Determinism

[iambiguous]

If you think only determinism exists then you cannot be held morally responsible for your actions
If you think compatibilism or free will exists you can be held morally responsible for your actions

Consider:

"...because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism...."

In other words, I still can't figure how, once the "thesis" makes contact with the actual world of conflicting goods, moral responibilty can only be compatible instead with free will.

Somehow this seems to revolve around how peacegirl and others focus the beam on the fact that, unlike the bullet from the gun that has no choice but to kill its target, the ones pulling the trigger "choose" to do this.

Even though there was never any possibility of them not choosing to.

How can moral responsibility be made compatible with that --- other than by insisting that nature compels some to believe that it is.

I say morally responsible because legally everyone is treated the same regardless of their philosophical position

So a hard determinist cannot claim the absence of free will as a reason for justifying himself breaking the law]

It doesn't matter what the free will advocate, the compatibilist or the hard determinist claims is true given my own understanding of determinism.

All things claimed by all of them reflect human brains that are necessarily in sync with the laws of nature.

What then do I keep missing?

Compatibilism is the default position here because not every choice genuinely involves free will
That is two or more choices where each one has a relatively equal probability of being chosen
Sometimes on occasion there is literally only one available choice that can actually be taken

There are no actual choices being made here. There is only the psychological illusion of "choice" emanating from brains emanating from matter emanating from the laws that govern it.

[surreptitious75]

Somehow this seems to revolve around how peacegirl and others focus the beam on the fact that unlike the bullet from the gun that has
no choice but to kill its target the ones pulling the trigger choose to do this

Bullets are inanimate objects that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics just like all other inanimate objects in the Universe
Human beings are biological organisms that have the freedom to exercise moral or immoral choices such as firing a bullet from a gun

[surreptitious75]

There are no actual choices being made here

Human beings are also moral agents as well as biological organisms
A moral agent is something that is capable of making moral choices

If no choices existed then neither would free will and every thought and action would automatically be determined
But randomness which is the opposite of determinism still exists and equally applies to objects as well as organisms

[iambiguous]

Somehow this seems to revolve around how peacegirl and others focus the beam on the fact that unlike the bullet from the gun that has
no choice but to kill its target the ones pulling the trigger choose to do this

Bullets are inanimate objects that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics just like all other inanimate objects in the Universe
Human beings are biological organisms that have the freedom to exercise moral or immoral choices such as firing a bullet from a gun

But then you have to demonstrate how the matter that comprises the bullet is different from the matter that comprises the human brain.

Can you?

Now, don't get me wrong, there may well be a difference.

And this might go back to God or to an understanding of human consciousness emanating from a brain composed of matter that can be shown to be qualitatively different from mindless matter.

But, if so, where is the actual demonstration that this is an irrefutable fact of nature?

Where is the philosophical argument [or scientific evidence] that, once and for while, finally reconciles the conflicting assumptions that have been going back and forth in regard to dualism now for thousands of years.

[iambiguous]

There are no actual choices being made here

Human beings are also moral agents as well as biological organisms
A moral agent is something that is capable of making moral choices

Okay, how is the brain as a biological organism able to reconfigure its own matter into an autonomous point of view?

How specifically does that actually unfold in the brain?

And, if this has in fact been determined by, among others, neuroscientists, why aren't we hearing about it everywhere?

If no choices existed then neither would free will and every thought and action would automatically be determined
But randomness which is the opposite of determinism still exists and equally applies to objects as well as organisms

So, what about the choices that you make in dreams? Do you choose freely the things that you think, feel, say and do in them? Or, instead, does the brain create these "realities" chemically and neurologically night after night?

[surreptitious75]

Everything exists on a spectrum ranging from the very simple at one end to the very complex at the other end
So complex organisms such as human beings are therefore more capable and adaptable than simple organisms
The entire spectrum is quite simply the eternal infinite reality that is in a constant state of motion and change

[surreptitious75]

We do not yet fully understand how the brain works and a very specific problem is lack of objectivity
In order to study the brain you have to use the brain which is not ideally how phenomena are studied

What can be determined is that the sub conscious is more in control than the conscious
So I would say that it is that which is responsible for all dream states not the conscious

[peacegirl]

If you think only determinism exists then you cannot be held morally responsible for your actions
If you think compatibilism or free will exists you can be held morally responsible for your actions

Consider:

"...because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism...."

In other words, I still can't figure how, once the "thesis" makes contact with the actual world of conflicting goods, moral responibilty can only be compatible instead with free will.

Somehow this seems to revolve around how peacegirl and others focus the beam on the fact that, unlike the bullet from the gun that has no choice but to kill its target, the ones pulling the trigger "choose" to do this.

Even though there was never any possibility of them not choosing to.

How can moral responsibility be made compatible with that --- other than by insisting that nature compels some to believe that it is.

Moral responsibility cannot be made compatible with that. How can a person be held morally responsible if he could not have done otherwise? That's the first part of the two-sided equation.

That is two or more choices where each one has a relatively equal probability of being chosen
Sometimes on occasion there is literally only one available choice that can actually be taken

There are no actual choices being made here. There is only the psychological illusion of "choice" emanating from brains emanating from matter emanating from the laws that govern it.

Even when two or more choices have a relatively equal probability of being chosen, as long as there is the slightest difference in value to the person doing the choosing, he will be compelled to pick that choice in favor of the other. If there are no differences in value to the person doing the choosing, his brain will automatically choose one over the other without any contemplation necessary. What difference would it make if he chose this A or that A considering they were identical or identical in value?

[peacegirl]

There are no actual choices being made here

Human beings are also moral agents as well as biological organisms
A moral agent is something that is capable of making moral choices

If no choices existed then neither would free will and every thought and action would automatically be determined
But randomness which is the opposite of determinism still exists and equally applies to objects as well as organisms

In actuality, every thought and every action is determined not by some external force but by our biological necessity of choosing only that which offers us the better alternative, and only one choice is possible. It's a one way street. IOW, why was the chosen option inevitable? Because that option most fitted our purposes at the time-inevitability is not some mysterious external force which forces us to choose against our will. If you don't understand the greater satisfaction principle, you will be using the old definition which causes an unnecessary split between these two ideologies. There will never be a solution because the two camps are not compatible due to definition only. That is why the author said that free will (or doing something of one's own accord) and determinism (not choosing freely) can be reconciled and still be within the confines of natural law.

[peacegirl]

We do not yet fully understand how the brain works and a very specific problem is lack of objectivity
In order to study the brain you have to use the brain which is not ideally how phenomena are studied

What can be determined is that the sub conscious is more in control than the conscious
So I would say that it is that which is responsible for all dream states not the conscious

Obviously, we have no control over our dream states just as we have no control over other biological systems like our reflexes. Although we are able to make a choice, the choice is not a free one. We are no more free than our brain state when we're dreaming although the illusion of free will is a very powerful one. "Sure I have free will. Nothing is stopping me from choosing this or that." It seems so simple coming from a superficial understanding.

[iambiguous]

separate morality from free will
by Phil Goetz
at the lesswrong website

If people were concerned with doing the right thing, and getting credit for it in this world, they would only need to ask about an agent's intentions. They would care whether Jim's actions were free in the "no one pointed a gun at him and made him do it" sense, because if Joe made Jim do it, then Joe should be given the credit or blame.

Even in a free will world however Jim would seemingly have the choice not allow Joe to make him do it. He could choose freely to alllow Joe to shoot him. The real question then is this: regarding the entire sequence of events was Joe or Jim at any time able of their own volition to choose [rather than "choose"] anything at all?

In other words, even in regard to what others are concerned about in reacting to what does in fact unfold, the reactions themselves are all compelled by nature's laws.

All that need be established [if it can be by the hard guys in the scientific community] is that the human brain itself is no less a necessary component of those laws.

Or, again, so it seems to me given my own understanding of determinism.

But they wouldn't need to ask whether Jim's intentions were free in the "free will vs. determinism" or "free will vs. brain deficiency" sense. Having an inoperable brain condition would not affect how we used a person's actions to predict whether they were likely to do similar things in the future - they're still going to have the brain condition. We only change our credit assignment due to a brain condition if we are trying to assign credit to the non-physical part of a person (their soul).

They wouldn't need to ask perhaps because asking here is no less beyond their control as entities lacking in autonomy. The brain deficiency is merely another inherent manifestation of nature -- a necessary mutation that unfolds inside any particular brain. It [and only it] causes him to behave as it does.

Or maybe something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W ... nd_inquest

The controversy that surrounded cause and effect here. Did the brain tumor alone compel him to behave as he did?

The real question would still seem to be this: are all brains [with or without conditions/tumors/diseases etc.] just the most sophisticated of nature's dominoes?

[iambiguous]

Everything exists on a spectrum ranging from the very simple at one end to the very complex at the other end
So complex organisms such as human beings are therefore more capable and adaptable than simple organisms
The entire spectrum is quite simply the eternal infinite reality that is in a constant state of motion and change

Which just brings us back to the deeply puzzling conundrum embedded in grappling with the human brain in all this: to be or not to be of our own free will?

Does the "entire spectrum" that encompasses the laws of nature allow for human autonomy?

[iambiguous]

We do not yet fully understand how the brain works and a very specific problem is lack of objectivity
In order to study the brain you have to use the brain which is not ideally how phenomena are studied

That's the predicament alright. We are of nature trying to explain nature evolving into brains now able to make attempts to explain it.

There appears to be no way in which to detach ourselves from the inquiry itself. To gain that precious "objectivity".

After all, look at what is at stake here! What if everything -- everything -- we think, feel, say and do is only as it ever could have been?

What would that then suggest about this very exchange?

What can be determined is that the sub conscious is more in control than the conscious
So I would say that it is that which is responsible for all dream states not the conscious

But what can't be determined is the extent to which waking states are just the psychological illusion of being different from dream states.

With ever fiber of our intuition we just know that they are. But who among us has at last been able to demonstrate this?

Again, how would news of this sort not be plastered everywhere if a final determination had been made?

Or, if that in fact did become a part of our waking world, how would we determine if that part in turn was not just another manifestation of nature? That we believed it had all been resolved only because nature had compelled us to believe it.

[surreptitious75]

Bullets are inanimate objects that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics just like all other inanimate objects in the Universe
Human beings are biological organisms that have the freedom to exercise moral or immoral choices such as firing a bullet from a gun

But then you have to demonstrate how the matter that comprises the bullet is different from the matter that comprises the human brain

They are only different in the sense that they have different capabilities but they are still on the same spectrum
Because everything that exists in the observable Universe is either all made of or from the same natural elements
These elements are the building blocks of all organisms and objects which share this commonality if not much else

[surreptitious75]

Everything exists on a spectrum ranging from the very simple at one end to the very complex at the other end
So complex organisms such as human beings are therefore more capable and adaptable than simple organisms
The entire spectrum is quite simply the eternal infinite reality that is in a constant state of motion and change

Does the entire spectrum that encompasses the laws of nature allow for human autonomy

Yes it does because any observable function is a feature of the spectrum because the spectrum is all there is - there is nothing else
This does not just include the observable Universe but everything that is non observable as well for it is literally everything there is

[iambiguous]

Consider:

"...because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism...."

In other words, I still can't figure how, once the "thesis" makes contact with the actual world of conflicting goods, moral responibilty can only be compatible instead with free will.

Somehow this seems to revolve around how peacegirl and others focus the beam on the fact that, unlike the bullet from the gun that has no choice but to kill its target, the ones pulling the trigger "choose" to do this.

Even though there was never any possibility of them not choosing to.

How can moral responsibility be made compatible with that --- other than by insisting that nature compels some to believe that it is.

Moral responsibility cannot be made compatible with that. How can a person be held morally responsible if he could not have done otherwise? That's the first part of the two-sided equation.

In other words, the part we seem bascially in sync regarding.

That is two or more choices where each one has a relatively equal probability of being chosen
Sometimes on occasion there is literally only one available choice that can actually be taken

There are no actual choices being made here. There is only the psychological illusion of "choice" emanating from brains emanating from matter emanating from the laws that govern it.

Even when two or more choices have a relatively equal probability of being chosen, as long as there is the slightest difference in value to the person doing the choosing, he will be compelled to pick that choice in favor of the other. If there are no differences in value to the person doing the choosing, his brain will automatically choose one over the other without any contemplation necessary. What difference would it make if he chose this A or that A considering they were identical or identical in value?

Yes, the part that we are compelled by nature not to be in sync regarding at all.

As though the "value" that "I" place on this instead of that is not in turn just another inherent manifestation of natural law.

This mysterious part of your own particular "I" that, at the moment of "choosing", is compelled by nature to be convinced that, unlike the bullet in the gun, does in fact get to "choose".

That it is only what nature compels you to choose is beside the point. What's important is that nature compels you to believe that this is a crucial, important distinction between the trajectory of your "I" and the trajectory of the mindless bullet in the mindless gun.

But: over and over and over again, I may well be incorrect regarding my understanding of all this. Either because nature compels me to be or because my thinking as an autonomous beings is inferior to yours as an autonomous being.

I don't deny the possibility of that.

[surreptitious75]

We do not yet fully understand how the brain works and a very specific problem is lack of objectivity
In order to study the brain you have to use the brain which is not ideally how phenomena are studied

There appears to be no way in which to detach ourselves from the inquiry

When machines finally replace humans they will be able to study us from a more clinical perspective
They will not be compromised by the psychological traits that prevent us from being truly objective

[surreptitious75]

What can be determined is that the sub conscious is more in control than the conscious
So I would say that it is that which is responsible for all dream states not the conscious

But what cant be determined is the extent to which waking states are just the psychological illusion of being different from dream states

With ever fiber of our intuition we just know that they are. But who among us has at last been able to demonstrate this

Waking states and dream states are functions of the brain and therefore exist on a spectrum
Different parts of the brain are activated but it is still the same organ that is doing all of this

We like to compartmentalise and split things up and put them into little boxes but reality is just a single continuum
Everything is ultimately connected to everything else - there is no real separation in reality - separation is an illusion

[iambiguous]

Still more from our hardcore intellectual:

In an absolutely ordered universe there would be nothing to will, since all would immediately encompass all possibilities, and willing would not apply to life since it would simply be an automaton directed by an external programming.

Yes, that's precisely the point. But then we get to the part where he insists that our universe is not absolutely ordered. Why? Because, well, he insists that it's not. And his "demonstration" of this consist of yet more assertions still. Always a world of words in which the argument itself is merely assumed to be the embodiment of his own free will.

The easy answer most morons will use is to simply claim that 'part of the universe's perfection is willing'. It is the same way they escape the question about existence - it is eternal...end of story.

And this [in my view] reflects the part about why it is so important to him to possess free will. After all, without it, his accusation that all who refuse to share his own own point of view here would be but another manifestation of nature compelling him to label them as morons. Instead nature compels him to call them morons because nature compels him to believe that they could freely choose to agree with him but don't.

And that just won't do.

Instead, from my frame of mind, assuming some measure of human autonomy, what makes him a moron is the same thing that makes him an objectivist: the psychological need to believe that he is in touch with the real me in touch with the right thing to do in touch with the one and only true understanding of human reality itself!

He gets nature. The morons don't.

In an absolutely random universe life would be impossible, as there would be no patterns to know and understand, and no way to build experience, DNA - the very foundation of life.
'Will to power' would be nonsensical, as there would be no ability to will anything...and there would be nothing stable to will.

As though the only possible alternative to a wholly determined universe is a wholly random one. Instead, from my point of view, the tricky part always revolves around those things that we are able to demonstrate as true objectively for all of us...and those those we are not.

But: even that assumes some measure of autonomy. Which both scientists and philosophers are still grappling with. Unless of course someone out there already has pinned down The Whole Truth here.

Link me to it.

[iambiguous]

We do not yet fully understand how the brain works and a very specific problem is lack of objectivity
In order to study the brain you have to use the brain which is not ideally how phenomena are studied

There appears to be no way in which to detach ourselves from the inquiry

When machines finally replace humans they will be able to study us from a more clinical perspective
They will not be compromised by the psychological traits that prevent us from being truly objective

From my frame of mind, this would just make the mystery all the more surreal. Mindless matter evolves into living matter evolves into human beings inventing a mechanical/machine matter that may or may not have minds the same as we grope to understand our own.

But if human psychology is just another necessary manifestation of matter evolving over billions of years into "I", how would that really be different from the mentality of machines? Either all matter is inherently in sync with however cause and effect is understood going back to the explanation for existence itself, or there is that long grappled with "dualism" in regards to some matter that is not applicable to other matter.

With or without God.

[surreptitious75]

if human psychology is just another necessary manifestation of matter evolving over billions of years into I how would that really be different from the
mentality of machines ? Either all matter is inherently in sync with however cause and effect is understood going back to the explanation for existence
itself or there is that long grappled with dualism in regards to some matter that is not applicable to other matter

Everything is on a spectrum so all matter is therefore directly or indirectly connected
There is no disconnect because reality is a continuous process with no gaps anywhere

[iambiguous]

More from our objectivist "serious philosopher":

...when you fail to define the words 'free' and 'will' in a way that is demonstrable - down to earth - testable, observable.....then you place yourself in a mental prison you refuse to exist....or you are unable to find the exit, because it's entirely in your head.

But, again, when you challenge him to demonstrate how he is able to actually prove that that his own definitions are derived freely from his own autonomous "will", all he has for you are yet more arguments.

Arguments ever and always embedded in "general description" "intellectual contraptions" that allow for no one to test beyond merely accepting that his own definitions are ever and always the default in any "philosophical" exchange.

It's not a question of being in a mental prison so much as others being obligated to be in his. To be "one of us". And if you choose not to be then by definition that makes you a moron.

Or a chimp.

Here is a mind that can only hope that nature does in fact compel his every word. And, thus, lets him off the hook.

[iambiguous]

More from our die-hard abstractionist...

The herd psychology established.
Man does not trust his own senses.
He denies his own freedom.
He is not the agency of his own will.
Such a man can never escape incarceration because he's been convinced there is no such thing as freedom.
He is chained inside, not requiring any external force.
He cannot see without an 'expert' translating it for him.
He cannot think without intermediating authorities telling him.
He is his own warden and guard.

This frame of mind starts with the assumption that free will has in fact already been demonstrated to be a part of the human condition.

That many in both the scientific and philosophical communities continue to debate its actual existence, is simply dismissed out of hand.

Of course he has free will. After all, if he didn't, how could he pride himself on grasping it better than anyone else? How could he know that those who refuse to think of it exactly as he does are degenerates and morons and part of the contemptible herd?

The supreme irony here then being that while championing his free will, he holds in contempt all those who, in exercising their free will, don't think about everything exactly as he does.

He becomes the expert, the authority, the judge, the jury, the warden, the guard of his own intellectual domain.

Well, not that he isn't compelled to of course.

[iambiguous]

if human psychology is just another necessary manifestation of matter evolving over billions of years into I how would that really be different from the
mentality of machines ? Either all matter is inherently in sync with however cause and effect is understood going back to the explanation for existence
itself or there is that long grappled with dualism in regards to some matter that is not applicable to other matter

Everything is on a spectrum so all matter is therefore directly or indirectly connected
There is no disconnect because reality is a continuous process with no gaps anywhere

But that still begs the question:

Did you think this up of your own free will or has mindless matter somehow evolved into self-conscious matter compelled by the laws of nature to become your own particular "I" compelled to think this up...and to post it here.

Is there anything in this exchange itself that might not have been given that either of us might have freely chosen an option in the past such that either of us might not be participating in the exchange at all?

After all, I might have freely chosen an alternate option in my past such that it resulted in my death.

[surreptitious75]

Did you think this up of your own free will or has mindless matter somehow evolved into self conscious matter compelled by the laws of nature to become
your own particular I compelled to think this up ... and to post it here

Is there anything in this exchange itself that might not have been given that either of us might have freely chosen an option in the past such that either of us
might not be participating in the exchange at all ?

After all I might have freely chosen an alternate option in my past such that it resulted in my death

What happens within reality has no bearing on the actual existence of reality
And so had I never evolved or had you died before now then reality would be entirely unaffected by either of these alternative events
Anything possible can happen even if it never does but no single event / events can eliminate reality itself - that is forever impossible