According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[Jarhyn]

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.

I will also add that "determinism" discussed here, of compatibilists, is not fatalism; there is no necessitation imputed upon it.

This "necessitation" part is hidden belief in God.

 

[BSilvEsq]

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.

Appreciate the follow up and feedback.

I am just stating what I learned in college 40 years ago and have continued to read in various philosophy texts and source materials for the past 40 years. Based on what I have been taught and learned from multiple sources (other than folks on this board), (i) Libertarians believe in the existence of a form of Free Will that is unconstrained by extrinsic forces that may restrain acting on the will, but do not preclude the exercise of a free decision (excluding, of course, brain damage, intoxication, hypnosis, and other mind-altering circumstances that impair the exercise of free will), (ii) Hard Determinists believe in a form of Determinism that others on this board prefer to call Fatalism, and (iii) Incompatibilists believe that Libertarian Free Will and Hard Determinism cannot coexist, (iv) Compatibilists believe that Libertarian Free Will and Hard Determinism can coexist, and (v) Soft Determinists seek to harmonize Determinism and Free Will by refining one or the other of the two concepts to fit the other.

I agree with you that Libertarian Free Will employs the Incompatibilist's position on Free Will, but that does not mean that Libertarian Free Will is not also the Compatibilist's position on Free Will -- which it is (at least as I have learned it). As I have been taught this subject and continued to learn it through my academic reading, Incompatibilists, Compatibilists, Hard Determinists, and Libertarians all utilize a common definition of Free Will and Determinism, and only Soft Determinists reject that shared understanding in order to achieve harmony. It seems that you and some others on this Board call Compatibilism what I have been taught to be Soft Determinism. If so, I still view that as contrary to what I have ben taught and continue to learn -- but c'est la vie.

I have no issue with Soft Determinists, as they openly acknowledge that they are redefining the core terms of the debate -- which actually means that they are accepting Indeterminism and rejecting Compatibilism, and seeking to find a different way to look at the subject that allows for the existence of some form of Free Will within a universe that is in some way Deterministic.

If I were to reformulate the understanding of these terms I have had for the past 40 years, and switch the name Compatibilism for what I have learned to be Soft Determinism, I would have no problem with the internal logical consistency of Compatibilism (as redefined). By the same token, I would hope that you similarly would agree that it would be illogical for a person to believe that Hard Determinism and Libertarianism can be harmonized -- without regard to whether that stance is called Soft Determinism, Compatibilism, Libertarian Determinism, of Philosophy X. If so, we would be in harmony, as that is all I have been saying -- albeit using the term Compatibilism as it was taught to me in college and as I have seen in multiple texts and source materials. If, however, you were to contend that Libertarianism and Hard Determinism can be harmonized, I would need to understand that better.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would hope that you similarly would agree that it would be illogical for a person to believe that Hard Determinism and Libertarianism can be harmonized

Obviously, which is why your literature, mostly written by Libertarians and hard determinists, might not actually successfully represent compatibilism? I mean if most of them understood that determinism doesn't entail to fatalism, and that the must of the sea battle is a syntax error, and that compatibilism argues it is an invalidly worded statement, then I hazard to think that more people would end up compatibilists.

Rather, the compatibilist contends that neither can Fatalism or Libertarianism be harmonized even within themselves.

As has been pointed out, every time you try, you end up making a syntax error.

I have pointed out numerous times that the source of all of these errors stem from the injection of the "must", the titular modal fallacy, and the injection of some demand of God names "necessitation".

This is not an overly hard thing to point out, or to notice. Marvin Edwards noticed it, Pood noticed it, I noticed it, on Reddit I've seen Simon Hibbs notice it, and a number of others, and then oftentimes they find out from the rest of the group shortly after that this particular application of contradiction so as to justify a syntax error is called 'The Modal Fallacy' and it has it's basis in formal logic!

If I were to use a problematically spiritualistic word, I would say "Can can only ever speak to the soul". The "soul" of you can do many things that you will not, in addition to everything that "you" have ever done, because "the soul of you" is a metaphysical thing like "water", a word that describes a local macro-state that is implemented by any of a Large Number of micro-states as is necessary to fit it into any of a Much Larger Number of contexts.

which actually means that they are accepting Indeterminism

No, they aren't, they are rejecting fatalism. Specifically and only that. That doesn't mean we accept that our experience of the universe is probabilistic (not deterministic)

In fact I went to great lengths to demonstrate a block forming deterministic infinite "closed" system (a 'possible universe'), and to even introduce the idea of "pseudo-probabilistic" systems, and demonstrated that there is no "ultimate necessitation" over it.

No, we do not accept indeterminism, and I wager that compatibilists NEVER have.

How many such dialogues have you ever had with compatibilists before now? Or with self-avowed historic compatibilists in your literature? How many hundreds or thousands of years ago did it happen? Who recorded the interaction: a determinist, a libertarian, or a compatibilist?

Because I guarantee you, we have been arguing this for 10 years and DBT still doesn't understand determinism does not entail necessitation, and if he were to write down some history of our conversations, the result would be yet another proclamation that compatibilists think as you said, when we very much do not.