If free will was not real

[Gemini]

That;s a strange way to put it...since the fundamental laws of physics have -everything- to do with and say about baseball.  There;s a reason, for example, that the ball travels on it;s particular trajectory.  That it reacts the way it does when it comes into contact with the bat.  Physics, in both cases, being that reason.  No fundamental laws of physics, no baseball..nothing to talk -about-.

He's talking about the rules of the game. Stuff like strikes and home runs etc.

this, though...

but real as a social/legal/cultural construct.

-totally onboard there.  Hell, I even throw shit like god into that category.

It seems like this whole debate is about how best to explain causality to laypeople. We don't have the slightest disagreement about ontology, just about the vocabulary we use to describe it.

Which is still a useful debate to have. That's what Colin McGinn argued the whole point of modern philosophy is--reconciling the manifest image (our naive experience of existence) with the scientific image (everything we actually know about how the universe works).

[Gemini]

Compatibilists have no good reason to exclude determinism, they just do it so they can keep their precious free will. The baseball example makes no sense. Baseball itself isn't something unique or something that exists on its own. Baseball is just a word used to describe a particular game/set of actions that make up the game.

Compatibilists don't exclude determinism. Compatibilists are determinists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hence the criticism of a not-free-free will.  Linguistic flourish, rather than qualitative substance.

[Gemini]

What appeal to consequence argument is that? I'd love to hear about it!

There are experiments where people read a statement that science has proved determinism, and some don't, and then both groups are tested on ethical behavior. The studies Dennett references suggest that people who read the statements supporting scientific determinism are less inclined to behave ethically and prosocially.

There are problems with the studies, though. The main one being that the literature the participants read describes something more like fatalism than determinism.

Please feast on it. I certainly enjoy feasting on yours. It's only fair to share.

OM NOM NOM (How many calories have I had today? Best not to think of it...now back to feasting {I love the word "feast" by the way...even more than I love embedded parentheses})!

I make you think? But you're so smart! That makes me feel good

You're not pretentious, but you're smart as hell, Hammy.

I agree with Dan Dennett that compatabilist free will is a version of free will worth wanting... but most people don't just want that. They want contra-causal free will. They know when people are coerced they don't have absolute omnipotent magical free will, but they like to believe that they do have absolute magical freedom when they are not cooerced. They may indeed have a identity crisis or even go into a depression when they learn they are not as free as they think they are: but the truth sometimes does hurt but they should still face it.

They do not however need to despair completely or resign themselves to fatalism.

That's such a great way of putting it, isn't it. A version of free will worth wanting. I really do feel the same as you, in that accepting determinism is actually empowering. Understanding the physical limitation of cognition motivates me to engage in the activities that actually increase my options, and "freedom," if you will. Things like learning, and changing my mind, when the evidence warrants it.

I feel like giving up compatibilism would be compromising with unreflective people who insist on free will being omnipotent and magical, and I don't want to do that.

[Edwardo Piet]

There are experiments where people read a statement that science has proved determinism, and some don't, and then both groups are tested on ethical behavior. The studies Dennett references suggest that people who read the statements supporting scientific determinism are less inclined to behave ethically and prosocially.

There are problems with the studies, though. The main one being that the literature the participants read describes something more like fatalism than determinism.

An equivocation.

Kind of reminds me of the title of Lawrence Krauss' book "A universe from nothing." All the science in it is correct and he's an excellent physicist but there's another equivocation right there. It should really be called "A universe from empty space teeming with quantum activity" but that would make a less punchy title.

(Also the original definition of atoms makes them unsplittable by definition. Science is always messing about with words but it's so they can focus on the hypothesis rather than changing the terms. The important thing is science gets the facts right rather than the semantics.)

OM NOM NOM (How many calories have I had today? Best not to think of it...now back to feasting {I love the word "feast" by the way...even more than I love embedded parentheses})!

Your mind is pure sex. Keep talking like this. Rawr!

You remind me of me and that makes me think I must be awesome because you are and you remind me of me!

You're not pretentious, but you're smart as hell, Hammy.

Can't I be both? If I'm not pretenious I need to try harder. It's my favourite kind of ambitious because it means I don't actually have to acheive anything I can just act clever and call that something to be proud of.

Act clever because I am. Because yes I am smart as hell: or IOW as fuck (profanity is better).

That's such a great way of putting it, isn't it. A version of free will worth wanting. I really do feel the same as you, in that accepting determinism is actually empowering. Understanding the physical limitation of cognition motivates me to engage in the activities that actually increase my options, and "freedom," if you will. Things like learning, and changing my mind, when the evidence warrants it.

Yes yes yes yes and yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Oh yes. Oh. And yes in that sense also.

I feel like giving up compatibilism would be compromising with laypeople who insist on free will being omnipotent and magical, and I don't want to do that.

I feel like giving up on my hard incompatabilism would be giving in to laypeople who insist that a belief in free will is required to live a meaningful life.

We just have a different approach. If you don't give up on your compatabilism at least that gives us more opportunities to have more sexy arguments.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hence the criticism of a not-free-free will.  Linguistic flourish, rather than qualitative substance.

Not-free-free will? You mean will? Will is just a fact

Pictures or it didn't happen?

---

---

[Gemini]

Now we're just talking about law....but I had hoped that we were actually trying to describe a property of human beings...an ability that we had...and not just a useful legal framework for prosecuting undesirables.
-sadface-

Oh we are talking about a property of human beings. Mah frontal lobes. And so on and so forth. That's why we can prosecute people. Because they have fully functioning frontal lobes. Lots of people with frontal lobe damage are incarcerated, and don't deserve to be.

That's not, btw, compatibilism...........it's legal pragmatism.

My argument for legal pragmatism doesn't exclude compatibilism qua compatibilism. See everything I've said about the will being free so long as it is free from duress/coercion. That's generic compatibilism.

(when the machines take over...just know that you're going to be on a short list of early executions....poor thermostat.  BTW, "according to me" a nest thermostat is not a moral agent...according to me..it meets your criteria for having a free will - as you describe it.  It's not my fault that your ridiculous semantic game forces -you- to that conclusion, if your metrics are consistently and objectively applied. )

It meets all of the criteria I suggested for freedom, but none of the criteria I suggested for will.

[Gemini]

An equivocation.

Kind of reminds me of the title of Lawrence Krauss' book "A universe from nothing." All the science in it is correct and he's an excellent physicist but there's another equivocation right there. It should really be called "A universe from empty space teeming with quantum activity" but that would make a less punchy title.

You hit me right in the [redacted]. Couldn't agree more. (LOL I have to watch what I say or I'm gonna get forum banned. It'll blame you if I do, Hammy!)

(Also the original definition of atoms makes them unsplittable by definition. Science is always messing about with words but it's so they can focus on the hypothesis rather than changing the terms. The important thing is science gets the facts right rather than the semantics.)

+1

Your mind is pure sex. Keep talking like this. Rawr!

I'm like a teenager over here, going, "OMG Hammy is talking to me! Squee!"

Can't I be both? If I'm not pretenious I need to try harder. It's my favourite kind of ambitious because it means I don't actually have to acheive anything I can just act clever and call that something to be proud of.

Act clever because I am. Because yes I am smart as hell: or IOW as fuck (profanity is better).

You make me feel better about being pretentious. And this is the sexiest argument about free will to have occurred in the multiverse.

I feel like giving up on my hard incompatabilism would be giving in to laypeople who insist that a belief in free will is required to live a meaningful life.

We just have a different approach. If you don't give up on your compatabilism at least that gives us more opportunities to have more sexy arguments.

Then I had better remain a compatibilist!

[RozKek]

Compatibilists have no good reason to exclude determinism, they just do it so they can keep their precious free will. The baseball example makes no sense. Baseball itself isn't something unique or something that exists on its own. Baseball is just a word used to describe a particular game/set of actions that make up the game.

Compatibilists don't exclude determinism. Compatibilists are determinists.

It's bs. They believe in determinism, yes, but they've dumbed down free will to exclude determinism. E,g they might say"Free will is freely forming and acting on ones intent", thing is, it's not free if it's already determined is it? How do you determine something that is already determined?  You form and act on intent but the way you form your intent, the way you act on your intent, none of it is free. Compatibilist "free-willers" believe in determinism but ignore determinism when they're talking about free will. Their definition of free will for some reason doesn't take determinism into account.

[Gemini]

Compatibilists don't exclude determinism. Compatibilists are determinists.

It's bs. They believe in determinism, yes, but they've dumbed down free will to exclude determinism. E,g they might say"Free will is freely forming and acting on ones intent", thing is, it's not free if it's already determined is it? How do you determine something that is already determined?  You form and act on intent but the way you form your intent, the way you act on your intent, none of it is free. Compatibilist "free-willers" believe in determinism but ignore determinism when they're talking about free will. Their definition of free will for some reason doesn't take determinism into account.

We haven't dumbed it down or ignored determism. We've just defined free will as, "What mentally healthy agents exercise when they are free from duress/coercion by other agents."