compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:24 pm
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:57 pm
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:11 pm

By "rules of physics" I meant "laws of physics" They are by no stretch of the imagination subjective.
LOL Absolutely NO even thought about the 'physics' word here, LET ALONE even MENTIONED nor SUGGESTED the 'physics' word absolutely ANYWHERE here.

So, what 'you' SAID and WROTE here is COMPLETELY MOOT.

But, if you wanted to MENTION what you have just here now, then I suggest NOT quoting me IN ANY WAY whatsoever. That way you will NOT appear as though you have completely and utterly MISREAD what I have ACTUALLY WROTE here, or MISHEARD what I have ACTUALLY SAID, here.
Does your mom know you're on a website for grown ups?
LOL Nothing like when ALL else FAILS then the LAST RESORT is ATTEMPTS at 'trying to' ATTACK 'the character' of 'the opponent'.

What you SAID was OBVIOUSLY MOOT, in regards to MY REPLY to you. This can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, and that was just about ALL I wanted to SAY and SHOW here.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:02 pm When 'you' say, "Prove it", what does the 'it' word refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Also I NEED you to PROVE that you have UNDERSTOOD what I SAID and WROTE here, FIRST. From what you have been writing here you appear to be VERY, VERY CONFUSED and LOST.

Are you ABLE to prove this?
Ok, I see. You are a hypocrite, again.
Every time I see you pressuring others and referring to them as 'you' or 'humans', I will remember that you can't or won't do what you are asking them to do and which, from your perspective, you claim, you think they need to.

To sum it up for others: Age thinks others bear the onus to demonstrate the truth of their assertions, but he thinks, at the same time, he has no onus to do the same with his. And Age will play all sorts of little games to make it seem like they bear the onus so he is not on the spot.

I will see this hypocrisy in your repeated approach here. You might fool others, but a few of us have noticed your hypocrisy. That may matter to you. It may not. You just made it obvious that your entire approach to other people posting here is a farce.

It is quite telling that suddnely you started insulting me when you realized you had a problem.

Spotted. Back on ignore.

OH, and of course, to be on topic. Nothing you wrote demonstrated that I was incorrect when I was skeptical that if free will was the case, it could be demonstrated to be the case online via words on a screen. In fact, you supported my skepticism again and again. Though, oddly, you seemed to think you were somehow disagreeing with me. And feel free to open a thread and prove free will or determinism. You can define prove and free will or determinism however you like. You can show us how it's done, 'human'.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:59 pm
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:02 pm When 'you' say, "Prove it", what does the 'it' word refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Also I NEED you to PROVE that you have UNDERSTOOD what I SAID and WROTE here, FIRST. From what you have been writing here you appear to be VERY, VERY CONFUSED and LOST.

Are you ABLE to prove this?
Ok, I see. You are a hypocrite, again.
Every time I see you pressuring others and referring to them as 'you' or 'humans', I will remember that you can't or won't do what you are asking them to do and which, from your perspective, you claim, you think they need to.
AND, what is 'it', which you think or BELIEVE that I can NOT or will NOT do, EXACTLY?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:59 pm To sum it up for others: Age thinks others bear the onus to demonstrate the truth of their assertions, but he thinks, at the same time, he has no onus to do the same with his.
How SHALLOW and CLOSED you REALLY ARE.

When people, for example, say, "Prove it", and expect the "other" to just JUMP UP and PROVE 'it', then, to do this ACCURATELY and CORRECTLY the "other" has to FIRST LEARN and KNOW what the 'it' word is in relation to, EXACTLY, and this is without even going into to ALL of the OTHER 'things' NEEDED to PROVE some 'thing' True.

You, OBVIOUSLY, have absolutely NO intention of STAYING WITH this and FOLLOWING this through.

I SAID, 'From my perspective... (this and that), and your reply back was; "Prove that sentence". Which, on its own, the ABSURDITY and NONSENSICAL OF speaks for itself.

I am STILL YET TO UNDERSTAND whether you want me to PROVE that 'this and that' is FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, or if 'this and that' is true, or if 'it' is REALLY 'from my perspective', or if it was some thing else entirely different that you wanted me to PROVE IN or ABOUT 'that sentence'. So, until you CLARIFY and/or SPECIFICALLY STIPULATE what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, what you want me to PROVE, then I have absolutely NO idea, and I am NOT now going to just START ASSUMING.

Also, what is become MORE OBVIOUS and CLEAR is that because of your TIGHTLY HELD ONTO BELIEF that PROVE can NOT be PROVIDED in words, on a screen, you will, even unconsciously, SABOTAGE this so that I can NOT PROVE absolutely ANY thing, in which case you are REINFORCING YOUR CURRENTLY HELD ONTO BELIEF. Which is just ANOTHER PURE CASE and EXAMPLE of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK.

See, if one was Truly CURIOS and Truly INTERESTED in PROOF, then they would KEEP CHALLENGING and/or QUESTIONING for PROOF until it is PROVIDED and GIVEN or until the "other" GIVES UP in DEFEAT or just DECLARES DEFEAT.

Now, I am PREPARED TO STAY and back up and support MY WORDS and CLAIMS with ACTUAL PROOF, but are you PREPARED TO STAY?

We will just have to WAIT, to SEE.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:59 pm And Age will play all sorts of little games to make it seem like they bear the onus so he is not on the spot.
LOL Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of ONLY SEEING what one WANTS TO SEE.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:59 pm I will see this hypocrisy in your repeated approach here. You might fool others, but a few of us have noticed your hypocrisy.
LOL "iwannaplato". This is what has ACTUALLY HAPPENED and OCCURRED here. You BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY things like 'free will' can NOT be PROVED through words alone, on a screen, and this BELIEF of YOURS also MAKES YOU BELIEVE that there are OTHER 'things' that can NOT be PROVED through words, on a screen. So, what this then MAKES you DO is CHALLENGE me to, "Prove it", and when I just SEEK CLARITY of what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, and of a few other things, then 'you' DECLARE that I am a HYPOCRITE and that I can NOT or will NOT PROVE 'it', (still whatever 'it' is EXACTLY?)
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:59 pm That may matter to you. It may not. You just made it obvious that your entire approach to other people posting here is a farce.
LOL You could NOT be FURTHER from thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, and ALL you are REALLY DOING now is just 'trying to' DEFLECT and GET AWAY from EVER even giving me a CHANCE to PROVE some UNKNOWN 'thing, BECAUSE if I did, then that would SHOOT DOWN YOUR BELIEF DOWN COMPLETELY, and ULTIMATELY, and literally, SHOOT 'you' DOWN in pieces ALSO.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:59 pm It is quite telling that suddnely you started insulting me when you realized you had a problem.
LOL "iwannaplato".
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:59 pm Spotted. Back on ignore.
"Back to ignore" is CODE FOR, "I am going to RUN AWAY and HIDE now BECAUSE I AM Truly SCARED that if I EVER DISCLOSE what 'it' is, EXACTLY, that I alluded to wanting PROVED, and the "other" DID PROVE 'it', then I would have absolutely NOTHING LEFT".
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Either Age likes to shout excessively, or his caps lock gets stuck for no apparent reason.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:37 pm Either Age likes to shout excessively, or his caps lock gets stuck for no apparent reason.
And Advocate can't manage the quote function. Perfection and being the best have their side effects. Though, to be near topic, perhaps this is mere correlation and not cause.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:37 pm Either Age likes to shout excessively, or his caps lock gets stuck for no apparent reason.
1. I NEVER use 'caps lock'.

2. There is ANOTHER reason WHY I use more capital letters than most of 'you' do.

3. I write SOME words in capital letters to just emphasize THOSE words. Doing that the way I do is the EASIEST, SIMPLEST, and QUICKEST way, for me.

4. IF absolutely ANY one thinks or ASSUMES that I am shouting or using caps lock, then this is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER to SEEK OUT and OBTAIN CLARITY BEFORE absolutely ANY ASSUMPTION is made.

5. WHEN one GAINS CLARITY, FIRST, THEN they can NEVER be Wrong nor Incorrect. As this one here WAS, ABSOLUTELY.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions
Shaun Nichols, Joshua Knobe
Consider, for example, Watson's interesting discussion of the crimes of Robert Harris. Watson provides long quotations from a newspaper article about how Harris savagely murdered innocent people, showing no remorse for what he had done. Then he describes, in equally chilling detail, the horrible abuse Harris had to endure as he was growing up.
What is this if not a classic example of how the life one once lived can have a profound impact on the life one lives now. Even if a consensus is reached that the behaviors that Harris inflicted on others are no less immoral than the behaviors inflicted on him, we are still faced with the problematic reality of holding him morally responsible given that the behaviors he inflicted on others would almost certainly not have been chosen had others not inflicted terrible behaviors on him.

And that's before the part where from the perspective of those who harmed Harris and from the perspective of Harris himself inflicting harm on others, they deserved what they got. And there are, of course, so many possible existential permutations given sets of circumstances that can be significantly different.
After reading all of these vivid details, it would be almost impossible for a reader to respond by calmly working out the implications of his or her theory of moral responsibility. Any normal reader will have a rich array of reactions, including not only abstract theorizing but also feelings of horror and disgust. A reader's intuitions about such a case might be swayed by her emotions, leaving her with a conclusion that contravened her more abstract, theoretical beliefs about the nature of moral responsibility.
Yes, that's how it often unfolds. In a labyrinth of convoluted variables, we only have so much understanding and control over. But only if we live in a free will world can it come down to calculating moral responsibility as most of us imagine it: in being able to think a situation through and, to the best of our ability, come to a reasonable conclusion regarding right and wrong behavior. After all, in a determined universe, a moral theory is interchangeable with a moral practice. Words and worlds all intertwined in the only possible outcome. Same with intuitions and emotions. And even if they did contravene our intellectual assessments...so what? It's all the same to nature.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Age wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 1:21 am
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:37 pm Either Age likes to shout excessively, or his caps lock gets stuck for no apparent reason.
1. I NEVER use 'caps lock'.

2. There is ANOTHER reason WHY I use more capital letters than most of 'you' do.

3. I write SOME words in capital letters to just emphasize THOSE words. Doing that the way I do is the EASIEST, SIMPLEST, and QUICKEST way, for me.

4. IF absolutely ANY one thinks or ASSUMES that I am shouting or using caps lock, then this is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER to SEEK OUT and OBTAIN CLARITY BEFORE absolutely ANY ASSUMPTION is made.

5. WHEN one GAINS CLARITY, FIRST, THEN they can NEVER be Wrong nor Incorrect. As this one here WAS, ABSOLUTELY.
If you need to emphasize a word or a particular fact in a sentence, you can use italics to stress it. That said, italics and other font changes lose their impact if overused. Too much emphasis creates the idea that you are attempting to make your own views stand out from the crowd because you believe that your own opinions are the only ones that matter. It is best to use such devices sparingly and rely on strong writing and strategic word placement to get your point across.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:37 am Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions
Shaun Nichols, Joshua Knobe
Consider, for example, Watson's interesting discussion of the crimes of Robert Harris. Watson provides long quotations from a newspaper article about how Harris savagely murdered innocent people, showing no remorse for what he had done. Then he describes, in equally chilling detail, the horrible abuse Harris had to endure as he was growing up.
What is this if not a classic example of how the life one once lived can have a profound impact on the life one lives now. Even if a consensus is reached that the behaviors that Harris inflicted on others are no less immoral than the behaviors inflicted on him, we are still faced with the problematic reality of holding him morally responsible given that the behaviors he inflicted on others would almost certainly not have been chosen had others not inflicted terrible behaviors on him.

And that's before the part where from the perspective of those who harmed Harris and from the perspective of Harris himself inflicting harm on others, they deserved what they got. And there are, of course, so many possible existential permutations given sets of circumstances that can be significantly different.
After reading all of these vivid details, it would be almost impossible for a reader to respond by calmly working out the implications of his or her theory of moral responsibility. Any normal reader will have a rich array of reactions, including not only abstract theorizing but also feelings of horror and disgust. A reader's intuitions about such a case might be swayed by her emotions, leaving her with a conclusion that contravened her more abstract, theoretical beliefs about the nature of moral responsibility.
Yes, that's how it often unfolds. In a labyrinth of convoluted variables, we only have so much understanding and control over. But only if we live in a free will world can it come down to calculating moral responsibility as most of us imagine it: in being able to think a situation through and, to the best of our ability, come to a reasonable conclusion regarding right and wrong behavior. After all, in a determined universe, a moral theory is interchangeable with a moral practice. Words and worlds all intertwined in the only possible outcome. Same with intuitions and emotions. And even if they did contravene our intellectual assessments...so what? It's all the same to nature.
What you describe, Iambiguous, is the God-eye view from omniscience. No man is omniscient nor can be.

Men have to live as if we have free will, as if we originate and must take responsibility for our actions. This for two reasons. Firstly, in order to stay alive a man must believe and philosophers must pretend that he has original voluntary control.

Secondly, society must punish evil doers and criminals so that others are deterred. The upholders of society must believe, or if they are philosophers they must pretend, that people who are not children or mentally disabled have original voluntary control.

The more humane the less punitive. There is a continuum of empathy ranging between philosophical at one pole and punitive at the other.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 9:58 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:37 am
What you describe, Iambiguous, is the God-eye view from omniscience. No man is omniscient nor can be.

Men have to live as if we have free will, as if we originate and must take responsibility for our actions. This for two reasons. Firstly, in order to stay alive a man must believe and philosophers must pretend that he has original voluntary control.
Are you proposing that in order for people to survive, they must live a lie and that philosophers must promote the deception about free will?
Secondly, society must punish evil doers and criminals so that others are deterred. The upholders of society must believe, or if they are philosophers they must pretend, that people who are not children or mentally disabled have original voluntary control.
Would you not agree that the main goal should be to stop people from doing bad things and that punishing them is more of a way to teach them than an end in itself? Or are you saying that punishment is the only way to get people to behave and be civil?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

BigMike wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 8:04 am
Age wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 1:21 am
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:37 pm Either Age likes to shout excessively, or his caps lock gets stuck for no apparent reason.
1. I NEVER use 'caps lock'.

2. There is ANOTHER reason WHY I use more capital letters than most of 'you' do.

3. I write SOME words in capital letters to just emphasize THOSE words. Doing that the way I do is the EASIEST, SIMPLEST, and QUICKEST way, for me.

4. IF absolutely ANY one thinks or ASSUMES that I am shouting or using caps lock, then this is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER to SEEK OUT and OBTAIN CLARITY BEFORE absolutely ANY ASSUMPTION is made.

5. WHEN one GAINS CLARITY, FIRST, THEN they can NEVER be Wrong nor Incorrect. As this one here WAS, ABSOLUTELY.
If you need to emphasize a word or a particular fact in a sentence, you can use italics to stress it.
There are MANY ways to do it. AND, if you READ what I WROTE, then you would have NOTICED the REASON WHY I do it the WAY I DO.
BigMike wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 8:04 am That said, italics and other font changes lose their impact if overused.
I write the way I do for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON. So, I will CONTINUE to write how I WANT TO. UNDERSTOOD?
BigMike wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 8:04 am Too much emphasis creates the idea that you are attempting to make your own views stand out from the crowd because you believe that your own opinions are the only ones that matter.
LOL you could NOT BE MORE Wrong here.

And, ONCE AGAIN, IF you EVER bothered to SEEK OUT and GAIN CLARIFICATION, FIRST, BEFORE you just MADE ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPED TO CONCLUSIONS here, then you would NOT have been SO Incorrect AND SO Wrong.
BigMike wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 8:04 am It is best to use such devices sparingly and rely on strong writing and strategic word placement to get your point across.
Okay, thank you for your advice, and ALL points NOTED.

But I have a very specific reason for writing the way I do.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Age wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 12:11 pmI write the way I do for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON. So, I will CONTINUE to write how I WANT TO. UNDERSTOOD?
Indeed, it is understood. As a result, I have added you to my foe list so that I will never again have to be subjected to your loud and irritating "screams." You have become "invisible" to me at this point. Understood?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

BigMike wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 12:43 pm
Age wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 12:11 pmI write the way I do for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON. So, I will CONTINUE to write how I WANT TO. UNDERSTOOD?
Indeed, it is understood. As a result, I have added you to my foe list so that I will never again have to be subjected to your loud and irritating "screams."
LOL Here we have ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of one who does NOT READ the ACTUAL WORDS being USED WITHOUT DISTORTING and CLOUDING those WORDS with their OWN CURRENTLY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Even when I write SOME words with capital letters the people BACK in the days when this WAS being written STILL could NOT SEE, HEAR, nor UNDERSTAND what I was ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING.

Even when I EXPLAIN, and EVEN HIGHLIGHT and EMPHASIZE, with WORDS, that I am NOT 'shouting', this one here STILL goes on to WRITE, SAY, and CLAIM that my words are LOUD, and irritating, SCREAMS, with even the "scream" word was HIGHLIGHTED and EMPHASIZED within what are sometimes called SCARE QUOTES.

Just so this is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, I have NEVER shouted here, I am NOT shouting now, and I may well NEVER shout also. So, contrary to what 'you' BELIEVE is true, it is an absolutely IMPOSSIBILITY for you to have to AGAIN be subjected to LOUD "SCREAMS", from me.

'you', "bigmike", have just PROVED ABSOLUTELY True, Right, AND Correct in regards to what I have been SAYING, and EXPLAINING here.
BigMike wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 12:43 pm You have become "invisible" to me at this point. Understood?
LOL Asking me to CLARIFY a question AFTER you just EXPLAINED, SAID, WROTE, and CLAIMED that I have become "INVISIBLE", (in quotes), to you, AT THIS POINT, is, ONCE AGAIN, ABSURDITY and STUPIDITY in the EXTREME.

So, if I was to answer YOUR QUESTION here now, then this would be JUST AS STUPID and ABSURD, as what you JUST SAID and DID.

Oh, and by the way, WRITTEN WORDS, themselves, can NEVER be LOUD, SCREAMS, NOR IRRITATING, UNLESS OF COURSE one CHOOSES WORDS to have this EFFECT OVER them. Which OBVIOUSLY 'you' have PROVED that this is EXACTLY what 'you' have DONE here "bigmike".
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

BigMike wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 11:48 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 9:58 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:37 am
What you describe, Iambiguous, is the God-eye view from omniscience. No man is omniscient nor can be.

Men have to live as if we have free will, as if we originate and must take responsibility for our actions. This for two reasons. Firstly, in order to stay alive a man must believe and philosophers must pretend that he has original voluntary control.
Are you proposing that in order for people to survive, they must live a lie and that philosophers must promote the deception about free will?
They believe that they need to "pretend" in order to avoid the feelings that they are being forced to do things and/or that they have no control over they actions. They believe determinism to be ... a forced life without any personal control.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

phyllo wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 1:53 pm
BigMike wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 11:48 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 9:58 am
What you describe, Iambiguous, is the God-eye view from omniscience. No man is omniscient nor can be.

Men have to live as if we have free will, as if we originate and must take responsibility for our actions. This for two reasons. Firstly, in order to stay alive a man must believe and philosophers must pretend that he has original voluntary control.
Are you proposing that in order for people to survive, they must live a lie and that philosophers must promote the deception about free will?
They believe that they need to "pretend" in order to avoid the feelings that they are being forced to do things and/or that they have no control over they actions. They believe determinism to be ... a forced life without any personal control.
Philosophers' belief that they could escape the realization that they lack free will by merely pretending they do not have it baffles me. In truth, I do not believe that is possible, and I doubt most philosophers do as well. The only thing that makes sense to me about what Belinda is saying is that she believes they should intentionally deceive other people, but not themselves.
Added: If that is the case, it would be consistent with Saul Smilansky's philosophy.
Post Reply