Compatibilism: What's that About?

[fromderinside]

I'll be more specific. In a determined world there is no choosing.

Choosing is a deterministic operation that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice, usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is that which we have decided we will do.

And you're saying this never happens? Come with me to the restaurant. Watch the people walk in, sit at a table, browse the menu, and place their orders. How was the literal menu of options reduced to a single choice, if not by choosing?

If we stick around, we will notice the waiter bringing each person their bill, holding them responsible for their deliberate act.

Like all events, these events were causally necessary from any prior point in the past. Causal necessity does eliminate choosing, it assures it will inevitably happen.

One's own impression of what one is doing, or of what others are doing, is subjective.

Watching people in the restaurant reducing a menu of options into a single "I will have the chef salad, please", is an objective observation, not a subjective impression. That's why I use it. Everyone has seen people actually making choices in the real world.

Causation is objective.

And we just objectively observed choosing actually happening. Cool, huh?

Subjective isn't up to the task.

So, are you suggesting that we, as objective observers, were just imagining that people in the restaurant were making choices? We cannot see inside their heads. But we did see a menu of options going into it, and a single choice coming out of it. Choosing happens. It is a real deterministic event that occurs in the real world.

And why I choose software as an example. "Choice" as a concept, in fact the more general term "decision", requires no/very little "intelligence" at all, the intelligence of a single gate.

I think where people get lost is that logical structures can be imposed in the physical, and those logical structures may be then modeled, completely ignoring the physical substrate, to perform an act of literal thaumaturgy: to make happen so below, and then follow that determined path above in the other system that performs "the same".

I can see how such ideas got off the rails though... It's a short but fatal leap to where people in ancient times took it, in our modern understanding.

But, Body Rituals of the Nacirema and all that...

Geez, you're making me look up words like "thaumaturgy", which means working miracles. As a Humanist, I don't believe in miracles.

However it seems you do believe in ethics can be materially defined. Care to try?

See: https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good. Whether you’re doing research, exploring a personal philosophy, or are simply curious about humanism, the resources here are a great place to start: […]*

* I've highlighted a few terms beyond humanism for which I'd like to see objective constructions.

Hey! Thanks for sharing with everyone the link to the AHA.

You also ask whether ethics can be "materially" defined. Yes:

Ethics are a system of rules that guide behavior. The goal of ethics is to achieve a set of rules that provides the best good and the least harm for everyone. Which rules will best accomplish this are often a matter of debate, because the long term consequences of a given rule are often uncertain. So, groups, such as legislatures, research data and hear expert witnesses to inform their decisions. And they often argue over which rule will have the best results. After gathering information and discussion, they vote to establish a working rule that they implement. After it is implemented, we become better informed as to its actual consequences, and may modify, replace, or delete it.

But note that we have just stepped out of this thread and into this one: https://iidb.org/index.php?threads/morality-and-ethics.24777/

Yes is not a very satisfying answer to request for materiality of "ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good."

So I'm repeating the request as deterministic question about empirical rather than the washy washy material evidence. Here's a definition of material evidence: indicating the difference between the two.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309922961_Empirical_and_Non-Empirical_Methods

Abstract:
he dividing line between empirical and non-empirical methods is marked by scholars’ approach to knowledge
gain (i.e., epistemology). Empirical methods typically involve systematic collection and analysis of data (i.e.,
observation and evidence). They are used primarily in quantitative research involving original collection of data,
but also in secondary analyses and increasingly in qualitative research. Scholars using non-empirical methods
consider that reflection, personal observation and authority/experience are just as valuable for knowledge
acquisition as empirical data. In communication studies, scholars are likely to have a clear preference for either
empirical or non-empirical methods. Yet, their scholarship may well include both.

Why the two aren't equally valuable is obvious to even the uncurious. Before advent of scientific method the morality and governance advanced from understanding or material progress from debtor warehouse hovels to racial warehouse hovels. In the about 600 years since Galileo governments are still using rationalism to grapple with truth, justice, and whatever way since Plato.

In that same interval because of of Galileo used making his discoveries by observation and manipulating material things by empirical methods we have placed the earth as orbiting around the sun, space travel, the bomb, and broad band communication from a world of firmament and heavens, ox carts, spears, and town criers.

It's not too much to ask. Use empirical methods to refine definitions of the three terms I highlighted. You might even learn something about why  Operationalism can be such a powerful tool. Caveat, as a psychologist I warn against using Skinner's approach to Bridgman's philosophy. Simply put Skinner was a fool.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Not so, the very definition of freedom means having alternatives and freedom/agency to choose, to have done otherwise.

Yes. And we have that. Would you like pancakes or waffles? I can fix either one, so you have two real possibilities, two options, two alternatives in the real world. And you can choose either one.

Determinism allowing no possible way except what is determined, no freedom of choice, decisions fixed at each moment of time, an agent having no realizable alternatives does precisely what is determined.

That's okay. You see, it was causally necessary from any prior point in time that I would offer you two alternatives, pancakes and waffles. And it was causally necessary from any prior point in time that you would be faced with choosing between these two possibilities. Now, we're just waiting upon you to see whether it was causally necessary that you would choose pancakes or whether it was causally necessary that you would choose waffles. ... I'm waiting.

Will is determined.

Indeed it is! So, "will" you have pancakes? Or, "will" you have waffles? ... I'm waiting.

Determinism is not free will.

Correct. But whether you "will" have pancakes or you "will" have waffles is entirely up to you. You are free to decide this for yourself, because no one is forcing you to choose waffles and no one is forcing you to choose pancakes.

Determinism will not make this choice for you. So, if you're waiting to see what determinism does, you will have no breakfast at all, because determinism never actually does anything. Determinism simply means that whatever YOU choose will have been causally necessary from any prior point in time.

Free; a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance
b. Not subject to a given condition; exempt: income that is free of all taxes.
5. Not subject to external restraint: Unconstrained; unconfined:
*free; unrestrained; having a scope not restricted by qualification <a free variable>
7 a: not obstructed, restricted, or impeded.

Let's take a look at that list of definitions to see how they apply to the "free" in "free will":
a. Coercion and undue influence are the "given conditions or circumstances" that affect free will.
b. Just like income can either be taxed or free of taxation, your choice can either be coerced or unduly influenced or your choice can be free of coercion and undue influence.
5. & 7. Your choices will always be restricted by something. For example, I'm fixing breakfast for you this morning, and all that I am offering to fix you is either pancakes or waffles. But it is entirely up to you which one of these real possibilities you will choose. As you should know, there is no such thing as "absolute freedom", nor is there such a thing as "freedom from causal necessity", nor is there such a thing as "freedom from oneself". But there IS such a thing as "freedom from coercion and undue influence".

If you accept regulative control as a necessary part of free will, it seems impossible either way:
1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise
2. Indeterminate actions happens randomly and without intent or control
3. Therefore indeterminism and free will are incompatible
4. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable
5. Therefore determinism is incompatible with free will

The nice thing about philosophy is that just about anyone can do it. You can do it. I can do it. It's just a matter of applying common sense, and understanding the actual meaning of words. But one of the problems with philosophy, is that thinking sometimes leads to the wrong conclusions. And academic philosophy ends up as a historical collection of both the good ideas and the bad ones. So, sometimes we just have to figure things out for ourselves.

So, let's go through that list:
"1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise" - Well, that certainly sounds reasonable. For example, you're given a choice, "will you have pancakes or will you have waffles". You "can" choose either one. But which one "will" you choose? We don't know yet, it's up to you to decide. Suppose you choose waffles. You declare, "I will have waffles, thank you". Could you have chosen otherwise? "Yes, I could have chosen pancakes, but I didn't". And you will find this to be true whenever you have to make a choice between two or more things that you "can" do.

The logical flow of the choosing operation insures guarantees that at the beginning (1) there will always be at least two distinct things that you can do and that at the end (2) there will always be at least one thing that you could have done, but didn't do, and (3) there will be the single thing that you will do.

So, the choosing operation insures that "I could have done otherwise" will always be true. It is only "I would have done otherwise" that will always be false.

And we must conclude that any philosopher who suggests that "I could have done otherwise" will be false, is mistaken. They have conflated what "can" happen with what "will" happen. And this is a logical error.

"2. Indeterminate actions happens randomly and without intent or control"
"3. Therefore indeterminism and free will are incompatible"

I think it should be obvious that both premises at, 2. and 3., are irrelevant to the conclusion at 5. So, this is just a sloppy argument construct. But, like I said earlier, just about anyone can be a philosopher.

"4. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable" - This would seem obviously true, because if an event has been causally determined, then it has already been caused and all of its prior causes have played themselves out, and it is now an event of the past. We can't change the past.

"5. Therefore determinism is incompatible with free will" - Apparently not. The prior causes of a choice always includes a choosing operation. The choosing operation guarantees that "I could have done otherwise" will always be true. And free will is simply those cases where we made the choice for ourselves, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence.

Determinism never actually does anything. It simply points out that our choice was reliably caused by our choosing. Our choosing was reliably caused by who and what we were at that moment. Who and what we were at that moment was caused by our nature and our nurture. Prior events leading up to who and what we were included our birth, our parents, the evolution of our species, the appearance of living organisms on the planet, the formation of the stars and planets, the Big Bang, and whatever conditions reliably led up to the Big Bang.

Most of those prior events were incidental in the chain of causation, and neither meaningful nor relevant to our choice between pancakes or waffles for breakfast.

So, we only really care about the most meaningful and relevant causes of our choices. And those causes are found within us. That's why I'm asking you, and not determinism, "What will you have for breakfast, pancakes or waffles?"

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I'll be more specific. In a determined world there is no choosing.

Choosing is a deterministic operation that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice, usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is that which we have decided we will do.

And you're saying this never happens? Come with me to the restaurant. Watch the people walk in, sit at a table, browse the menu, and place their orders. How was the literal menu of options reduced to a single choice, if not by choosing?

If we stick around, we will notice the waiter bringing each person their bill, holding them responsible for their deliberate act.

Like all events, these events were causally necessary from any prior point in the past. Causal necessity does eliminate choosing, it assures it will inevitably happen.

One's own impression of what one is doing, or of what others are doing, is subjective.

Watching people in the restaurant reducing a menu of options into a single "I will have the chef salad, please", is an objective observation, not a subjective impression. That's why I use it. Everyone has seen people actually making choices in the real world.

Causation is objective.

And we just objectively observed choosing actually happening. Cool, huh?

Subjective isn't up to the task.

So, are you suggesting that we, as objective observers, were just imagining that people in the restaurant were making choices? We cannot see inside their heads. But we did see a menu of options going into it, and a single choice coming out of it. Choosing happens. It is a real deterministic event that occurs in the real world.

And why I choose software as an example. "Choice" as a concept, in fact the more general term "decision", requires no/very little "intelligence" at all, the intelligence of a single gate.

I think where people get lost is that logical structures can be imposed in the physical, and those logical structures may be then modeled, completely ignoring the physical substrate, to perform an act of literal thaumaturgy: to make happen so below, and then follow that determined path above in the other system that performs "the same".

I can see how such ideas got off the rails though... It's a short but fatal leap to where people in ancient times took it, in our modern understanding.

But, Body Rituals of the Nacirema and all that...

Geez, you're making me look up words like "thaumaturgy", which means working miracles. As a Humanist, I don't believe in miracles.

However it seems you do believe in ethics can be materially defined. Care to try?

See: https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good. Whether you’re doing research, exploring a personal philosophy, or are simply curious about humanism, the resources here are a great place to start: […]*

* I've highlighted a few terms beyond humanism for which I'd like to see objective constructions.

Hey! Thanks for sharing with everyone the link to the AHA.

You also ask whether ethics can be "materially" defined. Yes:

Ethics are a system of rules that guide behavior. The goal of ethics is to achieve a set of rules that provides the best good and the least harm for everyone. Which rules will best accomplish this are often a matter of debate, because the long term consequences of a given rule are often uncertain. So, groups, such as legislatures, research data and hear expert witnesses to inform their decisions. And they often argue over which rule will have the best results. After gathering information and discussion, they vote to establish a working rule that they implement. After it is implemented, we become better informed as to its actual consequences, and may modify, replace, or delete it.

But note that we have just stepped out of this thread and into this one: https://iidb.org/index.php?threads/morality-and-ethics.24777/

Yes is not a very satisfying answer to request for materiality of "ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good."

So I'm repeating the request as deterministic question about empirical rather than the washy washy material evidence. Here's a definition of material evidence: indicating the difference between the two.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309922961_Empirical_and_Non-Empirical_Methods

Abstract:
he dividing line between empirical and non-empirical methods is marked by scholars’ approach to knowledge
gain (i.e., epistemology). Empirical methods typically involve systematic collection and analysis of data (i.e.,
observation and evidence). They are used primarily in quantitative research involving original collection of data,
but also in secondary analyses and increasingly in qualitative research. Scholars using non-empirical methods
consider that reflection, personal observation and authority/experience are just as valuable for knowledge
acquisition as empirical data. In communication studies, scholars are likely to have a clear preference for either
empirical or non-empirical methods. Yet, their scholarship may well include both.

Why the two aren't equally valuable is obvious to even the uncurious. Before advent of scientific method the morality and governance advanced from understanding or material progress from debtor warehouse hovels to racial warehouse hovels. In the about 600 years since Galileo governments are still using rationalism to grapple with truth, justice, and whatever way since Plato.

In that same interval because of of Galileo used making his discoveries by observation and manipulating material things by empirical methods we have placed the earth as orbiting around the sun, space travel, the bomb, and broad band communication from a world of firmament and heavens, ox carts, spears, and town criers.

It's not too much to ask. Use empirical methods to refine definitions of the three terms I highlighted. You might even learn something about why  Operationalism can be such a powerful tool. Caveat, as a psychologist I warn against using Skinner's approach to Bridgman's philosophy. Simply put Skinner was a fool.

Cool. I always like to think that I can provide an operational definition for any term I use. So, you've chosen three specific terms from the Humanist web site, and would like to see how they are operationally defined. Here goes:

Ethical Lives are simply lives that are consistent with a specific set of rules. You empirically compare specific acts within that life against the set of ethical rules that are assumed to apply to that individual. Acts consistent with the rules are ethical. Acts inconsistent with the rule are unethical. You make a list, check it twice, to see who has been naughty or nice. (Or so Santa says).

Personal Fulfillment refers to a person's goals for their lives and whether or not they have been achieved or at least behavior exhibited which is consistent with achieving them.

Aspire to the Greater Good refers to their motivation to achieve the best good and the least harm for everyone. You can empirically measure the strength of that motivation by observing behaviors that either contribute to or impede achieving that goal.

Questions? Comments?

But again, this seems to be more in line with the Morals & Principles category rather than in this thread on Compatibilism.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

... Everything being determined, it matters not whether something is conscious or not. Consciousness doesn't alter anything. Brain information processing is largely unconscious. Consciousness itself is determined.

The problem is that "every event is always determined by prior events" has no practical implications. But what the brain does and does not do has huge practical implications. The brain makes choices. And it involves consciousness in the process of deliberation. The involvement of consciousness is how we are able to explain our deliberate behavior to ourselves and others.

The justice system works through sending the message, if you break this law there are consequences, jail time, fines, etc, consequences that modify behaviour and act as a deterrent.

But that message about consequences comes into the brain via words that we become consciously aware of as we see or hear them.

Mostly effective, but there are exceptions:

On the neurology of morals
''Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.''


Prefrontal Cortex damage:
1 - 'The 20-year-old female subject studied by Damasio et al. was intelligent and academically competent, but she stole from her family and other children, abused other people both verbally and physically, lied frequently, and was sexually promiscuous and completely lacking in empathy toward her illegitimate child. In addition, the researchers say, "She never expressed guilt or remorse for her misbehavior'' ''Both of the subjects performed well on measures of intellectual ability, but, like people with adult-onset prefrontal cortex damage, they were socially impaired, failed to consider future consequences when making decisions, and failed to respond normally to punishment or behavioral interventions. "Unlike adult-onset patients, however," the researchers say, "the two patients had defective social and moral reasoning, suggesting that the acquisition of complex social conventions and moral rules had been impaired." While adult-onset patients possess factual knowledge about social and moral rules (even though they often cannot follow these rules in real life), Damasio et al.'s childhood-onset subjects appeared unable to learn these rules at all. This may explain, the researchers say, why their childhood-onset subjects were much more antisocial, and showed less guilt and remorse, than subjects who suffered similar damage in adulthood.''

Free will is presumed to be compromised by significant mental illness that is severe enough to remove a person's control over their own behavior. This falls under the category of an "undue influence".

 

[none]

somebody posted this and I don't think it was poop.
anywho...
from stanford.edu about indeterminism... it leads with...

Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories of Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

...
Incompatibilists hold that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive and, consequently, that we act freely (i.e., with free will) only if determinism is false. However, they disagree amongst themselves about what else, besides indeterminism, is required for free will. One question that divides them concerns which type of indeterminism—uncaused events, nondeterministically caused events, or agent caused events—is required. Another concerns where in the processes leading to action indeterminism must be located in order for an action to be free. Different answers to these questions yield different incompatibilist theories of free will.
...

so basically you can read read think think think and guess what, it is a beLIEf... get over it.

 

[Copernicus]

DBT thinks of all choices as essentially a  Hobson's Choice. That is, they aren't real choices, because the result is always predetermined. However, Hobson's choice was even more real--the customer could have any horse in the stable as long as it was the one closest to the door. That genuine alternative was to have no horse at all. In the end, the argument comes down to sophistry, because nobody but a hard determinist defines "free choice" in such a way that it would be of no practical use to anyone, and we would just have to invent a new word for the kind of "choice" that we experience throughout our lives. Or we could just keep using "choice" the way we always have an ignore the hard determinist. It's a pity that they aren't free to invent their own vocabulary, but that's the path they've chosen to tread.

 

[Copernicus]

...
Yes, you made it clear that perspective my give the actor the impression of free will, but you just don't want to admit that the subjective impression of free will is what us actors are talking about when we use the expression "free will". We aren't talking about freedom from causal necessity in a deterministic reality. So your attempt to dismiss free will as an illusion is ultimately a self-refuting argument. You end up admitting that we are compelled to accept the reality of being responsible for our actions, even if we cannot step outside of the deterministic chaos that compels us to make the choices that we do. You aren't arguing that we should open up the jails and let everyone out on the grounds that none of the inmates could help themselves when they committed their crimes. Supposedly, we are compelled to keep them locked up. What does any of your argument buy us except intellectual bankruptcy?

Are you saying that those who believe in free will, compatibilists, etc, accept that their concept of free will is an illusion? That free will as an illusion is not real? That free will is a false impression, an illusion of the mind? That the term is merely a verbal construct?

Just FYI, all terms are verbal constructs. All have significance in their own right, or they wouldn't have been used in the first place.

What I am saying is that "free will" is only an illusion if you frame it as the result of a causal necessity, where the entire antecedent chain is known. That is, it is an illusion from the perspective of an all-knowing outside observer, not the actor making the choice. People who use the term almost never use it with that sort of perspective in mind. You can ask people to tell you what made them make a choice that they did, but they never try to answer by exhaustively detailing every possible past event that led up to the choice. That is just background noise from the perspective of the chooser. They simply name the factor that they recollect as the most salient one when they made their choice. If you want to treat free will as just an illusion because of your obsession with causal chaining, you are free to do so. The rest of us will carry on as we have in the past, using the term to apply to choices that we feel are not coerced or unduly influenced by the circumstances that led to them. Causal necessity remains intact and can do what it must do.

 

[none]

...
Yes, you made it clear that perspective my give the actor the impression of free will, but you just don't want to admit that the subjective impression of free will is what us actors are talking about when we use the expression "free will". We aren't talking about freedom from causal necessity in a deterministic reality. So your attempt to dismiss free will as an illusion is ultimately a self-refuting argument. You end up admitting that we are compelled to accept the reality of being responsible for our actions, even if we cannot step outside of the deterministic chaos that compels us to make the choices that we do. You aren't arguing that we should open up the jails and let everyone out on the grounds that none of the inmates could help themselves when they committed their crimes. Supposedly, we are compelled to keep them locked up. What does any of your argument buy us except intellectual bankruptcy?

Are you saying that those who believe in free will, compatibilists, etc, accept that their concept of free will is an illusion? That free will as an illusion is not real? That free will is a false impression, an illusion of the mind? That the term is merely a verbal construct?

Just FYI, all terms are verbal constructs. All have significance in their own right, or they wouldn't have been used in the first place.

What I am saying is that "free will" is only an illusion if you frame it as the result of a causal necessity, where the entire antecedent chain is known. That is, it is an illusion from the perspective of an all-knowing outside observer, not the actor making the choice. People who use the term almost never use it with that sort of perspective in mind. You can ask people to tell you what made them make a choice that they did, but they never try to answer by exhaustively detailing every possible past event that led up to the choice. That is just background noise from the perspective of the chooser. They simply name the factor that they recollect as the most salient one when they made their choice. If you want to treat free will as just an illusion because of your obsession with causal chaining, you are free to do so. The rest of us will carry on as we have in the past, using the term to apply to choices that we feel are not coerced or unduly influenced by the circumstances that led to them. Causal necessity remains intact and can do what it must do.

feelings... nothing more than feelings....

 

[DBT]

...
Yes, you made it clear that perspective my give the actor the impression of free will, but you just don't want to admit that the subjective impression of free will is what us actors are talking about when we use the expression "free will". We aren't talking about freedom from causal necessity in a deterministic reality. So your attempt to dismiss free will as an illusion is ultimately a self-refuting argument. You end up admitting that we are compelled to accept the reality of being responsible for our actions, even if we cannot step outside of the deterministic chaos that compels us to make the choices that we do. You aren't arguing that we should open up the jails and let everyone out on the grounds that none of the inmates could help themselves when they committed their crimes. Supposedly, we are compelled to keep them locked up. What does any of your argument buy us except intellectual bankruptcy?

Are you saying that those who believe in free will, compatibilists, etc, accept that their concept of free will is an illusion? That free will as an illusion is not real? That free will is a false impression, an illusion of the mind? That the term is merely a verbal construct?

Just FYI, all terms are verbal constructs. All have significance in their own right, or they wouldn't have been used in the first place.

What I am saying is that "free will" is only an illusion if you frame it as the result of a causal necessity, where the entire antecedent chain is known. That is, it is an illusion from the perspective of an all-knowing outside observer, not the actor making the choice. People who use the term almost never use it with that sort of perspective in mind. You can ask people to tell you what made them make a choice that they did, but they never try to answer by exhaustively detailing every possible past event that led up to the choice. That is just background noise from the perspective of the chooser. They simply name the factor that they recollect as the most salient one when they made their choice. If you want to treat free will as just an illusion because of your obsession with causal chaining, you are free to do so. The rest of us will carry on as we have in the past, using the term to apply to choices that we feel are not coerced or unduly influenced by the circumstances that led to them. Causal necessity remains intact and can do what it must do.

The question is not that all terms are verbal constructs, which they obviously are, but: is it a reference to something that exists independently of our terms.

The words "demons" and "people,'' for instance, are verbal constructs, but which of the two demonstrably exist independently of our terms?

The issue with free will is the reference, what exactly does the term refer to? The compatibilist gives their description of free will, and the incompatibilist points out the reason why it fails in terms of determinism and the physical processes of behaviour, which do not allow freedom of the will, only determined actions which proceed unimpeded as determined.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The question is not that all terms are verbal constructs, which they obviously are, but: is it a reference to something that exists independently of our terms.

The words "demons" and "people,'' for instance, are verbal constructs, but which of the two demonstrably exist independently of our terms?

Lovely demonstration. The words "determinism" and "people", are verbal constructs, but which of the two demonstrably exists independently of our terms?

The issue with free will is the reference, what exactly does the term refer to?

What exactly does the term "free will" refer to? Free will is literally a freely chosen "I will". That is exactly what the term refers to. And what is the choosing free of? It is free of coercion and undue influence.

The compatibilist gives their description of free will, and the incompatibilist points out the reason why it fails in terms of determinism and the physical processes of behaviour, which do not allow freedom of the will, only determined actions which proceed unimpeded as determined.

Free will is consistent with both (a) determinism and (b) the physical processes of behavior! Choosing is a deterministic operation, in which multiple options are input, some criteria of comparative evaluation is applied, and a single choice is output. And the choosing operation is always performed by the physical processes within the person's own brain.

The criteria for selection are part of the person, exactly as they are at the time of choosing. The criteria typically include the person's own goals, their own reasons, their own genetic dispositions, their own prior experiences, their own beliefs and values, and so on. Which criteria play the most important roles in a given choice will depend upon the nature of the issue to be decided. But the criteria will reliably determine the choice. The choice is fully deterministic.

Under extraordinary circumstances, the choosing operation may be encumbered by coercion and other forms of undue influence. In any case, whether it be a case of free will, or a case of coercion, or a case of some other undue influence, the process is always consistent with determinism and the mental process is always carried out using the physical processes running upon the brain's neural infrastructure.

So, as you can see, once more, there is no inconsistency between the notions of free will, determinism, and neuroscience. They are all compatible with each other.

 

[none]

descartes.... only because that tradition lived pass the printing press... and now it is here... forever.
"I will", please reconsider Marvin.

 

[Copernicus]

The question is not that all terms are verbal constructs, which they obviously are, but: is it a reference to something that exists independently of our terms.

The words "demons" and "people,'' for instance, are verbal constructs, but which of the two demonstrably exist independently of our terms?

The issue with free will is the reference, what exactly does the term refer to? The compatibilist gives their description of free will, and the incompatibilist points out the reason why it fails in terms of determinism and the physical processes of behaviour, which do not allow freedom of the will, only determined actions which proceed unimpeded as determined.

First of all, there is no single definition or rigid doctrine among compatibilists for the concept of "free will". The term is quite often left undefined in these discussions, and Dennett offers several senses of the expression. But Marvin has done a great job of defining it quite consistently in a way that seems to fit well with common usage among English speakers. There are other definitions for the term, and we have been discussing it from a rather uncommon perspective--that of an eliminative materialist--your apparent position here--that seeks to treat the term as essentially meaningless, even though we all have to behave as if it were meaningful. One of the criticism of eliminative materialism in the philosophical literature is that it is essentially self-refuting, since its proponents tend to end up having to admit that most of the "folk psychology" terms they wish to eliminate are simply necessary in ordinary daily existence.

 

[none]

proper english:
moron

 

[DBT]

The question is not that all terms are verbal constructs, which they obviously are, but: is it a reference to something that exists independently of our terms.

The words "demons" and "people,'' for instance, are verbal constructs, but which of the two demonstrably exist independently of our terms?

Lovely demonstration. The words "determinism" and "people", are verbal constructs, but which of the two demonstrably exists independently of our terms?

If they are objective phenomena, both are demonstrable. Compatibilism as you know is related to determinism. If determinism is false, where does compatibilism stand? Incompatibilists point out why determinism does not support freedom of will regardless.

The issue with free will is the reference, what exactly does the term refer to?

What exactly does the term "free will" refer to? Free will is literally a freely chosen "I will". That is exactly what the term refers to. And what is the choosing free of? It is free of coercion and undue influence.

Will is not only fully influenced, it is determined. You can't get a harder form of influence than that.

The compatibilist gives their description of free will, and the incompatibilist points out the reason why it fails in terms of determinism and the physical processes of behaviour, which do not allow freedom of the will, only determined actions which proceed unimpeded as determined.

Free will is consistent with both (a) determinism and (b) the physical processes of behavior! Choosing is a deterministic operation, in which multiple options are input, some criteria of comparative evaluation is applied, and a single choice is output. And the choosing operation is always performed by the physical processes within the person's own brain.

The criteria for selection are part of the person, exactly as they are at the time of choosing. The criteria typically include the person's own goals, their own reasons, their own genetic dispositions, their own prior experiences, their own beliefs and values, and so on. Which criteria play the most important roles in a given choice will depend upon the nature of the issue to be decided. But the criteria will reliably determine the choice. The choice is fully deterministic.

Under extraordinary circumstances, the choosing operation may be encumbered by coercion and other forms of undue influence. In any case, whether it be a case of free will, or a case of coercion, or a case of some other undue influence, the process is always consistent with determinism and the mental process is always carried out using the physical processes running upon the brain's neural infrastructure.

So, as you can see, once more, there is no inconsistency between the notions of free will, determinism, and neuroscience. They are all compatible with each other.

Within a determined system, all things are encumbered by forces that fix each and every outcome, which eliminates the freedom to do otherwise (the essence of freedom). Which is why freedom of will is incompatible with determinism.

 

[DBT]

The question is not that all terms are verbal constructs, which they obviously are, but: is it a reference to something that exists independently of our terms.

The words "demons" and "people,'' for instance, are verbal constructs, but which of the two demonstrably exist independently of our terms?

The issue with free will is the reference, what exactly does the term refer to? The compatibilist gives their description of free will, and the incompatibilist points out the reason why it fails in terms of determinism and the physical processes of behaviour, which do not allow freedom of the will, only determined actions which proceed unimpeded as determined.

First of all, there is no single definition or rigid doctrine among compatibilists for the concept of "free will". The term is quite often left undefined in these discussions, and Dennett offers several senses of the expression. But Marvin has done a great job of defining it quite consistently in a way that seems to fit well with common usage among English speakers. There are other definitions for the term, and we have been discussing it from a rather uncommon perspective--that of an eliminative materialist--your apparent position here--that seeks to treat the term as essentially meaningless, even though we all have to behave as if it were meaningful. One of the criticism of eliminative materialism in the philosophical literature is that it is essentially self-refuting, since its proponents tend to end up having to admit that most of the "folk psychology" terms they wish to eliminate are simply necessary in ordinary daily existence.

Definitions alone prove nothing. God can be defined in relation to the world, as the creator, the giver of life, transcendent being, etc.....none of which establishes the existence of God.

Sure, you can define compatibilism as 'acting in accordance with one's will with no outside force or coercion,' but this ignores that will itself has no functional say, no alternatives, no possibility to do otherwise. Thereby, ignoring the very thing that curtails freedom - fixed outcome - compatibilism fails to establish its proposition: freedom of will.

 

[DBT]

DBT thinks of all choices as essentially a  Hobson's Choice. That is, they aren't real choices, because the result is always predetermined. However, Hobson's choice was even more real--the customer could have any horse in the stable as long as it was the one closest to the door. That genuine alternative was to have no horse at all. In the end, the argument comes down to sophistry, because nobody but a hard determinist defines "free choice" in such a way that it would be of no practical use to anyone, and we would just have to invent a new word for the kind of "choice" that we experience throughout our lives. Or we could just keep using "choice" the way we always have an ignore the hard determinist. It's a pity that they aren't free to invent their own vocabulary, but that's the path they've chosen to tread.

There is no choice, whether you own a horse or not is determined. If you 'decide' to buy a horse, events have inevitably brought you to the point of considering (inevitable) the purchase, followed by the purchase itself. You are a horse owner through determination/necessity.

 

[DBT]

Determinism never actually does anything. It simply points out that our choice was reliably caused by our choosing. Our choosing was reliably caused by who and what we were at that moment. Who and what we were at that moment was caused by our nature and our nurture. Prior events leading up to who and what we were included our birth, our parents, the evolution of our species, the appearance of living organisms on the planet, the formation of the stars and planets, the Big Bang, and whatever conditions reliably led up to the Big Bang.

Most of those prior events were incidental in the chain of causation, and neither meaningful nor relevant to our choice between pancakes or waffles for breakfast.

So, we only really care about the most meaningful and relevant causes of our choices. And those causes are found within us. That's why I'm asking you, and not determinism, "What will you have for breakfast, pancakes or waffles?"

Determinism refers to the actions of countless non-chosen events that bring you to your present condition, determining what you think and what you do. It's more than just 'reliable' it is inevitable and inescapable. Nor are there incidental events, if determined, all events are necessitated events.

''Why does the coercion of a person by another, or the conditions of a brain microchip, or the conditions of a tumor, – nullify the “free will” ability? What part of the “ability” is being obstructed? This almost always comes down to a certain point of “control” that is being minimized, and where that minimized control is coming from (the arbitrary part).

The compatibilist might say because those are influences that are “outside” of the person, but this misses the entire point brought up by the free will skeptic, which is that ALL environmental conditions that help lead to a person’s brain state at any given moment are “outside of the person”, and the genes a person has was provided rather than decided.''

 

[fromderinside]

I'll be more specific. In a determined world there is no choosing.

Choosing is a deterministic operation that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice, usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is that which we have decided we will do.

And you're saying this never happens? Come with me to the restaurant. Watch the people walk in, sit at a table, browse the menu, and place their orders. How was the literal menu of options reduced to a single choice, if not by choosing?

If we stick around, we will notice the waiter bringing each person their bill, holding them responsible for their deliberate act.

Like all events, these events were causally necessary from any prior point in the past. Causal necessity does eliminate choosing, it assures it will inevitably happen.

One's own impression of what one is doing, or of what others are doing, is subjective.

Watching people in the restaurant reducing a menu of options into a single "I will have the chef salad, please", is an objective observation, not a subjective impression. That's why I use it. Everyone has seen people actually making choices in the real world.

Causation is objective.

And we just objectively observed choosing actually happening. Cool, huh?

Subjective isn't up to the task.

So, are you suggesting that we, as objective observers, were just imagining that people in the restaurant were making choices? We cannot see inside their heads. But we did see a menu of options going into it, and a single choice coming out of it. Choosing happens. It is a real deterministic event that occurs in the real world.

And why I choose software as an example. "Choice" as a concept, in fact the more general term "decision", requires no/very little "intelligence" at all, the intelligence of a single gate.

I think where people get lost is that logical structures can be imposed in the physical, and those logical structures may be then modeled, completely ignoring the physical substrate, to perform an act of literal thaumaturgy: to make happen so below, and then follow that determined path above in the other system that performs "the same".

I can see how such ideas got off the rails though... It's a short but fatal leap to where people in ancient times took it, in our modern understanding.

But, Body Rituals of the Nacirema and all that...

Geez, you're making me look up words like "thaumaturgy", which means working miracles. As a Humanist, I don't believe in miracles.

However it seems you do believe in ethics can be materially defined. Care to try?

See: https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good. Whether you’re doing research, exploring a personal philosophy, or are simply curious about humanism, the resources here are a great place to start: […]*

* I've highlighted a few terms beyond humanism for which I'd like to see objective constructions.

Hey! Thanks for sharing with everyone the link to the AHA.

You also ask whether ethics can be "materially" defined. Yes:

Ethics are a system of rules that guide behavior. The goal of ethics is to achieve a set of rules that provides the best good and the least harm for everyone. Which rules will best accomplish this are often a matter of debate, because the long term consequences of a given rule are often uncertain. So, groups, such as legislatures, research data and hear expert witnesses to inform their decisions. And they often argue over which rule will have the best results. After gathering information and discussion, they vote to establish a working rule that they implement. After it is implemented, we become better informed as to its actual consequences, and may modify, replace, or delete it.

But note that we have just stepped out of this thread and into this one: https://iidb.org/index.php?threads/morality-and-ethics.24777/

Yes is not a very satisfying answer to request for materiality of "ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good."

So I'm repeating the request as deterministic question about empirical rather than the washy washy material evidence. Here's a definition of material evidence: indicating the difference between the two.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309922961_Empirical_and_Non-Empirical_Methods

Abstract:
he dividing line between empirical and non-empirical methods is marked by scholars’ approach to knowledge
gain (i.e., epistemology). Empirical methods typically involve systematic collection and analysis of data (i.e.,
observation and evidence). They are used primarily in quantitative research involving original collection of data,
but also in secondary analyses and increasingly in qualitative research. Scholars using non-empirical methods
consider that reflection, personal observation and authority/experience are just as valuable for knowledge
acquisition as empirical data. In communication studies, scholars are likely to have a clear preference for either
empirical or non-empirical methods. Yet, their scholarship may well include both.

Why the two aren't equally valuable is obvious to even the uncurious. Before advent of scientific method the morality and governance advanced from understanding or material progress from debtor warehouse hovels to racial warehouse hovels. In the about 600 years since Galileo governments are still using rationalism to grapple with truth, justice, and whatever way since Plato.

In that same interval because of of Galileo used making his discoveries by observation and manipulating material things by empirical methods we have placed the earth as orbiting around the sun, space travel, the bomb, and broad band communication from a world of firmament and heavens, ox carts, spears, and town criers.

It's not too much to ask. Use empirical methods to refine definitions of the three terms I highlighted. You might even learn something about why  Operationalism can be such a powerful tool. Caveat, as a psychologist I warn against using Skinner's approach to Bridgman's philosophy. Simply put Skinner was a fool.

Cool. I always like to think that I can provide an operational definition for any term I use. So, you've chosen three specific terms from the Humanist web site, and would like to see how they are operationally defined. Here goes:

Ethical Lives are simply lives that are consistent with a specific set of rules. You empirically compare specific acts within that life against the set of ethical rules that are assumed to apply to that individual. Acts consistent with the rules are ethical. Acts inconsistent with the rule are unethical. You make a list, check it twice, to see who has been naughty or nice. (Or so Santa says).

Personal Fulfillment refers to a person's goals for their lives and whether or not they have been achieved or at least behavior exhibited which is consistent with achieving them.

Aspire to the Greater Good refers to their motivation to achieve the best good and the least harm for everyone. You can empirically measure the strength of that motivation by observing behaviors that either contribute to or impede achieving that goal.

Questions? Comments?

But again, this seems to be more in line with the Morals & Principles category rather than in this thread on Compatibilism.

Assumed is not operational anything, nor a person's, the best, impede, or achieving. The whole idea is to use operations that are material and can be arrived at via empirical manipulation of those operations.

Science has overcome most of the 'objections in the article by use of replicable standards. The standard meter for instance being a material representation of length.

Back to school for you.

The relation of operational definitions to theory.

https://sciencetheory.net/operationalism-operationism/

An example from the reference

The importance of careful operationalization can perhaps be more clearly seen in the development of General Relativity. Einstein discovered that there were two operational definitions of “mass” being used by scientists: inertial, defined by applying a force and observing the acceleration, from Newton’s Second Law of Motion; and gravitational, defined by putting the object on a scale or balance. Previously, no one had paid any attention to the different operations used because they always produced the same results,[8] but the key insight of Einstein was to posit the Principle of Equivalence that the two operations would always produce the same result because they were equivalent at a deep level, and work out the implications of that assumption, which is the General Theory of Relativity. Thus, a breakthrough in science was achieved by disregarding different operational definitions of scientific measurements and realizing that they both described a single theoretical concept. Einstein’s disagreement with the operationalist approach was criticized by Bridgman[9] as follows: “Einstein did not carry over into his general relativity theory the lessons and insights he himself has taught us in his special theory.” (p. 335).


Obviously physical theory becomes important since it are based on traceable material operations in combination into a system of operation describing whatever is being discussed. If you look at the garbage you posted you won't find such underpinnings even qualitatively. I warned you about Skinner. You have along slog before you.

When you figure out how psycho-acousticians get from hearing to sound threshold you'll begin to get an idea of the difficulties one has to deal in going from mind to material theory. A bit of language gymnastics doesn't cut it. We're only at the level of being able to relate oxygen uptake to mental work combined with a lot of handwaving. We have to get past the handwaving to even consider treating mental behavior as science. If we don't we are stuck with Barlow's face detector in cats. BTW Freud and friends have been in the dust bin since the nineteen teens, yet AMA associate APA is still working on 'standards' based on their garbage.

And this is not morals and principles except to the extent to which principles apply to consideration of Compatibilism via a vis Determinism. You bring a slingshot to a nuclear war.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

... Compatibilism as you know is related to determinism. If determinism is false, where does compatibilism stand?

Compatibilism is not "related" to determinism Compatibilism demonstrates how determinism and free will are compatible within a single world view.

Incompatibilists point out why determinism does not support freedom of will regardless.

Unfortunately, to do that the incompatibilists must use a special definition of "free will", as "freedom from causal necessity" (freedom from prior causes), which is an irrational notion. It is irrational because reliable causation is required to actually do things. One cannot carry out any intent (will) without the ability to reliably cause some effect. So, freedom, the "ability to do what we want", requires a world of reliable causation. And reliable causation logically implies "causal necessity".

Incompatibilists come in two flavors: libertarian, which deny determinism but acknowledge free will, and hard determinist, which deny free will but acknowledge determinism.

Ironically, the hard determinist agrees that "freedom from causal necessity" is an irrational concept, and they use that fact to argue against the libertarians, typically by pointing out repeatedly that every event has a reliable prior cause. This should lead us to question the sincerity of the hard determinists' position, because they are using a definition of "free will" that they already believe cannot exist.

The compatibilist does not use "freedom from causal necessity" as the definition of "free will". Why? Because they recognize it for the nonsense that it is. Instead, compatibilism uses the operational definition of free will, which is a choice we make while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence (certain significant mental illnesses or brain injuries, hypnosis, authoritative command, manipulation, and any other extraordinary influence that can be reasonably said to remove a person's control of their own choices).

Compatibilists use what can be called the "operational" definition of free will, because it the the definition that is commonly used in operations that determine whether a person is morally or legally responsible for their actions, or if the responsibility for their actions lies with someone or something else (coercion and other forms of undue influence). This definition of free will is commonly understood and correctly applied by most people (at least until they attend a course in philosophy and get infected with the paradoxical definition).

Will is not only fully influenced, it is determined. You can't get a harder form of influence than that.

But you leave out the influences that constitute the person. Their goals and reasons, their beliefs and values, their genetic dispositions and prior life experiences, their thoughts and feelings. These are the influences that are an integral part of who and what a person is.

The hard determinist leaves out the most meaningful and relevant causes of their choice. Instead, they insist that the person is irrelevant to the choice, because the person had prior causes, and they believe that these prior causes are the only causes that should count.

So, having left out the most important direct causes, your determinism is incomplete, and thus it is a false version of determinism.

Within a determined system, all things are encumbered by forces that fix each and every outcome...

Correct. And among these things, that exert force and fix the outcomes, you will find human beings, people who have a vital interest in those outcomes.

... which eliminates the freedom to do otherwise (the essence of freedom).

That trope will not hold. The "ability" to do otherwise does not require anyone to actually do otherwise. If offered pancakes or waffles for breakfast, you will have the ability to choose either one, but you will still choose only one. One becomes what you "will" do. The other becomes what you "could have" done, but didn't do.

Whenever faced with a choice between two things that you "can" do, it will always be the case that "I could have done otherwise" will be true. It is only "I would have done otherwise" that will be false.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

... You bring a slingshot to a nuclear war.

David brought only a slingshot, because that was all that was required.