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." — charleton
You reject compatibilism, but you are actually rejecting the concept of non deterministic free will. — charleton
A compatibilist is a determinist. — charleton
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 — charleton
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. — charleton
Therefore compatibilism is impossible. — bahman
Free will in another hand is the ability to initiate or terminate a chain of causality. — bahman
You reject compatibilism, but you are actually rejecting the concept of non deterministic free will.
A compatibilist is a determinist. — charleton
There isn't free-will. It has been famously said that we do what we will, but don't will what we will. — Michael Ossipoff
The problem with compatibilism, as I already suggested above, is that under its assumption moral responsibility is not rationally justifiable, but is merely something we cannot help feeling, and thus imputing to ourselves and others. — Janus
But proponents of compatibilism will say the libertarian conception of free will is incoherent. — Janus
Free will is a complicated subject, requiring much study. It's a lot easier to say that it is incoherent than it is to understand it. — Metaphysician Undercover
There isn't free-will. It has been famously said that we do what we will, but don't will what we will. — Michael Ossipoff
According to science, we can change what we will. — tom
Also, it seems apparent that people do this all the time.
It's not as if we can be genetically determined to be astrophysicists.
We don't have free will in the sense that in a deterministic world, what we choose is based off our brain state at that moment — SonJnana
So, somehow in some totally unexplainable manner, all particles are coordinating in such a way as though it appears (to the particles) that they are making decisions. — Rich
All living things react. Even nonliving things react, like mercury to temperature in a thermometer. Living things are more sophisticated though obviously. Bacteria will react to things such as resources needed to survive. A lizard has the ability to move around and react to danger and food, things needed to survive. Mammals can take a step further when they form actual societies in which they have systems of operating. They can react to other members of their group and cooperate, play.
What makes humans so special? Maybe it's just that we have the ability to react to our own reactions. A dog might be happy when getting attention. A human might be happy when getting attention, but also has to ability to react to his/her own reaction. If you're happy, you can reflect on it and think about why you're happy. A higher awareness that you are happy.
Humans have evolved to have the ability to think about our own thoughts. Think about a dog. Now think about the fact that that you are thinking about the dog. Now think about the fact that you are thinking about the fact that you are thinking about the dog.
I wonder if any other animals have this ability at all. Maybe other apes can to a much smaller degree than humans. Imagine you are being chased by a bear. The only thoughts in your head are about survival and you might get so into that that you might not be able to think about your thoughts in the moment. Your brain is too preoccupied with survival. Or like if you get into a movie so much you forget about reality. Maybe many animals have that style of thinking all the time about reality that they can't think about the fact that they are reacting to things. While humans on the other hand have the ability to react to our own reactions in the sense that we can think about our thoughts.
This is just interesting thought, and I wonder if our increasing understanding of neuroscience and the brain will one day look at consciousness this way.
Psychology is a more complex version of biology, which is a more complex version of chemistry, which is a more complex version of physics. — SonJnana
brain states are part of determinism — SonJnana
Your discussion of brain states is irrelevant as far as determinism is concerned. You might as well talk about toenail states. There is only a universal state that miraculously maintains illusionary forms for the amusement if itself. — Rich
Quantum mechanics is certainly not random. If it were it couldn't predict anything. It is probabilistic and is consistent with decision processes that could include choice, as Bohm demonstrated. — Rich
When I am saying brain states I mean that the way the brain is at a certain point. So if you went through a traumatic experience, the physical state of your brain would be altered and now you would make decisions based off of the state of your brain now rather than before the traumatic experience. — SonJnana
Determinism makes everything meaningless including this discussion. It is quite a philosophy. — Rich
Just because I acknowledge that I care about my family because of the way my brain state is, which is just a part of a chain of cause and effects, doesn't mean I don't care about my family or that they are meaningless to me. — SonJnana
You may think that you care only as long as determinism determines you should care. It may halt this illusion whenever it sees fit. — Rich
I can assure you that everything is quite meaningless having already been determined. — Rich
for the ability to consider something as "being determined" involves active choice on behalf of the cognizer. — sime
It involves the person thinking that the universe is determined. But it could also have already been determined that the person would be thinking that the universe is determined. So I don't really see why that wouldn't work. — SonJnana
What falsifiable, tested and long-unfalsified scientific theory says that?. — Michael Ossipoff
It is a bit more complicated than this. In a deterministic world EVERYTHING is determined. Every single particle (including quantum particles, which is a different story entirely) is determined. The "brain" holds no privileged position. So, somehow in some totally unexplainable manner, all particles are coordinating in such a way as though it appears (to the particles) that they are making decisions. "Brain states" and the status of brains in human physiology are illusions that mysteriously arise out of the Big Bang. Permit me to be skeptical of this fabricated story. — Rich
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.