A Compatibilism / Incompatibilism Transformation
By Trick Slattery
From the “Breaking the Free Will Illusion” web site
What I always prefer in regard to highly abstract “general descriptions” like this, is to take the words as they are understood by any particular “I” here and now and situate them in a particular context. Like, say, Trick thinking that this is true, writing down his thoughts about it in a book and on the internet; then me reading his thoughts; then me typing out these words in reacting to them.
Given the positions of the “compatibilists” and the “hard incompatibilists”, how are choices/behaviors like this explained such that the explanation itself is able to be demonstrated as in fact true objectively for all of us?
What does it mean [definitively] to speak here of having or not having “responsibility”?
And I mean for any of it.
How does it not all still come down to the assumptions that we make about what we think we know about those things we can’t possibly know everything about?
In other words, how does someone like Trick make points like this…
…and not immediately think, “I was never able not to make these points”.
How are all the squabbles over “semantics” here not in turn just another manifestation of the psychological illusion that the brain is able to concoct through a series of chemical and neurological interactions precipitating a mind, precipitating a self-conscious “I” that is no less wholly embedded in the laws of matter?
My own understanding of determinism includes my own understanding of determinism — that it’s just another inherent manifestation of whatever set in motion the laws of matter themselves.
With folks like Trick and peacegirl and others, there always seems to be this flicker of autonomy that makes a defense of the points they raise not all that far removed from the manner in which the free will folks defend their own points.
It’s [still] all over my head, that’s for sure.