Determinism

[peacegirl]

@Flannel Jesus

@iambiguous

Sam Ruhmkorff
Hard Determinism

First, [hard determinism] does not make our choices meaningless. Hard determinists hold that what you do for the rest of your life is determined. But it is determined in part by the way you make choices.

If you sit on the couch and bemoan your fate as a line-follower, your life-line will not be very dynamic. If you try to make your life go well, you have a chance at a much more enjoyable fate.

This is always the part where [to me] the hard determinist reconfigures into the free will advocate. The lives that we lived are determined. But “somehow” that doesn’t include the way we make choices.

Huh?

You’re confused because you’re misreading it.

But “somehow” that doesn’t include the way we make choices.

The quote doesn’t say that.

@iambiguous

Okay, Mary reads the quote. She asks you if, given the point made in the quote, she is or is not morally responsible for aborting Jane.

What, in your view, would the author tell her?

What would you tell her?

Me? I’d tell her that given what I think “here and now” she is not morally responsible for something that her brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compels her to do. And then when she asked how I would go about demonstrating this, I’d admit that I can’t. And I can’t because, for one thing, I am not privy to grasping an understanding of this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was “somehow” able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter “somehow” became living matter “somehow” became conscious matter “somehow” became self-conscious matter.

Are you? Is peacegirl?

We know Mary’s not responsible regardless of what she chooses. You refuse to listen as to why, as we extend the corollary – Thou Shall Not Blame — the desire to hurt another will no longer be. You keep bringing up this grey area and you use it to conclude that there will always be conflict.

[iambiguous]

@peacegirl

We know Mary’s not responsible regardless of what she chooses. You refuse to listen as to why, as we extend the corollary – Thou Shall Not Blame — the desire to hurt another will no longer be. You keep bringing up this grey area and you use it to conclude that there will always be conflict.

Absolutely shameless!

As though the author above began his book this way…

“After I explain definitively how and why non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became self-conscious matter, I’ll explain how and why you don’t need free will to read my book in order to set into motion a brave new world of entirely moral men and women. Which may or may not continue on into an afterlife”.

[peacegirl]

@iambiguous

@peacegirl

We know Mary’s not responsible regardless of what she chooses. You refuse to listen as to why, as we extend the corollary – Thou Shall Not Blame — the desire to hurt another will no longer be. You keep bringing up this grey area and you use it to conclude that there will always be conflict.

Absolutely shameless!

As though the author above began his book this way…

“After I explain definitively how and why non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became self-conscious matter, I’ll explain how and why you don’t need free will to read my book in order to set into motion a brave new world of entirely moral men and women. Which may or may not continue on into an afterlife”.

It’s not that we have no free will that sets in motion a brave new world of entirely moral men and women. It is the knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism that allows a new world to be possible. If we had free will, man could not accomplish this. BTW, the word morality won’t be needed anymore because there will be no hurt, and if there is no hurt there is no need for the word.

[iambiguous]

@peacegirl

@iambiguous

@peacegirl

We know Mary’s not responsible regardless of what she chooses. You refuse to listen as to why, as we extend the corollary – Thou Shall Not Blame — the desire to hurt another will no longer be. You keep bringing up this grey area and you use it to conclude that there will always be conflict.

Absolutely shameless!

As though the author above began his book this way…

“After I explain definitively how and why non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became self-conscious matter, I’ll explain how and why you don’t need free will to read my book in order to set into motion a brave new world of entirely moral men and women. Which may or may not continue on into an afterlife”.

It’s not that we have no free will that sets in motion a brave new world of entirely moral men and women. It is the knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism that allows a new world to be possible. If we had free will, man could not accomplish this. BTW, the word morality won’t be needed anymore because there will be no hurt, and if there is no hurt there is no need for the word.

Click.

And this has exactly what to do with you connecting the dots between merely asserting this to be true and demonstrating how it must be true given your own definitive assessment of “how and why non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became self-conscious matter.”

You’re stuck here just like all the rest of us. Only, in my view, the point of your point is that, in believing that it is the optimal or the only rational point that there is, it comforts and consoles you psychologically. You really do understand human brain matter going all the way back to why there is any matter at all. You really are able to fit the “human condition” into an unequivocal explanation for the existence of existence itself.

You are just comforted and consoled all the more because on top of the science here, you also have a handle on all of the moral conflagrations that have rent the human species for millennia. And, in possessing no free will, we mere mortals, after enough of us “choose” to read the author’s book, will reconfigure the human condition itself into a world where there is no more hurt. Why? Because in regard to good and evil the world will come around to all of the things that the author thought was good and evil.

Is aborting the unborn evil, or is forcing women to give birth evil? Read the book and imagine a world where it’s all just figured out and there are no more unwanted pregnancies.

[Flannel_Jesus]

Just so you know, peacegirl, iambiguous is posting your words on other forums and replying to you there as well. I guess he thinks he can dunk on you in places you’re helpless to respond, or something.

[iambiguous]

@Flannel Jesus

Just so you know, peacegirl, iambiguous is posting your words on other forums and replying to you there as well. I guess he thinks he can dunk on you in places you’re helpless to respond, or something.

Click.

Actually, I hadn’t thought of that. So, going forward, I will only post discussions to both forums when the person I am quoting is a member of both forums. And I’ll delete the post including peacegirl from PN that I posted today. Though I do invite peacegirl to give PN a try.

[Flannel_Jesus]

Are this conversations all for show? Do you have an audience? I’m trying to understand what the value of having the same conversation with the same person twice is.

If the value you get out of the conversation is just you’re own personal growth, then… you get all that value from just having it once.

Are you getting paid per post or something? What’s gained by posting it twice?

[iambiguous]

@Flannel Jesus

Are this conversations all for show? Do you have an audience? I’m trying to understand what the value of having the same conversation with the same person twice is.

If the value you get out of the conversation is just you’re own personal growth, then… you get all that value from just having it once.

Are you getting paid per post or something? What’s gained by posting it twice?

Again, all about me.

The fourth Stooge?

Now back to this:

[b]In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, I was never able to not post it at both forums.

Now, for the compatibilists among us, please explain how you reconcile this with my still being responsible for doing so.

In other words, I was never able to freely opt to not post it at both forums, but I can still be scolded justly by you for doing so.[/b]

And re the is/ought world:

[b]But what I still find fascinating is how some will argue that…

1] Mary was never able not to abort her unborn fetus but, that…
2] Mary is still morally responsible for doing so[/b]

[Flannel_Jesus]

I don’t care if Mary had a million abortions. I’m bringing myself to completion right now thinking about Mary having abortions, and then I’m going to gather up my own millions of abortions in some toilet paper and toss them in the bin. Who cares about abortions?

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl

We know Mary’s not responsible regardless of what she chooses. You refuse to listen as to why, as we extend the corollary – Thou Shall Not Blame — the desire to hurt another will no longer be. You keep bringing up this grey area and you use it to conclude that there will always be conflict.

@iambiguous

Absolutely shameless!

As though the author above began his book this way…

“After I explain definitively how and why non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became self-conscious matter, I’ll explain how and why you don’t need free will to read my book in order to set into motion a brave new world of entirely moral men and women. Which may or may not continue on into an afterlife”.

@peacegirl

It’s not that we have no free will that sets in motion a brave new world of entirely moral men and women. It is the knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism that allows a new world to be possible. If we had free will, man could not accomplish this. BTW, the word morality won’t be needed anymore because there will be no hurt, and if there is no hurt there is no need for the word.

@iambiguous

Click.

And this has exactly what to do with you connecting the dots between merely asserting this to be true and demonstrating how it must be true given your own definitive assessment of “how and why non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became self-conscious matter.”

You’re stuck here just like all the rest of us.

I’m really not.

@iambiguous

Only, in my view, the point of your point is that, in believing that it is the optimal or the only rational point that there is, it comforts and consoles you psychologically.

Sorry iambiguous, it has nothing to do with what comforts me. You’re wrong.

@iambiguous

You really do understand human brain matter going all the way back to why there is any matter at all. You really are able to fit the “human condition” into an unequivocal explanation for the existence of existence itself.

I don’t have to. This is your requirement. No one else’s.

@iambiguous

You are just comforted and consoled all the more because on top of the science here, you also have a handle on all of the moral conflagrations that have rent the human species for millennia. And, in possessing no free will, we mere mortals, after enough of us “choose” to read the author’s book, will reconfigure the human condition itself into a world where there is no more hurt. Why? Because in regard to good and evil the world will come around to all of the things that the author thought was good and evil.

This is not about reconfiguring the human condition. It is changing the environment which will act upon human conduct. You are afraid to read my posts I believe otherwise you would know what he meant by good and evil. Good and evil are relative terms. Dog food is good to a starving person whereas it is evil (or bad) to someone who has steak. For most individuals, there is a definition for what people feel is evil, and that is anything that causes harm to another. Doing something to someone that they don’t want done to themselves.

@iambiguous

Is aborting the unborn evil, or is forcing women to give birth evil? Read the book and imagine a world where it’s all just figured out and there are no more unwanted pregnancies.

There won’t be. You have no clue how powerful this law is. And if there was a rare occasion where the woman had to decide on an abortion, or a decision to have the baby, it will be her decision alone, not yours or anyone else’s.

[iambiguous]

@Flannel Jesus

I don’t care if Mary had a million abortions. I’m bringing myself to completion right now thinking about Mary having abortions, and then I’m going to gather up my own millions of abortions in some toilet paper and toss them in the bin. Who cares about abortions?

Absolutely…pathetic.

Note to nature:

He and I are done, right?

[iambiguous]

@peacegirl

@peacegirl

We know Mary’s not responsible regardless of what she chooses. You refuse to listen as to why, as we extend the corollary – Thou Shall Not Blame — the desire to hurt another will no longer be. You keep bringing up this grey area and you use it to conclude that there will always be conflict.

@iambiguous

Absolutely shameless!

As though the author above began his book this way…

“After I explain definitively how and why non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became self-conscious matter, I’ll explain how and why you don’t need free will to read my book in order to set into motion a brave new world of entirely moral men and women. Which may or may not continue on into an afterlife”.

@peacegirl

It’s not that we have no free will that sets in motion a brave new world of entirely moral men and women. It is the knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism that allows a new world to be possible. If we had free will, man could not accomplish this. BTW, the word morality won’t be needed anymore because there will be no hurt, and if there is no hurt there is no need for the word.

@iambiguous

Click.

And this has exactly what to do with you connecting the dots between merely asserting this to be true and demonstrating how it must be true given your own definitive assessment of “how and why non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became self-conscious matter.”

You’re stuck here just like all the rest of us.

I’m really not.

@iambiguous

Only, in my view, the point of your point is that, in believing that it is the optimal or the only rational point that there is, it comforts and consoles you psychologically.

Sorry iambiguous, it has nothing to do with what comforts me. You’re wrong.

@iambiguous

You really do understand human brain matter going all the way back to why there is any matter at all. You really are able to fit the “human condition” into an unequivocal explanation for the existence of existence itself.

I don’t have to. This is your requirement. No one else’s.

@iambiguous

You are just comforted and consoled all the more because on top of the science here, you also have a handle on all of the moral conflagrations that have rent the human species for millennia. And, in possessing no free will, we mere mortals, after enough of us “choose” to read the author’s book, will reconfigure the human condition itself into a world where there is no more hurt. Why? Because in regard to good and evil the world will come around to all of the things that the author thought was good and evil.

This is not about reconfiguring the human condition. It is changing the environment which will act upon human conduct. You are afraid to read my posts I believe otherwise you would know what he meant by good and evil. Good and evil are relative terms. Dog food is good to a starving person whereas it is evil (or bad) to someone who has steak. For most individuals, there is a definition for what people feel is evil, and that is anything that causes harm to another. Doing something to someone that they don’t want done to themselves.

@iambiguous

Is aborting the unborn evil, or is forcing women to give birth evil? Read the book and imagine a world where it’s all just figured out and there are no more unwanted pregnancies.

There won’t be. You have no clue how powerful this law is. And if there was a rare occasion where the woman had to decide on an abortion, or a decision to have the baby, it will be her decision alone, not yours or anyone else’s.

iambiguous to peacegirl: "well, I tried, right?

peacegirl to iambiguous: “well, I tried right?”

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

I challenge Biggy to an arm wrestling contest!

[peacegirl]

@Flannel Jesus

Just so you know, peacegirl, iambiguous is posting your words on other forums and replying to you there as well. I guess he thinks he can dunk on you in places you’re helpless to respond, or something.

Thanks for letting me know Flannel Jesus, not that my posts aren’t a free for all. I would hope they would be used intelligently. I guess bad press is better than no press, right?

@iambiguous

Click.

Actually, I hadn’t thought of that. So, going forward, I will only post discussions to both forums when the person I am quoting is a member of both forums. And I’ll delete the post including peacegirl from PN that I posted today. Though I do invite peacegirl to give PN a try.

What site is PN? Iambiguous, why would you post my stuff on another forum where I don’t get to respond? I guess that makes you right because you have no opposition.

[iambiguous]

From PN:

@phyllo

You claimed something (“Free will gave Mary the option to not abort Jane”) but you provide no reasoning to support the claim.

That’s not reasoning. That’s not philosophy. That’s making up a story.

No, if in fact we do have free will “somehow” – re God or nature itself – then Mary would have the option to either abort or not to abort. What reason could there possibly be that she doesn’t if in fact “somehow” she does?

Instead, because neither you nor I are privy to the explanation for how and why mindless non-living matter did evolve into mindful living matter on Earth, we are both ensnared in the surreal nature of these exchanges. Surreal in that neither philosophers nor scientists have been able to determine if in fact we do have free will.

We could dream about exchanging assessments of free will…then wake up and realize that “reality” was created entirely by our brains chemically and neurologically. But what about the waking world reality? How do we establish unequivocally that this either is or is not autonomous?

Right, and what is the science behind demonstrating where and when and why determinism ends and fatalism begins in Mary’s brain?

@phyllo

Fatalism begins in Mary’s mind when she starts to think that she knows what her fate is and that she can’t change it.

We already know the characteristics of determinism and fatalism through observation and reasoning. Science has nothing to do with it.

Right. And in asserting this, that makes it true. When, in fact, you have no capacity even to pin down this distinction in your own brain. Can Mary start to think [about anything] of her own free will or is she compelled to think about only that which she was never able not to think of?

Do we opt to note the distinction between determinism and fatalism…fatalistically or deterministically?

And – click – how preposterous is it to insist that science has nothing to do with exploring this distinction itself!!

I never said I could explain my claims. Let alone demonstrate them. You must have me confused with someone else.

@phyllo

If you can’t explain why your ideas about Mary’s abortion are better than other ideas, then what are you doing here?

I’m grappling to make sense of a world in which we seem to have no definitive manner in which to know for certain if our explanations are in fact of our own volition or not.

And, more specifically on this thread, how those who call themselves compatibilists are able to reconcile Mary unable to not abort Jane with her still being morally responsible for doing so. How do they make a distinction between determinism and fatalism?

I’m just interested in hearing arguments that reconcile determinism and moral responsibility.

@phyllo

You got arguments. And you don’t seem to be interested in any of them.

Link me to them. On this thread. And, sure, some here may provide arguments. But – click – that doesn’t mean they will make sense to me.

Besides, given “the gap” between what I think here and now about Mary’s abortion and all that there is to be known about it going back to all that there is to be known about the existence of existence itself, what are the odds that my analysis actually could be correct?

I merely suggest that’s applicable to everyone else here too.

@phyllo

If you have some reasoning to back up your statements and it passes scrutiny, then your odds of being correct increase.

But you don’t have anything.

Huh?

First there’s the astounding vastness [and mystery] of the universe itself: youtu.be/m2YJ7aR25P0

Then there’s all the speculation about a “multiverse”…an infinite number of universes some suggest. Then there’s the simply staggering mystery of why something exists at all. And why this something?

And you’re asking me to provide reasons for what I think about Mary’s abortion…reasons that can pass scrutiny? Run by whom?

[Arcturus_Descending]

@HumAnIze

My whole world is shattered.

…

Holy fuck, what is wrong with my life

lol That is always such an important question to ask our self.

[iambiguous]

Our Nietzschean Future
Paul O’Mahoney considers the awful fate Nietzsche predicts for humanity.

The Future of Philosophy

There is no doubt that the renunciation of the idea of freedom would represent an irreversible debasement of humanity as traditionally understood, inducing a kind of vertigo in our species. That such a renunciation might be inevitable, and belief in freedom irrecoverable, is however not at all difficult to imagine. How might a person orient themselves in this vertiginous climate?

Again, however, how far is he going with Nietzsche and determinism?

To wit…

"Here, the conviction that a human being cannot realistically be held accountable for their actions is the norm. This would be a world in which there is no longer any concept of criminal responsibility. No longer would blame or merit be possible. The task confronting humanity as a whole is to wrestle with and reckon with the consequences of this new conventional wisdom. There are good reasons to believe that humanity, confronted with this refutation of its most cherished and sustaining illusions, would ultimately destroy itself."

Think this through as I do…

If we cannot be held accountable for our actions, and our actions are a result of what we think and feel, then how is the task confronting humanity not the same thing? We carry out the task but we are not accountable – responsible – for doing that either. And did the author and Nietzsche bring determinism all the way back to themselves? The author wrote this article and Nietzsche wrote those aphorisms only because they were never able not to? And we are reading them because we were never able not to?

The quandary at the heart of it all?

It must first be said that, despair-inducing though this future scenario might seem, it is likely also, after some period of adjustment, to be a spur to liberation – from responsibility, from hierarchy, and from fear.

Yeah, it can always work both ways. Despair because we must. But because we must despair it comes back to the illusion of despair. The matter that is my brain compels me to despair. But it’s all embedded in the mystery of my mind itself. I despair in my dreams. It’s all a chemical and a neurological despair. I’m sound asleep, not really feeling despair at all as I might in the waking world. But what of that despair in the waking world? Is that too all just the brain doing its thing in a wholly, totally inevitable world?

That’s the part I can never untangle in my head. That’s the part I can never be absolutely certain is a bona fide option for me.

Unafraid, more willing to wager the self on an action, in this future many human beings will come by default into possession of those Nietzschean virtues of daring and honesty that mark them as ascending types. That no attitude or action will be accounted their own choice, or worthy of praise or merit, will only sharpen the sense of fearlessness and commitment.

Again, the part where the author imagines this somehow in sync with a world “where human beings cannot realistically be held accountable for their actions”…a world where “no longer would blame or merit be possible.”

Okay, an individual becomes one of the Übermensch…or an individual becomes one of the Last Men. So what? He can no longer embrace the merit of one or accept the blame for the other because merit and blame themselves are but inherent manifestations of the only possible world.

[peacegirl]

@iambiguous

Our Nietzschean Future
Paul O’Mahoney considers the awful fate Nietzsche predicts for humanity.

The Future of Philosophy

There is no doubt that the renunciation of the idea of freedom would represent an irreversible debasement of humanity as traditionally understood, inducing a kind of vertigo in our species. That such a renunciation might be inevitable, and belief in freedom irrecoverable, is however not at all difficult to imagine. How might a person orient themselves in this vertiginous climate?

His perception is wrong.

@iambiguous

Again, however, how far is he going with Nietzsche and determinism?

To wit…

"Here, the conviction that a human being cannot realistically be held accountable for their actions is the norm. This would be a world in which there is no longer any concept of criminal responsibility. No longer would blame or merit be possible. The task confronting humanity as a whole is to wrestle with and reckon with the consequences of this new conventional wisdom. There are good reasons to believe that humanity, confronted with this refutation of its most cherished and sustaining illusions, would ultimately destroy itself."

Think this through as I do…

If we cannot be held accountable for our actions, and our actions are a result of what we think and feel, then how is the task confronting humanity not the same thing?..

Who said it was not the same thing?

@iambiguous

We carry out the task but we are not accountable – responsible – for doing that either. And did the author and Nietzsche bring determinism all the way back to themselves? The author wrote this article and Nietzsche wrote those aphorisms only because they were never able not to? And we are reading them because we were never able not to?

So what’s your point? Man has been developing and all along his will has never been free, and man will continue to develop while having no free will.

@iambiguous

The quandary at the heart of it all?

It must first be said that, despair-inducing though this future scenario might seem, it is likely also, after some period of adjustment, to be a spur to liberation – from responsibility, from hierarchy, and from fear.

Yeah, it can always work both ways. Despair because we must. But because we must despair it comes back to the illusion of despair. The matter that is my brain compels me to despair. But it’s all embedded in the mystery of my mind itself. I despair in my dreams. It’s all a chemical and a neurological despair. I’m sound asleep, not really feeling despair at all as I might in the waking world. But what of that despair in the waking world? Is that too all just the brain doing its thing in a wholly, totally inevitable world?

Yea it’s doing its thing. Despair often comes from deep sadness which causes chemical and neurological changes. Chemical and neurological changes don’t cause despair. Despair causes chemical and neurological changes.

@iambiguous

That’s the part I can never untangle in my head. That’s the part I can never be absolutely certain is a bona fide option for me.

What’s to untangle? Dreams are an acting out of what is going on in the waking world. I’ve read that dreams are meant to help resolve our conflicts and fears. Everything is in the brain, but dreaming and wakefulness are two different states. We can’t be blamed for dreaming and we can’t be blamed for choices that we have no control over not choosing.

Unafraid, more willing to wager the self on an action, in this future many human beings will come by default into possession of those Nietzschean virtues of daring and honesty that mark them as ascending types. That no attitude or action will be accounted their own choice, or worthy of praise or merit, will only sharpen the sense of fearlessness and commitment.

Again, the part where the author imagines this somehow in sync with a world “where human beings cannot realistically be held accountable for their actions”…a world where “no longer would blame or merit be possible.”

Okay, an individual becomes one of the Übermensch…or an individual becomes one of the Last Men. So what? He can no longer embrace the merit of one or accept the blame for the other because merit and blame themselves are but inherent manifestations of the only possible world.

The reason he can no longer embrace the merit of one or accept the blame for the other is because they won’t be part and parcel of everyday life. Most compliments are given because there is so much blame. When blame is no longer part of the environment, neither will praise be chased after. Showing appreciation for a person’s accomplishments will still exist, but people will do things from an intrinsic desire to fulfill their hopes and dreams, not to get an external reward.

[iambiguous]

Sam Ruhmkorff
Hard Determinism

…hard determinism is consistent with blame, praise, and the criminal justice system. Even though people who do good or bad things couldn’t have done something differently, what they do is determined in part by what they perceive as incentives. If we want people to act in a certain way, we have a reason to create an incentive structure that will determine them to act in the ways that we want. We should reinforce behavior that we like and punish behavior that we don’t.

Hard determinism? Or, rather, free will determinism?

Or, okay, sure, it’s actually my own inability to wrap my head around compatibilism.

As though what people perceive as incentives they were free to opt not to perceive as incentives. After all, if “people who do good or bad things couldn’t have done something differently” than how do they manage to perceive things…other than as they must in turn? Aren’t our perceptions also compelled by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter? We do what we do because of what we first perceive and then think about. But how are the reasons we come up with “to create an incentive structure that will determine [us] to act in the ways that we want” not embedded in Schopenhauer’s conjectures about wanting things being wholly in sync with wanting what we want. The brain sets up all of the dominoes such that everything that we think and feel and say and do topple over on cue. What we sense, what we perceive, what we reason, what we do.

A general theme behind these two observations is that even if we aren’t free, we still want things to be a certain way. So we have a reason to work towards things happening the way we want them, both by making decisions ourselves that will lead to what we want, and by praising and blaming others so that they are more likely to do what we want.

And around and around the free will determinists go. We’re not free but “somehow” when we want things we are. We’re not free but “somehow” we “work towards things happening the way we want them”. We’re not free but “somehow” when we make decisions and praise and blame others we are.

[peacegirl]

@iambiguous

Sam Ruhmkorff
Hard Determinism

…hard determinism is consistent with blame, praise, and the criminal justice system. Even though people who do good or bad things couldn’t have done something differently, what they do is determined in part by what they perceive as incentives. If we want people to act in a certain way, we have a reason to create an incentive structure that will determine them to act in the ways that we want. We should reinforce behavior that we like and punish behavior that we don’t.

Iambiguous: Hard determinism? Or, rather, free will determinism?

Peacegirl: No such thing as free will determinism.

Iambiguous: Or, okay, sure, it’s actually my own inability to wrap my head around compatibilism.

Peacegirl: I can’t either.

Iambiguous: As though what people perceive as incentives they were free to opt not to perceive as incentives.

Peacegirl: No one said they were free not to perceive them as incentives. That’s why will is not free.

Iambiguous: After all, if “people who do good or bad things couldn’t have done something differently” than how do they manage to perceive things…other than as they must in turn? Aren’t our perceptions also compelled by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

Peacegirl: Our perceptions are in sync with the laws of our nature which is not free. No one could have done differently, good or bad, but that does not mean given a new set of environmental conditions we can’t choose good (i.e. not desiring to cause harm) and still be obeying the laws that govern us.

Iambiguous: We do what we do because of what we first perceive and then think about. But how are the reasons we come up with “to create an incentive structure that will determine [us] to act in the ways that we want” not embedded in Schopenhauer’s conjectures about wanting things being wholly in sync with wanting what we want.

peacegirl: What if that’s the case? What if Schopenhauer’s conjecture about wanting things being wholly in sync with wanting what we want, is true? Where is free will in any of this?

Iambiguous: The brain sets up all of the dominoes such that everything that we think and feel and say and do topple over on cue. What we sense, what we perceive, what we reason, what we do.

Peacegirl: Topple over? As if the brain, and the agent that houses it, are different entities? Can you agree that the agent makes choices?

A general theme behind these two observations is that even if we aren’t free, we still want things to be a certain way. So we have a reason to work towards things happening the way we want them, both by making decisions ourselves that will lead to what we want, and by praising and blaming others so that they are more likely to do what we want.

Iambiguous: And around and around the free will determinists go. We’re not free but “somehow” when we want things we are.

Peacegirl: Wanting things doesn’t give us free will.

Iambiguous: We’re not free but “somehow” we “work towards things happening the way we want them”. We’re not free but “somehow” when we make decisions and praise and blame others we are.

Peacegirl: We are not free, never were, and never will be. Making decisions and praising and blaming others doesn’t change this fact.