Compatibilism

Kante

"Compatibilism, as championed by the ancient Greek Stoics, Hobbes, Hume and many contemporary philosophers, is a theory that argues that free will and determinism exist and are in fact compatible.[3]"

Hey.
So I've been reading a bit of late in the realm of evolutionary theory with regards to the consciousness.
Daniel Dennett (some Dawkins)...Consciousness Explained ,minds I, selfish gene, extended phenotype.


Only 2 question interest me.
Do we have free will?
How is free will compatible with a closed evolutionary system?


Chomsky reckons the evolutionary theorists have thought us nothing regarding consciousness. And I must say I agree.
Dawkins does not give it due consideration “the human brain has become so complex we can treat it as if we have free will"

I enjoyed Dennett’s approach - disagrees with the premise that free will and the laws of cause and effect are incompatible.


Anyone got any reccommendations? Ideas, thoughts. I just don’t see a plausible case proffered by Dennett as to how matter evolved free will??????

ChocolateSauce

What on earth does compatibilism mean?

Kante

Compatibilism, as championed by the ancient Greek Stoics, Hobbes, Hume and many contemporary philosophers, is a theory that argues that free will and determinism exist and are in fact compatible.[3]

Goduznt Xzst

I'd consider myself a compatibilist, in that I believe we have free will to act whichever way we want, but the motives for those wants and the means to accomplish them are deterministically defined.

Kante

At the start of the Selfish gene Dawkins wonderfully illustrate how complexity can evolves from simplicity. How does free will evolve??
Does anyone paint a model where matter evolves an ability to freely choose?

Goduznt -
Some have said that not only is free will compatible with determinism but relies upon it - If our actions are not determined by our principles then we are not free at all.
I feel this argument starts in the middle - as some aspect of the model must exhibit free will So the question remains how did this come about.

I liked Dennetts attempt at explaining how this might take place, He calls it "evitability".

Am I missing something?
None of these questions are answered...are they the right questions?
Waking life - Free Will
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U

Stercus Accidit

Part of our evolved ability to interact with our environment in more complex ways is the presence of complex conscious thought, its an illusion of free will.

If you have ever worked in IT or understand the fundamentals of computing, the brain is much the same, if exponentially more complex.

Inputs are processed and outputs reached, it is the process that is conscious thought that we perceive as free willed decision making, but all is deterministic.

IMO free will and choice, are determined by the laws of physics and their explanation can be aided by comparisons to computing, but the human brain is sufficiently complex that its processes at a conscious level can be called "free will", even if the output is totally determined on the inputs and processes they are subjected to.


I'm sure there are more interesting less pragmatic views on the subject, but from a physics stand point, its all just number crunching in a cpu.

eoin5

I'd agree with the idea. Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." In our mid-sized mid-timed existence we make our own choices but in theory everything thats going to happen has already happened all at once and we are just experiencing it from our own viewpoint as a non-deterministic passage of time.

Kante

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

IMO free will and choice, are determined by the laws of physics and their explanation can be aided by comparisons to computing, but the human brain is sufficiently complex that its processes at a conscious level can be called "free will", even if the output is totally determined on the inputs and processes they are subjected to.

HEy.

No amount of complexity amounts to freedom.
If this is your position then - why say IMO? Who's opinion?

This question is important. It supersedes all other work and questions in all fields.

Stercus Accidit

Kante wrote: »

HEy.

No amount of complexity amounts to freedom.
If this is your position then - why say IMO? Who's opinion?

This question is important. It supersedes all other work and questions in all fields.

Its my opinion that the brain is sufficiently complex that its processes at a conscious level could be called "free will" as it is likely to be described in its popular terms. But by the given definition of free will, the idea you can make decisions outside of determinism, no, its not compatible.

So my opinion is;

Brain function is deterministic, defined by laws, but the popular term "free will" whilst not totally correct, is sufficiently close to the reality as the processes a decision are put through are so complex.

Objectively, there is no free will, but what we have is close enough that you wont be making a successful defensive argument based on determinism in a court of law for committing a crime. But if free will describes anything close to reality at all, it would be the highly complex processes of the brain, but it is only close to describing them, with determinism being the reality.

Joe1919

Free Will = self determinism

Zillah

Joe1919 wrote: »

Free Will = self determinism

Define "self" please. Do remember to consider issue such as genetics, environment and the various factors that shape and alter the brain.

Kante

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Its my opinion that the brain is sufficiently complex that its processes at a conscious level could be called "free will" as it is likely to be described in its popular terms. But by the given definition of free will, the idea you can make decisions outside of determinism, no, its not compatible.

So my opinion is;

Brain function is deterministic, defined by laws, but the popular term "free will" whilst not totally correct, is sufficiently close to the reality as the processes a decision are put through are so complex.

Objectively, there is no free will, but what we have is close enough that you wont be making a successful defensive argument based on determinism in a court of law for committing a crime. But if free will describes anything close to reality at all, it would be the highly complex processes of the brain, but it is only close to describing them, with determinism being the reality.

All that complexity does is make things more complex and that is far removed and no explanation of freedom. Complexity may make it more difficult to assess which attribute of the entity made the decision.

An infinity powerful computer does not have free will.
there is nothing akin to freewill. THere is nothing "that's close enough" to free will.

Kante

Just found this.. Pretty happy that I've found this summary but still unsatisfied with the compatibilist slant.
This is a decent synopsis of Daniel Dennetts theory.
Compatibilism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC4dXAB7VNI

Joe1919

Zillah wrote: »

Define "self" please. Do remember to consider issue such as genetics, environment and the various factors that shape and alter the brain.

I would generally support the idea of compatibilism and the idea that when properly understood, freedom is the same as determinism in that it is 'I' who determine the action if the action is free i.e. a person acts freely when he makes a conscious decision in accordance with his desires and within his constraints.

Of course, the problem then becomes 'What is the 'I' or 'Ego' or 'self' and the problem becomes a philosophy of mind problem in terms of defining the subjective 'self' etc. and there is yet no conclusive answer.

My own opinion of 'self' would be similar to John Locke's and would be that the 'self' consists of all you have mentioned, as well as the continuity of memory. I would disagree with David Hume's definition of the self as only a 'bundle of perceptions' as one can not have a perception without someone to perceive, or one can not have a object of perception without a subject to perceive it.

My point however is that freedom is a 'function' of consciousness and 'consciousness' is a function of the brain and hence 'freedom' is a brain function that gives us choice and helps us determine our actions.

I also think that this free-will versus determinism argument is unimportant from the point of view of the concept of 'responsibility', as the idea of responsibility can stand on its own. (e.g. as a social construct or based on emotion etc.)( Strawson has a great but complicated essay on this).
http://www.phil.uu.nl/~joel/teaching/strawson.pdf

Stercus Accidit

Kante wrote: »

All that complexity does is make things more complex and that is far removed and no explanation of freedom. Complexity may make it more difficult to assess which attribute of the entity made the decision.

An infinity powerful computer does not have free will.
there is nothing akin to freewill. THere is nothing "that's close enough" to free will.

I don't disagree, I just said that complex brain function would be as close as you'd get, but is still deterministic, meaning its not free at all.

But I agree with your point, no matter how complex the process is, it is no closer to free will than a coin toss or typing 2 + 2 and hitting return on a calculator.

Kante

Cheers for post stercus..
I suppose what I'm looking for is a reasonable argument from evolutionary theorists as to how free will evolved. NOT - how it is now compatible with determined brain, but how it evolved.

Selfish gene and ext. phenotype describe a probable scenario as to how simplicity evolved into complexity but I cannot find any scenario where mere traits, properties and characteristics of matter evolve free will ala the film - "war games"
Otherwise I'm agreeing with Chomsky insomuch as Linguistics and the study thereof holds the key of consciousness evolution

tech77

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Its my opinion that the brain is sufficiently complex that its processes at a conscious level could be called "free will" as it is likely to be described in its popular terms. But by the given definition of free will, the idea you can make decisions outside of determinism, no, its not compatible.

So my opinion is;

Brain function is deterministic, defined by laws, but the popular term "free will" whilst not totally correct, is sufficiently close to the reality as the processes a decision are put through are so complex.

Objectively, there is no free will, but what we have is close enough that you wont be making a successful defensive argument based on determinism in a court of law for committing a crime. But if free will describes anything close to reality at all, it would be the highly complex processes of the brain, but it is only close to describing them, with determinism being the reality.

Just about free will approximating the complex processes of the brain.
The exact link between the complex processes of the brain and behaviour may (unfortunately/?fortunately ) prove to be unknowable.
As long as the relationship between behaviour and the brain's workings are not fully known, doesn't the idea of "free-will" always have currency.
Having said all that, i'd be probably more deterministically-minded.

Kante

tech77 wrote: »

Just about free will approximating the complex processes of the brain.
The exact link between the complex processes of the brain and behaviour may (unfortunately/?fortunately ) prove to be unknowable.
As long as the relationship between behaviour and the brain's workings are not fully known, doesn't the idea of "free-will" always have currency.
Having said all that, i'd be probably more deterministically-minded.

If you are really deterministically minded well then you lose the right to say these things triumphantly. You didn't have a choice. You didn't have anything to do with it. There is no "you".

tech77

Kante wrote: »

If you are really deterministically minded well then you lose the right to say these things triumphantly. You didn't have a choice. You didn't have anything to do with it. There is no "you".

What i mean by "i'd probably be more deterministically-minded" is just "i would tend to think things are deterministic".

Not sure what you mean by your post tbh- are you saying tending to believe in determinism is inconsistent with determinism?
Not really sure what you're driving at.
I'm ultimately OK with the idea that my brain might be deterministic and i was destined to post that- if that's what you mean.
Or are you saying that the last post might be a paradox.

A belief in determinism isn't inconsistent with either determinism or free-will, is it?
A belief in free-will isn't inconsistent with either determinism or free-will is it?
Neither are paradoxes, are they?
Or am i missing something here- haven't thought too much about it tbh.

Anyway, what i was saying in my last post was basically:
It would seem that if we don't know, among other things, the exact link between the workings of the brain and behaviour (but especially this i would think), isn't there always the possibility of free-will.