Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:23 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:04 pm
Okay, but if you were never able not to see this...and they were never able not to think and feel other than as they must? They are "responsible" only in the sense that the human brain is compelled by the laws of matter to create for them the psychological illusion of believing that they are free to opt as they do in the fated/destined discussion.
So, you are saying they are not responsible and the ways one generally reacts to criminals are innappropriate in a determinist universe.
What I'm suggesting is that
even what I say here is embedded in the only possible reality in the only possible world.
Compelled to or otherwise, I don't know how to make this any clearer.
If my brain is wholly in sync with the laws of matter then anything that I think, feel, say and do is entirely fated/destined to be what it can only be...what it must be. Whether I say something about a criminal or react to something a criminal does or am the criminal myself.
Either human brain matter is wholly like all the other matter that we know of or it is not.
Again, we can note "lower animals" like ants and bees. They are conscious creatures. They need food and water and shelter and the ability to reproduce and defend themselves just like us. But they are compelled entirely by instinct...by biological imperatives...to accomplish these tasks.
But what about us and our far more complex, self-conscious brains? When matter evolved into us, did autonomy "somehow" come into existence? Sure, that's possible. God or otherwise. But, as of now, we just don't know. Or, rather, I don't know. Do you?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmThe relevant definition of the responsible is
being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.
And why would defining things be any different?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmTo the discussion? I find that an odd question. You argued based on your definition of responsible above. I went with a dictionary definition and focused on behavior/reactions. If you don't think definitions are important, why did you focus on defining the term?
Again and again and again: from the perspective of the hard determinists as, "here and now" I understand them, their brains compel them to both 1] define something only as they must and then 2] to argue only as they must about defining something itself in the only possible world.
You went to the dictionary because you were never able not to. You focused on what you could never have not focused on. I think definitions are as important or unimportant as my brain compels me to think that.
Now, if you think otherwise because you think that "somehow" your brain is not like my brain here, fine. But how exactly would you go about demonstrating that -- scientifically? philosophically? theologically? -- beyond creating an argument embedded in a world of words?
No, I always come back to this:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmDid I say anything about an autonomy?
There you go again. Merely assuming that what you did say you said of your own volition. While some determinists insist that you said only what you were never able not to say.
And how can anything be "off topic" in the only possible reality?
Again, let's take your abstract point here...
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmNo, so this is off topic, along with comments I took out on Buddhists and Pantheists and theism. And then bringing up other cosmological theories that do not chance the specific issue and language I focused on. The approach you have to responding here, is to just cast in any thoughts you have about other people's posts and, I am guessing even hallucinated posts (have Buddhists really come and argued in this thread in favor of free will???)
...and note its applicability to Mary aborting Jane. Or another context of your own choosing. Anything to bring these ponderous intellectual contraptions down out of the clouds.
Only I'm "stuck" even then in that "here and now" I have been compelled by my brain to believe that this too is no less an inherent manifestation of the only possible material reality. The Flatland syndrome that I don't have a clue as to how to extricate myself from given this:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmA murderer murders. We think determinism holds, And we consider him responsible, in the sense that he is the local cause of the murder and that if we separate out this person from society, he can't kill other people. In a free will universe, we think he murdered and is the one who chose to do this in all senses and separate him out, in prison, as in the other universe, so he won't choose to do this again.
But then the part where some determinists insist that you were never able not to type those words conveying a meaning you were never able not to have. And I was never able not to read them and react to them other than how my brain compels me to react.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do not bring in the issue of objectivism. I am not saying that we can prove that these behaviors are immoral. I am saying that determinsim being the case need not inhibit the incarceration and holding responsible of people who did things.
Sure, we can assume that I have free will and can opt not to bring that in. Just as we can assume that even though criminals cannot not commit their crimes, we are still free to either opt to hold them responsible and incarcerate them or not.
But, given my own understanding of a wholly determined universe, the only way that can make any sense at all is given the fact that the brains of some compel them to think that it makes sense.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmPlease demonstrate how it is logically inconsistent to incarcerate a murderer if one believes in determinism.
How is logic itself not subsumed in the only possible world? In the only possible reality, how can anything
at all ever be inconsistent if what it is was never able to not be other than as it must be?
Also, as far as I am able grasp these relationships "here and now", phyllo was, in turn, never able not to say what he did. Everything under the sun is going around and around in the only possible circles there can be.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmUtterly irrelevant. It may come as a shock to you, I understand what determinism entails. And I would be shocked if Phyllo doesn't also.
Same thing. How can anything that unfolds in the only possible reality ever be other than completely relevant given that everything that is matter is compelled to unfold
in the only possible reality?
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmAt no point am I assuming autonomy here.
It's very odd. We are talking about whether people should be treated as if they are responsible for their actions if determinism is the case. I bring up semantics in relation to the word responsible and for some reason you keep responding as if I am saying that semantics creates some exception to determinism. I think this kind of thing is what is happening when you and Phyllo argue. And the bringing in Buddhists, Pantheists, theists, other cosmologies that have Big Bangs before the last one are all utterly irrelevant. So much noise and so little signal. It doesn't matter IN THE LEAST for the issues I raised if determinism goes back even further in time. That doesn't matter.
Compelled to or not, we think about these things differently. Everything matters only as it ever could matter in the only possible reality. Including you saying that it doesn't matter.
Only I'm the first to note the obvious: that given what neither one of us knows about the inherent/necessary/ontological relationship between the human condition and the existence of existence itself, what are the odds that my conclusions here are the one and only definitive assessment?
Like yours are, right?