compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6667
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 1:33 am Iambiguous said....
Again: absolutely shameless!!!
and
You know, in a free will world.
The real world, you mean.
Shameless as an evaluation in a deterministic world would mean...that Henry lacked shame.
In a free will world, it would mean HQ was doing bad things and what makes his behavior even more immoral, even to a nihilist, is that he is so brazen about it.
A compatiblist would say that HQ couldn't help but to freely choose to be shameless. And God only knows if they would judge him morally or not.
Calvinists would say that HQ is simply revealing his predestined damned state.
Buddhists would experience HQ as a transient phenomenon like any other.
Many Hindus would consider HQ as Ganesh, the Lord of Obstacles.
And Nietzsche would be horrified at the thought of Henry repeating his same posts eternally through time.
Image
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 »

In a free will world, it would mean HQ was doing bad things and what makes his behavior even more immoral, even to a nihilist, is that he is so brazen about it.
Which is why I am shameless: seein' biggy as the crapsack con man he is, and treatin' him as such, is nuthin' but moral.
Lord of Obstacles
Yes, I approve. I am to be addressed as Lord of Obstacles from now on.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:37 am
henry quirk wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 1:33 am Iambiguous said....
Again: absolutely shameless!!!
and
You know, in a free will world.
The real world, you mean.
Shameless as an evaluation in a deterministic world would mean...that Henry lacked shame.
In a free will world, it would mean HQ was doing bad things and what makes his behavior even more immoral, even to a nihilist, is that he is so brazen about it.
A compatiblist would say that HQ couldn't help but to freely choose to be shameless. And God only knows if they would judge him morally or not.
Calvinists would say that HQ is simply revealing his predestined damned state.
Buddhists would experience HQ as a transient phenomenon like any other.
Many Hindus would consider HQ as Ganesh, the Lord of Obstacles.
And Nietzsche would be horrified at the thought of Henry repeating his same posts eternally through time.
Image
ASSUMPTIONS like the ones shown and expressed here are but just ANOTHER example of HOW and WHY human beings, back in the days when this was being written, were SO CONFUSED, and thus were SO LOST and on the Wrong path Life.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:23 pm But the compatibilists among us argue that even in a wholly determined universe where Mary was never able not to abort Jane, she is still morally responsible for doing so.
I think [it] might help if you explained why the person is not responsible, if the universe is deterministic. You may have done this, but I think if this is carefully argued, without implying any steps, but lining them up, the discussion might get one step further along.
First, given what we still have no definitive understanding of regarding 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.
...how "carefully argued" can any of our arguments be on this thread?

Thus, given that, in regard to my own assessment "here and now", I start with the assumption that the human brain is but more matter. Matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter. And if Mary's brain compels her to abort Jane -- i.e. she was never able not to abort her -- some might argue that she is still morally responsible. But then, in turn, some determinists note, they were never able not to do this. Nothing we think, feel, say or do is not fated/destined to unfold only as it must given how some do construe determinism.

Thus, for many, the need to bring brain matter around to God. Whether in regard to evolution or creationism, God implants free-will in the souls of human beings at the moment of conception. End of story. Their story.

And then the No God equivalents of this: Buddhists.

Or Pantheists. Where the universe itself becomes God.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmI have seen people discuss incarcerating people who commit crimes. This could be viewed as holding them responsble or as taking steps to prevent further crimes.
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.
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 pmNow in determinism one could argue that the Big Bang is the ultimate cause. But in your argument for why a person in a determinist universe is not responsible for doing X, you might need to explain what the problem would be viewing the person as the primary cause of something.
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.
Only I take it all the way back to the existence of existence itself. After all, some astrophysicists argue that "our" Big Bang was just one in a string of them. And that even "our" universe itself is but one of a string of them.

We're still hopelessly stuck in our own rendition of Flatland. There's something else...but what exactly? Only we don't know for certain if we were, are, or ever will be able not to be stuck. The "human condition" in the context of all there is?

And then the part where, by and large, from my point of view, this is often discussed here up in the "general description intellectual clouds". I always ask, "okay, so how does what you think here pertain to Mary aborting Jane?" Or given another context all your own.

Thus, how might this...
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmThere's this strong moral, state of being nebulous meaning with 'responsible', but actually in practical terms one is view the other as the source of some problem/or even something good.
...pertain to a set of circumstances you are familiar with in which conflicting goods precipitated conflicting behaviors.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pm But in any case.....

You can say....according to your understanding Joe couldn't do anything else but what he did.
and then Phyllo can
say, We can hold Joe responsible.
and then you can
say
As far as I can see Joe couldn't do anything else.
and....

in circles.
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 pm Because I think on some level this is about semantics and assumes of what holding someone responsible means.

Must it mean they could have done something else.

Or does it mean, I see them as being the immediate source of a problem and that it helps things if I do X to them.
Why would human semantics [and inflection and subjuntive mood] be exceptions to the materialist rules?

And what I assume most of all is that I am no exception when it comes to my own ignorance regarding the things I think, feel, say and do and 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.
After all, I claim to embrace determinism and yet in post after post on thread after thread, I interact with others here as though, on the contrary, free will is the rule.

That surreal component in all of this. Deconstructing the brain here when it is the brain itself doing the deconstructing.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:04 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:23 pm But the compatibilists among us argue that even in a wholly determined universe where Mary was never able not to abort Jane, she is still morally responsible for doing so.
I think [it] might help if you explained why the person is not responsible, if the universe is deterministic. You may have done this, but I think if this is carefully argued, without implying any steps, but lining them up, the discussion might get one step further along.
First, given what we still have no definitive understanding of regarding 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.
...how "carefully argued" can any of our arguments be on this thread?

Thus, given that, in regard to my own assessment "here and now", I start with the assumption that the human brain is but more matter.
But WHY would ANY one even begin to ASSUME such a thing?

Especially WHEN what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY Truth is HERE, BEFORE 'us' ALL?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:04 pm Matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter. And if Mary's brain compels her to abort Jane -- i.e. she was never able not to abort her -- some might argue that she is still morally responsible.
If it is 'mary' who HAS a brain, then WHO is this 'mary' thing, EXACTLY?

And, if one has NOT choice, then they can NOT be LOGICALLY 'morally responsible' for absolutely ANY thing, OBVIOUSLY.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:04 pm But then, in turn, some determinists note, they were never able not to do this. Nothing we think, feel, say or do is not fated/destined to unfold only as it must given how some do construe determinism.

Thus, for many, the need to bring brain matter around to God. Whether in regard to evolution or creationism,
LOL

See HOW the adult human beings, back in the days when this was being written, continually LOOKED AT discussion like this as EITHER/OR?

Back then a LOT of them ACTUALLY STILL BELIEVED that it was a case of EITHER 'evolution' OR 'creationism'. And, MOST of them did NOT YET even obtain the CAPACITY that it could be ANY thing else.

Which is Truly LAUGHABLE considering what 'we' NOW KNOW.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:04 pm God implants free-will in the souls of human beings at the moment of conception. End of story. Their story.

And then the No God equivalents of this: Buddhists.

Or Pantheists. Where the universe itself becomes God.
Wrong ASSUMPTION, after Wrong ASSUMPTION, leading to just continual Wrong ASSUMING.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:04 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmI have seen people discuss incarcerating people who commit crimes. This could be viewed as holding them responsble or as taking steps to prevent further crimes.
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.
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 pmNow in determinism one could argue that the Big Bang is the ultimate cause.
But, and as ANY child would ask, But what caused or created the so-called "big bang"?

Child-like LOGIC ALWAYS OVERRIDES adult-like "logic".

IN BOTH the RIDICULOUS and ABSURD 'free will ONLY world' AND the 'deterministic ONLY world' 'trying to' "argue" that the "big bang" is the ultimate cause would be, ITSELF, RIDICULOUS and ABSURD, AS WELL.

AGAIN, MORE PROOF of Wrong ASSUMPTIONS, leading to Wrong ASSUMING.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:04 pm But in your argument for why a person in a determinist universe is not responsible for doing X, you might need to explain what the problem would be viewing the person as the primary cause of something.
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.
Only I take it all the way back to the existence of existence itself. After all, some astrophysicists argue that "our" Big Bang was just one in a string of them. And that even "our" universe itself is but one of a string of them.
Well considering what the term, phrase, or word 'Universe' MEANS, or REFERS TO, EXACTLY, then even what these so-called "astrophysicists" are 'trying to' "argue" for here is RIDICULOUS and ABSURD ALSO?

WHY do 'you', human beings, 'try' SO HARD to "argue" for 'things', which are OBVIOUSLY NOT True, NOT Real, NOT Correct, and NOT even POSSIBLE to BEGIN WITH?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:04 pm We're still hopelessly stuck in our own rendition of Flatland. There's something else...but what exactly? Only we don't know for certain if we were, are, or ever will be able not to be stuck. The "human condition" in the context of all there is?
Yes, thee OLD human 'CONdition'.

It CERTAINLY DID lead 'you' ALL ASTRAY, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED throughout just this forum.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:04 pm And then the part where, by and large, from my point of view, this is often discussed here up in the "general description intellectual clouds". I always ask, "okay, so how does what you think here pertain to Mary aborting Jane?" Or given another context all your own.

Thus, how might this...
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmThere's this strong moral, state of being nebulous meaning with 'responsible', but actually in practical terms one is view the other as the source of some problem/or even something good.
...pertain to a set of circumstances you are familiar with in which conflicting goods precipitated conflicting behaviors.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pm But in any case.....

You can say....according to your understanding Joe couldn't do anything else but what he did.
and then Phyllo can
say, We can hold Joe responsible.
and then you can
say
As far as I can see Joe couldn't do anything else.
and....

in circles.
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 pm Because I think on some level this is about semantics and assumes of what holding someone responsible means.

Must it mean they could have done something else.

Or does it mean, I see them as being the immediate source of a problem and that it helps things if I do X to them.
Why would human semantics [and inflection and subjuntive mood] be exceptions to the materialist rules?

And what I assume most of all is that I am no exception when it comes to my own ignorance regarding the things I think, feel, say and do and 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.
After all, I claim to embrace determinism and yet in post after post on thread after thread, I interact with others here as though, on the contrary, free will is the rule.
What does 'free will' even mean or refer to, from YOUR OWN 'deterministic' view of things?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:04 pm That surreal component in all of this. Deconstructing the brain here when it is the brain itself doing the deconstructing.
I found USING thee Mind, INSTEAD of the brain, FAR MORE CONCLUSIVE, and thus SATISFYING.

But each to their own, and so feel FREE to carry on as 'you' are and have been.

YOUR WORDS are helping tremendously in PROVING HOW thee Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6667
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

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.
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?
To 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?
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.
Did I say anything about an autonomy?
No, 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???)

Thus, how might this...
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmThere's this strong moral, state of being nebulous meaning with 'responsible', but actually in practical terms one is view the other as the source of some problem/or even something good.
...pertain to a set of circumstances you are familiar with in which conflicting goods precipitated conflicting behaviors.
A 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.

NOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.

If you are simply going to repeat that they couldn't have done something else
you are not understanding the issue.

Please demonstrate how it is logically inconsistant to incarcerate a murderer if one believes in determinism.
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.
Utterly irrelevant. It may come as a shock to you, I understand what determinism entails. And I would be shocked if Phyllo doesn't also.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pm Because I think on some level this is about semantics and assumes of what holding someone responsible means.
Must it mean they could have done something else.
Or does it mean, I see them as being the immediate source of a problem and that it helps things if I do X to them.
Why would human semantics [and inflection and subjuntive mood] be exceptions to the materialist rules?
I never suggested it did.
And what I assume most of all is that I am no exception when it comes to my own ignorance regarding the things I think, feel, say and do and 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.
At 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.

So, do you have an interest in seeing if the dialoque can come one step further along? Or do you just want to repeat yourself over and over? Those are both valid hobbies, but some people may mistake your questions and responses as implying the former.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

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.
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?
To 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?
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.
Did I say anything about an autonomy?
No, 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???)

Thus, how might this...
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pmThere's this strong moral, state of being nebulous meaning with 'responsible', but actually in practical terms one is view the other as the source of some problem/or even something good.
...pertain to a set of circumstances you are familiar with in which conflicting goods precipitated conflicting behaviors.
A 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.

NOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.

If you are simply going to repeat that they couldn't have done something else
you are not understanding the issue.

Please demonstrate how it is logically inconsistant to incarcerate a murderer if one believes in determinism.
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.
Utterly irrelevant. It may come as a shock to you, I understand what determinism entails. And I would be shocked if Phyllo doesn't also.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:02 pm Because I think on some level this is about semantics and assumes of what holding someone responsible means.
Must it mean they could have done something else.
Or does it mean, I see them as being the immediate source of a problem and that it helps things if I do X to them.
Why would human semantics [and inflection and subjuntive mood] be exceptions to the materialist rules?
I never suggested it did.
And what I assume most of all is that I am no exception when it comes to my own ignorance regarding the things I think, feel, say and do and 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.
At 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.
IF ONLY 'determinism' exists/is the case, then there is NO use in even beginning to want to 'consider' if people 'should' be treated as if they are responsible or not, or even if people 'should' be treated in absolutely ANY way because what you end up 'considering' or 'not considering' you have ABSOLUTELY NO choice at all about, and how people end up being treated NO one has ABSOLUTELY ANY choice about or over either also.

In some imagined deterministic ONLY 'world'/'Universe' how 'you', people, end up treating and mistreating each other was ALREADY pre-determined. And, ALL of 'you' have absolutely NO choice, in the matter.

So, in a 'deterministic ONLY Universe' discussing absolutely ANY thing here will change absolutely NOTHING AT ALL from what IS ALREADY pre-determined TO HAPPEN.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:23 am 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.

So, do you have an interest in seeing if the dialoque can come one step further along? Or do you just want to repeat yourself over and over? Those are both valid hobbies, but some people may mistake your questions and responses as implying the former.
CHNOPS
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:11 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by CHNOPS »

This discussion is determined.

This humans body are determined to discuss, because in discuss is where the matter changes, evolves, all always determined.

Is not complicated to understand...
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

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?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

CHNOPS wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:25 pm This discussion is determined.
AND you also have the ability to CHOOSE what to discuss about.

Or, do you BELIEVE you have NO ability to CHOOSE?
CHNOPS wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:25 pm This humans body are determined to discuss, because in discuss is where the matter changes, evolves, all always determined.
But matter changes and evolves always no matter if human beings discuss things or not.
CHNOPS wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:25 pm Is not complicated to understand...
Yes what you say here is NOT complicated to understand AT ALL, but it is also NOT necessarily true nor right either.
CHNOPS
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:11 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by CHNOPS »

AND you also have the ability to CHOOSE what to discuss about.

Or, do you BELIEVE you have NO ability to CHOOSE?
Yes, we have the ability to CHOOSE, in the same way an autonomous make choices when it has to decide if stop or not when see a person passing in front.

Maybe that decision is wrong, maybe is right.

The same with us. We make decisiones, choices.

And all this is determined. I mean, if we repeat the Big Bang 1000 times, the 1000 times we make the same choice.
But matter changes and evolves always no matter if human beings discuss things or not.
Of course. When the stars born, there is no need for humans in that evolution of matter.

But in the biological evolution, I mean, in this kind of matter that we call "biological matter", the decisions we make, generate the evolution going to differents states or structures of this biological matter.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
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
Intuitions About Free Will and Responsibility
Here of course things get downright...ineffable?

And that's because intuition in and of itself seems to intertwine so many complex facets of the self...

1] the intellectual, the emotional, the psychological
2] the conscious, the subconscious, the unconscious
3] the genetic, the memetic, the two in combination

Thus, in regard to "intuitions about free will and responsibility", what does this...

"Intuition: the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning"

...even mean?

You say, "I have a gut feeling about free will and responsibility...they're the real deal".

Someone else says, "I have a gut feeling about free will and responsibility...they're not the real deal".

Then what?
Incompatibilist philosophers have traditionally claimed both that ordinary people believe that human decisions are not governed by deterministic laws and that ordinary people believe that determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility. These claims have been based, not on systematic empirical research, but rather on anecdote and informal observation.
My own point, more or less. Making claims about free will and moral responsibility in a world of words is one thing, backing those words up as scientists go about backing up their own assessments experimentally and through empirical research, another thing altogether.

I'm no less embedded in the philosophical assessments myself. But at least I recognize the limitations of that. In the end, philosophers can only take their own conclusions to those who can plug them into the efforts being made to study actual brains making actual decisions.

Yet years go by and there is still no definitive assessments from the hard guys and gals either. Or, rather, none that I am familiar with. Google free will and neuroscience and you get this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=free+wi ... nt=gws-wiz

So, peruse the links and get back to us on whether you perused the links of your own free will or not.

Next up:
For example, Kane writes, “In my experience, most ordinary persons start out as natural incompatibilists”. In recent years, philosophers have sought to put claims like this one to the test using experimental methods. The results have sometimes been surprising.
Surprising because we freely opted to be surprised? Or surprising because we were never able to not be surprised?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6667
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:15 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.
Yes, agreed to already. This is not news that you believe this. It is also not an answer to the question.

And then from Big Mike's thread....
Note to others:

Given a free will world, decide for yourself what is prompting this antagonism from Iwannaplato.

I have my own suspicions; in case anyone is interested.
More activity that would pull Big Mike's thread from his focus. .

I am guessing, and it is a guess, that you didn't even realize that you responded to his topic as if it was a topic of your own interest. I think that is a charitable read. I doubt very much you thought, hey, let me change the topic to fit might interests.

But your first post was not on topic. It was not trying to work out what beliefs in free will or determinism would potentially lead to in attitudes. And you post there matched very much your posts, here in your own thread as far as topic.

My guess is your suspicions about why other people react to you negatively NEVER seriously consider the possibility that you might be being rude or conveniently obtuse.

You seem to be a kind of fly paper of a poster. Trying to get things stuck to you.

Let me guess: your suspicions about why I will never communicate with you again will be self-congratulatory. You'll conclude I actually believe in free will. Or that you triggered my deep fears. Or that your posts were so challenging to my deepest beliefs, I had to run off.

Something like that right, n'est pas?

It's interesting you bring up Know Thyself occasionally. That's exactly what Saturn or whatever his name is does.

Anyone pissed off at him, it's because they couldn't hack his genius or his brave adherance to the truth or facing reality.

Peas in a pod.

Permanent avoid now in place.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

CHNOPS wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:52 am
AND you also have the ability to CHOOSE what to discuss about.

Or, do you BELIEVE you have NO ability to CHOOSE?
Yes, we have the ability to CHOOSE, in the same way an autonomous make choices when it has to decide if stop or not when see a person passing in front.

Maybe that decision is wrong, maybe is right.

The same with us. We make decisiones, choices.
you have obviously MISSED the point here.

And this is BECAUSE you have NOT, YET anyway, sought out what THE POINT IS, EXACTLY.

you are just ASSUMING what is being meant, and then you run with THAT ASSUMPTION, ALONE.
CHNOPS wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:52 am And all this is determined. I mean, if we repeat the Big Bang 1000 times, the 1000 times we make the same choice.
you propose this CLAIM as though:

1. That bang was the beginning of ALL. And,

2. As though your Claim here is true.

For your information;

That bang was NOT the beginning of ALL. And,

your CLAIM.is NOT necessarily true.
CHNOPS wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:52 am
But matter changes and evolves always no matter if human beings discuss things or not.
Of course. When the stars born, there is no need for humans in that evolution of matter.

But in the biological evolution, I mean, in this kind of matter that we call "biological matter", the decisions we make, generate the evolution going to differents states or structures of this biological matter.
And, because of who and what 'you', human beings, ARE, EXACTLY, and, because of what WHO and WHAT 'I' am, EXACTLY, ALL of this CAN BE CHANGED, and IS, in Fact, CHANGING, and in a WAY that IS, currently, UNIMAGINABLE or IMPOSSIBLE to 'you' at the moment, "chnops".
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:16 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:15 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.
Yes, agreed to already.
Click.

Hold on. You're agreeing that my brain compelled me to think that? Then to post that here? That your brain then compelled you to read the post? And then to react to it only as you must?

That, in other words, everything that we do think, feel, say and do is wholly -- ontologically? -- in sync with the human brain being but more matter wholly -- ontologically? -- in sync with the immutable laws of matter?

This despite the fact that both of us seem enigmatically subsumed in what we do not grasp regarding...
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 10, 2022 11:16 pmThis is not news that you believe this. It is also not an answer to the question.
Again, noting this as a free will advocate would. That new posts here might contain information and knowledge that would prompt us to [autonomously] change our minds about something. When, from the perspective of many determinists, all news -- information, knowledge, posts here -- are subsumed in the only possible reality.

Back again to how I keep missing crucial points like yours and BigMikes. As though I was free to get them but opted not to. Okay, either out of ignorance or stupidity?
Note to others:

Given a free will world, decide for yourself what is prompting this antagonism from Iwannaplato.

I have my own suspicions; in case anyone is interested.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:16 pmMore activity that would pull Big Mike's thread from his focus.
Or: Just another post that I was never able not to post on his thread because I am never able to do anything other than in sync with the laws of matter.

Again, as though BigMike, a hardcore determinist himself, wouldn't argue that his focus there is in turn subsumed in the only possible reality. Except that as a "free will determinist" his own brain is "somehow" exempt from that in regard to the future?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:16 pmI am guessing, and it is a guess, that you didn't even realize that you responded to his topic as if it was a topic of your own interest. I think that is a charitable read. I doubt very much you thought, hey, let me change the topic to fit might interests.
Guess what you...must?

We simply do not grasp determinism in the same way. Only I'm the first to admit that, in regard to how I grasp it, my brain may or may not have compelled me to grasp it only as I must. How about your brain?

Instead, your brain seems to compel you to make this all about me personally:
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:16 pmBut your first post was not on topic. It was not trying to work out what beliefs in free will or determinism would potentially lead to in attitudes. And you post there matched very much your posts, here in your own thread as far as topic.

My guess is your suspicions about why other people react to you negatively NEVER seriously consider the possibility that you might be being rude or conveniently obtuse.
Then your brain compells you to really go off the deep end...
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:16 pmYou seem to be a kind of fly paper of a poster. Trying to get things stuck to you.

Let me guess: your suspicions about why I will never communicate with you again will be self-congratulatory. You'll conclude I actually believe in free will. Or that you triggered my deep fears. Or that your posts were so challenging to my deepest beliefs, I had to run off.

Something like that right, n'est pas?

It's interesting you bring up Know Thyself occasionally. That's exactly what Saturn or whatever his name is does.

Anyone pissed off at him, it's because they couldn't hack his genius or his brave adherance to the truth or facing reality.

Peas in a pod.

Permanent avoid now in place.
Note to others:

You tell me!!!

I get this kind of reaction all the time from both the God and the No God objectivists. Why? Because their lives reflect one or another rendition of the "psychology of objectivism". My arguments are aimed not at what they believe but at the supposition that what they believe allows them to anchor their moral, political and spiritual convictions in a Self that allows them to sustain the comfort and the consolation of being able to divide up the world between "one of us" [the smart guys, the good guys] and "one of them" [the dumb guys, the evil guys].

So, IWP will now abandon his/her exchanges with me but keep them up with those like... Age?!!!

Well, given this...

Click.

...of course. 8)

Just out of curiosity, is this you Moreno? Karpel Tunnel?
Last edited by iambiguous on Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply