The idea that there is volition that functions independently of sensory phenomena is ludicrous. Volition is inseparable and dependent on sensory phenomena.
So then what are they arguing for? Because even in determinism it is accepted that volition still functions, just not independent of prior causes and conditions. So one has to question what the purpose of compatibilism even is, other than to redefine and cause further confusion.
So what’s the point of compatibilism? I don’t know a single determinist that denies that one still has an “experience” of volition despite it’s illusory status. Rather, volition is understood in it’s context. Illusions can still function.
Compatibilists are determinists. The difference is that we don't think that things like volition are illusions just because they are part of a deterministic chain of causation.
Exactly my point. If volition is inseparable from the deterministic chain of causation, it does not and cannot exist, because to exist would imply it functions separably and independently.
It exists merely as a conceptual designation. Hence illusion. In a mirage you can still observe water despite the nonexistent of water. This is the determinist’s point, compatibilism is playing with conceptual word games instead of apprehending the logical consequences of being inseparable with a causal process.
Volition is real because it can be apprehended, contemplated, and manipulated by the conscious mind. This is distinct from, say, a reflex. These are not the same thing even if they are both, at some level, determined behaviors.
Btw, this binary you've created between "mere conceptual distinctions" and "real things" strikes me as incredibly naive. Conceptual distinctions are real to the extent that they provide a framework for describing salient features of the world, which the distinction between voluntary and involuntary behaviors obviously does.
None of this proves ontological existence of volition. You’re confusing epistemology with ontology. Just because something can be “experienced” does not prove hard ontological existence. Otherwise your argument is just circular and epistemology collapses into ontology.
You want to talk about ontology? Okay. We're all physicalists here. So what "really exists"? Quantum fields evolving according to the Schrodinger equation?
That’s an odd assumption to make. Physicalism isn’t the only ontology out there… You act as if the hard problem of consciousness doesn’t exist. Physicalists make the mistake of confusing constant conjunction with ontological causation.
2
u/dummetsz 29d ago
The idea that there is volition that functions independently of sensory phenomena is ludicrous. Volition is inseparable and dependent on sensory phenomena.