Then it's not actually a choice and not compatibilist. There's no actual (ontological) freedom involved. — TerrapinStation

It is a choice by definition (a choice is a behavior in which a person has multiple options before them, and selects one), and I explained how it is consistent with determinism, so it is compatibilist.

In your initial post, i don't think that you're describing compatibilism in either 1 or 2. — Terrapin Station

Thanks for the comment. It reminded me that I failed to include a preliminary description of a compatibilist choice. I have added that - it's now the second paragraph of the Op, and I'll repeat it here:

By definition, a choice is a behavior in which a person has multiple options before them, and selects one. Choices are plausibly consistent with compatibilism because they are the product of a person's memories, beliefs, dispositions, and impulses. At a point in time, memories, beliefs and dispositions are fixed. Impulses imply a seemingly random element to the choice, but not actually random. The impulse has a basis in one's attitude at the moment (e.g. optimistic, pessimistic, anger, happiness...) or related to an internal or external factor that triggers a transient memory or feeling. These factors plausibly collectively determine the decision - no alternative decision could have been made given the specific set of memories, beliefs dispositions, and impulses that were present at the time of the decision. For purposes of this discussion, we'll assume that there were deterministic causes of the prior memories, beliefs and dispositions as well (in general, a combination of nature and nurture).

The drunk driver chose to drive while drunk, and chose to drive off after hitting the bicyclist. These decisions were plausibly the deterministic result of her beliefs, dispositions, and impulses of the moment. The question I was addressing in #1 and #2 pertained to whether or not a plausible account of moral accountability could be provided.

I still think that argumentum ad populums are fallacies. — Terrapin Station

I'm not making an argumentum ad populum. I'm noting that each of us has a natural reaction to such deeds as I've described, and it is these natural reactions that are the basis for assigning responsibility.

The Op over-generalizes. There are cases in which medication is appropriate and beneficial. Some people are so psychotically impaired that this is their only chance for anything close to a normal life. There are also some who benefit from temporary use of anti-depressants. Many doctors ARE too quick to prescribe and too willing to continue a medication, but I wouldn't demonize the entire profession. Better research, better guidelines, and better training is called for.

"
Well the Guardian is fairly reputable, and two sources is better than one, whereas the Canary is new and 'radical', and that article seemed to be sourced mainly in tweets. Still, the story is un-confirmed elsewhere, and the meetings denied by both parties. "
The important thing is that we ahould not treat the claim of meetings as fact. Even if true, it will only be relevant if there is admissable evidence for it. We have to wait for Mueller's report to know what what facts can be established. In the meantime, we just have these little tidbits, that may or may not pan out.

The Guardian says they were told this by two sources. That is not "fake news". It may be false, but fake news is the spreading of stories that have been thoroughly discredited - like the story about vaccinations causing autism. As far as I can tell, this story hasn't been discredited - it's simply been denied by Assange, which is hardly surprising. Whether it's true or false, no one's going to be convicted on the basis of there being two unnamed source telling a newspaper.

Am I failing to provide the sort of support you think I should give?

For what it's worth, I'm not pulling for Trump to fail. I related this in a post I made awhile back (here).

Sure, there's lots of factors in addition to her mother, but the drunk driving woman deserved to be convicted because she was the direct cause of the bicyclists death, unless someone was forcing her against her will.

One incompatibilist argument is to claim that if LFW is false, then the bicyclists death was entailed by the state of the universe when the big bang occurred: everything that follows is deterministic, so there were no true choices and thus no one to blame. This overlooks the role of the direct cause, and I'm explaining that we naturally cast blame to the direct cause, and that it is reasonable to do so.

Right, IF her past had been different, she would have been raised in such a way as to potentially care and emphasize moral values. However, in the scenario you provide, she was not, in fact, raised that way. — Mentalusion

I was giving one example of a difference in the past that might have made a difference. For example, a near miss where she almost kills someone or herself.

The conclusions of the thought experiment seem to be committed to the view that the only appropriate choice or decision is the one that has a preponderance of reason in its favor. — Mentalusion

No. I mentioned that the choice was a product of beliefs, disposition, and impulse. In impulsive choice is not rational, but the impulse is the reason for it.

Regarding an "executive decision" - I suggest this is due to nonlinear logic/pattern recognition/insight. This is the process where we recognize a solution to a problem without having arrived at it deductively. Depending on the circumstance, it can be subconsciously influenced by desires, false beliefs (like a racist jumping to conclusions about something done by a member of the hated race), or by a positive or negative attitude. Our judgment can be impacted by any number of things - becoming angry due to a perceived slight (getting cut off in traffic, arguing with a spouse about money, grief...). For this reason, I used possible world semantics to conceptually wind back the clock to the point of decision, keeping every possible factor identical.

Understand that I'm not suggesting Libertarian Free Will is impossible or incoherent. I'm just showing that compatibilism is also coherent and plausible, it just depends on a different conceptual framework.

"I am still waiting for an account of responsibility that works if we have no free will and all acts are determined. "
Here's two compatibilist accounts of responsibility:

1.The natural reaction to hearing about the drunk driver killing the bicyclist is a reactive attitude that the driver is guilty. In most cases, a perpetrator has a feeling of guilt after recognizing a consequence of a bad choice (e.g. the girl expressed this to friends, and it was these friends who reported the crime).These morally reactive attitudes are the basis of our moral responsibility practices. They are natural responses, not mere social convention.They are an aspect of interpersonal relations and expectations, and of our internal feelings. It is inconceivable that we would stop holding such people morally accountable, or stop feeling guilty, even if it were somehow proven that determinism is true. Indeed, the fact that we have these attitudes contributes to our behavior, because we generally prefer to avoid guilt and social approbation, and enjoy pride and respect.

2. Could the drunk driver have done differently? Yes she could have, if she had held the strong belief that the risk of driving drunk was so great that it outweighed her impulse to do so. This could only have occurred had there been something different about the past (formation of that belief), but that's reasonable. If our choices aren't the result of our personal beliefs, dispositions, and impulses - what are they? Random?

When she is released from prison, let’s hope she will actually have learned this, and doesn’t repeat the risky behavior. Our beliefs and dispositions are part of what we are - we own the results, and this makes us accountable. We can learn new beliefs, and these will influence our behavior.

#1 and #2 are more or less independent, but in tandem they provide not only a coherent account of moral responsibility, they also explain why normal functioning people strive for generally moral behavior. We want to avoid guilt, fit in, and we want to avoid approbation by others. We CAN always do better, but it requires learning things. Social consequences (positive and negative) and internal guilt/pride provide incentives to learn what is needed to behave morally. Calvinists believe our lives are fully determined and we can't really change what we are destined to do. However, each Calvinist strives to prove to everyone, including themselves, that they are among the saved - they prove this by their behavior.

I am going to post this in a new thread, to solicit input from more than the one or two that will read this buried in the current thread.

", it is not a choice at all. Unless there is more than one possibility open, there is nothing to choose. "
People engage in a behavior we call "choosing", this is indisputable. Even if a different choice could not have been made, it is still the case that the choice has been made and it is is a direct result of the choosers deliberation. The choice is in the causal chain.

I strongly disagree that we should support policies we disagree with. That is beyond absurd- no President has ever received that kind of support.

Trump makes no attempt to achieve consensus or compromise. He bullies, makes threats, and denigrates those who disagree with him daily. Much of his behavior is inexcusable, and what I think is absurd is that people defend his behavior just because they like his policies. Everyone should recognize bad behavior and call it out, even if that behavior results in policies they desire.

During the campaign, supporters extolled his willingness to be "politically incorrect." They didn't seem to realize that this guaranteed he would piss people off and they would react.

Two wrongs don't make a right. We should not respond to bad behavior with more bad behavior. But we should still call out that bad behavior.

I would be happy if Trump's policies have a positive impact, even if they are policies I disagree with. I'm doubtful, but I will give him his due if it works out. But it will never be OK to be a jerk.

If I voted in a Chimp for President, I would not defend his throwing his shit at people despite that being Chimp-normal. Trump supporters should not defend Trump's shit-throwing either, even though it is Trump-normal.

What is entailed by supporting Trump?

It's normal to have policy disagreements. Surely you aren't expecting us to support his nasty rhetoric, like name calling, or his labelling unflattering news as "fake", or proclaiming the press the "enemy of the people." You can't expect us to support his disdain for the rule of law.

Respect the office? Sure. The office is bigger than the man. What else?

The limit is synonymous to asymptote in the case in question, and an asymptote is never reached. That's why "=" is appropriate.

It's subjective how one identifies responsibility. Consider this scenario: a parent raises a child with a lack of discipline, essentially letting the child do whatever she pleases while shielding the child from any negative consequences. The child reaches adulthood and behaves irresponsibly, drinking to excess and driving. One day, the adult child is driving drunk and hits bicyclist; the adult child drives away leaving the bicyclist on the road to die. Is this adult child responsible, or is the parent who failed to teach the child discipline and responsibility? This actually happened in Houston a few years ago. The driver's sister testified that it was their mother's fault for the way she was raised. I'll bet you agree with me that the adult child is responsible.

One can always find someone else to blame, but as a society we hold the actor responsible. By so doing, we impress upon others the need to take responsibility for his actions. Some will learn this and be less likely to behave recklessly. Others won't. Both will be exhibiting behavior that can plausibly considered to have been determined by their beliefs, dispositions, and impulses.

Trump's view on this implies he doesn't think justice is possible, because it all comes down to the judge being antagonistic or sympathetic to the person or position. Trump doesn't accept, or doesn't understand, rule of law.

" If whatever I do is fully immanent, fully determined, in the state of the world before we are conceived, then our actual existence can play no role in determining how we act. "
If A causes B, and B causes C it is still the case that B's existence caused C. If we did not exist, we could not act.

It's consistent with determinism either way.

Making a seemingly random choice is an impulse.

Sure. Pseudorandom numbers are epistemically random. They're still deterministic. Making choices that seem free is what compatibilism is all about.

There is no such thing as a random number generator*. There are pseudo random number generators. Rolls of dice and coin flops are deterministic. You may think you are picking a number randomly, but it could be due to something in the environment triggering it. It is impossible to judge. Statistical tests can be done, just like those used to assess the quality of pseudorandom generators. I've seen some studies, and it doesn't look good for randomness (I'll try to find a paper).

*(It would theoretically be possible to create one based on quantum indeterminacy, but our minds are probably not uncollapsed quantum systems).

Although the argument in the Op fails because of the equivocal use of "responsibility", premise 1 seems true and constitutes a good reason to believe that our choices are not the product of libertarian free will (LFW).

The choices we make are the product of our beliefs, dispositions, and impulses. These seem to be the cause of the choice. Each belief, disposition, and impulse seem to have been caused. Hence, our choices could not have been different.

As a thought experiment: In the actual world, you are presented with a choice between X and Y. You deliberate on the options, weighing pros &cons consistent with your background beliefs and desires, and you ultimately choose X (possibly influenced by some sudden impulse). Is there a possible world with an identical history to this one, so that you have exactly the same background beliefs, desires and impulses at the point at which the choice is presented - but you instead choose Y?

If yes, then your choice is made for no reason.
If no, then your choice has been caused (consistent with determinism).

Consequently, LFW entails making choices for no reason. I don't think it's reasonable to believe we make choices for no reason, which suggests LFW is false.

Why not just edit the post, and enter what you wanted to say?

This is an ontological, not an epistemological question about ethics. I am aware atheists can be very moral beings.
- This is a question for non-theists who hold to objectivity in ethics (moral realists) - e.g. it is always true that murdering someone for no reason is morally wrong, etc.
- Grounding morality in: evolution (naturalistic fallacy), sentiment (subjectivity), or human reason (ultimately subjective, for whose reason are we speaking of? And human reason, limited as it is, cannot construct moral laws) seems incoherent. Short of Platonism, are these all the options a non-theist has at his disposal? — Modern Conviviality

Humans have the capacity to make moral judgments. These judgments are rooted in empathy, the feeling invoked when considering the condition of others. We don't have to be taught that it's"wrong" to cause another pain and suffering; we literally feel it to be so - if we function properly (sociopaths do not function properly). That act x is wrong is a semantic description of our natural empathy-based sensation of wrongness. It is a properly basic belief, and not mere opinion because we have the belief innately. The belief/feeling is analyzable and seen to be consistent with the survival and thriving of our species. So the ontic fact to which the proposition "x is wrong" corresponds is: the ingrained empathetic feeling in conjunction with the objective benefit to the species of a proper moral judgment.

I don't find the "association with a bleak past" very compelling — Bitter Crank

I don't find your reasoning very compelling. You know that the term is considered offensive by some people, and abandoning the term doesn't constrain your ability to communicate since other terms are available that have the exact same referrent. Therefore willfully continuing to use the term implies you're fine with offending some people.

John McWhorter, a Professor of Linguistics, writes
in this article on use of the term "colored":

Malcolm X didn’t spearhead a change from colored and Negro to black because he wanted to keep the white man on his toes, but because he felt that those terms had associations with evil, negativity, and more specifically slavery and Jim Crow. He wanted to start afresh with a more neutral and even muscular term...The rolling terminology, then, is an attempt to refashion thought, not to be annoying....
...colored was replaced not because it was processed as an insult but because of something subtler, its association with a bleak past. As such it can seem odd that anyone would treat someone’s slipping and saying the term as an insult, given that “Colored!” was never a slur in the way that a word I need not mention was and is...

"The reason 'colored people' is offensive without being a term of abuse is that it reminds many people of times when we were, whatever we were being called, abused."

How many people do we want to have in America? — Jake

Picking a number would be arbitrary.

We should want continued prosperity, which depends on economic growth, and economic growth depends on population growth to provide workforce and consumption.

I am an American, and disagree that mentioning colored people is in any way insulting — LD Saunders

Here's why it's insulting:



It reminds one of those times. Semantically equivalent, but less charged, is the term "people of color".

Your earlier comment was obviously based on right wing propaganda about BLM. It's not an organization, it's a movement, so what they say about themselves is what defines the movement. But if you want external views, go to this website and search for "black lives matter".

I might not be well informed about Black Lives Matter then. I thought they had a racial, victimist, whites are to blame, approach to social issues. Exactly what is different between BLM and gang terror. From outside it looks like related phenomena, as riots promoted in the name of BLM are usually linked to pillage, burning and violence. Please explain to the outside world what BLM stands for and what makes it a separate thing from the violence provoked by gangs. — DiegoT

You are reading right-wing mischaracterizations of BLM. Read their own literature to see what they are about.

To equate BLM with fringe groups of violent blacks is analogous to equating the Republican party with the KKK.

There is an uncertainty principle which indicates that the measurements are indisputably not factual. That's what the Fourier transform indicates, some measurements cannot be made. If the measurements cannot be made, then whatever it is which takes the place of these measurements cannot be indisputably factual measurements, but are the opposite of this. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's absurd. Of course measurements are factual! A measurement is made, and it has certain values. There's an a priori degree of uncertainty in what one measurement will yield, but there's certainty about the distribution of repeated measurements. If your ontology is inconsistent with these results then your ontology is falsified.

When philosophers talk about possible worlds and such, especially if they claim that such and such is indeed possible, I wonder how they think they can know this. — petrichor

They don't know; it's just a thought experiment - a way to consider the implications of counterfactuals, including what contradictions it might entail.

The actual world is likely also the necessary.

Perhaps so, but it's hard to see how contingency can be avoided. If there is no god, what explains the fundamental structure of the world? Why fundamental x instead if y? If there's a god, what explains this particular god rather than another?

"a particle could move through empty space."
Make a case for this.

As I said, the ability to predict doesn't concern me, it is irrelevant, because it can be used just as easily to support falsehood as it can be used to support truth.

You're missing my point. The measurements are indisputably factual, and the success of the predictions needs to be accounted for. If your metaphysics cannot account for it, then it has a fatal flaw.

Is economica a science? It depends on how you define science. Merriam-Webster thinks it is, because there is systematuzed knowledge.

So, it makes sense for Trump to attack foreigners and make fearful claims about a foreign invasion, if his goal is to motivate his base. However, it will turn off everyone else who does not share that view, — LD Saunders

The biggest danger is letting Trump define the opposition position, which the left is letting him do right now. The opposition is characterized as wanting open borders, though hardly anyone actually wants that. The Democrats need a coherent, comprehensive plan that applies both compassion and practicality. A good start would be the 2013 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.

The whole intention is just to get the left to be outraged and simply to give the appeareance of something being done. Appearances are enough. People actually don't care if things really are done or not because they are too obsessed in hating the other side. — ssu

This is a good observation. Trump is a marketer who likes to win, devoid of principles. Deploying troops to the border is theatrics that is cheered by his supporters and decried by his detractors. When his detractors react hyperbolically, he "wins". By continually discussing his nonsense, we keep it alive and keep his supporters energized. The "invasion" by the caravan has become a major issue in the election because Trump made it so, and we detractors keep discussing it. News sources that attempt to expose Trump's absurdity with facts add to the problem because 1) his supporters aren't interested in facts, they cheer Trump because they agree with his sentiments 2) his detractors keep the discussion going; the more absurd his behavior seems, the more we react, the more we pump up his supporters - especially when our reaction is hyperbolic.

Consider his assertion that he'd eliminate birthright citizenship. When his supporters go on TV and are confronted with the facts, they jump immediately to the absurdity of birthright citizenship - appealing to the base despite having no legitimate means of doing anything about it. This multiplies the opposition responses, since now there's the urge to respond to the notion that it's absurd, added to the unconstitutional nature of his claim and the implied racist/xenophobic attitude. This creates even more passion in his followers and keeps the discussion alive. This is a win for Trump.

QFT doesn't entail wave-particle duality, it assumes it, as a premise. And if your claim is that QFT renders the particle unreal, and the wave as the only real aspect, then you still have the contradiction of a wave without a medium, and so an inability to say what a particle is (other than a particle). As I said, QFT doesn't resolve the contradiction of wave-particle duality, it only obscures it, hides it behind complex mathematics. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's simply not true. Particles are real, but they are not independent billiard balls floating in nothingness. A particle is a wave packet, a segment of the field (often referred to as a "ripple" in the field) - so there's no fundamental duality. The "medium" is the quantum field. Movement of the particle consists of the "ripple" traversing the field:



In the above, the rope is analogous to a field, and the ripple is a particle. (If particles were free standing entities, it would beg the question of a medium). This is why the momentum and position of a particle cannot be measured with infinite precision, as one would expect if it were analogous to a billiard ball. Since a particle is actually a wave, the measurement will be some uncertain point on the wave (imagine measuring the amplitude and wavelength of the above rope ripple). The perceived "duality" is a consequence of measurement.

This is, of course, a realist interpretation of QFT, and therefore it is metaphysical. But it's consistent with the math. You don't have to accept realism, but if your ontology conflicts with the math of QFT (the math that produces the correct predictions) then your ontology clearly conflicts with reality and is falsified.

Quantum mechanics, special relativity, and QFT have been remarkably successful at making predictions. How is that "deceptive"? — Relativist
I already explained how QFT is deceptive — Metaphysician Undercover

The only alleged deception you've stated is wave particle duality. That's pretty silly, because QFT does not assume wave particle duality.

it would have to be one or the other, or something completely different — Metaphysician Undercover

Indeed, and that's exactly what QFT says. So there's not actually a contradiction. I made the mistake of taking you seriously when you mentioned contradictions in physics. There ARE some contradictions in physics - where general relativity breaks down, and quantum theory doesn't apply. I assumed that's what you were talking about. My bad.

But making successful predictions is a good tool to aid one's capacity to deceive, so I don't see how making predictions is evidence that it's not deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Successful predictions provide a good reason at least to accept an instrumentalist understanding of QFT. The success of a theory in this respect is the exact opposite of a deception.

I already told you, the theories involved are deficient. They need to be examined, the deficient aspects exposed and discarded. — Metaphysician Undercover

The only "deficiency" you've identified is your incorrect assumption that it entails wave-particle duality.

By the way, I don't really believe that particles are fundamental, my point was that physics treats particles as fundamental.

Particles are the building blocks of matter, but the known particles are within the standard model of particle physics. Quantum field theory provides the mathematical framework for the Standard Model, describing the dynamics and kinematics.

Field EQUATIONS are mathematical entities, and since they accurately predict behavior, they must be describing something that is actually there. If not actual fields, then what? — Relativist


Field equations accurately predict the appearance of particles. Therefore what they are describing "that is actually there", is the appearance of particles. — Metaphysician Undercover

It accounts for both the appearance and disappearance of particles. If you dispense with fields, matter/energy is not conserved. Without fields, there's no explanation for vacuum energy.

I'm not proposing any alternative model so I am not proposing a fiction. I am stating the obvious, that the entire theoretical structure of QFT revolves around a fundamental contradiction, wave-particle duality.

So your entire claim seems to hinge in a misconception of yours.

If I am correct, your acceptance of it as true, is as faith based as my theism. — Rank Amateur

Let's test that.

I trust the instrumentalism of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory - the calculations seem to work. I have no emotional attachment to this belief. If an alternative theory (X) came about with equivalent explanatory scope, I'd alter my belief to "either QFT or alternative X" is true. Is your belief in God like this? I doubt it. I expect you'd continue to believe in God even if there were an alternative with equivalent explanatory scope. Many theists go even further, asserting they'd believe unless God were absolutely disproven. The latter is the most committed type of faith; the former is still more committed than I to my belief about QFT. It is these commitments that distinguish faith from mere belief.

And yet it also gets many things right, and therefore it is reasonable to accept much of it as true. — Relativist

I think in this sentence is the crux of many of these discussions. This just shows a faith in the ability of science. To be clear, I think that belief is reasonable- and there is nothing at all wrong with that. I just don't see it as a superior faith belief than theism. I just think it is very common to treat science, and faith in science's ability as the same concept. And they are not. — Rank Amateur

Accepting scientific theory as true doesn't entail faith, it just implies that one can justifiably believe them. But scientific theories must be treated as tentative because they are merely the inference to the best explanation, and the history of science shows that what is CURRENTLY the best explanation tends to change as more information is gathered. I'd be interested in seeing a theist propose a biblical God as inference to best explanation for something.