• bahman
    530
    I think we can agree on the fact that brain is a set of neurons which they interact with each other. Any mental state, physical state of brain, leads into another mental state by following laws of physics. This is a deterministic chain of causality. Free will in another hand is the ability to initiate or terminate a chain of causality. This is true since we are dealing with two options in an undecided situation which this requires an agent to choose one of the options and initiate a chain of causality. This, initiating or terminating a causal chain, is impossible in a physical/deterministic world. Therefore compatibilism is impossible.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Free will in another hand is the ability to initiate or terminate a chain of causalitybahman

    What causes this?
    Agents follow from causes too.
    Your conclusion is not warranted. Compatibilism is a deterministic picture which recognises the idea of free-will as caused and causal agency. It does not posit an agent that can act regardless of causality. It's a matter of perspective, and answers the problem of apparent acts of will.
  • bahman
    530
    What causes this?
    Agents follow from causes too.
    charleton

    That is not correct. What does initiate a chain of causality if even the agent follow causality too?

    Your conclusion is not warranted. Compatibilism is a deterministic picture which recognises the idea of free-will as caused and causal agency.charleton

    What is your definition of free will? I cannot comprehend what you are trying to say here.

    It does not posit an agent that can act regardless of causality.charleton

    This means that the agent is not free.

    It's a matter of perspective, and answers the problem of apparent acts of will.charleton

    Apparent? It is not apparent at all.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    What causes this?
    Agents follow from causes too.
    — charleton

    That is not correct. What does initiate a chain of causality if even the agent follow causality too?
    bahman

    Are you saying that individual human agents are free from necessity?
    The chains of causality are not initiated except by the big bang, and maybe not even then.
    I do not understand your objection.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Apparent? It is not apparent at all.bahman

    ??? Are you trying say there are no acts of will? Or that they are not apparent, but real?
  • bahman
    530
    Are you saying that individual human agents are free from necessity?charleton

    No. I am saying given a situation which is defined by a set of options an agent can decide and choose one of the option only if he can initiate a chain of causality.

    The chains of causality are not initiated except by the big bang, and maybe not even then.charleton

    Therefore we are not free given the definition of free will.

    I do not understand your objection.charleton

    I hope that it is clear by now.
  • bahman
    530
    ??? Are you trying say there are no acts of will? Or that they are not apparent, but real?charleton

    I am saying that act of will is impossible in a deterministic world. Therefore compatibilism is wrong.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    No. I am saying given a situation which is defined by a set of options an agent can decide and choose one of the option only if he can initiate a chain of causality.bahman

    You mean that an agent is free from necessity!
    Therefore we are not free given the definition of free will.bahman

    Yes. we are not free of necessity.

    This is where the perspective of compatibilism comes in. We observe people making apparent acts of will all the time. Since we can never be party to the causal chains in side a person's brain, these acts of will are deterministic, but appear to be freely made.
  • bahman
    530
    No. I am saying given a situation which is defined by a set of options an agent can decide and choose one of the option only if he can initiate a chain of causality.
    — bahman

    You mean that an agent is free from necessity!
    charleton

    Did what I say not clear? Of course we are bounded with many things but we might be free given the definition of free will in OP.

    Therefore we are not free given the definition of free will.
    — bahman

    Yes. We are not free of necessity.
    charleton

    But we should be able to initiate a chain of causality otherwise we are not free.

    This is where the perspective of compatibilism comes in. We observe people making apparent acts of will all the time. Since we can never be party to the causal chains in side a person's brain, these acts of will are deterministic, but appear to be freely made.charleton

    Appear? I am arguing against compatibilism.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    think we can agree on the fact that brain is a set of neurons which they interact with each other. Any mental state, physical state of brain, leads into another mental state by following laws of physics.bahman

    You realize that there is zero evidence for either of these statements. Your "fact" it's a belief.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    You realize that there is zero evidence for either of these statements. Your "fact" it's a belief.Rich

    Have you any reason to suppose that what we see in nature does not also apply to us?
    The assertion of the idea that necessity; the rule of cause and effect is ubiquitous is an inductive truth that has never been demonstrated to be false.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Appear? I am arguing against compatibilism.bahman

    No - you are misconceiving it.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Have you any reason to suppose that what we see in nature does not also apply to us?charleton

    What exactly do you see in nature? I see change/evolution.

    What "rule" of cause and effect are you referring to? The one at the quantum level?
  • bahman
    530
    You realize that there is zero evidence for either of these statements. Your "fact" it's a belief.Rich

    What do you believe? What is the use of brain?
  • bahman
    530
    No - you are misconceiving it.charleton

    Could you please elaborate?
  • Rich
    3.2k
    What is the use of brain?[/quote]

    I use my brain.
  • bahman
    530
    I use my brain.Rich

    Come on. Please elaborate.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    The above statement basically says it all. I use my brain pretty much in the same way I might use a transmitter/receiver. It is a tool of the mind.
  • bahman
    530

    And what is mind?
  • Rich
    3.2k
    And what is mind?bahman

    It's what is exploring, creating, and communicating. It's us.
  • bahman
    530
    It's what is exploring, creating, and communicating. It's us.Rich

    Is it brain dependent or is something separate like soul?
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Is it brain dependent or is something separate like soul?bahman

    It's just there.
  • bahman
    530
    It's just there.Rich

    Come on. You just have two options.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    There are always many options. Only on tests are there two.
  • bahman
    530

    What is the third option in this case?
  • Rich
    3.2k
    As I described it.
  • bahman
    530

    No, I meant in the regards to question I asked: Is it brain dependent or is something separate like soul? You don't have third option.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    They are one and the same.
  • bahman
    530

    That doesn't make any sense.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    That doesn't make any sense.bahman

    To me it does, but I've spent many decades contemplating it.

    However, the issue I was trying to point out is that your OP describes certain beliefs as facts which calls the OP into question.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Could you please elaborate?bahman

    You reject compatibilism, but you are actually rejecting the concept of non deterministic free will.

    A compatibilist is a determinist.

    Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." WIKI

    Compatibilism is a moral stance which accepts that actions are determined, and accepts free will as an instance in which a person acted according to his own (determined) motivation, but was not forced by outside forces to act in that way.

    For example you have become determined by experience to be a thief, and you steal. Had you been coerced by another then you would not have been free to act.
    Compatibilism is a moral stance. Punishment is delivered to the person who is determined to transgress the law. Such a person can enter into consideration mitigating circumstances, and a judge my consider them. But the judge passes sentence upon a man caused to act contrary to law.
    It is not a metaphysical proposition. Compatibilism is a social proposition.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.