Free will

[Ignorant]

Okay. My problem is in the established framework of the definitions.
So in order to be a compatibilist, one must first understand what determinism is. Right off the bat determinism is a metaphysics term. If I don't accept the metaphysic definition then I have no place in the compatibilist camp.

What if there is no label that fits a person who accepts physics of cause and effect while maintaining that people can make choices? Why must metaphysics even come into it? What if I've never even studied metaphysics in any rigorous way?

As far as I know, that's what compatibilism is. You ask why metaphysics should even come into it. I agree, and that's exactly the question a compatibilist would be asking. I think you do fit the label, then. I just got confused by some of your earlier posts about moral agency and libertarian free will. Might be my fault. Or maybe the problem is in the absurdity of the concept of free will itself. Makes it hard to be consistent.
 

Can one be a compatibilist and not a compatibilist at the same time?

I guess you can mostly agree with it but have some specific issue that makes you lean away from it? What would make you not a compatibilist?

[Bootless]

As far as I know, that's what compatibilism is. You ask why metaphysics should even come into it. I agree, and that's exactly the question a compatibilist would be asking. I think you do fit the label, then. I just got confused by some of your earlier posts about moral agency and libertarian free will. Might be my fault. Or maybe the problem is in the absurdity of the concept of free will itself. Makes it hard to be consistent.
 

I guess you can mostly agree with it but have some specific issue that makes you lean away from it? What would make you not a compatibilist?

What I wrote was confusing because I was confused.
I had watched this video before and got confused where the sliding scale goes:


Joe talks a bit faster than I'm used to.

His solution is to change the definition of free will. And I read somewhere that free will can be as simple as "in your subjective experience, you are making a choice". Hey, that seems quite intuitive!

So finally, I feel confident in saying I have a compatibilist view on the matter.

I wonder if I am the only one who bought Sapolsky's book and only made it to page 82.

[quintessentone]

What I wrote was confusing because I was confused.
I had watched this video before and got confused where the sliding scale goes:
[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5y6Igw4lXY]
Joe talks a bit faster than I'm used to.

His solution is to change the definition of free will. And I read somewhere that free will can be as simple as "in your subjective experience, you are making a choice". Hey, that seems quite intuitive!

So finally, I feel confident in saying I have a compatibilist view on the matter.

I wonder if I am the only one who bought Sapolsky's book and only made it to page 82.

I've been watching Sapolsky interviews online and he is limited to only the biology/environmental-psychological causes of the matter. Why can't we accept the fact that it appears that all science (including physics and quantum physics) says we have no free will? Why do we want to create a metaphysical/philosophical cause and effect reality, without proof, that we have free will?

---

"But is free will really undermined by the determinism of physical law? I think such arguments are not even wrong; they are simply misconceived. They don’t recognize how cause and effect work, and by attempting to claim too much jurisdiction for fundamental physics they are not really scientific but metaphysical."

"Long-standing disputes about free will and physical law, with their philosophical jargon of compatibilism and libertarianism, have not really advanced our understanding of the problem of determinism since Pierre-Simon Laplace supposed in the early 19th century that he could predict the entire future from total microscopic knowledge of the present. But this rather sterile debate can be and at last is being replaced with a “neuroscience of free will” that examines how brains, with their particular architectures and dispositions, arrive at decisions on the basis of past and present experience. That’s the way to pose worthwhile, testable questions about choice and behaviour."

"To claim that reality is not what you think it is, but that this can never be proved, is to speak metaphysically. Immanuel Kant was doing so when he postulated the Ding-an-sich – the “thing in itself” – that we can never access through our senses. It can be fun and stimulating to debate such things, but it is not science."

Why free will is beyond physics – Physics World

It's your choice what to believe, or is it?

[Ignorant]

So finally, I feel confident in saying I have a compatibilist view on the matter.

Great, me too. I think you're the first fellow compatibilist I've talked to. Most seem to adopt the libertarian or hard determinist views, which is interesting because they're both wrong!

Note the difference between determinism and hard determinism. Determinism is the belief that there is no randomness in the universe and everything is predetermined. I am absolutely a determinist. Hard determinism though is about free will. It's the belief that determinism is true AND that free will is incompatible with determinism and therefore we don't have free will. (I don't agree with the incompatibility, making me a compatibilist).
 

And I read somewhere that free will can be as simple as "in your subjective experience, you are making a choice". Hey, that seems quite intuitive!

I like it because it solves this problem I always thought we compatibilists have where we basically have to admit that machines have free will, which feels wrong. If we include the requirement of a subjective experience of choice, we can say that machines don't have free will (at least not today's machines) and not be inconsistent.

[Bootless]

I've been watching Sapolsky interviews online and he is limited to only the biology/environmental-psychological causes of the matter. Why can't we accept the fact that it appears that all science (including physics and quantum physics) says we have no free will? Why do we want to create a metaphysical/philosophical cause and effect reality, without proof, that we have free will?

We can't accept it because we want to have a meaningful source for Ethics and Morality. It sort of boils down to: What will we teach our children?

I find it possible that humanness is related to language and communication in abstracts, story telling as it were, with either an implicit or explicit moral.
See this video:



It could be that in early pre-philosophy days, these stories were understood to be fiction. That's just a guess, I can't think of any way to falsify it. The fear of predators, where to find food, and other threats to group survival were quite real. Stories would be a way to pass on necessary survival skills. Utilitarian, in other words.

When we were on the Stoicism thread, I looked up Logos 

Background
[edit]Ancient Greek: λόγος, romanized: lógos, lit. 'word, discourse, or reason' is related to Ancient Greek: λέγω, romanized: légō, lit. 'I say' which is cognate with Latin: lex, lit. 'law'. The word derives from a Proto-Indo-European root, *leǵ-, which can have the meanings "I put in order, arrange, gather, choose, count, reckon, discern, say, speak". In modern usage, it typically connotes the verbs "account", "measure", "reason" or "discourse".[sup][1][/sup][sup][2][/sup] It is occasionally used in other contexts, such as for "ratio" in mathematics.[sup][3[/sup]

-Wikipedia: Logos

It's like the thinkers discovered words and reckoning which led to rational thought, reasoning, and logic to explain and even codify what they found as decent explanations for the reality of the World they found themselves in. Now since they discovered by examining reality, they figured there must be an existential, metaphysical ground of this being, so Logos.

Religionists took the idea and concluded that the Creator character imbued moral laws into the fabric of reality. That's what they call Natural Law.

It would be fair to call the Apostle Paul a religionist. He wrote:

  
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
 
- Romans 1 NIV

So Paul took the Stoic Logos idea and put it in the hands of a Creator character. So that's where the idea of homosexuality as being an inherent moral bad, against the very fabric of reality comes from. So bad that the wrath of God is poured out against it.

So there is the conflict of U.S. education: Do we tell stories of inclusiveness or stories of the wrath of God?

I personally hold that ethics are quite important and should be taught. So yes, that is my gut level objection to hard determinism.

Additional Note: That video is produced in the PBS studio. PBS is now defunded by the U.S. and I remember that during the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas to US Supreme court the question of his ideas of Natural Law did come up.

The current trajectory of U.S. policy seems to be going toward superstition.

[quintessentone]

We can't accept it because we want to have a meaningful source for Ethics and Morality. It sort of boils down to: What will we teach our children?

I find it possible that humanness is related to language and communication in abstracts, story telling as it were, with either an implicit or explicit moral.
See this video:
[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7v2kESrqDQ]

It could be that in early pre-philosophy days, these stories were understood to be fiction. That's just a guess, I can't think of any way to falsify it. The fear of predators, where to find food, and other threats to group survival were quite real. Stories would be a way to pass on necessary survival skills. Utilitarian, in other words.

When we were on the Stoicism thread, I looked up Logos 

It's like the thinkers discovered words and reckoning which led to rational thought, reasoning, and logic to explain and even codify what they found as decent explanations for the reality of the World they found themselves in. Now since they discovered by examining reality, they figured there must be an existential, metaphysical ground of this being, so Logos.

Religionists took the idea and concluded that the Creator character imbued moral laws into the fabric of reality. That's what they call Natural Law.

It would be fair to call the Apostle Paul a religionist. He wrote:
So Paul took the Stoic Logos idea and put it in the hands of a Creator character. So that's where the idea of homosexuality as being an inherent moral bad, against the very fabric of reality comes from. So bad that the wrath of God is poured out against it.

So there is the conflict of U.S. education: Do we tell stories of inclusiveness or stories of the wrath of God?

I personally hold that ethics are quite important and should be taught. So yes, that is my gut level objection to hard determinism.

Additional Note: That video is produced in the PBS studio. PBS is now defunded by the U.S. and I remember that during the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas to US Supreme court the question of his ideas of Natural Law did come up.

The current trajectory of U.S. policy seems to be going toward superstition.

So far I've listened to debates between biology-neuroscience/evolution (randomness)/philosophy and a physics (science) standpoints.

What is jumping out at me right now is that the arguments each have their own generalities, e.g. Sapolsky claims we have no free will, we react to our circumstances in ways that will change us, but we don't actually have free will to choose to change, we choose due to circumstances only as to how we are wired. 

I was listening to a story about Buddha and a convict. After being with Buddha for a while the convict changed their thought/brain (plasticity) wiring completely.

Now I'll listen to metaphysical arguments/debates for or against free will.

Somewhere in all that, there is truth. The truth may be in all the arguments that all or some of the parts may be true at the same time.

[Bootless]

Now I'll listen to metaphysical arguments/debates for or against free will.

Here's the link to the Crash Course on Youtube: Crash Course: Philosophy 24 & 25 may be helpful.

Sapolsky, in one of his interviews said that he concluded very young that there was no free will. Maybe he had some confirmation bias going on. Joe (who seems to be a compatibilist) does have some criticism of Sapolsky's book:



A leading public thinker was asked quite unexpectedly about free will vs determinism. He responded like: "What? Why should I care? Everyone behaves as if they had free will."

I felt a need to find something there. And Joe @unsolicitedadvice says compatibilism is legit, not automatically reject-able as nonsense.

I guess it's up to individuals just how rigorous they feel they must be.

[quintessentone]

The free will rabbit hole...

22 Examples of Free Will - Simplicable

After all I've read so far, I am still holding strong to the belief that we have free will some times, but not at other times. 

Self-exploration as to why one does or choose what, where, why and when may assist in at least giving one an insight on one's motivations, influences, desires, emotional needs, etc. that steer one's free will in certain directions.

Now I or we have the problem of defining consciousness as related to the metaphysical and the quantum world and we all know where that ends up.

[Waterglass]

I was trying to delve into a deeper understanding of where one's free will is or is not still one's free will when following others' will or other's orchestration of one's reality as in division of power and/or will. Is it simply making choices within a structured society/world of others' making, or is everyone's free will a part of the whole if one continues to be a part of that structure?

Well your asking me to answer the unanserable from my prerspective. I am not God. The answer I think would be like in ones brain and / or ones soul if you belive in Spirituality. I really cant answer your question. Might your try Google AI? Heres Google AI's response:

Navigating the complexities of free will within the context of a structured society is a fascinating and long-standing philosophical debate. It boils down to understanding how individual agency interacts with the constraints and influences of external forces and the will of others. 
Here's a breakdown of the key considerations:
1. Choices within a structured society
Even within a society with norms, rules, and power structures, individuals constantly make choices.
These choices might be as simple as what to eat or wear, or as complex as career paths or relationships, according to Psychology Today.
The crucial question is whether these choices are truly free, or if they are largely determined by external influences like upbringing, social conditioning, available resources, and the expectations of others. 
2. Agency and social structure
Social structures, encompassing laws, policies, organizations, and cultural norms, undeniably influence and shape individual agency.
For instance, poverty or limited access to education can restrict an individual's options and opportunities, thereby limiting their agency.
Conversely, social and economic resources can expand an individual's potential choices and agency.
The relationship between structure and agency is dynamic and reciprocal: structures influence individuals, but individuals also have the capacity to shape and change social structures, according to the Brookings. 
3. The "Free Will vs. Determinism" Debate
This fundamental philosophical debate explores whether our actions are truly self-determined (free will) or are predetermined by external forces and prior events (determinism).
Determinists argue that free will is an illusion, suggesting that our choices are the inevitable result of factors like genetics, environment, and societal influences.
Libertarians, conversely, assert that individuals possess true free will, emphasizing our capacity to choose otherwise, regardless of prior conditions.
Compatibilists offer a middle ground, contending that free will and determinism can coexist. They argue that freedom lies in acting according to one's own desires and intentions, even if those desires are themselves influenced by external factors. 
4. Free will as part of the whole
If one embraces the concept of free will within the social structure, it suggests that individuals contribute their own choices and perspectives to the collective fabric of society.
This perspective emphasizes the potential for individuals to initiate social change, challenge norms, and shape the future through their decisions and actions.
However, recognizing the influence of societal structures and the will of others on individual choices is crucial, as it highlights the interplay between individual autonomy and collective influences. 
In conclusion, understanding free will within a structured society requires acknowledging both the individual's capacity to make choices and the influence of external factors and the will of others. The philosophical and scientific debates surrounding free will versus determinism highlight the complexities of this relationship and its implications for human behavior, morality, and social responsibility. 

[Waterglass]

How can something supposedly omnipotent share power? 

I mean, if sharing power means permanently limiting one's own power, that could be considered somewhat paradoxical.

And if delegation, is the answer, one has to wonder, what's the point?

Thats what I was told plus men wrote the bible. Plus it was translated by other men. So how do you know that people on earth isnt a 50 / 50. Doesnt it seem that criminals always have the upper hand in all facets of life.  That includes the Catholic Church. Nothing is impenetrantable from evil on earth. 

I suggest you discuss with a priest