste earlier today. I then compounded my error by disagreeing with your correction of my error. I chalk it up to a long week preparing for the holiday.

That being said, Compatibilism does rest on the definitions of Determinism and Free Will I have set forth in multiple posts (and with which multiple posters on the board disagree) -- namely (i) Determinism is a paradigm in which the future is inexorably fixed in advance of its occurrence by the past (without regard to whether some posters on this board believe that to be impossible, illogical, or absurd), and (ii) Free Will is the Libertarian version of the notion.

Again, I acknowledge the error in my statement that "compatibilism is the name given to the notion that Hard Determinism is true and Libertarian Free Will exists" and thank you for the correction. I do, however, stand on the balance of what I previously wrote and further expanded upon in my more recent post.

 

[bilby]

What you fail to understand is that a person is massively too complex to model as a series of interactions at the particle physics level. You are trying to build a suspension bridge using a set of watchmaker's tools, and it's only possible in principle - in practice, it can't be done.

I disagree.

Then you are wrong.

Or, more likely, are talking about something utterly different from what I am talking about, such as a model at the macromolecular or cellular level.

The largest comprehensive quantum mechanical models deal with a few thousand particles; A human brain contains in the order of 10³⁷ atoms, each with a couple of dozen quarks and leptons, plus myriad gauge bosons flying around.

I hesitate to say "never", but we can't even get close to modeling a brain, much less a brain plus body plus environmental inputs system at the quantum particle scale, and I strongly suspect that we will never be able to do that.

 

[Jarhyn]

I do, however, respectfully submit that your understanding of the meaning of Compatibilism is mistaken -- at least when assessed by the historical debate in philosophy about the concepts we are discussing here.

And this utter disrespect is what I generally think warrants the due respect you have gotten from me.

I think YOU are mistaken here since there are no less than four compatibilists who have been posting in this thread and none of them agree with your characterizations of compatibilism.

If you want to call us something other than compatibilists, like "non-fatalists" you go right on ahead, but I will assert here again that the concepts WE as the compatibilists here are discussing are just as we discuss and are what 'compatibilism' have always been about.

You have consistently slandered the compatibilist position using a straw man, and I would assert it's been this way all through history.

Most of the compatibilists I have ever met have been on the same page, here. I get a little much about it because I have researched behavior my whole life

Compatibilism simply states that the truth of Determinism and existence of Free Will are logically compatible

Every compatibilist I have met everywhere resolves this by recognizing that the modal fallacy, the type error I keep referencing, is a syntax error, and that Determinism does not actually entail Fatalism.

Every. Single. Fucking. One.

So no, it is NOT true that the definitions are as you say.

Compatibilism pivots on the notion that Determinism does not entail Fatalism.

I extend the observation that this is because fatalism is based on a belief in a contradiction, the set of all sets, here called "necessity" rather than EinSof or God or what have you; and that it allows someone to proclaim anything, such as that there must be a sea battle tomorrow rather than that there merely shall be such a battle.

As a result this...

Determinism is a paradigm in which the future is inexorably fixed in advance of its occurrence by the past

Becomes instead this:

Determinism is a paradigm in which the future is inexorably the result of the past becoming the present becoming the future in due time and due process.

Note that it is not fixed "in advance". There is no necessity to it happening.

I repeat that in any attempt to argue against compatibilism here, you have to talk to the actual compatibilists and accept that no, we actually reject this "fixed in advance" language in entirety.

Quit trying to force it on me, Pood, or anyone else. You have been told that we reject Fatalism.

Every time you are told this you say "ah, historically" but NO, NOT historically.

Generally the first intuition that brings someone to compatibilism is the notion that they experience something described mostly by Libertarians in a functional sense, and they see the same with Fatalists, and say "they must both be right, somehow, in the majority of it; there must be some way to make these languages compatible."

That happens when they say "aha! It is not that there must be a sea battle at all; only that there, in that place, shall one be; it is not 'fixed' in some global way, for all about the globe, it is otherwise; the sea battle is only there, and seem to be only there from all other places. Aristotle was not wrong and that which is true from some context is by definition not necessarily true; it is true only with respect to the truth of the context."

Assuming something must necessarily be true absent a premise that truth is contingent upon is exactly what allows systems to express a contradiction.

 

[DBT]

We have been over it. Far too many times. Yet the problem is still the same, that even adequate determinism does not permit alternate actions.

Of course it doesn't. The only action permitted is the one I choose.

My freedom to choose doesn't require me to do something other than what I choose; That would be crazy.

How you 'choose' - the means and mechanisms of decision making - is the point at which compatibilism fails.

Is it? How?

Compatibilism fails to account for will itself being set, shaped, formed or fixed by antecedents.

No, it doesn't. It says that being "being set, shaped, formed or fixed by antecedents" is compatible with the position. The clue is in the name.

It tries to reconcile the idea of free will with determinism. Compatibilists claim that their definition of free will is compatible with determinism.

As an argument for free will in relation to determinism, it fails. It fails because its definition of free will is flawed.

It is flawed because it does not account for the nature of will. It merely focuses on action, that we are able act according to our will without being forced or coerced.

This ignores that itself is not free - no regulatory control, no possible alternate choices, that will is not the driver - or that related actions, being determined, must necessarily follow.

That will is not free and the actions that follow are inevitable.

Compatibilists are not libertarians, so we understand that will is not free in the libertarian sense.

The actions are not only freely performed,

BINGO!

but necessarily performed.

Indeed. It can be, and is, BOTH. ie, these facts are not incompatible, they are compatible. The clue (again) is in the name.

What must necessarily happen, without the possibility of doing otherwise - is not an example of freedom of will.

Given determinism, neither will, be it related to habits, addictions, desires or fears, or the related actions are examples of free will.

Indeed; Once again, compatibilists are not libertarians. We have will, and do as we will, but our wills are shaped by the past.

'Acting without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced does not qualify as free will.

Not to a libertarian, no. But comparibilism isn't libertarianism, even if you really, really, really wish that it was. It would certainly help your counterargument if we were; But we aren't, so you will need a new counterargument.

libertarians are not compatibilists. Compatibilists are not Libertarians. The two positions are not compatible.

Neither party has a sound argument for the notion of free will.

Not even neuroscience supports the idea. Brain state and condition equates to how thought and action is expressed.

Free will as an idea plays no part in the process.

 

[DBT]

Real freedom would require control over those desires themselves

This sounds like a personal problem if you have no self control over your own desires; a complete personal failing.

Only to someone who has a poor understanding of the implications of determinism, just as he himself defines it to be.

If you want to learn how to control your desires, take a class on behavioral modification. It's not even hard.

At worst, it just takes a bit of help getting over that initial hump of training yourself to actually keep training yourself according to that enduring will, so as to free yourself of your own laziness or lack of motivation in that regard. This is doable. I have said actual material processes that you can perform that will change you in well-understood ways.

Training has nothing to do with the issue of free will.

Training doesn't happen in a vacuum. If determinism is true, it's a part of the evolution of the system...which as you say, as system, can have no random events, where, consequently, there can be no alternate choices or actions.

If someone seeks help or training, that is a part of the evolution of events.

That is how it works according to how you define determinism.

Things happen, not because you 'freely will' them to happen, but how your life unfolds in relation to your environment.

Not because I say so, but how the terms of the system are defined.

The rest of your post is repetition.

Try to grasp the basics. That what you think, will, do, is inseparable from your environment, genetics, circumstances, abilities, life experiences....your proclivities;

''It is unimportant whether one's resolutions and preferences occur because an ''ingenious physiologist'' has tampered with one's brain, whether they result from narcotics addiction, from ''hereditary factor, or indeed from nothing at all. ''Ultimately the agent has no control over his cognitive states.

So even if the agent has strength, skill, endurance, opportunity, implements, and knowledge enough to engage in a variety of enterprises, still he lacks mastery over his basic attitudes and the decisions they produce. After all, we do not have occasion to choose our dominant proclivities.'' - Prof. Richard Taylor -Metaphysics.

 

[The AntiChris]

In writing the post above, I realize that the formulation of Compatibilism in my prior post was mistaken -- just as you stated. Accordingly, I appreciate the correction, and apologize for any confusion I caused

That's ok, we all make mistakes. Unfortunately, though, you repeat the very same error in your follow-up.

That being said, Compatibilism does rest on the definitions of Determinism and Free Will I have set forth in multiple posts (and with which multiple posters on the board disagree) -- namely (i) Determinism is a paradigm in which the future is inexorably fixed in advance of its occurrence by the past (without regard to whether some posters on this board believe that to be impossible, illogical, or absurd), and (ii) Free Will is the Libertarian version of the notion.

Here you quite clearly state, again, that compatibilism, amongst other things, rests on Libertarian Free Will.

Libertarian free will is an incompatibilist position. It is is the view that human choices are not causally determined by prior events and that agents are the ultimate source of their actions. On this view free will and determinism cannot co-exist.

Compatibilist free will is defined simply as the ability to act on one's own desires, motives, or will without external coercion or impediment and that on this view free will and determinism can co-exist.

To claim that compatibilism rests on incompatibilist free will is confused and suggests you are labouring under a mistaken understanding of the terms you're using.

 

[Jarhyn]

Only to someone who has a poor understanding of the implications of determinism, just as he himself defines it to be.

Nope..YOU keep defining determinism with necessitation added to it and imputing it on others.

It's a dishonest straw man which you need to quit with.

So even if the agent has strength, skill, endurance, opportunity, implements, and knowledge enough to engage in a variety of enterprises, still he lacks mastery over his basic attitudes and the decisions they produce

Bullshit.

I have described exactly how and why and when and where the abilities of humans clearly and unambiguously involved power over basic attitudes and decisions, from the ability to do so directly through manipulation of those neurons that are the basic attitudes, and the contingencies that they use to produce decisions.

Rather than address those clear controls available to us with respect for our cognitive states, you wave your hands and the try to claim definitions preclude the obvious answer: that organisms can control themselves to a quite heavy degree.

You tie yourself in knots with trying to define that clear process out of existence, simply because the extent to which it is accessible to you in particular happens to be limited.

Quit being a victim of your own inaction, learn the processes by which you can craft your own behavior, and become the master of yourself rather than submitting to some false master you name necessity.