compatibilism

[phyllo]

Again, what the hell happened to you? Back in the day when you and I and moreno and D63 and Mo and faust and Only_Humean and others explored these things when ILP still revolved around philosophy, I don't recall these pint-sized posts from you.

Back in the day, I still thought that it was possible to make some progress with you.

[Flannel Jesus]

Does anyone here understand this game?

Mary is not here. We can't have a dialogue with her. So why would we be pretending to talk to her?

Apparently by pointing out that we literally cannot talk to her, that amounts to "wiggling" somehow.

Somehow he's convinced himself it's not HIM wiggling by asking people to "tell that to" a person they literally cannot speak with. No, it's not him wiggling, it's everyone else.

Bizarre

It's some sort of rhetorical device but with what aim?

To pull on our heartstrings ? ... poor Mary, poor Jane

Oh, I get it. He's telling us he's high. Mary. Jane.

Very clever. Of course he's high.

[Iwannaplato]

What are some of the consequences of 'being held morally responsible'? What are the attitudes towards those 'held morally responsible'?
Punishment - socially, by the state, by employers - can be loss of freedom, economic, social punishments
Avoidance - socially, I am thinking of mainly here, people avoid you, break up with you, shun you
Judgement - generally thinking social here: you are considered an X person, X being a negative adjective or you get put in a negative noun category.
Emotional reactions: Rage & and Fear (possibly grief and disgust depending on the act and how it is viewed - generally thinking social here

These categories overlap.

So, let's say determinism is the case. How does it/should it affect our responses?

Well, speaking personally, a murderer, especially one with a pattern of violence, I still want incarcerated, thus 'loss of freedom'.
If they murdered someone I care about, I might feel rage. Fear would likely still continue to be part of any interaction, should I have one with this person.
I would avoid them.
My judgment of the person might be mitigated in some way - as it already is in cases where I know the background of the person has been terrible, especially if they were victimized violently. I suppose I might increase the range of murderers where my judgment is mitigated. I might categorize them differently.

1 Because acts can tells us about future acts - I see nothing hypocritical in reacting in many of the ways we tend to react. Perhaps the idea 'responsibility' has a problem. But my behavior and my tendencies for requests from society would not change much.

2 Because negative or unpleasant responses can inhibit repetition of certain act (or protect me from them), again I see no reason for certainty about determinism to eliminate the main reactions we have to acts we hate.

3 Because our responses would be determined also and I am incarnate on earth, there's no reason for me to give someone a pass on their actions, while deciding the undermine my own.

4 Because I already tend to feel sympathy/empathy for people's past's affecting their behavior, it is not like finding out determinism is the case means I reevalutate my whole schema.

5 Because the person is the person who did that, it makes sense that I and others have these kinds of reactions. If I find out there is determinism I am not going to put beef jerky in my mouth and get on all fours and growl at pit bulls. I am still going to take steps to navigate the world, keep safe, and due to empathy want others to be safe, generally.

Yes, I can imagine some people finding out everything is determined, feelings like nothing matters, deciding not to judge anyone. But that's not my reaction. Even though it's determined I'll still take steps to feed myself, have shelter, connect to people, decide not to connect with others. Similarly I'll have reactions and measure taken in relation to other humans. Just as I will continue to avoid starvation, I will also avoid murderers and want those with the money and means to do it to make that easy.

There are many defniitions of responsible:

being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

The murderer, in determinism, could be viewed as NOT the primary cause. Nevertheless they are still that person. My reactions make sense in focusing on that person. I will also have reactions to sociological level patterns that make murder more likely. Determinism, if demonstrated to be the case, might make me even more focused on the sociological patterns. But I wouldn't just focus there, not would I go after the Big Bang. I can't affect the latter and focusing on the former doesn't solve the problem of a dangerous violent problem.

I would be stunned if other people didn't react to me murdering someone in these ways. Sure, there would be a wide range of prioritization, specific treatments, degrees of the various responses...but in general I would understand that from such a list most people are going to choose each one to some degree.

In a way, the way Iambiguous is framing the issue with Mary and Jane, it almost seems like the focus is on guilt. Should Mary feel guilty. Should we think she is a bad person.

I think the abortion issue is a terrible one for this discussion - in any case, it's a terrible one for me. But if we focus on murder: should the murderer feel guilty in a deterministic universe. Well, I would really hope the murderer regrets what they did. That guilt moves to regret and horror. These reactions make it less likely they will murder again. Should we think the murderer is a bad person? Is this still a meaningful judgment?

Regardless of whether we have free will or all is determined I already feel like people are not final-programmed things. They can change. They are also complicated. Not binarily good or bad. So, free will, not free will, I am not a fan of finally and simply categorizing people this way. That said, the feelings that get batched into that judgment are perfectly normal and would also be determined, of course.

And let's take a quick side step into free will.

It would make little sense to judge people as good or bad in a free will universe. Since past behavior, feelings, attitudes on their part have no significance over future or current behavior. Free will means that character does not lead to action. The person can choose to do things 'out of character'. I find the whole thing confusing, but I have no idea what moral judgments of people mean in that world. I can see judging acts but people????

So, to sum up: I don't see determinism entailing a qualitative shift in the way I react to people. There might be some changes in degree of certain responses I already have. And when I say shift, I mean from the current situation - where I don't know which is the case, and/but don't quite understand what free will means - to a situation where I am utterly convinced determinism is the case. I also see no reason for society to shift it's responses. Or for us to shift socially. The phrase 'morally responsible' might be misleading in some ways, but in a way I think that's focusing way too much on words, given that I see no reason to eliminate any of the categories of reaction.

Note: this doesn't mean I think the justice system works well, or social groups are fair. I mean that I don't think they have the wrong categories of responses/measures. A social group may shun someone for not having an expensive cellphone. I think that's idiotic. But the idea of shunning someone for something, I see no reason that should be taken off the table because of determinism.

IOW I would need to see a strong argument why continuing to have these categories of response is hypocritical or problematic before stopping having those reactions/taking those measures.

And if you say those kinds of responses are bad, well, then you've just been hypocritical. I could see practical arguments mounted.

[Age]

What are some of the consequences of 'being held morally responsible?
Punishment - socially, by the state, by employers - can be loss of freedom, economic, social punishments
Avoidance - socially, I am thinking of mainly here, people avoid you, break up with you, shun you
Judgement - generally thinking social here: you are considered an X person, X being a negative adjective or you get put in a negative noun category.
Emotional reactions: Rage & and Fear (possibly grief and disgust depending on the act and how it is viewed - generally thinking social here

These categories overlap.

So, let's say determinism is the case. How does it/should it affect our responses?

BUT NONE of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, KNEW, consciously, what IS 'morally' Right and Wrong, in Life. So, HOW could ANY one of 'you', logically, be HELD 'morally responsible' OR HOLD "another" 'morally responsible'?

HOLDING "another", so-called, 'morally responsible' in ANY of the so-called 'being held morally responsible' WAYS IS TOTALLY 'morally IRRESPONSIBLE. And, this is JUST BECAUSE absolutely NONE of 'you', KNOW, consciously, what IS Right AND Wrong, in Life, YET.

Well, speaking personally, a murderer, especially one with a pattern of violence, I still want incarcerated, thus 'loss of freedom'.

AND, you WANT this WITHOUT KNOWING EXACTLY WHY 'what happened', HAPPENED. you also BELIEVE that you have the Right KNOWING to KNOW HOW and in WHAT WAY that human being SHOULD BE DEALT WITH. Furthermore, and CORRECT me if I am WRONG here, you BELIEVE that you have the ABILITY to JUSTIFY how "others" SHOULD BE 'treated' AND 'mistreated'.

If they murdered someone I care about, I might feel rage.

WHO CARES?

This just SHOWS your OWN PERSONAL SELFISHNESS.

Fear would likely still continue to be part of any interaction, should I have one with this person.

LOL 'fear' of 'what', EXACTLY?

your dad FUCKED your mom, do you FEAR your dad WILL FUCK you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes then WHY?

I would avoid them.

WHY?

BECAUSE you FEAR 'them' or BECAUSE you have RAGE and/or HATE 'them'? Or, is there some OTHER, ACTUAL, reason?

My judgment of the person might be mitigated in some way - as it already is in cases where I know the background of the person has been terrible, especially if they were victimized violently. I suppose I might increase the range of murderers where my judgment is mitigated. I might categorize them differently.

Just out of CURIOSITY, besides your OWN past experiences what are you ACTUALLY basing YOUR JUDGING and JUDGMENTS ON, EXACTLY?

1 Because acts can tells us about future acts - I see nothing hypocritical in reacting in many of the ways we tend to react.

WHEN, and IF, you EVER LEARN the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between 'acts' and 'behaviors', then you WILL LEARN and SEE FAR MORE here.

Perhaps the idea 'responsibility' has a problem.

It SURE DOES when one is NOT BEHAVING RESPONSIBLE "them self". And, JUDGING "others" is NOT BEHAVING RESPONSIBLY.

But my behavior and my tendencies for requests from society would not change much.

Here we have a GREAT EXAMPLE of one who thinks and/or BELIEVES that 'its' OWN VIEWS and JUDGMENTS are the BEST and that "others" SHOULD LOOK UP TO, RESPECT, and/or FOLLOW this ones OWN VIEWS and DECISIONS. Which the ABSURDITY and TYRANNICAL NATURE OF speaks for itself.

2 Because negative or unpleasant responses can inhibit repetition of certain act (or protect me from them), again I see no reason for certainty about determinism to eliminate the main reactions we have to acts we hate.

NONE of 'you', in the days when this is being written, even have A DEFINITION for the words 'determinism' AND 'free will' that even ACTUALLY WORKS and FITS IN, PERFECTLY, WITH Life and Nature, Itself.

WHEN 'you' ALSO ARRIVE the Right WORDS and DEFINITIONS, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND just HOW STUPID 'you', adult human beings, HAVE BEEN for FIGHTING and ARGUING OVER this so-called 'debate' for the last few thousands years or so.

3 Because our responses would be determined also and I am incarnate on earth, there's no reason for me to give someone a pass on their actions, while deciding the undermine my own.

ALL you have to REALLY SAY IS: BECAUSE our responses would be DETERMINED, which OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES ALL 'decisions'. SO, there is NO need to go on about TELLING us ANY thing ELSE like you have gone on here with.

4 Because I already tend to feel sympathy/empathy for people's past's affecting their behavior, it is not like finding out determinism is the case means I reevalutate my whole schema.

5 Because the person is the person who did that, it makes sense that I and others have these kinds of reactions.

That 'you', human beings, REACT, MAKES SENSE. That 'you' REACT the way you, personally, DO has NO bearing on 'determinism', itself, here.

If I find out there is determinism I am not going to put beef jerky in my mouth and get on all fours and growl at pit bulls. I am still going to take steps to navigate the world, keep safe, and due to empathy want others to be safe, generally.

OBVIOUSLY 'determinism', in A WAY that ACTUALLY WORKS EXISTS. JUST LIKE 'free will', in A WAY that ACTUALLY WORKS, ALSO, EXISTS.

They BOTH EXIST and CO-EXIST TOGETHER, in HARMONY some might add. Some call 'this', COMPATIBILITY.

Now, this IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE. That IS; IF and WHEN ANY one wants to DELVE INTO and LOOK AT 'this', SERIOUSLY.

BUT, if 'you', adults, just want to KEEP FIGHTING and ARGUING OVER what 'you' ALL, individually and personally, BELIEVE is true, then PLEASE CARRY ON, as 'you' HAVE BEEN for THOUSANDS of years hitherto when this is being written. But just be FOREWARNED of just how ILLOGICAL and STUPID 'you', people, REALLY LOOK.

Yes, I can imagine some people finding out everything is determined, feelings like nothing matters, deciding not to judge anyone.

But you say this as though 'determinism' is the ONLY 'thing' here. Is this what you BELIEVE is true?

If no, then HOW could you LOGICALLY IMAGINE some people FINDING OUT that 'everything is determined' if NOT EVERY 'thing' is 'determined'?

But that's not my reaction. Even though it's determined I'll still take steps to feed myself, have shelter, connect to people, decide not to connect with others.

Are you, PURPOSEFULLY, ACTING or BEING STUPID here. IF EVERY 'thing' IS 'determined', then this, OBVIOUSLY, INCLUDES absolutely EVERY 'thing', which, OBVIOUSLY, INCLUDES EVERY 'step' you take and EVERY 'decision' you make. you HAVE NO CHOICE, that is according to your OWN RIDICULOUS, ABSURD, and STUPID definition of the 'determinism' word here.

Similarly I'll have reactions and measure taken in relation to other humans. Just as I will continue to avoid starvation, I will also avoid murderers and want those with the money and means to do it to make that easy.

BUT, HOW do you KNOW that through your VERSION of 'determinism' here you will NOT CHANGE?

After all it may well have been PRE-DETERMINED for you TO CHANGE that so you DO GROW UP and MATURE, eventually, and so DO START interacting WITH "other" human beings, which you have LABELLED "murderers".

There are many defniitions of responsible:

being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

The murderer, in determinism, could be viewed as NOT the primary cause. Nevertheless they are still that person.

LOL This here is ANOTHER GREAT example of just HOW NARROWED and STUPID these people REALLY were, back then. Calling "another" human being 'that person' just SHOWS how SMALL a view 'that person' IS, EXACTLY.

And, like EVERY thing I SAY and WRITE, I can and WILL back up and support 'it'.

My reactions make sense in focusing on that person. I will also have reactions to sociological level patterns that make murder more likely. Determinism, if demonstrated to be the case, might make me even more focused on the sociological patterns. But I wouldn't just focus there, not would I go after the Big Bang. I can't affect the latter and focusing on the former doesn't solve the problem of a dangerous violent problem.

The so-called 'dangerous violent problem' IS CAUSED and CREATED by the VERY 'thing' that 'this one' is DOING here.

I would be stunned if other people didn't react to me murdering someone in these ways.

Well BE PREPARED to be 'stunned'.

Sure, there would be a wide range of prioritization, specific treatments, degrees of the various responses...but in general I would understand that from such a list most people are going to choose each one to some degree.

In a way, the way Iambiguous is framing the issue with Mary and Jane, it almost seems like the focus is on guilt. Should Mary feel guilty. Should we think she is a bad person.

There is NO 'should' in Life, other than what the 'should' one 'feels' and 'knows' IS Right. Which, contrary to popular BELIEF, in the days when this is being written, there is ONLY One.

I think the abortion issue is a terrible one for this discussion - in any case, it's a terrible one for me. But if we focus on murder: should the murderer feel guilty in a deterministic universe.

LOL This is one of the MOST STUPID questions, (without a question mark), ever written.

According to 'determinism', in the way that this word is being defined here, ABSOLUTELY EVERY one/thing could NOT be ANY DIFFERENT. Therefore, what one 'should' do, think, or feel does NOT even exist, in this defined 'determinism'.

Well, I would really hope the murderer regrets what they did.

LOL But, besides you WHO ELSE CARES what you REALLY HOPE here?

I REALLY HOPE 'you' WILL STOP being SO CLOSED and NARROWED. BUT, like what we WANT, what we HOPE we do NOT ALWAYS GET.

That guilt moves to regret and horror. These reactions make it less likely they will murder again. Should we think the murderer is a bad person? Is this still a meaningful judgment?

BUT what has ANY of 'this' got to do with 'determinism' in the way that word is being defined here?

ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' that DOES and WILL happen DOES and WILL HAPPEN. There is absolutely NO CHANCE of 'less likely to happen' in your DEFINED 'deterministic' Universe.

you have just added, 'Those reactions make it less likely they will murder again', in the HOPE that "others" will SEE 'you' as some sort of GOOD or MORAL person.

What we have here is just ANOTHER example of HOW and WHEN these people would 'try to' fight or argue for some position they tended to end up just expressing their OWN thoughts or BELIEFS, and ALLOWED 'those things' to GET IN THE WAY of the ACTUAL 'position' they began fighting or arguing for. They would ALSO 'TRY TO' USE their OWN thinking or BELIEFS as a way to 'TRY TO' back up and support the 'position' they began arguing or fighting for, and vice-versa they would 'TRY TO' USE that position to 'TRY TO' back up and support what they ALREADY BELIEVED was true, right, and/or correct.

These people, back then, REALLY WERE being BLINDED and DEAFENED by their OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Regardless of whether we have free will or all is determined I already feel like people are not final-programmed things. They can change.

What do you mean by they 'can' change?

It is IMPOSSIBLE for 'you', human beings, to NOT change. So, not only 'can' 'you' change but 'you' ACTUALLY DO CHANGE and thus ARE CHANGING, ALL OF THE TIME.

They are also complicated.

'you', human beings, are one of the most UNCOMPLICATED 'things' around.

'human beings' are just made up of a visibly seen physical 'body', which if 'you' like can be or is the 'human' part, AND, the invisible 'thoughts and emotions' WITHIN the 'body', which is the 'being' part.

The 'body' is genetically passed on, from generation to generation, 'naturally', or what is sometimes called and referred to as 'nature', AND, the 'thoughts and emotions' 'arise' and 'dissipate' or 'come and go', due to what is called 'nurture'.

It is 'thoughts', which CONTROL the 'behavior' or 'misbehavior' of the 'body', by the way, but FIRST 'things' FIRST. 'you', the human being, IS a VERY SIMPLE 'thing', and 'one' that can be VERY EASILY COMPREHENDED and UNDERSTOOD AS WELL AS BE EXPLAINED, VERY SIMPLY ALSO.

Not binarily good or bad. So, free will, not free will, I am not a fan of finally and simply categorizing people this way.

WHO CARES what 'you', "iwannaplato", are a fan of or not a fan of. What IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY is FAR MORE IMPORTANT. And, if ANY one is Truly INTERESTED in LEARNING and DISCOVERING, or more correctly UNCOVERING what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct, then let US proceed.

That said, the feelings that get batched into that judgment are perfectly normal and would also be determined, of course.

LOL Is there A 'feeling' that is NOT 'perfectly normal'?

If yes, then will you TELL us what it or they are, EXACTLY?

But if EVERY 'feeling' is 'perfectly normal', then WHY mention 'that one' ONLY here?

Also, you write, 'of course' here as though there was ONLY 'determinism', ALONE.

And let's take a quick side step into free will.

Okay, but if you do NOT YET KNOW what IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth here, then are you SURE that you WANT to take ONLY a 'quick side step' here?

It would make little sense to judge people as good or bad in a free will universe.[/quote]

Does it make sense to JUDGE "another" in ANY Universe?

What MAKES one think or BELIEVE that 'it' has the RIGHT or even the Correct KNOWLEDGE to JUDGE "another"?

Since past behavior, feelings, attitudes on their part have no significance over future or current behavior.

What do you mean here by and with the 'significance' word?

The past behavior, misbehavior, feelings, and/or attitudes of "another" has NO NECESSARILY ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP over future NOR current behavior in EITHER a 'free will universe', a 'deterministic universe', NOR over the One and ONLY 'free will/deterministic Universe'.

This is BECAUSE in ALL three of these so-called 'universes' 'things' CAN and DO CHANGE.

Free will means that character does not lead to action.

In WHAT universe?

'Character' does NOT lead to 'action' in ANY Universe.

But, then again, you ALREADY BELIEVE you KNOW what IS TRUE and RIGHT here, SO you WILL say 'things', which you think and HOPE back up and support your ALREADY GAINED, OBTAINED, and MAINTAINED BELIEFS here.

The person can choose to do things 'out of character'.

LOL This is a PRIME example of when I say these people WILL say just about ANY thing in order to 'TRY TO' back up and support their CURRENT BELIEFS.

AND, in a 'deterministic ONLY universe' a person could have been PREDETERMINED to choose to do things' 'out of', LAUGHABLY, 'character'.

WHEN do 'you' ENVISION or IMAGINE the LAUGHABLE and so-called 'character' of 'a person' is ABLE to be SEEN and KNOWN, and NEVER ABLE TO BE CHANGED, "iwannoplato"?

These people REALLY DID have some of the WEIRDEST and STRANGEST ideas AND BELIEFS, back in those 'olden days'.

They, literally, WOULD SAY and CLAIM 'things' but NEVER REALLY put more 'thought' NOR 'consideration' into what they were ACTUALLY SAYING and CLAIMING. Even though I FOREWARNED and SUGGESTED TO 'them' to MAKE SURE that 'they' have the ACTUAL PROOF BEFORE they would SAY and CLAIM ANY 'thing', especially in a philosophy forum of ALL PLACES.

I find the whole thing confusing, but I have no idea what moral judgments of people mean in that world. I can see judging acts but people????

'you' are ONLY CONFUSED here BECAUSE what 'you' CURRENTLY BELIEVE IS TRUE "iwannoplato" IS VERY, VERY CONFUSING.

I WILL SUGGEST, ONCE AGAIN, you RID "yourself" of ALL BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, and then JUST START AGAIN from the Truly OPEN perspective, while REMAINING Truly OPEN and CURIOUS and Truly WANTING to LEARN MORE and/or ANEW.

In 'that way' there is NO CONFUSION, AT ALL.

As IS, and WILL BE, PROVED IRREFUTABLY True.

So, to sum up: I don't see determinism entailing a qualitative shift in the way I react to people.

We do NOT CARE what you SEE or DO NOT SEE. This is BECAUSE some of what you SEE is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, and what you DO NOT SEE is the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' here.

AND, you do NOT SEE 'determinism' entailing a 'qualitative shift in the way you 'react' to "other" people' IS BECAUSE of 'CONFIRMATION BIAS' and BECAUSE you are 'TRYING TO' 'defend' what you ALREADY BELIEVE IS TRUE here.

As I SAY you have been BLINDED, and DEAFENED, by your VERY OWN BELIEFS here.

There might be some changes in degree of certain responses I already have. And when I say shift, I mean from the current situation - where I don't know which is the case, and/but don't quite understand what free will means - to a situation where I am utterly convinced determinism is the case. I also see no reason for society to shift it's responses. Or for us to shift socially. The phrase 'morally responsible' might be misleading in some ways, but in a way I think that's focusing way too much on words, given that I see no reason to eliminate any of the categories of reaction.

Note: this doesn't mean I think the justice system works well, or social groups are fair. I mean that I don't think they have the wrong categories of responses/measures. A social group may shun someone for not having an expensive cellphone. I think that's idiotic. But the idea of shunning someone for something, I see no reason that should be taken off the table because of determinism.

IOW I would need to see a strong argument why continuing to have these categories of response is hypocritical or problematic before stopping having those reactions/taking those measures.

WHY having those categories of response IS VERY 'hypocritical' and/or VERY so-called 'problematic' IS VERY EASY and SIMPLE TO SHOW. But this in NO way MEANS that one has NOT been TOO FAR BLINDED to ACTUALLY SEE.

And if you say those kinds of responses are bad, well, then you've just been hypocritical. I could see practical arguments mounted.

SEE, here is A PRIME example of 'confirmation bias' AT PLAY, and, literally, AT WORK.

[Flannel Jesus]

BUT NONE of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, KNEW, consciously, what IS 'morally' Right and Wrong, in Life.

What year are you from? Have you traveled back in time?

[Age]

BUT NONE of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, KNEW, consciously, what IS 'morally' Right and Wrong, in Life.

What year are you from?

What do you mean by and with the word 'from' here, EXACTLY?

Have you traveled back in time?

Is it POSSIBLE to?

[Flannel Jesus]

BUT NONE of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, KNEW, consciously, what IS 'morally' Right and Wrong, in Life.

What year are you from?

What do you mean by and with the word 'from' here, EXACTLY?

Have you traveled back in time?

Is it POSSIBLE to?

You tell me. You're talking about today, right now, in the past tense. "in the days when this is being written, KNEW". Right? Instead of saying something much less schizophrenic like "none of you guys seem to know", which is what someone from our century would say.

You're talking like you're posting from some future century where everyone is as enlightened as you are. I just want to know what century that is

[Age]

What year are you from?

What do you mean by and with the word 'from' here, EXACTLY?

Have you traveled back in time?

Is it POSSIBLE to?

You tell me.

But HOW could I TELL you what YOU MEAN when you USED the 'from' word above here, EXACTLY?

You're talking about today, right now, in the past tense. "in the days when this is being written, KNEW". Right?

'Today' and 'right now' are VERY RELATIVE, but to answer your question here, Yes.

Instead of saying something much less schizophrenic like "none of you guys seem to know", which is what someone from our century would say.

What 'you' or ANY one "else" thinks about 'me' is of absolutely NO concern AT ALL, to me.

You're talking like you're posting from some future century where everyone is as enlightened as you are. I just want to know what century that is

That century IS the one WHEN EVERY one IS as ENLIGHTENED, as 'I' AM.

WHICH could be ANY century from the one that you are in, and 'afterwards'.

[Flannel Jesus]

So you're from the future, you just don't know when. Interesting. Is it like amnesia or are they so enlightened that they don't need calendars anymore?

[Age]

So you're from the future, you just don't know when.

That IS a Truly STRANGE and ABSURD 'thing' to ASSUME, and/or CONCLUDE, here.

In fact it is one of the MOST STRANGEST and MOST ABSURDEST 'things' ASSUMED I have SEEN in this forum

Interesting. Is it like amnesia or are they so enlightened that they don't need calendars anymore?

Calendars WERE only USED to help the human brain to keep track of the PERCEIVED 'separation', which the brain NEEDED to be able to come to COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND, 'Reality', Itself, which 'it' had found itself WITHIN.

And let us NOT FORGET that 'you' did NOT even CLARIFY what 'you' mean when 'you' USED the 'from' word in relation to 'centuries/calendars', "flannel jesus".

See, to ASK someone, 'What year are you FROM?' is, REALLY, an ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL QUESTION.

For example, What year are 'you' FROM, "flannel jesus"?

How would 'you' ANSWER, your OWN QUESTION here, relayed BACK to 'you'?

In fact we WILL even SEE if you even do, or NOT.

[Flannel Jesus]

If, today, I travelled back in time, and someone asked me what year I was from, I would tell them I'm from the year 2023. If you don't know what year it was when you hopped into the time machine, I understand your difficulty in answering the question. It's okay if you don't have an answer.

What reason did you come to these times?

[Age]

If, today, I travelled back in time, and someone asked me what year I was from, I would tell them I'm from the year 2023.

But WHEN is 'today'?

Is 'today' WHEN you WROTE 'today', OR, WHEN one READS 'today'? Or, ANY WHERE IN BETWEEN?

AND, if 'they' ASKED 'you', Who and/or what are 'you'? what would you tell 'them'?

If you don't know what year it was when you hopped into the time machine, I understand your difficulty in answering the question.

What is this 'time machine' 'thing', which 'you' are talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO here, EXACTLY?

It's okay if you don't have an answer.

Okay

What reason did you come to these times?

What reason do 'you' have for BEING HERE, in 'these times'? Do 'you' even KNOW?

And, did 'you' COME to these times?

If no, then HOW did 'you' GET 'here', EXACTLY?

But if yes, then HOW did 'you' GET 'here', EXACTLY?

[Flannel Jesus]

If, today, I travelled back in time, and someone asked me what year I was from, I would tell them I'm from the year 2023.

But WHEN is 'today'?

Is 'today' WHEN you WROTE 'today', OR, WHEN one READS 'today'? Or, ANY WHERE IN BETWEEN?

I could understand this question if you weren't on our planet when you wrote it, but I somehow doubt that you're not on earth as you're writing this.

If you are on earth, then you can read this page to understand the concept of a day:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day

Today means "the day that it is now". I'm fairly confident - unless you're a very, very busy time traveler - that there's no actual confusion about what day it is - I wrote that post and this post on the same day that you wrote your reply, silly brother.

Are you on Earth? Is that why you struggle with the concept of a day? Or are you just such a busy time traveler that you get mixed up between what is "now" and what isn't?

[iambiguous]

First, in my view, even though neither you nor I are able to pin down definitively whether I am typing these words and you are reading them of our own volition, all I can do here [compelled by my brain or not] is to type "Click" and assume that we do have some measure of free will.

And, if we do have free will, moral responsibility revolves around the fact that in any human community [historically and culturally] there will be a need for "rules of behaviors". You can do this, you can't do that. Then rewards and punishments to enforce the rules/laws. Then one or another combination of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law.

I then suggest that, given free will in a No God world, moral and political value judgments revolve largely around dasein. Rooted historically and culturally in our indoctrination as children and in the experiences we have as adults out in a particular worlds understood in a particular way. And, in turn, in world awash in contingency, chance and change. The Bejamin Button Syndrome.

"Rules of behaviors", "rewards and punishments" ...

There is no reason why those would not exist in a deterministic world.

So there is moral responsibility for determinism, compatibilism and free-will.

Case closed.

Click!
Click!!
Click!!!

Determinism as I understand it here and now:

"Somehow" matter came into existence. "Somehow" it configured into biological matter on Earth. "Somehow" conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" self-conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" that evolved into us.

So, disregarding what we still don't -- can't? -- know about how or why this happened...

Mary aborts Jane because her brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compels her to. Some hold her morally responsible and others do not. Why? Because their brains too, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compel them to.

Jane is no more.

Free will as I understand it here and now:

"Somehow" -- God or No God -- human brains acquired autonomy. Mary, re dasein, re an accumulation of her own personal experiences, gets pregnant and chooses to abort the unborn baby. Her friend, however, of her own volition, persuades Mary not to have the abortion.

Jane is still among us.

If, on the other hand, Mary [re dasein] had aborted Jane of her own volition, some, of their own volition [re dasein], would insist that she behaved immorally. Others, of their own volition [re dasein], would insist she had not behaved immorally.

Okay, Mr. Philosopher and Mr. Ethicist, deontologically, given a free will world, which is it?

Compatibilism as I understand it here and now:

Mary aborted Jane because her brain compelled her to. She was never able to opt not to abort her. But "somehow" she is still morally responsible for doing so.



Here, however, I always acknowledge that, given free will, I may not be understanding determinism, free will and compatibilism correctly. But noting in turn that going back to the birth of philosophy and science there does not appear to be an argument able to be demonstrated experientially/experimentally/existentially etc., establishing the One True Path to understanding it objectively.

And that for those who insist human autonomy is linked to a God, the God, their God, not a single solitary God has ever [to my knowledge] been shown to exist.


Now, how about you? In regard to Mary and Jane, or given your own context, how do you construe determinism, free will and compatibilism?

[iambiguous]

Click.

We've been here before. I asked you to take your own "step-by-step focused process of seeing the thought process, seeing where it starts, seeing each individual part of it and how that ends in compatibilism" to Mary.

To explain to her how, given your own understanding of determinism and compatibilism -- philosophically? -- she either is or is not morally responsible for killing Jane.

Yes, that's right, you asked me to take my thoughts to a person that isn't in this thread. You haven't given me her phone number or her email address. I'm not sure that that's a good example of you engaging in a conservation in good faith...

You can't follow a one step at a time conservation to make any progress in understanding ideas, but you can make meaningless impossible requests that serve no purpose other than to deflect. Not a good look. Unless you're a stooge of course, then it looks great.

Pick one: