I'm not sure I understand the target of your ire here.
Compatibilists agree with you that human behavior is deterministic, they just generally also believe that "free will" is a useful abstraction at the level of human agents (if not at the level of atoms). I think it says a lot that even those of us who believe that the universe is fully deterministic have a difficult time imagining that ourselves actually work that way. Which again, doesn't negate that determinism is true, but that it may not be an apt level of description for behavior. When I want to describe why I or someone else did something, I'm going to speak in terms of motivations, beliefs, experiences and so on. It feels to us like we decide what to do, and compatibilism is nothing more than acknowledging this strong intuition we have and affirming its general utility for everyday life.
Or put another way: determinism is positing a divide between "me" and "the deterministic processes that comprise me" in a way that doesn't really make sense. Trying to redescribe "I decided to go on a walk" as "the atoms that comprise the neurons that control my behavior moved in such a way that I was compelled to go on a walk" is meaningless, because "the atoms" and "I" are different levels of description for exactly the same object. I am not being *controlled* by those deterministic processes, I *am* those deterministic processes.
If you don't want to call this experience "free will", that's fine, but it's just as much of a language game to be on the denial side than the pro side.
My ire is toward the state of the discourse. For us to go into a back and forth on these semantics is a waste of both of our time and a demonstration of my beef in microcosm.
OK, but then your whole point boils down to "why won't these people who fundamentally agree with me use my preferred language?" so you are engaging in the very semantic games you decry. Both compatibilism and hard determinism are ontologically deterministic; determinism won. The disagreement being hashed out here is not fundamental. If you want to say it's a waste of time to talk about or too confusing to laypeople, fine, but it still boils down to a language game either way and if you don't want to play, then don't play!
I generally avoid the discourse for this very reason. I consider this piece more of a commentary on it, but that inevitably becomes a contribution to it as well. Unavoidable.
Good piece. Well done.
What do you think about the work of Robert Sapolsky on free will?
I have not read his work, though I've listened to him in interviews and podcast discussions and found very little to disagree with.
I'm not sure I understand the target of your ire here.
Compatibilists agree with you that human behavior is deterministic, they just generally also believe that "free will" is a useful abstraction at the level of human agents (if not at the level of atoms). I think it says a lot that even those of us who believe that the universe is fully deterministic have a difficult time imagining that ourselves actually work that way. Which again, doesn't negate that determinism is true, but that it may not be an apt level of description for behavior. When I want to describe why I or someone else did something, I'm going to speak in terms of motivations, beliefs, experiences and so on. It feels to us like we decide what to do, and compatibilism is nothing more than acknowledging this strong intuition we have and affirming its general utility for everyday life.
Or put another way: determinism is positing a divide between "me" and "the deterministic processes that comprise me" in a way that doesn't really make sense. Trying to redescribe "I decided to go on a walk" as "the atoms that comprise the neurons that control my behavior moved in such a way that I was compelled to go on a walk" is meaningless, because "the atoms" and "I" are different levels of description for exactly the same object. I am not being *controlled* by those deterministic processes, I *am* those deterministic processes.
If you don't want to call this experience "free will", that's fine, but it's just as much of a language game to be on the denial side than the pro side.
My ire is toward the state of the discourse. For us to go into a back and forth on these semantics is a waste of both of our time and a demonstration of my beef in microcosm.
OK, but then your whole point boils down to "why won't these people who fundamentally agree with me use my preferred language?" so you are engaging in the very semantic games you decry. Both compatibilism and hard determinism are ontologically deterministic; determinism won. The disagreement being hashed out here is not fundamental. If you want to say it's a waste of time to talk about or too confusing to laypeople, fine, but it still boils down to a language game either way and if you don't want to play, then don't play!
I generally avoid the discourse for this very reason. I consider this piece more of a commentary on it, but that inevitably becomes a contribution to it as well. Unavoidable.