Incompatibilism

[Anonymous No.18072676]

Anyone want to discuss free-will/determinism, especially relating to Peter van Inwagen's work on incompatibilism? I was happily compatibilist before, but I now feel completely lost as to what to think about the world.

[Anonymous No.18072695]

>>18072676
No

[Anonymous No.18073005]

what do you mean "want"?

[Anonymous No.18073368]

>>18073005
A resonance from the future.

[Anonymous No.18073388]

>>18072676
>Incompatibilism is the view that a deterministic universe is completely at odds with the notion that persons have a free will; that there is a dichotomy between determinism and free will where philosophers must choose one or the other. This view is pursued in at least three ways: libertarians deny that the universe is deterministic, the hard determinists deny that any free will exists, and pessimistic incompatibilists (hard indeterminists) deny both that the universe is determined and that free will exists.

>Incompatibilism is contrasted with compatibilism, which rejects the determinism/free will dichotomy.

well i skimmed the wikipedia entry, and like always the hard determinism seems right.

It´s always laughable when advocates for free will make ridiculous claims, but in the end they wanna be just a special boy who arent part of the material universe.

Honestly it´s kind of disgusting!
Imagine learning so much about philosophy and the world only to never evolve that entitled mentality of a bratty free-willy

[Anonymous No.18073463]

>>18073388
How do you cope with not having any say over things? Is your attitude different to someone who believes in free-will do you think?

[Anonymous No.18073508]

>>18073388
Enjoy being mentally cucked by ethics even though people can't do anything "wrong".

[Anonymous No.18073517]

>>18072676
dababy monkey

[Anonymous No.18073703]

Incompatibilists are Karl Pilkington-tier retards who thinks there's a difference between the "me" and "my brain". At least be a libertarian in that case you fucking retards.

[Anonymous No.18073720]

>>18073703
Care to expand upon that? How would you respond to the consequence argument? I can't ch-choose to be one or the other anon..

[Anonymous No.18073781]

>>18073720
When you move your arm, you don't "think" about moving every single electron of information and altering the muscle to raise it, yet despite this you are in control of your arm, yes?

The problem with the "I can't control my brain" becomes more obvious when you rephrase it. "My brain can't control my brain", or; "My brain can't send electrons in order to send electrons without sending elections". The processes in your brain don't control your thoughts, they *are* your thoughts.

Free will is that those processes can proceed uninhibited, exactly like bodily movement. If I can move my arm, I have some free movement. The more you reduce my ability to move my arm,the less freedom I have. If you reduce the processes in my brain from acting clearly, you reduce my ability to make choices. If I'm asleep or in a coma, I don't have free will. If I'm uneducated or retarded, I have limited free will. Same if I'm deceived, tricked, intoxicated etc.

[Anonymous No.18073847]

>>18073781
That is a different definition of free will though. If you were at a cafe and chose between coffee and tea, then by your definition you were free in your choice. But the debate is whether it is was physically possible for you to do otherwise, if the clock was rewound would you make the same choice every time? If so then you're not free cos you couldn't will otherwise.

[Anonymous No.18073898]

>>18073388
says the determinist while continuing to live his/her life under the assumption of free agency.

It's like the anarchist who actually likes his comfy home and societal structures

[Anonymous No.18073913]

>>18073847
Firstly, if we assume that the world would be different every time, that would mean we don't have free will either, even less so because now your choice truly is just random, not something you have deliberately chosen. If you want to argue that only exact control over our electrons in our brain can constitute free will, again it doesn't make sense because that "control over your electrons" would in turn be controlled by other electrons.

Secondly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jint5kjoy6I

Michio Kaku says here that electrons are truly random in their positioning, which could mean that the choice might be different, but I don't think it's possible to know that, and doesn't bear much relevance.

[Anonymous No.18073968]

>>18073913
This to me means that free will is simply incoherent, and the only reason we even have a vague placeholder with that name is because it is practically useful to think in terms of 'what if I had done otherwise' for evaluating future choices, and to hold people accountable for their actions, which serves various social purposes.

[Anonymous No.18073998]

>>18073388
If the 'fabric' of the Universe is continuous then there's free will of a sort, which stems from uncountable infinity. Perhaps only small parts of the universe are continuous or perhaps there's some things outside of the Universe that can overrule cause and effect. Otherwise, the universe is deterministic and there's no free will.

Mathematicians have known this since Cantor. There's no need for all of these retarded definitions. Philosophers are such fucking pseuds.

[Anonymous No.18074026]

>>18073968
>This to me means that free will is simply incoherent
Well, it means that incompatibilism is incoherent, since they believe simultaneously that thought is made up of neurons in the brain, but that "Will" is a mystical outside force which can influence those neurons in accordance with the will of the Self, and only this can be called free will.

What we commonly call Free Will and apply in our ethics and justice system is perfectly compatible with determinism. Some people have the possibility to control themselves, those are judged. Those without the Free Will to do otherwise, are judged less harshly.

Welcome to compatibilism brother.

[Anonymous No.18074031]

>>18073913
If you could not have done differently you don't have free will, if you could have done differently then the world isn't predetermined. Leave the electrons to the chinaman.

[Anonymous No.18074050]

>>18074026
>they believe simultaneously that thought is made up of neurons in the brain, but that "Will" is a mystical outside force which can influence those neurons in accordance with the will of the Self
I'm an incompatibilist and I don't think this. And I don't really see how you've gotten to this position. Read van Inwagen's consequence argument and explain why it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.18074090]

>>18074031
>If you could not have done differently you don't have free will
This is a red herring, since "doing things differently" only exists as a thought experiment if you're being rigorous enough or you have access to CIA time travel.

>if you could have done differently then the world isn't predetermined.
You *could* have done differently, again you view the *you* as separate from the neurons in your brain. Your neurons were not constrained, your assertion that in the cosmic dance of phenomena it was never going that way anyway is irrelevant. Imagine a snowflake narrowly missing your eye. You could argue that it would be therefor impossible for it to hit your eye, but surely you wouldn't argue that it's the same type of impossibility as if you were covering your eye with your hand?

Again, you had the ability to make a choice, but you didn't, the *you* in this case is referring to your neurons.

[Anonymous No.18074122]

>>18073998
Information complexity is the only physical quantity that can grow unboundedly and has no practical limits.

Thus there are no mass or energy singularities in nature, but information complexity singularities must, necessarily, exist.

We call such an information complexity singularity "free will" when speaking in layman terms.

Now, whether or not humans have "free will", i.e., they are walking and breathing information complexity singularities, is debatable; but the evidence we have point to "yes", or at least to an answer that converges to something like a "yes".

[Anonymous No.18074125]

>>18074026
>, but that "Will" is a mystical outside force
I don't think this follows. Will is not mystical, it's just the feeling you get when you want to do stuff, it's part of the causal chain. It's the word 'free' that implies for noncompatibilists the mystical aspect.

Idk Im fairly sure this is just people labeling things differently.

[Anonymous No.18074130]

>>18074050
I read it, again he has a mystical belief of the self. We are our ability as much as we are our inability.

> If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequence of laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it's not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us

Of course they are up to us, if we have the brain matter to make a choice, sure "our brain matter makes our choice for us", but that's what making a choice means. "free will" in this case means "we can decide what we can decide", but not really because that has to be lengthened to "we can decide what we can decide what we can decide" and so on. It's turtles all the way down. This idea of Free Will doesn't just exist, it can't exist, and it's not what people are talking about.

[Anonymous No.18074140]

>>18074125
>It's the word 'free' that implies for noncompatibilists the mystical aspect.
Yeah you're right, my bad.

[Anonymous No.18074155]

>>18073508
>Enjoy being mentally cucked by ethics even though people can't do anything "wrong".
why? hedonism is pretty rational,
i dont care about some essence of another person
>>18073898
>says the determinist while continuing to live his/her life under the assumption of free agency.
??
>>18073998
well that´s kind of the point of many missunderstandings,
even if smth is NOT deterministic but random you still wouldnt have agency in it

>>18073463
>How do you cope with not having any say over things? Is your attitude different to someone who believes in free-will do you think?
cause there is no "I" in the first place.
there are just a bunch of desires which pull and the one which pulls the hardest calls itself "MY" will.

[Anonymous No.18074164]

>>18074155
A desire cannot "pull" or "push", you dumb mongoloid. Desires have no agency.

[Anonymous No.18074169]

>>18074155
>cause there is no "I" in the first place.
there is a single localized perspective that you are however. You could say it only lasts for a 'moment' and each moment is another I, but there is still a singular, discontinuous phenomenon occurring here.

[Anonymous No.18074224]

>>18072676
Can I get a definition of free will here? Like what do you want it to do exactly? Either my choices are determined by past events or they are random. There isn't another option. Which one of those ous free will? Even if my actions are determined by a soul in the fifth dimension, that soul is still making decisions based on past (5d soul) events or just randomly.

[Anonymous No.18074233]

>>18074164
>A desire cannot "pull" or "push", you dumb mongoloid. Desires have no agency.
exactly, and you´re just a bunch of them so you have no agency,
you´re so close anon, just let go of your pride already
>>18074169
>there is a single localized perspective that you are however. You could say it only lasts for a 'moment' and each moment is another I, but there is still a singular, discontinuous phenomenon occurring here.
yes that´s the
>narrative self
or
>experience of self
which is a continuous handshake of you short term memory from your first memory to your death.
It´s on one hand the most important way to define the
>self
but on the other hand you could imagine someone dropping in a medium and consuming your experiences for fun like a movie.

[Anonymous No.18074331]

>>18074224
The physical, psychological and situational ability to make choices.

[Anonymous No.18074367]

>>18072676
I don't "have" free will, I AM free will. I have no choice but to do exactly what I am compelled to do, every moment

[Anonymous No.18074708]

>>18074122
This is an extremely well thought position.

Determinists are linear retards that cannot compute the boundaries of their stupid philosophism.

It is not only information complexity however it is a time superposition as well. Not a single infinitesimal point in time but a continuous nexus of timelines were decision making takes place.

These are not abstractions computed on an otherwise single time-step brain but actual timelines that you can decide to draw towards you or push away.

You navigate in this web.