A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:42 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:26 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:23 pm
Of course there is no knowledge in books. As you said, "They're collections of paper with marks on them. There's no literal knowledge in them."

There is no knowledge at all outside human consciousness.
Correct.

Yet some people are arguing otherwise.
Somehow or another, since we seem to agree on so many essentials, I have the impression our disagreements, in the final analysis, may more semantic than substantive. At least we agree on that aspect of the nature of knowledge.

I think we also agree that existence, or reality, or, "the ontological," exists and has the nature it has independent of whether any human being knows or is aware of that existence and its nature.

If that's true, it's a pretty good foundation, don't you think?
It would be, but a lot of folks on boards like this argue for idealism, which is a pet peeve, especially coming from so many folks that are solely philosophy "hobbyists."
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:24 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:49 am Are you saying that the British Library has not knowledge stored in it?
Yes. I already answered this. There is no literal knowledge stored in any library. Saying there is "knowledge stored in the library" is a very loose, metaphorical manner of speech.
How ridiculous of you.
But then you think Hitler should have no responsibility for killing anyone in WW2, so I not expecting any shinning intellectual merit from you.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:00 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:24 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:49 am Are you saying that the British Library has not knowledge stored in it?
Yes. I already answered this. There is no literal knowledge stored in any library. Saying there is "knowledge stored in the library" is a very loose, metaphorical manner of speech.
How ridiculous of you.
But then you think Hitler should have no responsibility for killing anyone in WW2, so I not expecting any shinning intellectual merit from you.
Which wouldn't be surprising if you believe there are answers re ethics that indicate intellectual merit, as if there would be something to get correct.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:38 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:00 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:24 pm

Yes. I already answered this. There is no literal knowledge stored in any library. Saying there is "knowledge stored in the library" is a very loose, metaphorical manner of speech.
How ridiculous of you.
But then you think Hitler should have no responsibility for killing anyone in WW2, so I not expecting any shinning intellectual merit from you.
Which wouldn't be surprising if you believe there are answers re ethics that indicate intellectual merit, as if there would be something to get correct.
There is a difference between getting something "wrong" or "right" or finding merit in ideas.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:45 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:38 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:00 pm

How ridiculous of you.
But then you think Hitler should have no responsibility for killing anyone in WW2, so I not expecting any shinning intellectual merit from you.
Which wouldn't be surprising if you believe there are answers re ethics that indicate intellectual merit, as if there would be something to get correct.
There is a difference between getting something "wrong" or "right" or finding merit in ideas.
It's not correct or incorrect intellectually to find merit in one ethical stance versus another.

You might not be a fan of some ethical stance or another, but intellectual merit isn't determined by sharing your preferences.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:57 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:45 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:38 pm

Which wouldn't be surprising if you believe there are answers re ethics that indicate intellectual merit, as if there would be something to get correct.
There is a difference between getting something "wrong" or "right" or finding merit in ideas.
It's not correct or incorrect intellectually to find merit in one ethical stance versus another.
false

You might not be a fan of some ethical stance or another, but intellectual merit isn't determined by sharing your preferences.
I find no merit in your ideas, they are both ethically and intellectually wanting.
What exactly do you think is the ethical merit of letting Hitler off the hook?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:01 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:57 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:45 pm

There is a difference between getting something "wrong" or "right" or finding merit in ideas.
It's not correct or incorrect intellectually to find merit in one ethical stance versus another.
false
I'll be surprised if you actually answer this, but what do you believe makes it correct or incorrect? Just what are we matching or failing to match in finding merit in one ethical stance versus another?
What exactly do you think is the ethical merit of letting Hitler off the hook?
I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:34 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:01 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:57 pm
It's not correct or incorrect intellectually to find merit in one ethical stance versus another.
false
I'll be surprised if you actually answer this, but what do you believe makes it correct or incorrect? Just what are we matching or failing to match in finding merit in one ethical stance versus another?
Would an example suffice?
If a person hold an ethical stance which is inherently incoherent in his own terms, would make that incorrect. Were he to show a consistency whereby his beliefs were consonant with his ethical position that would be correct.
This is not rocket science.
What exactly do you think is the ethical merit of letting Hitler off the hook?
I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.
That is inherently incorrect since a speak act is an action.
Case closed.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:34 pm I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.
And now for a specific example.

Tell me: do you think we can give credit to Beethoven for the genius of his music?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:39 pm If a person hold an ethical stance which is inherently incoherent in his own terms, would make that incorrect. Were he to show a consistency whereby his beliefs were consonant with his ethical position that would be correct.
It would make it incorrect per what?

"People shouldn't hold ethical stances that are inconsistent with other stances they hold because . . ."? Well, because what?

(If you're rather saying that they can't actually hold inconsistent stances, that's another matter, but then no one actually has inconsistent stances, of course.)
I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.
That is inherently incorrect since a speak act is an action.
Case closed.
"What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions."

I don't have a problem with speech actions, in other words.
I have a problem with certain non-speech actions. Hence why I specified that.

You're doing that thing where one can't even preemptively nip a misconception in the bud, because the other person will just ignore it anyway and proceed with the misconception.
Tell me: do you think we can give credit to Beethoven for the genius of his music?
??

People who think that Beethoven was a genius certainly can and do do this. I don't understand why you're asking this, really (because it seems so obvious that people report what they think/how they feel about such things).
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

There is other stuff to address from the post the following is excerpted from, but I'm addressing what I think is the most important part first:
RogerSH wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:46 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:58 pm Two, as I tried to stress a number of times, thinking clearly about freedom vs determinism is easiest if we first stick to the simplest possible scenario, which is something like imagining the interaction of two different particles. In that case, we're not dealing with minds at all, and just what incompatibilists are saying can come into sharper focus.
My first reaction is that this couldn't be useful because I couldn't see how particles could be doing the choosing in such a scenario, but on reflection I wonder whether this may be getting rather close to the heart of the different perspectives. Perhaps your idea of freedom is nothing to do with freedom to choose as I understand it?
As I tried to make explicit a number of times above, the first task is to understand the difference between the "freedom" side and the "determinism" side, in the most general and simplest sense of the ontological distinction.

This is because "free will" still hinges on "freedom" in that general/simple sense. You can't have free will if there is no freedom in that ontological sense, so we need to understand just the freedom part first. Jumping straight to free will (and choices, decisions, etc.) without understanding freedom in the general/simple sense just leads to confusion.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:36 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:39 pm If a person hold an ethical stance which is inherently incoherent in his own terms, would make that incorrect. Were he to show a consistency whereby his beliefs were consonant with his ethical position that would be correct.
It would make it incorrect per what?

"People shouldn't hold ethical stances that are inconsistent with other stances they hold because . . ."? Well, because what?

(If you're rather saying that they can't actually hold inconsistent stances, that's another matter, but then no one actually has inconsistent stances, of course.)
I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.
That is inherently incorrect since a speak act is an action.
Case closed.
"What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions."

I don't have a problem with speech actions, in other words.
I have a problem with certain non-speech actions. Hence why I specified that.

You're doing that thing where one can't even preemptively nip a misconception in the bud, because the other person will just ignore it anyway and proceed with the misconception.
Tell me: do you think we can give credit to Beethoven for the genius of his music?
??

People who think that Beethoven was a genius certainly can and do do this. I don't understand why you're asking this, really (because it seems so obvious that people report what they think/how they feel about such things).
FFS.
Stop dancing.
You have said that Hitler bears no responsibility for the holocaust because he killed no jews, only told others to do it?
If this what you said or not?
It would follow then that since Beethoven did not perform the music he wrote he gets no credit for the Ninth Symphony/
If the first is a true statement of your position then the second has to be also.
If you accept one, but no the other then you have a contradiction in your thinking and therefore hold a WRONG ethical stance.
RogerSH
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:30 am
Contact:

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by RogerSH »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:49 pm This is because "free will" still hinges on "freedom" in that general/simple sense. You can't have free will if there is no freedom in that ontological sense...
I don't see how that is a response to my point that ontological freedom of a system is freedom of its state, hence freedom to be chosen, whereas what free will requires is freedom to choose. Just because a concept has been labelled "freedom" doesn't, as far as I can see, guarantee its applicability to any other concept with the same name in the title.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:56 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:36 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:39 pm If a person hold an ethical stance which is inherently incoherent in his own terms, would make that incorrect. Were he to show a consistency whereby his beliefs were consonant with his ethical position that would be correct.
It would make it incorrect per what?

"People shouldn't hold ethical stances that are inconsistent with other stances they hold because . . ."? Well, because what?

(If you're rather saying that they can't actually hold inconsistent stances, that's another matter, but then no one actually has inconsistent stances, of course.)

That is inherently incorrect since a speak act is an action.
Case closed.
"What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions."

I don't have a problem with speech actions, in other words.
I have a problem with certain non-speech actions. Hence why I specified that.

You're doing that thing where one can't even preemptively nip a misconception in the bud, because the other person will just ignore it anyway and proceed with the misconception.
Tell me: do you think we can give credit to Beethoven for the genius of his music?
??

People who think that Beethoven was a genius certainly can and do do this. I don't understand why you're asking this, really (because it seems so obvious that people report what they think/how they feel about such things).
FFS.
Stop dancing.
You have said that Hitler bears no responsibility for the holocaust because he killed no jews, only told others to do it?
If this what you said or not?
It would follow then that since Beethoven did not perform the music he wrote he gets no credit for the Ninth Symphony/
If the first is a true statement of your position then the second has to be also.
If you accept one, but no the other then you have a contradiction in your thinking and therefore hold a WRONG ethical stance.
Ah--of course it wouldn't make much sense to credit Beethoven with a particular recorded performance of his music. You credit him with composing it.

And yeah, insofar as Hitler killed no one, I wouldn't say he's responsible for any deaths.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

RogerSH wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:49 pm This is because "free will" still hinges on "freedom" in that general/simple sense. You can't have free will if there is no freedom in that ontological sense...
I don't see how that is a response to my point that ontological freedom of a system is freedom of its state, hence freedom to be chosen, whereas what free will requires is freedom to choose. Just because a concept has been labelled "freedom" doesn't, as far as I can see, guarantee its applicability to any other concept with the same name in the title.
"Freedom of state" doesn't make much sense. Freedom has to involve some degree of causal indeterminism. Adding choice to the scenario just makes it more complicated than it needs to be to address freedom. You can't make a choice is there's no causal indeterminism to exploit.
Post Reply