Right. From a practical viewpoint, human decision making can be one of the least predictable events. We each believe that our own reasoning is logical but it is subject to idiosyncratic fallacies, biases, false beliefs, etc. The rational causal mechanism can still be deterministic and theoretically predictable when we consider those fallacies, biases, and beliefs as reliable causes that are taken into account when trying to predict what someone else will choose. Some omniscient being with all of that knowledge, like God, or Laplace's Daemon, or the guy's wife could still predict his choice.LuckyR wrote: ↑April 24th, 2020, 12:44 pmI agree with your concept but have problems with your wording.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑April 24th, 2020, 10:42 am
There's nothing wrong with reading through the SEP articles. But academic philosophy collects and catalogs everyone's opinions, without necessarily guiding us to any specific truths. It provides instead a menu of truths and opinions to choose from. And it is certainly worthwhile to consider multiple options when thinking through to your own philosophy.
But I found all three of the SEP articles to be biased against compatibilism. So I tried to shed some light on the matters of determinism, free will, and why they happen to be compatible. They are a bit long for this forums format. But I do have a nutshell version:
In a Nutshell
“Free will” is when we decide for ourselves what we will do, free of coercion or other undue influence.
“Determinism” asserts that the behavior of objects and forces in our universe provides perfectly reliable cause and effect, and thus, at least in theory, is perfectly predictable.
Because reliable cause and effect is neither coercive nor undue, it poses no threat to free will. A meaningful constraint would be a man holding a gun to our head, forcing us to do his will. But reliable causation is not such a force. It is simply how we operate as we go about being us, doing what we do, and choosing what we choose.
Because our decisions are reliably caused by our own purpose, our own reasons, and our own interests, our deliberate choosing poses no threat to determinism. Choosing is a deterministic process. And this process is authentically performed by us, according to our own purpose, reasons, and interests.
As it turns out, every choice we make for ourselves is both freely chosen and reliably caused. Thus, the concepts of free will and determinism are naturally compatible.
The illusion of conflict is created by a logic error called the “reification fallacy“. This happens when we mistakenly treat the concept of “reliable cause and effect” as if it were an external force controlling our choices, as if it were not actually us, simply being us and doing what we do.
But concepts are not “things” that cause. Only the actual objects themselves, and the forces they naturally exert upon other objects, can cause events to happen.
When empirically observed, we find that we exist in reality as physical objects, living organisms, and an intelligent species. As living organisms, we act purposefully to survive, thrive, and reproduce. As an intelligent species, we act deliberately by imagination, evaluation, and choosing. And, when we act upon our choices, we are forces of nature.
Reliable cause and effect is not an external force. It is us, and the rest of the physical universe, just doing what we do. Those who try to turn it into a boogeyman robbing us of our choices are empirically mistaken.
If human decision making was perfectly predictable, cause and effect and determinism would be proven. However, if you think about it, our understanding of cause and effect, is by definition a retrospective process. We observe the action and go looking retrospectively for the conditions that caused the action. We apply this analysis to the next case and we are successful in predicting the outcome better than pure chance, ie we have some understanding, but nowhere near 100% accuracy. Since we never get to 100% accuracy, there is always a bit of understanding that is, for practical purposes, unknowable. Thus what separates our "understanding" of cause and effect from say, rationalization?
The "retrospective view" reminds me of Gazzaniga's "interpreter", that part of the brain that has to explain our behavior to ourselves and others. As long as it has good data it can do a reasonable job. But if a subject is given a post-hypnotic suggestion to take off his shoe when he hears the word "walrus", he will confabulate an explanation to rationalize his behavior.
