compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: compatibilism

Post by henry quirk »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:49 amLet the dismissal...begin.
⭐️ for me!
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: compatibilism

Post by attofishpi »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 2:01 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:49 amLet the dismissal...begin.
⭐️ for me!
I think you deserve that star HQ.

Now. Do you have free will?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: compatibilism

Post by attofishpi »

I think I have cracked the answer to the FREE WILL v DETERMINISM debate.

Free will wins. (coming to a philosophy forum near you) 8)
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:30 am I think I have cracked the answer to the FREE WILL v DETERMINISM debate.

Free will wins. (coming to a philosophy forum near you) 8)
This is an audacious claim. Moreover, you are utterly mistaken.

I am stunned. It makes me question whether some people can comprehend even the most fundamental scientific facts. Did they ever attend school?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: compatibilism

Post by attofishpi »

BigMike wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:06 am
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:30 am I think I have cracked the answer to the FREE WILL v DETERMINISM debate.

Free will wins. (coming to a philosophy forum near you) 8)
This is an audacious claim. Moreover, you are utterly mistaken.

I am stunned. It makes me question whether some people can comprehend even the most fundamental scientific facts. Did they ever attend school?
Ah, you make me laugh BigMike, you just need to get into the depths and fathom it out from Boony's Room and the quantum state of ALL matter.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:12 am
BigMike wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:06 am
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:30 am I think I have cracked the answer to the FREE WILL v DETERMINISM debate.

Free will wins. (coming to a philosophy forum near you) 8)
This is an audacious claim. Moreover, you are utterly mistaken.

I am stunned. It makes me question whether some people can comprehend even the most fundamental scientific facts. Did they ever attend school?
Ah, you make me laugh BigMike, you just need to get into the depths and fathom it out from Boony's Room and the quantum state of ALL matter.
Are you joking?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: compatibilism

Post by attofishpi »

BigMike wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:18 am
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:12 am
BigMike wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:06 am
This is an audacious claim. Moreover, you are utterly mistaken.

I am stunned. It makes me question whether some people can comprehend even the most fundamental scientific facts. Did they ever attend school?
Ah, you make me laugh BigMike, you just need to get into the depths and fathom it out from Boony's Room and the quantum state of ALL matter.
Are you joking?
Less posting, more thinking BigMike.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:30 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:43 pm
BigMike wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 12:05 pm

The mind's sole idea is the body? Are you saying that the "mind," which comes from the brain, does its own "brainless" thinking on top of what the brain has already done?
if I may interject, the mind is the idea of the body

includes 'brain' with ' body' .Mind is not a separate substance from brain but is brain(and body -proper)from the subjective aspect. Obviously the anatomist or the physiologist views brain and body-proper from the objective aspect.
Belinda, is what you are inferring full body consciousness, if so, it would be difficult to deny. I believe awareness itself is function and not material, just as thought is not physical but the product of the physical.
I mean, not only full body consciousness,as brain can't exist without oxygen etc, but also all material existence : circulation of the blood, osmosis, etc. The materialist (physicalist) is not mistaken that physical stuff exists and is apprehended through objective minds.

I also mean that subjective perspectives pertain to all living things and subjective implies not mediated by objective considerations. Subjectively, men usually feel there is an objectively material world 'out there'. Thus the material world of brains, bodies, and physiology is conceptual.

Also conceptual is what I am doing right now, philosophising. Both the material and the mental are true and are two aspects of the same thing which is Deus Sive Natura. (It's a pity English is so polluted by silly beliefs that we speak Latin!)

So I don't think "thought is ----- the product of the physical". That explanation of thought is an posteriori explanation. Thought , or 'mind' and the material world a priori are aspects of nature.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: compatibilism

Post by henry quirk »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:44 amI think you deserve that star HQ.
For posting links (for a second time) people ignore? Yes, I do.
Now. Do you have free will?
I am a free will, yes.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:23 am
BigMike wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:18 am
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:12 am Ah, you make me laugh BigMike, you just need to get into the depths and fathom it out from Boony's Room and the quantum state of ALL matter.
Are you joking?
Less posting, more thinking BigMike.
Share with us some of your profound insights. Either put up or shut up.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:53 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:30 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:43 pm

if I may interject, the mind is the idea of the body

includes 'brain' with ' body' .Mind is not a separate substance from brain but is brain(and body -proper)from the subjective aspect. Obviously the anatomist or the physiologist views brain and body-proper from the objective aspect.
Belinda, is what you are inferring full body consciousness, if so, it would be difficult to deny. I believe awareness itself is function and not material, just as thought is not physical but the product of the physical.
I mean, not only full body consciousness,as brain can't exist without oxygen etc, but also all material existence : circulation of the blood, osmosis, etc. The materialist (physicalist) is not mistaken that physical stuff exists and is apprehended through objective minds.

I also mean that subjective perspectives pertain to all living things and subjective implies not mediated by objective considerations. Subjectively, men usually feel there is an objectively material world 'out there'. Thus the material world of brains, bodies, and physiology is conceptual.

Also conceptual is what I am doing right now, philosophising. Both the material and the mental are true and are two aspects of the same thing which is Deus Sive Natura. (It's a pity English is so polluted by silly beliefs that we speak Latin!)

So I don't think "thought is ----- the product of the physical". That explanation of thought is a posteriori explanation. Thought, or 'mind' and the material world a priori are aspects of nature.
Wow, it is going to take me awhile to digest that, interesting!! You are a piece of work; I mean that in a positive way!!
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: compatibilism

Post by attofishpi »

BigMike wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 3:59 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:23 am
BigMike wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:18 am
Are you joking?
Less posting, more thinking BigMike.
Share with us some of your profound insights. Either put up or shut up.
What's the hurry? Me got some thinking and research to do, so maybe after Christmas. :mrgreen:
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:57 pm
BigMike wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 3:59 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:23 am
Less posting, more thinking BigMike.
Share with us some of your profound insights. Either put up or shut up.
What's the hurry? Me got some thinking and research to do, so maybe after Christmas. :mrgreen:
So when you said you had solved the free will vs. determinism debate, you were way too quick and overstated the case. You have nothing.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: compatibilism

Post by attofishpi »

BigMike wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:14 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:57 pm
BigMike wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 3:59 pm
Share with us some of your profound insights. Either put up or shut up.
What's the hurry? Me got some thinking and research to do, so maybe after Christmas. :mrgreen:
So when you said you had solved the free will vs. determinism debate, you were way too quick and overstated the case. You have nothing.
I said "I think I have solved.."

Patience my pretty.

My God, I think I have cracked the question of whether or not we have free will, and we do!! :P
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:53 pm Both the material and the mental are true and are two aspects of the same thing which is Deus Sive Natura. (It's a pity English is so polluted by silly beliefs that we speak Latin!)
I don't think Spinoza meant that. Deus Sive Natura doesn't mean that the material and the mental are two aspects of the same thing; it literally means "God or nature", or even, in a less literal way, "God, i.e. nature", reflecting his position that if you insist on there being a god, that god is the same as nature, not that the two are different aspects of something else.
So I don't think "thought is ----- the product of the physical". That explanation of thought is an posteriori explanation. Thought , or 'mind' and the material world a priori are aspects of nature.
Switching from "God or nature" to "Thought, or 'mind' and the material world", as you do here, is a bit of a stretch too. Not everything in nature is material. There are, for example, true propositions in nature, such as the conservation laws as fundamental laws of nature, but the truths themselves are not material; they have no mass or electric charge or any other physical property.
Post Reply