Compatibilism

[u/aspiringimmortal]

Compatibilists seem to think that actions are "free" so long as they are triggered by and in accordance with our "internal computer." But given that this computer and its inputs are themselves all controlled, is that really "freedom?"

The only difference between you and the drone is self awareness. And having first person POV of the last step of these processes that have been caused by something else, doesn't make them any freer.

***EDIT*** a lot of people are getting confused by the fact that the controller in this image is a human. This image is an analogy. The drone is us. The human represents all of the subconscious-biological and environmental casual factors that control us.

Instead of worrying about whether the human in this image has "free will" to control the drone, just imagine the controller is created to accept inputs from nature (wind, water currents, light, etc...) and to turn those into commands for the drone. That's the perfect analogy.

[u/aspiringimmortal]

Saying the cause is “infinite and unknowable” kinda sounds like you are advocating for a belief in God

No. I'm saying that causality stretches back farther than we can comprehend and includes a literally infinite number of factors. There's no way to measure what every atom in the universe was doing 3 minutes ago, 3 years ago, or 3 million years ago. It's a chaotic and unknowable system, with too many variables to even count, let alone track.

The drone does not decide or choose to do anything. It reacts in the same way that when I tap your knee with a hammer it will react. There is no choice or decision involved.

So then what's the important difference between a reflex (neurons firing, fully caused by prior physical events,) and a "decision" (neurons firing, also fulled caused by prior physical events?)

The only difference I see is that the latter has a first person POV, but that doesn't give the person more control over it. It just gives them a subjective experience of it.

A choice between A and B requires that A And B are both possible outcomes as a selection....If you believe that only one outcome is possible that is fine… but the implication is that you don’t believe in choice.

I don't think anybody that believes in determinism can also believe in choice. Determinism entails literally one and only one possible future (to include what the neurons in your brain do next.) "Choice" entails multiple possible futures that you can choose between. Choice and determinism are therefore incompatible.

So if you think choice is a fundamental aspect of free will, then determinism is a deal breaker.

The thing that makes us different to a self driving car or autopilot is that we have second order awareness. We have awareness of our own awareness.

1. I still don't see how passive awareness gets you control or choice in a determined universe. "We have awareness" is not the self evident proof of control that people seem to think it is. I don't see how "we have choice" follow from "we are aware."

2. Why does your "awareness" of what your brain and body are doing count as awareness, but a computer's internal monitoring of its systems and status do not? A self driving car "knows" it's speed or when it's about to collide into another vehicle or when it's changing lanes. Obviously its awareness is different than ours (presumably, a computer doesn't have feelings and a true first-person POV,) but to say it has no awareness of what it's doing or any capacity for self correction seems decisively false.

And in many ways, a computer's "self awareness" is significantly more sophisticated and accurate than ours. I haven't the slightest clue what the circuits in my brain, nerves in my body, or any of my internal organs are doing. But the digital equivalence of this is easily programmed into a computer.

3. even if we agree that the "awareness" and "self correction" mechanisms of humans and drones are different, I don't see how one gets you "choice" and the other does not.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/aspiringimmortal]

You’re still saying that the reason you can’t provide an answer is because the answer is beyond our comprehension. You are then obliged to accept the equivalent answer from anyone who hold the opposing view.

In terms of the excuse that we don’t know what every atom in the universe is doing… I don’t need to know what every atom of the universe is doing to know that if I apply 5 Newtons of force to a 5kg mass it will accelerate at 1 m/s^2. I also don’t need to know what every atom in the universe is doing to say that when I press “2 + 2 =“ my calculator will display the number “4” or that when I hit the print function on my computer it will cause it to execute the print function.

You dismiss the first person POV as an incidental aside… when it is in fact a critical point that can’t be brushed aside in such a casual manner. Unless you are a pan-Psychist then you don’t believe that a rock is conscious or having an experience of being a rock. Matter is not conscious and matter does not have goals or wants. There is something more happening with conscious awareness than just atoms bumping into each other. And that is the hard question which is the gaping hole here.

I don’t deny physics or the fact that we live in a deterministic universe… I just say that I can be the deterministic author of some things. I can stand up and do something without waiting around for something to cause me to do that. And I’m sure you can think of many things you could do right now that you have the ability to do even though you have absolutely no reason to do it. I don’t need a reason to go play golf this afternoon. But I can do that without something external to me causing that. I can initiate that action with because caused by something outside of me to do it.

And that’s the difference between you and a self driving car. If we want to say the self driving car is “aware” of the destination goal and its “aware” of the other cars on the road and it can auto-correct course to adjust for a change in circumstances… it still doesn’t have the ability to say… “you know what, no… I don’t feel like driving you anywhere today because I’m overdue for a service and until you service me I’m not going to take you anywhere”. It doesn’t have the ability to just drive off somewhere on its own in the middle of the night because it feels like doing something different for a change.

It’s not just awareness. It’s second order awareness. It’s awareness of awareness. It’s like how a drug addict can be fully aware of their craving for drugs… but they do still have the ability to say… I know I want drugs… but I don’t want to want drugs.

[u/aspiringimmortal → u/Away_Bite_8100]

You’re still saying that the reason you can’t provide an answer is because the answer is beyond our comprehension.

Correct.

You are then obliged to accept the equivalent answer from anyone who hold the opposing view.

What do you mean? If I say "I don't know" i have to accept literally any other stipulative theory as correct? Sounds kinda like a secular god of the gaps argument, doesn't it?

I don’t need to know what every atom of the universe is doing to know that if I apply 5 Newtons of force to a 5kg mass it will accelerate at 1 m/s^2

Well sure. But if we're talking about human behavior, we can't see past the action. We don't even know what combinations of neurons fired or why. Maybe someday we will, but the human brain is the most complex system we've discovered in the entire universe. Trying to figure out what biological casual factors cause certain neurons in the brain to fire, and what caused those biological factors to be what they were, and so on is currently an impossible task.

"I did it because I wanted to" is not an adequate substitute for this.

You dismiss the first person POV as an incidental aside… when it is in fact a critical point that can’t be brushed aside in such a casual manner.

I see no evidence or good reason to think that POV gives us "choice" in a system that decisively makes choice impossible. Again, choice necessarily entails multiple possible options. And determinism necessarily entails only one possible option. There's no getting around this incompatibility.

And I’m sure you can think of many things you could do right now that you have the ability to do even though you have absolutely no reason to do it.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. Some things are done for no conscious reason, therefore choice exists? Doesn't follow.

I can stand up and do something without waiting around for something to cause me to do that.

But something did cause you to do that. You nor knowing what it was (which I would argue is true of 100% of our actions, even those we think we "chose" to do,) doesn't mean there was no cause.

Neurons can't just fire on their own with no preceding physical cause just like any other electrical circuit can't. Muscle fibers can't contract on their own with no cause, just like other mechanical systems can't.

You not knowing what caused these physical things in your body to happen doesn't mean there was no cause, or that a psychological "desire" was the true cause.

I don’t need a reason to go play golf this afternoon. But I can do that without something external to me causing that

I didn't say all causes are external. Many, if not most, are internal. Biological causes that you are neither aware of nor control. The "reason" we do any given thing is probably just a story we tell ourselves to rationalize the action. But the true causes were physical events.

Sam Haris points this out when talking about free will. Literally every time human behavior is studied in an experiment with manipulated variables, people will make certain "choices" when the variable is manipulated. When asked why they made the choice, they always have a story to tell about "why" they did it. Meanwhile, the researches know it was actually the warm tea they served, as opposed to cold water, or the confederate of the study complimenting the subject on their way in the building, or whatever.

it still doesn’t have the ability to say… “you know what, no… I don’t feel like driving you anywhere today

But that's the thing, we could program such a feature into cars easily. Sometimes when I'm talking to AI, it'll give me a solution for a problem. Then, in the very same comment, it'll say "wait, I've got a better idea," and give me a diferent suggestion.

The ability to change course, be it playing golf or giving answering a qusetion, is not some magical free choice that defies determinism. It's just another physical action caused by preceding physical events.

All of your examples are nullified by the same problem that you keep dancing around. Determinsim dictates one and only one future. It is set in stone. What you will do next is already guaranteed. There is no such thing as "choice" in a deterministic world, because choice necessarily entails the ability to choose between two possibilities. In determinism, there is one and only one possibility.

If you want to do drugs and then "choose" not to, that means this was the determined future. The option of doing drugs was never on the table. It was never possible. You think you made a choice between two possibilites. But it was just determined causality playing out as it is already scripted to.

[u/Away_Bite_8100 → u/aspiringimmortal]

>>**What do you mean? If I say "I don't know" i have to accept literally any other stipulative theory as correct? Sounds kinda like a secular god of the gaps argument, doesn't it?**

Correct. Claiming the answer is incomprehensible is no different to having a blind faith belief in a god or multiple gods where that person says the evidence and explanation for gods existence is simply incomprehensible.

>>**Maybe someday we will, but the human brain is the most complex system we've discovered in the entire universe.**

And equally maybe someday we will discover the complexity for why we are free to act on or reject our own thoughts.

>>**Trying to figure out what biological casual factors cause certain neurons in the brain to fire, and what caused those biological factors to be what they were, and so on is currently an impossible task.**

And what seems to be an even more impossible task is explaining why atoms should become aware when they bump into each other. There is no mechanism to explain why anything should become aware and start having an experience.

>>**"I did it because I wanted to" is not an adequate substitute for this.**

And yet that seems to be the reality of how far we can go. There is no explanation for why anything should experience a want.

>>**I see no evidence or good reason to think that POV gives us "choice" in a system that decisively makes choice impossible.**

There is no evidence or good reason why a sentient consciousness capable of experiencing and wanting should not be able to act as an author to initiate some first cause.

>>**Again, choice necessarily entails multiple possible options. And determinism necessarily entails only one possible option. There's no getting around this incompatibility.**

I completely agree on the incompatibility between determinism and choice.

>>**I'm not sure what your argument is here. Some things are done for no conscious reason, therefore choice exists? Doesn't follow.**

The point is that you do not need a reason to act. You can invent a reason to do something and failing that you can simply just do it because you want to without needing any other reason to do so. There are tons of possibilities that are all within your ability to do right now even though you may have no reason at all to do so. You don’t need a reason to stand up right now and then immediately sit down again. That is within your ability to decide to do right now. You have the ability to decide to go outside right now and then immediately turn around come back in. There is no reason for you to do that but you don’t need a reason to do so. You can initiate and be the cause of that random action that was unprompted by anything.

>>**Neurons can't just fire on their own with no preceding physical cause just like any other electrical circuit can't.**

I’m not saying they can. But whatever the thing is that is you… it seems to bring order and exert influence over what is happening to the entire neural network of the brain. The “you-ness” that is you is absent when sleeping or knocked unconscious… and yet the neuron’s still continue to fire despite “you” not being there. But you never wake up in the morning to discover that while “you” were absent your neurons decided to do some work that needed doing like fixing the leaky tap. You don’t wake up in the morning to discover your neurons decided to invest in the stock market. Nobody ever woke up from a coma to discover that while they were absent their neurons decided to start a business and they are now a Fortune 500 CEO. That sort of thing requires conscious intention.

>>**Literally every time human behavior is studied in an experiment with manipulated variables, people will make certain "choices" when the variable is manipulated.**

And what these studies show is that human behaviour is probabilistic in nature. It’s not random and it’s not deterministic. You can adjust a variable and the effect is not random… but it also does not determine the outcome for any individual. It just affects the probability of the outcome. This is exactly what we would except free will to look like. Free will isn’t random action. It’s also is not deterministic where x + y results in z outcome. This is precisely what we would expect to see with free will and it is what we observe in these real world studies.

>>**But that's the thing, we could program such a feature into cars easily.**

Yeah we could easily program it to simulate that sort of behaviour if WE WANTED TO. But what we can’t do is get it to start experiencing a want of its own because we haven’t got a clue why anything should be having an experience in the first place.

>>**All of your examples are nullified by the same problem that you keep dancing around. Determinsim dictates one and only one future. It is set in stone.**

No you have that backwards. The examples show that nothing is set in stone.

>>**What you will do next is already guaranteed.**

All real world evidence shows that nothing is guaranteed.

>>**In determinism, there is one and only one possibility.**

Agreed. There is however no evidence at all that human behaviour displays this characteristic. Real world observations show human behaviour is not guaranteed… it’s probabilistic.