Compatible? Not Really.

_{Barry Arrington

December 20, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

One of our commenters says he has solved the determinism problem by becoming a “compatibilist.” Briefly, a compatibilist is someone who tries to avoid the logic of his premises by resorting to semantic dodges about the meaning of free will. The compatibilist says that free will is compatible with determinism (thus the name). Isn’t that kinda like saying my existence is compatible with my nonexistence? Yes, it is. But the compatibilist avoids this problem by re-defining “free will.” The compatibilist says that “free will” does not mean “the liberty to choose;” instead, says he, it means “the absence of coercion.” In other words, he says that so long as a choice is not coerced it is completely free even if it is utterly determined.

The problem with this approach is easy to see – just as we don’t get to win a game by changing the rules to suit us in the middle of the game, we don’t get to impose meaning on words to suit the conclusion we want to reach. The entire issue in the determinism/free will debate is whether we have liberty to choose. Suppose I ask my friend Joe the following question: “Do I have free will, if by “free will” I mean ‘the liberty to choose?’” It is obviously no answer to that question to say, “Yes, you have free will if by free will you mean, “the absence of coercion.” I really do want to explore the question about whether I have the liberty to choose, and Joe’s answer is not helpful. You might even say Joe dodged the question. Thus, in the end, the compatibilist answers a question no one has asked.

“Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1953, aphorism 109

Comments

No, I would like for you to start with "determinism." ThanksStephenB_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

“The first order of business in any discussion is to define terms.” Good idea. Would you care to start with “free will”. How about Barry's definition: ‘the liberty to choose?’tribune7_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Re #16 "The first order of business in any discussion is to define terms." Good idea. Would you care to start with "free will". ThanksMark Frank_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

-----Mark Frank: "Compatabilism is a mainstream philosophical view, the subject of thousands of in-depth articles in philosophical journals. If it was a semantic dodge and the problem was so easy to see then I think it would have died some time ago." There is only one rational way to reconcile "predestination" with "free will" and that is to acknowledge that God's ultimtate plans for his creatures, to whom he has given a "measure" of free will, will paradoxically become manifest over time. In that sense, an apparent contradiction can be resolved as a paradox on the grounds that God's foreknowledge does not interfere with man's free will. Religious compatibilism cannot accept this paradox and tries to reduce God as one who needs to experience change in time. Under the circumstances, they sacrifice God's omnipotence and undercut their own doctrine. Materialist compatibilism, however, is a radically different proposition. It seeks to reconcile deterministic mechanism with human free will. Clearly, this can't be made to work without revising terms, which is another way of saying that it cannot work. Some appeal to the principle of "indeterminancy," but that doesn't work either. Among those "thousands" of articles that you allude to, I suspect that most of them are of the mildly irrational variety that comes from religious journals rather than the blatantly irrational variety that you propose. The first order of business in any discussion is to define terms. No one can have a rational discussion with you until you define and win agreement on the definition of "determinism." Once that happens, your errors will be obvious.StephenB_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

The interesting thing about ribczynski is that he knows so little about the evolution debate and yet has been a participant at Panda's Thumb for over a couple years. You would think that they could develop a farm team over there that could give us a run for the money instead of just hurling insults and providing irrelevant sniping. I hope ribczynski or his compatriots keep on posting here just as an example of how ill informed they are. They are great exemplars for those trying to make up their minds. Where is their A team or do they have one? I hope they do have one because the ones that have come here have inane arguments and good arguments are always necessary to hone in on the best position.jerry_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

My brother once commented that since it can’t be predicted with consistent accuracy which choices we will make, we have the functional equivalent of free will, and that’s all that matters. I was once a militant, Dawkins-style atheist, and am now a devout Christian theist. No one who knew me would have ever predicted that choice.GilDodgen_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Mark-- but I can predict nearly 100% that he will eat it. Mark, nearly 100 percent is not determinism. To be able to predict how someone will choose is not prevent them choosing. It is just to understand the process of choosing. Or in poker, that from your hand you know that the odds are you will win the pot, doesn't mean you will win the pot.tribune7_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

For anyone who wants to know, here is what ribczynski really thinks of me, his name is keiths on this thread
I recognize that username... Dave probably remembers him as well for his interesting debate style, which I'm sure others may remember. Now here's what I think of rib/KeithS/woctor/whatever, and I'm not going to hide this comment on some other forum. He's intractable to reason, will not concede on any minor point unless forced to, but he's useful as a foil for debate since he's willing to give up the farm in order to continue a line of debate.Patrick_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

I find the whole discussion amusing. The whole idea of determinism would make sense if there was evidence of determinism in our universe. In nearly all of nature, we find determinism operating except for one key minor area and that is life. If the determinist could show that life arose from deterministic processes or that new FCSI arose from deterministic processes we would not be here because their logic would not allow this thread to exist. The whole rationale for the arguments we are having is that determinism has failed miserably in this one small corner of the universe called life. Also it fails in the overall operation of the universe itself through the forces discovered in the Standard Model plus gravity plus some other parameters. Indeed all our discussion are contingent on the failure of determinism to explain key things. As I said I find the discussion amusing as people dance around the obvious, namely that determinism is a failure.jerry_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Well, it seems the link does not work. I am not sure what is the problem. I try again: linkgpuccio_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Mark, Rib and others: Indeed, I think that the subject of compatibilism came out on this other thread, in a comments by Mark. So, I invite those interested to check that too: "Mark: There is a new thread open on compatibilism. I would appreciate your comments (or a link to them) there. The subject certainly deserves a detailed discussion, even beyond the problem of hypocrisy. Moreover, my point was not so much to affirm that materialism iswrong, but that, is materialism is right, compatibilism is wrong. In other words, my reasoning was: “responsibility, reason, the reaction of consciousness, and many other things” are all things which, in a materialist context, arise from necessity, chance, or a mix of the two. Brain states arise form those causal factors (in a materialistic context). Context too arises from thsoe causal factors. Therefore, none of those concepts is relevant to affirm any free will, alwys in a materialistic context. In other words, Dennett cannot affirm that “intentionality, rational action, agency, and personhood” are in some way a manifestation, or a tool, of free will, if those same things are the result of necessity and chance. However you put it, if necessity and chance are the only rules, there is no room for true free will: one can only, as Dennett does, redefine the appearance of free will as true free will, but that is only playing with words." Mark, I had just posted an answer to you on that thread, inviting you here, but I see you have anticipated me. I paste that response here, because I think it could be a good response to Rib too.gpuccio_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

"The problem with this approach is easy to see" Compatabilism is a mainstream philosophical view, the subject of thousands of in-depth articles in philosophical journals. If it was a semantic dodge and the problem was so easy to see then I think it would have died some time ago. One way of beginning to understand compatabilism (for anyone who is seriously interested) is to recognise that it is meaningless to talk of freedom without reference to some kind of context of constraint - freedom from what? In one sense I am free to rob the shop next door in a way that I am not free to fly unaided over the roof. In another sense I am free to fly unaided over the roof but not free to rob the shop next door. So the compatabilist asks - when we talk of free will - what constraint is this freedom opposed to? One reason that people find compatabilism hard to take is that they equate "constrained" with "predictable". I give my dog the freedom to eat or reject his dinner (in the sense of not physically constraining him or punishing him) but I can predict nearly 100% that he will eat it. This doesn't seem a problem when we consider a dog but it feels odd applied to people, especially ourselves. We feel uneasy when we think someone might be able to predict our own choices - but that prediction is not in itself a constraint. To be able to predict how someone will choose is not prevent them choosing. It is just to understand the process of choosing. This is long, subtle and fascinating debate - much too long to be resolved on this website. Ironically it is this detailed linguistic approach that Wittgenstein was recommending in the famous quote from PI.Mark Frank_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

PPS: i forgot, the last time, chaos was trotted out as an instnce of law giving rise rto complexity. Actually no. The butterfly effect is about amplification of small differences in initial conditions to yield large divergence on outcomes across time, as happened with Lorentz when he re-ran a weather simulation and could not get the same result twice. That is, it is chance circumstances that yield the divergence, not the deterministic mechanical laws at work. high contingency reliably traces to chance and/or intelligence.kairosfocus_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

PS: Barry, pardon my extensive excerpt of the "Wales" exsmple, but in the last thread where it came up, side reference or shorter citation led to strawmannish distortions on the part of evo mat advocates.kairosfocus_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

Rib (and Clive): I followed up Clive's link. In the very next post there, I could not help but see this:
KF's claims for his pet concept of "FSCI" . . .
So, it seems I, too, as one directly misrepresented and attacked behind my back need to say a few things about . . . 1] the subtext of uncivil contempt Such language as I just cited, Rib, is plainly condescendigly and dismissively uncivil, strawmannish and laced with contemptuous ad hominems. It also builds on a serious misrepresentation of the facts of what the term Functionally Specific Complex Information refers to and its degree of warrant as a sign of intelligence. For, when an idea can be cartoonishly portrayed as the words of a mere blog thread commenter, that is a very different thing than when it is squarely faced as the result of the work orf men like Orgel, Yockey and Wickens as they pursued serious studies on the origin of life. (A fact that I have pointed out to you peviously and which is also easily accessible in Appendix 3 my always linked. You have no excuse.) Moreover, it begins to confirm to me that you, Rib, plainly have a habitual pattern of misrepresentation and contempt in your dealings with us at UD, and with ID in general. [Onlookers, for a current case in point -- one that is also not without relevance to the theme of this thread, as it addresses Rib's new "pet" example, split brain patients and their reported inescapable clashing double-personality disorders -- observe my comment here, especially the cite from a Nature article that gives a counterexample.] 2] Clarifying FSCI, yet once again FYI, Rib, the specific context of FSCI is from chapter 8 of Thaxton et al's The Mystery of Life's origin, where the writers of the first technical level ID book, cite key OOL researchers from the 1970's - 80's. In particular, here is where we see the FSCI concept emerging:
Yockey [7] and Wickens [5] develop the same distinction [as Orgel, who in 1973 introduced the concept of complex, specified information], explaining that "order" is a statistical concept referring to regularity such as might characterize a series of digits in a number, or the ions of an inorganic crystal. On the other hand, "organization" refers to physical systems and the specific set of spatio-temporal and functional relationships among their parts. Yockey and Wickens note that informational macromolecules have a low degree of order but a high degree of specified complexity. In short, the redundant order of crystals cannot give rise to specified complexity of the kind or magnitude found in biological organization; attempts to relate the two have little future. [TMLO, (Dallas, TX: Lewis and Stanley reprint), 1992, erratum insert, p. 130.]
In short, FSCI is not my "pet" concept, but a descriptive summary of a categorisation that emerged as OOL researchers struggled to understand the difference between crystals, random polymers and informational macromolecules. In so doing, they identified a very familiar concept -- at least to those of us with hardware or software engineering design and development or troubleshooting experience and knowledge. Namely, complex, functionally specific organisation of components in systems that depend on properly interacting parts to fulfill objective functions. For that matter, this is exactly the same concept that we see in textual information as expressed in words, sentences and paragraphs in a real-world language. Furthermore, on massive experience, such FSCI reliably points to intelligent design when we see it in cases where we independently know the origin story. Thus, we are entitled to confidently infer to design when we see FSCI; on the same provisional basis, quite literally, as sustains the second law of thermodynamics in its statistical form. And, to date neither you nor your friends from Antievolution.org have been able to instantiate a good counterexample -- something that would be all over the Internet, if it were real. So, your dismissive contempt behind my back is utterly without justification, and is quite revealing, sir. Now, tying back into the theme for this thread . . . 3] back to Welcome to Wales Let us again reflect on the same Welcome to Wales gedankenexperiment that you have yet to answer solidly on the merits; and which underscores the force of what Barry, Stephen and Clive are saying in this thread. For those who came in late, I excerpt Appendix 7, the always linked:
. . . suppose you were in a train and saw [outside the window] rocks you believe were pushed there by chance + necessity only, spelling out: WELCOME TO WALES. Would you believe the apparent message, why? [ . . . . ] 1 --> We know, immediately, that chance + necessity, acting on a pile of rocks on a hillside, can make them roll down the hillside and take up an arbitrary conformation. There thus is no in-principle reason to reject them taking up the shape: "WELCOME TO WALES" any more than any other configuration. Especially if, say, by extremely good luck we have seen the rocks fall and take up this shape for ourselves. [If that ever happens to you, though, change your travel plans and head straight for Las Vegas before your "hot streak" runs out!] 2 --> Now, while you are packing for Vegas, let's think a bit: [a] the result of the for- the- sake- of- argument stroke of good luck is an apparent message, which was [b] formed by chance + necessity only acting on matter and energy across space and time. That is, [c] it would be lucky noise at work. Let us observe, also: [d] the shape taken on by the cluster of rocks as they fall and settle is arbitrary, but [e] the meaning assigned to the apparent message is as a result of the imposition of symbolic meaning on certain glyphs that take up particular alphanumerical shapes under certain conventions. That is, it is a mental (and even social) act. One pregnant with the points that [f] language at its best refers accurately to reality, so that [g] we often trust its deliverances once we hold the source credible . . . . 3 --> But, this brings up the key issue of credibility: should we believe the substantial contents of such an apparent message sourced in lucky noise rather than a purposeful arrangement? That is, would it be well-warranted to accept it as -- here, echoing Aristotle in Metaphysics, 1011b -- "saying of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not"? (That is, is such an apparent message credibly a true message?) 4 --> The answer is obvious: no. For, the adjusted example aptly illustrates how cause-effect chains tracing to mechanical necessity and chance circumstances acting on matter and energy are utterly unconnected to the issue of making logically and empirically well-warranted assertions about states of affairs in the world. For a crude but illuminating further instance, neuronal impulses are in volts and are in specific locations in the body; but meaningfulness, codes, algorithms, truth and falsehood, propositions and their entailments simply are not like that. That is, mental concepts and constructs are radically different from physical entities, interactions and signals. So, it is highly questionable (thus needs to be shown not merely assumed or asserted) that such radical differences could or do credibly arise from mere interaction of physical components under only the forces of chance and blind mechanical necessity. For this demonstration, however, we seek in vain: the matter is routinely assumed or asserted away, often by claiming (contrary to the relevant history and philosophical considerations) that science can only properly explain by reference in the end to such ultimately physical-material forces.
Thus, we can see the clear contrast between cause-effect trains tracing to mechanical necessity based on the forces and materials of nature, and chance circumstances, and the acts of mind. Further to this, to reiterate yet once more -- for the benefit of the onlooker, especially -- lawlike necessity does not lead to high contingency; but instead to reliably repeated patterns under sufficiently similar initial conditions. Highly contingent outcomes (such as the uppermost face on a tossed die) are the products of chance and/or intelligent direction. Indeed, this gives us a convenient definition of chance [as credibly undirected contingency] and design [as purposefully directed contingency]. There is no known "fourth causal factor." And that has been so since Plato's day. So, if we see an entity that has in it in excess of 500 - 1,000 bits of information storage capacity, and is functionaly specific, we have two choices: incredibly lucky chance [i.e the "lucky noise" that you so contemptuously dismiss when I am not there to speak for myself], or intelligence. (All but needless to say, routinely FSCI is produced by intelligence. Production by lucky noise is an abstract physical possibility, not an observation.) So, consider the stones as extra-large pixels, spelling out by lucky noise Welcome to Wales in the equivalent of 300 dpi inkjet Times Roman or Lucida or whatever. This would instantiate well over 1 kbit. By such happenstance, per thought exercise, we see glyphs spelling out an apparent message. But, this is the product of chance plus blind forces acting on equally blind material entities. Thus, we have no reason to have confidence in the outcome being a real message. For, that which is determined without residue by chance conditions and blind force, only by incredible accident would hit on informational coding, much less truth. and that brings us back to . . . 4] real minds vs the delusion of choice. Now,t eh root word for LOGIC is LEG, a word that denotes "choice." tha tis, the Greek thinkers intheir wisdom stressed the centrality odf real choice in reasoning. We mus tbe free to think and choose for ourselves, to make sense and reason with reference to reality. Otherwise, all is noise and blind force, however mediated genetically, environmentally and culturally. Stephen captures the implicatins aptly:
You can choose, but you can’t; your actions are determined except that they are not; you are coerced by nature, but you are not coerced by humans, who as it turns out are coerced by nature, which means that they have no choice about whether they coerce you or not; so, everyone is coerced; however, no one is really coerced provided that a thing can be true and false at the same time and under the same formal circumstances.
In short, we are yet again at reductio ad absurdum via self-referential incoherence of evolutionary materialism and its consequence, the determinism of blind force and chance circumstances. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

rib, Not only is the outcome of the argument determined, so are the sides, the premises, the argument, the conclusion, everything. I really suspect that you're not appreciating the full weight of determinism. "If determinism is true, it does not follow that effort is hopeless, that minds cannot be changed, that tragedy cannot be averted, etc. Those things are part of the causal net and they continue to depend in part on what we do and don’t do." What we do and don't do depend on it, not vice versa, otherwise it's not determinism. If there remains any "us" outside of the nexus of events, then "we" are not determined. It's blatantly clear. And what Lewis said was that there are "Men Without Chests"--not "men with chests"--which has, by the way, nothing at all to do with taking your insults. He was talking about men who debunk traditional morality as being all intellect and animal appetite. Here is the relevant portion from The Abolition of Man: "We were told it all long ago by Plato. As the king governs by his executive, so Reason in man must rule the mere appetites by means of the 'spirited element'. The head rules the belly through the chest—the seat, as Alanus tells us, of Magnanimity, of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest-Magnanimity-Sentiment—these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal." And I don't see Bukowski as the anti-Lewis or anti-Chesterton. He's not even in their league. For anyone who wants to know, here is what ribczynski really thinks of me, his name is keiths on this thread: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5735;st=4110#entry130780 he said "Clive belongs to that smarmy subclass of believers who go around quoting Chesterton and C.S. Lewis like Holy Writ. Extreme illness calls for extreme treatment. I prescribe solitary confinement with a forced diet of Burroughs and Bukowski. Once that has had the desired effect, we can begin to introduce him gradually to the reality-based world." I live in the reality-based world partner. I am a patient moderator with you rib, I expect some decency in return. When I first started moderating you complained that there was a double standard of moderation, so I apologized on behalf of all who gave you any undue disrespect, I expect an apology in return for your undue disrespect to me.Clive Hayden_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

Barry, I stumping for a new wave of open-mindedness. If we probe a bit more deeply, the truth will manifest itself. Here is the way it works: You can choose, but you can't; your actions are determined except that they are not; you are coerced by nature, but you are not coerced by humans, who as it turns out are coerced by nature, which means that they have no choice about whether they coerce you or not; so, everyone is coerced; however, no one is really coerced provided that a thing can be true and false at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. Sounds good to me.StephenB_{December 20, 2008
December
12
Dec
20
20
2008
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

On the other thread, Clive asks:
Do you think you can stem the tide of anyone else’s predetermined viewpoints? By strict determinism, Christians, ID advocates, evolutionists, etc., couldn’t have been otherwise.
Sotto Voce's comments on this were admirably clear, but it never hurts to reiterate. If determinism is true, it does not follow that effort is hopeless, that minds cannot be changed, that tragedy cannot be averted, etc. Those things are part of the causal net and they continue to depend in part on what we do and don't do. The fact that an argument's outcome is fixed deterministically does not mean that it doesn't still depend on the points raised or the skill of the debaters. It does, and it may be won or lost depending on them. It's just that those things are predetermined also.
Here is the book Orthodoxy for you rib.
Thank you. I'll read it. Will you read Freedom Evolves? Even if you find yourself disagreeing with much of it, it's good to know how the "other side" thinks.
And by the way rib, I have read Bukowski, he doesn’t impress me like Chesterton or Lewis...
I recommended Bukowski not to impress you, but simply to neutralize some of the excess Chesterton and Lewis. You have to admit, Bukowski and Burroughs are the anti-Lewis and the anti-Chesterton.
...and I don’t appreciate being called “smarmy”.
Clive, are we not "men with chests", to borrow C.S. Lewis' phrase? We can withstand a little disapproval from our opponents.ribczynski_{December 19, 2008
December
12
Dec
19
19
2008
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

This thread is an offshoot of a discussion on compatibilism that started on another thread, so readers may want to peruse those comments before taking up the discussion here.ribczynski_{December 19, 2008
December
12
Dec
19
19
2008
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply