Therefore compatibilism is impossible.
— bahman

No, if we assume everything before you said is true, then libertarian free will is impossible. Libertarian free will is an incompatibilist position. — darthbarracuda

Why?

Free will in another hand is the ability to initiate or terminate a chain of causality.
— bahman

This is the libertarian free will definition. Not compatibilism. — darthbarracuda

What is compatibilist definition of free will?

The meaning of determinism is akin to an "infinite for-loop" running inside a computer program that executes the same instruction repeatedly until the external world interrupts it. I find it somewhat remarkable that an infinite for-loop contains less information than a bounded for-loop representing and checking for its own stopping condition. Consequently, infinite for-loops can be implemented on simpler devices than bounded for-loops.

Like the "forever looping" computer program, scientists who mention determinism aren't saying anything about nature, they are merely expressing the fact that their science customs do not contain the stopping-condition for their obsolescence. Talk of determinism isn't talk of positive epistemic facts, it is merely the expression of intending to do the same thing until interrupted.

I can still eat ice cream and enjoy the experience. — SonJnana

There is no I in a deterministic world. It is all an illusion. Enlightened Determinists realize that they are not enjoying anything. All is without meaning.

Then the causal chain recedes back in time beyond my birth and I am morally responsible for causal antecedents that occurred before I existed. — Cuthbert

There is no "I" in any form of Determinism. There is only the state of the universe which is all caused by the Big Bang. Any attempt to assert an "I" merely displays a misunderstanding of Determinism and the illusions it creates.

In other words, it is just an illusion that scientists are discovering anything. They are merely puppets of the Laws if Nature like everyone else.

All that this indicates is that the compatibilist rejects the traditional understanding of "free will — Metaphysician Undercover

No, there is not one single definition of free will.
Since we are want to employ the idea of free will commonly, the Compatibilist simply says what free will REALLY is, and from a deterministic perspective. Free will in normal parlance simply means not coerced, and that is a legal definition.

Philosophers do not own the language. If you were asked in court whether or not you freely made a choice, as a determinist you are able to say yes without obfuscation. Try and tell a judge that all acts are deterministic and therefor I was not free to chose not to steal the car!!!

Anyway, an amusing corollary is that the theory of Evolution is false, and that we were indeed created. — tom

How does this correlate?

Any attempt to assert an "I" merely displays a misunderstanding of Determinism and the illusions it creates. — Rich

As you know, determinism works both ways. What if the final conditions of the universe require agent freedom to have come into existence?

I mention this because perhaps determinism as it operates in reality, is not what you think it is.

How does this correlate? — charleton

I find it strange that those who deny free will in the face of determinism, because the two really aren't compatible, baulk at the notion that evolution is therefore also incompatible.

The case for the incompatibility of determinism with evolution is actually much easier to make. Determinism really means there are no chance events. Evolution requires chance to exist as a ontological ultimate.

Darwin actually wrote about this in the last chapter of his "The variation of animals and plants under domestication."

God either plays dice or he does not.

There is no I in a deterministic world. It is all an illusion. Enlightened Determinists realize that they are not enjoying anything. All is without meaning. — Rich

I is the word given to a group of matter that is experienced. Meaning can be given to things through experience even if they don't mean anything in an ultimate sense. Just because there may be no ultimate meaning to a table, doesn't mean I can give meaning to it based off of how I experience it. This is practical knowledge and practical meaning.

You believe in determinism, yes?
Determinism as I understand it is that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event. Therefore the event of one making a decision would be due to past conditions that could cause no other event, yes?

The only argument that I've come across with compatibilists in the past is that they redefine free will as a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will. Hume also redefines free will this way (you can correct me if I'm wrong about that).

However that misses the whole point of what hard determinists mean when they say there is no free will. If you redefine free will that way, you aren't taking a different position than hard determinists in their argument. You are forming a completely different argument because free will has been redefined. I doubt many hard determinists would argue that there isn't a clear difference between a decision where eat pizza because you like it and a decision where you eat pizza because there is a person holding a gun to your head telling you to eat pizza.

I'm not sure I understand your position on this so could you clarify?

The case for the incompatibility of determinism with evolution is actually much easier to make. Determinism really means there are no chance events. Evolution requires chance to exist as a ontological ultimate. — tom

I really think you are clueless here.
Determinism just means that for each effect there are causes. True there is no such thing as chance in an absolute sense. But that does not in any sense invalidate evolution. Chance in a deterministic world just means we've not enough information to predict all outcomes in a complicated world.
There is no problem here.
A dice is not random; its landing is determined by the throw, and other causal factors, that are not easy to measure.

I really think you are clueless here. — charleton

OK, let's hope you aren't going to make a fool of yourself.

Determinism just means that for each effect there are causes. — charleton

Is that all it means? Causes? OK, given quantum entanglement, how does that work out for you?

True there is no such thing as chance in an absolute sense. — charleton

Heavens Above!

Chance in a deterministic world just means we've not enough information to predict all outcomes in a complicated world. — charleton

OK "chance" is epistemological.

A dice is not random; its landing is determined by the throw, and other causal factors, that are not easy to measure. — charleton

Wow!

As I said Darwin wrote about this. He admitted his theory requires chance as an ontological ultimate.

I is the word given to a group of matter that is experienced. — SonJnana

A group of matter that is experiencing? Care to take a stab at the line of demarcation and how that group is performing that trick. Are they talking to each other?

As for meaning, it is all about illusion. Hence, an enlightened Determinist realizes that life has no meaning because they are able to see right through the illusion.

It's amazing that there are grown adults who actually believe all this.

As you know, determinism works both ways. What if the final conditions of the universe require agent freedom to have come into existence?

I mention this because perhaps determinism as it operates in reality, is not what you think it is. — tom

Determinism acts in both ways and all ways, because it is more of a religion than a philosophy. All one has to do is assign whatever attributes one wishes to the mystical, omnipresent, omnipotent Laws of Nature and bingo, you have your story. One can appeal to the power of God in the same way.

Determinism acts in both ways and all ways, because it is more of a religion than a philosophy. All one has to do is assign whatever attributes one wishes to the mystical, omnipresent, omnipotent Laws of Nature and bingo, you have your story. One can appeal to the power of God in the same way. — Rich

Although you don't understand how determinism works in Reality, it doesn't matter, because those who deny Free Will because of determinism, but advocate Evolution, don't either.

Although you don't understand how determinism works in Reality, it doesn't matter, because those who deny Free Will because of determinism, but advocate Evolution, don't either. — tom

The Laws of Nature act in mysterious ways and it is not for us to understand them - not that understanding had any meaning anyway.

According to science, we can change what we will. — tom

What falsifiable, tested and long-unfalsified scientific theory says that?. — Michael Ossipoff

The theory is quantum mechanics — tom

Incorrect. Quantum mechanics doesn't say that we can change what we will.

But yes, I admit that, at philosophy forums, quantum mechanics has a big pseudoscientific mystique.

And I also admit that there are some people here who are all confused about the difference between, and the boundaries between philosophy and science (quantum mechanics is particularly popular in that regard).

Anyway, I didn't say we can't change what we will. Dieters do that all the time (some of them succeed).

What I said was that a person's actions are the result of their preferences and inclinations--hereditary and acquired.

You can go on a diet, if you already want to. Ultimately, your wants, preferences and inclinations trace back to your heredity and environment.

I'm not saying that the criminal isn't responsible for his actions. He still did it because he wanted to...regardless of the ultimately hereditary and environmental reasons why he wanted to.

I'm not saying that QM doesn't have any philosophical relevance. A recognized authority, a physicist specializing in QM, wrote that QM lays to rest the notion of an objectively-existent physical world.

The deduction is that the human brain can be arbitrarily programmed; the Mind instantiated on the brain can be changed. This is a basic physical fact. — tom

As I said, your actions are the result of your preferences and inclinations--hereditary and acquired-- and your surroundings.

And I (and others) said, of course people can sometimes train themselves to have or not have a preference or inclination.

As I said, that's what people do in dieting.

The do that because they already want to.

We already have several techniques for altering Minds, some rudimentary, some relatively sophisticated.

"We"? :D

See above.

In order to erect a barrier to us being able to alter our minds as we choose,

You haven't read the previous postings to this thread, have you.

Have you ever tried to reduce your craving for some nutritionally-undesirable kind of food?

People often train themselves to have or not have some preference or inclination.

Oh wait, i already said that, didn't I, in a previous posting :D

...as have others as well.

By the way, why is there QM?

Because life, our kind at least, requires stable atoms, and specific, consistent kinds of them. That requires discrete-valued quantities. A way of achieving that is via standing-waves.

Hence wave-mechanics, matter-waves.

...because, upon investigation and examination, physicists of course unsurprisingly find things that are consistent with our existence.

Michael Ossipoff



.

The Laws of Nature act in mysterious ways and it is not for us to understand them - not that understanding had any meaning anyway. — Rich

As I mentioned earlier, this type of determinisn - SUPERDETERMINISM - turns Reality into a conspiracy theory.

However, the type of determinism that really exists is quite different!

Incorrect. Quantum mechanics doesn't say that we can change what we will. — Michael Ossipoff

So, let me repeat myself. The testable theory that was asked for is Quantum Mechanics. The Guiding Principle is the CTD-Principle, which is proved to be respected by QM.

The CDT-Principle enjoys the same status as the Principle of Conservation of Energy.

But yes, I admit that, at philosophy forums, quantum mechanics has a big pseudoscientific mystique. — Michael Ossipoff

OK, pseudoscientific, mystique. Provide references.

And I also admit that there are some people here who are all confused about the difference between, and the boundaries between philosophy and science (quantum mechanics is particularly popular in that regard). — Michael Ossipoff

I suspect those are the people who have no sincere interest in philosophy or science.

I'm not saying that QM doesn't have any philosophical relevance. A recognized authority, a physicist specializing in QM, wrote that QM lays to rest the notion of an objectively-existent physical world. — Michael Ossipoff

Ah, the eponymous Recognised Authoritaaaay.

Have you ever tried to reduce your craving for some nutritionally-undesirable kind of food? — Michael Ossipoff

Sometimes I am simply overwhelmed by the depth of the arguments on this forum!

However, the type of determinism that really exists is quite different! — tom

The biggest problem with determinism it's that there is absolutely zero evidence for it. Other than that, it is a nice story of how the Laws of Nature (God) determines everything.

The biggest contribution that QM has had on philosophy is that it finally put to rest the possibility that there could actually be a deterministic universe.

A group of matter that is experiencing? Care to take a stab at the line of demarcation and how that group is performing that trick. Are they talking to each other? — Rich

I don’t think it’s that mysterious. Matter interacts with other matter and energy. We can see this at the less sophisticated forms of life like bacteria. A lizard is also dependent on matter and energy. A lizard is more sophisticated than bacteria so it can interact in more complex ways. But it is still just a bunch of chemical reactions and physics. Many mammals can take it a step further where because of the way they happen to be, they will react to more social cues because through evolution it was useful. And Humans have taken it all a step further where we’ve evolved to be able to react to our own reactions in the sense that we can think about our own thoughts. More of an internal awareness. But it’s all just reactions.

Do you believe in a soul? If so, I ask why. From my studies, there is nothing in psychology to suggest that psychology is anything but biology. Biology is chemistry, and chemistry is physics.

As for meaning, it is all about illusion. Hence, an enlightened Determinist realizes that life has no meaning because they are able to see right through the illusion. — Rich

Can an “enlightened Determinist” honestly doubt to themselves that eating something causes electrochemical messages to their brain that they experience as tastey? (in the practical sense that we use the word tastey).

It's amazing that there are grown adults who actually believe all this. — Rich

Chill lol

The biggest problem with determinism it's that there is absolutely zero evidence for it. Other than that, it is a nice story of how the Laws of Nature (God) determines everything. — Rich

Except that our deepest theories of reality are deterministic, and have been tested to extraordinary accuracy. No violation of Unitarity has ever been discovered.

The biggest contribution that QM has had on philosophy is that it finally put to rest the possibility that there could actually be a deterministic universe. — Rich

You don't know the first thing about QM.

Matter interacts with other matter and energy. — SonJnana

And that is about it. The rest is a magical mystery tale, conjured up by atheists so that they have their own God to worship. It is really quite amazing to observe. Basically it demonstrates that everyone needs their own God whatever the name they choose to use.

Except that our deepest theories of reality are deterministic, — tom

There is only one deep theory about nature and that is QM which is totally probabilistic. Other than this, you have the Laws of Nature which is not a theory but a Pagan God.

You don't know the first thing about QM. — tom

It's a probabilistic wave. Period.

As I said Darwin wrote about this. He admitted his theory requires chance as an ontological ultimate. — tom

Oh yeah!! Where it that? "Ontological Ultimate" is not an expression uttered by Darwin. SO who are you kidding?

Chance is a deterministic proposition; pure randomness is not.

And that is about it. The rest is a magical mystery tale, conjured up by atheists so that they have their own God to worship. It is really quite amazing to observe. Basically it demonstrates that everyone needs their own God whatever the name they choose to use. — Rich

Why don't you actually read what I have to say and explain what about it and why it is you disagree with it rather than dismiss it and make condescending statements? Are you just a troll? lol

Where is it that you draw the line so I can understand your logic? You agree that matter interacts with matter so if acid is put in water it will dissociate to make an acidic aqueous solution. Do you agree that a virus is also a bunch of reactions that are more complex? And what about bacteria then?

So matter interacts with matter. Ok. And the rest of the story, I mean the whole story... pure, unadulterated story telling, of the most creative type. Determinism is a testament to modern myth creation. In a thousand years they'll be studying it as the Greek Gods are studied.

You want me to take the story seriously? Ok, I realize all religions want to be, demand to be taken seriously. The Laws of Nature are sacred. Everything depends upon believing in them and all that they (He) can do.

So matter interacts with matter. Ok. And the rest of the story, I mean the whole story... pure, unadulterated story telling, of the most creative type. — Rich

You've agreed that matter interacts with matter and energy. Is the case of a virus and/or bacteria also just matter and energy interacting with matter and energy. Chemistry and physics? Yes or No?

Also, do you have any reason to believe that anything in our universe is independent from cause and effect? Yes or no?

You can answer these questions so we can have a productive discussion. You can also just dismiss them and go on with your condescending statements in which case I'll just laugh at myself for realizing I engaged with a troll for so long.

To leapfrom matter interacts with energy to the whole universe and everything we feel and experience is what is called faith. You want this story to be taken seriously, then start being serious and don't expect me to get excited over every story that people can make up.

You have to fill in the Huge blank between "matter interacts" and EVERYTHING. Even the Bible had more than this. Basically the story is the Laws of Nature did everything as opposed to God did everything. Nice story.