compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Before you guys jump too far into the rabbit hole ...
Well, in the either/or world some things are true and some things are false. There is no alternative world where it's the other way around. Or none that I'm aware of. One can't both get pregnant and not get pregnant. And, if pregnant, one can't both abort it and not abort it.
"Things" are not true or false, statements are true or false.

Statements taken as true by one person may be taken as false by another. Statements taken as true may turn out to be false at a later time. And vice versa.

A person who says "I'm pregnant." may be lying, or may be mistaken, or may be joking.

How will/can/should/did the person being addressed evaluate the statement?
But, given free will, one can choose to have sex or choose not to. And if pregnant, one can choose to abort it or give birth.
Or one's brain can choose to have sex or not to and if pregnant, one's brain can choose to abort it or give birth.

Or one's brain can compel you to have sex or not to and if pregnant, one's brain can compel you to abort it or give birth.

Why not those ways to phrase it?

Carry on.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:51 pm You wrote the above, not me.
Sorry, if I quoted poorly. And note: I was defending your idea of using concrete examples, even if I thought a different one would be clearer.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmSure, I get that. There was no need to say 'again.' What do you think? if determinism is the case, would you hold such a person responsible or not? And what would you suggest we do with such a person?
But: Determinism as who understands it? As I understand it here and now, how any of us understand it is only as our brains compel us to understand it. If I hold someone responsible [for anything] it was only because I was never able to freely opt not to hold them responsible.
You're repeating yourself. You could still imagine, whether it is determined or not, what you think should be done. You could make this small attempt to meet my post.

If you are not interested in meeting a post that you quoted and responded to, then it would be better I think to simply ignore it. I cannot imagine what you get from typing the same things over and over and I assure you I get nothing. I read that before many times.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmIf free will is the case, would you hold him responsible? How do you think we should treat such a person in such a case? IOW how would you want that person to be treated differently than you would in a deterministic world?
Click.

In a free will world, there are either facts that can be established or not. Doctor Smith did in fact abort Mary's fetus. Was he in fact responsible for aborting the fetus. Yes, in fact, he was.

But: In a free world is, in fact, abortion immoral? In fact, yes? Then, in fact, Dr. Smith behaved immorally.
So, he would be responsible, morally. Great, see. You answered one of the questions.
Or, instead, in a free will world, is morality here rooted existentially in dasein as I construe it?
And this is why I suggested the child murderer, a point you obviously ignore. That's a different discussion. It may be related, but it's mixing topics right here. And, again, you have typed this again and again. You are wasting your time, here typing it again and you are wasting my time.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmPlease don't answer that in a deterministic world your opinion on their responsibility were be utterly determined. I understand that.
But in a determined universe how is the answer I give not in turn an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?
Asked and answered. A number of times. You seem to assume that 1) only you understand things 2) I haven't read this as a statement or question in a number of your posts already. It is beside the point for what I was asking in my post to FJ and then to you when you responded to that post. If you can't understand then assume that you repeating what I already read is not it. So, see what else I might be after. You're a smart person.

We don't know what this universe is, determined or free will. You could actually answer what if you think in a determined universe people should be held responsible for things they do and what this would entail. Yes, your answer would be utterly determined if this is a deterministic universe, BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT, you could still take a stand, express an opinion. You do this about all sorts of other things. Perhaps there was a movie or song you liked, re other threads. Perhaps you think someone was being shameless in a response to you - which is a moral judgment and perhaps this is a deterministic universe. See? You manage to say that, even though your response, if this is a deterministic universe would be....yah, utterly determined. But here if asked for your opinion about whether someone in a deterministic universe is responsible........

you won't answer and say that your response would be determined in a deterministic universe. Well, duh. Of course. I have never given the impression anywhere that I don't understand that.

My guess is you are not intentionally being resistant or passive aggressive on purpose. But my experience ends up being the same. Suddenly you cannot express an opinion about what you think about responsibility and determinism.
Either scientists, philosophers or theologians can definitively explain how mindless matter from the Big Bang was able to evolve into autonomous matter in human brains or they can't. In the interim, some come into philosophy forums like this one and, compelled or not, speculate on what "in their heads" "here and now" they think is true.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmI have read that so many times. Please don't be rude. You responded to my post and used it as an opportunity to repeat yourself.
Right, like in a determined universe as I understand it, I can opt not to repeat myself. Like you were not yourself wholly compelled to call me rude.
I see. So, you take refuge in determinism, you couldn't help your behavior and not only that when it is pointed out you are impervious to changing. IOW many people in a determinist universe do learn change habits from feedback. It seems you are not one of these. I know, that's determined too.

But it does mean you're a poor conversation partner. And if this is a determinist universe, it will lead me to find you annoying and not worth taking seriously. If a free will universe, if this is one, I have the same reaction. And now you know why.
We clearly understand all of this differently.
No, we actually don't. What you don't understand is that you could black box whether this is a determined universe and express your opinion about whether people shooting children are responsible in a determined universe. and if they should be punished. YOu could express and opinion.

Instead of doing that you talk about the entire situation.
And [compelled by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter or not] around and around we go.
Oh, yes, you're quite correct. No one changes their mind. No one can go...oh, I see what you mean, finally, it's a kind of thought experiment. I didn't understand before, but I do now. No, that never happens.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmDid you not understand why I suggested shifting the issue from abortion which has significant portions of the population on both sides of the issue??????
Click:
Of course I did. That's why I posted the what I did over on the torturing babies thread:
No what you write below shows you did not understand. My point had nothing to do with are morals objective or not. It was a practical suggestion...to separate out, temporarily, the issue of objective morals or not FROM the issue of determinism and responsibility vs free will and responsibility.

To make it clear what any part of the discussion is about. Abortion invites a huge digression by different camps. Shooting innocent children doesn't. Of course it doesn't solve the can morals be objective issue. But it makes it less likely to mix up two issues in the same part of the discussion. That's all.
Torturing babies] comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

How would you reason with them?
So, all that is not reading me carefully in my previous post. I was not suggesting the change of moral issue from abortion to shooting children because the latter is closer to objective. I was not suggesting that it would convince more people that morals are objective. I do not believe in objective morals.

My best guess is you don't realize what you are doing? The rest of your response is more of the same. Everything is an excuse to repeat what you have read. If you read what I wrote carefully, you would see that your responses are not really to what I wrote, but you used them to remind you of things you seem to want to repeat ad infinitum.

I don't have this experience with other posters, objectivists and non-objectivist, theists and atheists, conservatives and liberals, etc, etc. Regardless of their categories they do not repeat things again and again that show they are not reading me carefully and are things they have said in your case hundreds of times. Yes, I can have all sorts of miscommunications and irritations, but nothing at this level.

It seems like it is not even worth considering, I mean actually where you sit and consider it for a while: but there is a real problem you have in communication with others. I see this mentioned by other people, some of whom have gone to great lengths to communicate with you and tried many different approaches.

It seems like you interpret the problem as mainly them.

Yes, you say sometimes that you can't be sure it is them. But this just seems like some pro forma habit. I see no sign that you are fractured and fragmented about the problem. The big metaphysical issues, yes you are fragmented and fractured, but your judgments of what's going on in interactions with other posters, no. They are threatened by your ideas and you're pretty comfortable with that conclusion with a little proviso that you can't be sure.

OK, got it. Whether you are not really interested in anything new that can't be answered by what you have written dozens of times, or you just have problems reading people well, doesn't really matter in the end.

I'll focus on others for a while.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:33 pm
If there's someone in your life you need to forgive, for having an abortion or for any other reason, forgive them. And if YOU'RE the person you need to forgive, forgive yourself. I feel like all this talk about determinism and compatibilism is a distraction from what's really going on with you. Learn to forgive.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:51 pm You wrote the above, not me.
Sorry, if I quoted poorly. And note: I was defending your idea of using concrete examples, even if I thought a different one would be clearer.
When it comes to free will -- click -- nothing is more important to me than in knowing whether or not we can be held morally responsible for the things we do.

And then the part where "somehow" the brains of particular animals killing [and even eating] baby animals instinctively evolved into the brains of human beings killing fetuses and babies for actual individual reasons? What's the difference in a wholly determined universe? If human brains did "somehow" acquire autonomy -- God or No God -- does that mean they also acquired moral responsibility?

And, in a No God world, given free will, how are moral responsibilities -- moral narratives themselves -- not rooted existentially, subjectively, historically, culturally in dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome? Is there a way for philosophers -- re Kant -- to deduce the most rational and virtuous arguments regarding things like abortion?

I don't think so. But I have no way in which to demonstrate that what I think here I think here of my own volition...let alone that others ought to think as I do.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmSure, I get that. There was no need to say 'again.' What do you think? if determinism is the case, would you hold such a person responsible or not? And what would you suggest we do with such a person?
But: Determinism as who understands it? As I understand it here and now, how any of us understand it is only as our brains compel us to understand it. If I hold someone responsible [for anything] it was only because I was never able to freely opt not to hold them responsible.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pm You're repeating yourself. You could still imagine, whether it is determined or not, what you think should be done. You could make this small attempt to meet my post.
And around and around and around we go.

From my frame of mind, you accuse me of repeating myself as a libertarian would. I could opt not to repeat myself but I choose to anyway. Whereas how I understand determinism [which may well be wrong], I repeat myself as often as my brain compels me to.

Same thing with anything I imagine. I can tell you what I imagine should be done but I can't tell you if what I imagine should be done I could have opted not to tell you. Or thought it all through some more and told you something different.

And even given free will as a libertarian construes it, what we decide that we should or should not do in the is/ought world is, from my frame of mind "here and now", largely a manifestation of dasein. An existential and a hopelessly subjective/intersubjective "consensus" reached in any given community where might makes right and right makes might gives way to democracy and the rule of law.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pm If you are not interested in meeting a post that you quoted and responded to, then it would be better I think to simply ignore it. I cannot imagine what you get from typing the same things over and over and I assure you I get nothing. I read that before many times.
Click.

Then choose not to read my posts anymore. Problem solved. Because either "beyond my control" my brain compels me to post what I do, or, for whatever complex personal reasons rooted existentially in dasein, I choose to repeat myself hoping that if I repeat myself enough it will finally begin to sink in with others. After all, it took the longest time for me to finally grasp the arguments that the moral nihilists kept repeating to me way back then.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmIf free will is the case, would you hold him responsible? How do you think we should treat such a person in such a case? IOW how would you want that person to be treated differently than you would in a deterministic world?
Click.

In a free will world, there are either facts that can be established or not. Doctor Smith did in fact abort Mary's fetus. Was he in fact responsible for aborting the fetus. Yes, in fact, he was.

But: In a free world is, in fact, abortion immoral? In fact, yes? Then, in fact, Dr. Smith behaved immorally.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pmSo, he would be responsible, morally. Great, see. You answered one of the questions.
Please.

In a free will world, sure, if "somehow" philosophers/ethicists were able to establish that abortion is in fact objectively immoral then in fact he would be behaving immorally.

But my argument is that in a free will world, the points I raise in the OP here...

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

...are more applicable.

And it is the conclusion I come to there that most riles the moral objectivists among us in a free will world. In other words, what if my conclusion there is also applicable to them? What of their precious Platonic, Kantian, Ayn Randian objectivist morality is in turn just another existential contraption rooted in dasein? What of their precious "my way or the highway" Self then?

Thus...
Or, instead, in a free will world, is morality here rooted existentially in dasein as I construe it?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pm And this is why I suggested the child murderer, a point you obviously ignore. That's a different discussion. It may be related, but it's mixing topics right here. And, again, you have typed this again and again. You are wasting your time, here typing it again and you are wasting my time.
I discussed how, to me, all value judgments, all moral and political issues, are the embodiment of dasein. Some behaviors are just more extreme than others. With some issues, opinions are more or less split down the middle, while with others the overwhelming majority may agree something is wrong. But, in a No God world, that doesn't make it wrong objectively. Try reasoning with the sociopaths among us regarding the philosophical distinctions made up in the intellectual clouds here.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmPlease don't answer that in a deterministic world your opinion on their responsibility were be utterly determined. I understand that.
But in a determined universe how is the answer I give not in turn an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmAsked and answered. A number of times. You seem to assume that 1) only you understand things 2) I haven't read this as a statement or question in a number of your posts already. It is beside the point for what I was asking in my post to FJ and then to you when you responded to that post. If you can't understand then assume that you repeating what I already read is not it. So, see what else I might be after. You're a smart person.
Unbelievable. Well, other than in a wholly determined universe where you were never able not to post it. After all, "in a determined universe [as I am compelled by my brain to understand it] how is the answer I give [here as well] not in turn an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?"

We're all stuck here because none of us [to my knowledge] are able to explain all that we still do not grasp [scientifically, philosophically, theologically or otherwise] about 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.
And how preposterous it is [to me] to still encounter those here who actually do think that I think that I assume only I understand things...like this!!!
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pmWe don't know what this universe is, determined or free will. You could actually answer what if you think in a determined universe people should be held responsible for things they do and what this would entail. Yes, your answer would be utterly determined if this is a deterministic universe, BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT, you could still take a stand, express an opinion.
Note to others:

What crucial point is he making here that I keep missing? In a determined universe as I understand it "here and now" no one is responsible [morally or otherwise] for anything that they think, feel say and do. And in a free will universe, sans God, moral responsibility is rooted existentially in dasein and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome. The fact that there are countless variables in our lives that impact what we choose to do, but are largely beyond our understanding of and/or our control over. I got drafted into the Army, was sent to Vietnam and met soldiers there who completely upended how I think about things like God and morality and politics. Just because my birthday was on March 23rd. Had March 22nd or March 24th been beyond the reach of the draft, my life might have turned out completely different!!

One either grasps the existential implications of things like this as I do or they don't.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pmMy guess is you are not intentionally being resistant or passive aggressive on purpose. But my experience ends up being the same. Suddenly you cannot express an opinion about what you think about responsibility and determinism.
What?!! You are actually admitting this is all just a "guess" for you, even given free will? And I have [over and over and over again as you point out] expressed opinions/points regarding human interactions in both a determined and free ill world.

Others here [compelled or not] can decide for themselves which of us comes closest to whatever the objective truth may or may not be. If, in regard to things like this, that even exists at all.

Then of course back to this...
Either scientists, philosophers or theologians can definitively explain how mindless matter from the Big Bang was able to evolve into autonomous matter in human brains or they can't. In the interim, some come into philosophy forums like this one and, compelled or not, speculate on what "in their heads" "here and now" they think is true.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmI have read that so many times. Please don't be rude. You responded to my post and used it as an opportunity to repeat yourself.
Right, like in a determined universe as I understand it, I can opt not to repeat myself. Like you were not yourself wholly compelled to call me rude.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pmI see. So, you take refuge in determinism, you couldn't help your behavior and not only that when it is pointed out you are impervious to changing. IOW many people in a determinist universe do learn change habits from feedback. It seems you are not one of these. I know, that's determined too.
I don't know if I take refuge in determinism because my brain compels me to...or if "somehow" I did acquire free will -- God or No God -- and it just seems to make sense to me to post as I do here.

Though, sure, if you can provide us with a demonstrable argument regarding how, in a determined universe, your brain compelled you to change your habits as a result of feedback such that this now makes you responsible for these new habits...?

Go ahead, give it a go. Then, perhaps, you can explain to Mary how, in a world where she was never able not to abort Jane, she could reasonably be held morally responsible for killing her...once it is established that abortion is in fact an immoral behavior.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pmBut it does mean you're a poor conversation partner. And if this is a determinist universe, it will lead me to find you annoying and not worth taking seriously. If a free will universe, if this is one, I have the same reaction. And now you know why.
Then, as you have done so many times in the past [compelled by your brain or not], you can simply stop reading my posts...or you can configure back into Stooge mode and pummel me with the sort of invective that those like Flannel Jesus -- click -- allow themselves to be reduced down to.

Me, I still have no illusions whatsoever that given the gap between what I think I understand about these things and all that I do not understand about the existence of existence itself "I" am still no less an infinitesimally insignificant "speck of existence" in the staggering vastness of all there is.

How would I even begin to calculate the odds that my posts here come even remotely close to the optimal frame of mind...let alone the only rational explanation that there is.
And [compelled by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter or not] around and around we go.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pmOh, yes, you're quite correct. No one changes their mind. No one can go...oh, I see what you mean, finally, it's a kind of thought experiment. I didn't understand before, but I do now. No, that never happens.
Hell, I have changed my own mind over and over and over again:
And there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically and thus up to a point out of sync. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.
In regard to either morality or the Big Questions, I always come back again and again to those who never do seem to change their minds...but insist instead that those who don't think like they do are fools.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmDid you not understand why I suggested shifting the issue from abortion which has significant portions of the population on both sides of the issue??????
Click:
Of course I did. That's why I posted the what I did over on the torturing babies thread:
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pm No what you write below shows you did not understand. My point had nothing to do with are morals objective or not. It was a practical suggestion...to separate out, temporarily, the issue of objective morals or not FROM the issue of determinism and responsibility vs free will and responsibility.
From my frame of mind, given free will, it is preposterous to "separate out" determinism and moral responsibility. They are profoundly intertwined in the assumption that we do have free will. And, if we don't, whether we make the separation or not is six of one and half a dozen of the other...to nature.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pm To make it clear what any part of the discussion is about. Abortion invites a huge digression by different camps. Shooting innocent children doesn't. Of course it doesn't solve the can morals be objective issue. But it makes it less likely to mix up two issues in the same part of the discussion. That's all.
Fine you stick with that, I'll stick with this:
[Torturing babies] comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask, "how can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

How would you reason with them?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pm So, all that is not reading me carefully in my previous post. I was not suggesting the change of moral issue from abortion to shooting children because the latter is closer to objective. I was not suggesting that it would convince more people that morals are objective. I do not believe in objective morals.
What changes though? It still comes down to how we understand determinism and free will and moral responsibility differently. I either read you only as carefully as my brain compels me to, or "somehow" I acquired the capacity to read you again and of my own volition come closer to agreeing with you. If some believe that making a distinction between killing unborn babies and killing postpartum babies brings us closer to objective morality, how does that bring us closer to determining that what people believe here they believe of their own volition and not because their brains compel them to believe only what they must believe.

There's still "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" to contend with. Absolutely nothing pertaining to the human condition and the existence of existence itself transcends that. Or not to my knowledge. It's back to being Flatlanders again with respect to our own world. It's back to the brain tasked with understanding everything there is to know about human brains themselves.

Then back to making this all about me again:
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:31 pm My best guess is you don't realize what you are doing? The rest of your response is more of the same. Everything is an excuse to repeat what you have read. If you read what I wrote carefully, you would see that your responses are not really to what I wrote, but you used them to remind you of things you seem to want to repeat ad infinitum.

I don't have this experience with other posters, objectivists and non-objectivist, theists and atheists, conservatives and liberals, etc, etc. Regardless of their categories they do not repeat things again and again that show they are not reading me carefully and are things they have said in your case hundreds of times. Yes, I can have all sorts of miscommunications and irritations, but nothing at this level.

It seems like it is not even worth considering, I mean actually where you sit and consider it for a while: but there is a real problem you have in communication with others. I see this mentioned by other people, some of whom have gone to great lengths to communicate with you and tried many different approaches.

It seems like you interpret the problem as mainly them.

Yes, you say sometimes that you can't be sure it is them. But this just seems like some pro forma habit. I see no sign that you are fractured and fragmented about the problem. The big metaphysical issues, yes you are fragmented and fractured, but your judgments of what's going on in interactions with other posters, no. They are threatened by your ideas and you're pretty comfortable with that conclusion with a little proviso that you can't be sure.
Note to others:

Click.

Decide for yourselves and either steer clear of my posts here or take a stab at explaining why in regard to morality or the Big Question you don't think as "I" do at all.

Besides, it's not like in our teeny, tiny corner of the Internet, in our teeny, tiny corner of the world, in our teeny, tiny corner of the universe, any of this will...ultimately matter? will change things?

Unless, perhaps, for the objectivists among us, you do manage to yank me up out of this philosophical hole I have dug myself down into or I manage to yank you down into it with me.

Win/win I call it.
Last edited by iambiguous on Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:43 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:33 pm
If there's someone in your life you need to forgive, for having an abortion or for any other reason, forgive them. And if YOU'RE the person you need to forgive, forgive yourself. I feel like all this talk about determinism and compatibilism is a distraction from what's really going on with you. Learn to forgive.
What on earth does this really have to do with the part where human beings grapple to understand forgiveness as either an inherent, necessary manifestation of the only possible reality...or "somehow" pin down how and why matter in the human brain "somehow" acquired the capacity to forgive autonomously?

And then the part where, given free will, we can pin down which behaviors ought to be forgiven and which must never be. For some here, not only will Mary never be forgiven for killing Jane, but she is likely to burn in Hell for all of eternity given the "mysterious ways" of their loving, just and merciful God.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Well, in the either/or world some things are true and some things are false. There is no alternative world where it's the other way around. Or none that I'm aware of. One can't both get pregnant and not get pregnant. And, if pregnant, one can't both abort it and not abort it.
phyllo wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:03 pm "Things" are not true or false, statements are true or false.

Statements taken as true by one person may be taken as false by another. Statements taken as true may turn out to be false at a later time. And vice versa.
Right.

Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022. But that is either true or false only if encompassed in a statement. John states that Russia did invade Ukraine then. Jane states that Russia did not.

So, the fact that it can actually be demonstrated that it is true pales next to that?

Well, unless human reality itself is all just a manifestation of solipsism or a simulated reality or a dream reality or a Matrix reality.

John states that Russia's invasion was morally justified. Jane states that the invasion was not justified morally.

Let's pin that down objectively.

Or...

Russia invaded Ukraine because the laws of matter are such that nothing happens in the universe other than as it must given the laws of matter. The human brain being just more matter itself. But Russia is still morally responsible for invading. And the invasion was immoral because that can be established as well. Just ask the philosophers and the scientists.

Or, if God does in fact exist, the theologians.
phyllo wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:03 pm A person who says "I'm pregnant." may be lying, or may be mistaken, or may be joking.

How will/can/should/did the person being addressed evaluate the statement?
Well, in a determined universe as some understand it, lying or being mistaken or joking are all interchangeable. Why? Because whatever you or others think you were being you and they were compelled by your/their material brains to think you were doing. Same with evaluations of that. Nothing is not fated/destined/determined to be because all matter is enthrall to the laws of matter.

We are just still completely baffled as to how human brain matter came to acquire the psychological illusion of autonomy. But we are no less as baffled as we are as we could ever be.

Whatever that means coming 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.
Where this time we are the quivalent of the Flatlanders.
But, given free will, one can choose to have sex or choose not to. And if pregnant, one can choose to abort it or give birth.
phyllo wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:03 pm Or one's brain can choose to have sex or not to and if pregnant, one's brain can choose to abort it or give birth.

Or one's brain can compel you to have sex or not to and if pregnant, one's brain can compel you to abort it or give birth.

Why not those ways to phrase it?
And around and around and around we go...

Mary's brain compelled her to abort Jane. Going all the way back to, say, the Big Bang.

Jane was not to be like those of us not aborted going all the way back to what -- or Who? -- brought into existence the laws of matter themselves.

But "somehow" -- God or No God -- when matter acquired a biological existence here on Earth, and over millions and millions of years evolved into us, Mary did acquire the capacity to take into consideration the arguments made by a friend and did change her mind about the abortion.

Jane is now here among us able to contribute to the exchange.

Ask her how she would phrase these things.

Though again -- click -- I'm the first to admit my own thinking here does not reflect the most rational understanding of this going all the way back to the most rational understanding of how and why the human condition itself fits into the existence of existence itself.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Click.

Don't bother responding to me.

Click.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:36 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:43 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:33 pm
If there's someone in your life you need to forgive, for having an abortion or for any other reason, forgive them. And if YOU'RE the person you need to forgive, forgive yourself. I feel like all this talk about determinism and compatibilism is a distraction from what's really going on with you. Learn to forgive.
What on earth does this really have to do with the part where human beings grapple to understand forgiveness as either an inherent, necessary manifestation of the only possible reality...or "somehow" pin down how and why matter in the human brain "somehow" acquired the capacity to forgive autonomously?

And then the part where, given free will, we can pin down which behaviors ought to be forgiven and which must never be. For some here, not only will Mary never be forgiven for killing Jane, but she is likely to burn in Hell for all of eternity given the "mysterious ways" of their loving, just and merciful God.
I'm not taking about determinism. I'm not taking about free will. I'm talking to you as a human being. Take yourself out of the debate for a moment and read what I said again. Forget you ever talked to me about compatibilism or free will.

Forgive yourself, or whoever else you need to forgive.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Maybe he doesn't want to talk about his personal problems in public.

DM him.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

phyllo wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:18 pm Maybe he doesn't want to talk about his personal problems in public.
I don't believe that is the case, if the Mary and Jane situation is real. That's the center of his concern with this conversation, and he has talked about it publicly many times.

I'm not intending any unkindness with this, just the opposite in fact. This conversation can happen more sensibly if it's not bogged down by moral questions of a very personal nature. If biggy puts that personal moral question behind him, by forgiving the people in his life involved in that decision (including himself) he can give himself the opportunity to think about this without the weighty personal, emotional baggage.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

I don't believe that is the case, if the Mary and Jane situation is real. That's the center of his concern with this conversation, and he has talked about it publicly many times.
Abortion is good bait. It gets lots of people riled up and they are more likely to talk to him.

"Mary" and "Jane" are his ways of bringing issues out of the "clouds" of "abstraction" and back "down to earth".

That's why abortion keeps coming up.


I don't think it's a bad subject but there is no way to get past page 1 with him. That's the problem.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

phyllo wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:07 pm
I don't believe that is the case, if the Mary and Jane situation is real. That's the center of his concern with this conversation, and he has talked about it publicly many times.
Abortion is good bait. It gets lots of people riled up and they are more likely to talk to him.

"Mary" and "Jane" are his ways of bringing issues out of the "clouds" of "abstraction" and back "down to earth".

That's why abortion keeps coming up.


I don't think it's a bad subject but there is no way to get past page 1 with him. That's the problem.
It's an excellent subject for a discussion of objective morals, since we see the challenge of convincing one side or the other or some third side.

But for a discussion of compatiblism and responsibility it's a poor choice, because it can easily distract from the 'are we responsible for our acts in a determinist universe' precisely because it is a moral issue with such strong divisions. It begs for tangents.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

But for a discussion of compatiblism and responsibility it's a poor choice, because it can easily distract from the 'are we responsible for our acts in a determinist universe' precisely because it is a moral issue with such strong divisions. It begs for tangents.
I'm not distracted. Are you distracted?

Consider "moral responsibility" in any context.

He won't discuss what it means. He won't discuss any alternate ideas about moral responsibility.

He has one idea about it and that's it.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

phyllo wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:55 pm
But for a discussion of compatiblism and responsibility it's a poor choice, because it can easily distract from the 'are we responsible for our acts in a determinist universe' precisely because it is a moral issue with such strong divisions. It begs for tangents.
I'm not distracted. Are you distracted?

Consider "moral responsibility" in any context.

He won't discuss what it means. He won't discuss any alternate ideas about moral responsibility.

He has one idea about it and that's it.
What one idea does he have?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

phyllo wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:55 pm I'm not distracted. Are you distracted?
Well, Iambiguous gets distracted. But, good point. If I don't engage him, perhaps it won't matter. While engaging him, it gave him the opportunity to throw up flak related to objective morals as if this was a response to my post.
Consider "moral responsibility" in any context.

He won't discuss what it means. He won't discuss any alternate ideas about moral responsibility.
Yes, I thought it was a simple enough question. Do you think someone is responsible for their actions in a deterministic universe and what responses to that person would that entail if you did. He couldn't manage to respond because....he might be determined.
He has one idea about it and that's it.
What gets thrown at me in cut and paste repetition seems to be a few ideas, but I get the general point.
Post Reply