compatibilism

[iambiguous]

FFS.

You are sufferings from a serious case of disabling dualism.

Being compelled by your brain is meaningless garbage.
We are not apart from our brain.
I think you might want to review your idiotic Christian ideology.

Tonight, when you go to sleep, if you dream, remember the dream.

Tell us about it.

Now, if your dreams are like mine, in the dream everything that I experience, I seem to experience as though I were not asleep and dreaming at all. Yet my "choices" in the dream are entirely compelled by my brain chemically and neurologically.

Though, sure, when I wake up, a part of me, like most of us, is convinced that the wide-awake brain is just "somehow" different.

Going back to fully understanding this part:
...
Anyway, bring your point above back to Mary aborting Jane. If Mary is not apart from her brain and her brain is matter and matter obeys natural laws, is Jane doomed or not?

Dreams are great evidence for determinism.
Think about it.

Unbelievable!!!

I think?

That's my point. Dreams involve a "reality" that, while in the dream, seem completely interchangeable with the reality we experience in the waking world. Even when the dream is completely surreal, we don't stop, in the dream, to explain to ourselves that it is just a dream.

But what exactly is your point regarding the wide-awake brain?

Given the argument that you are making in responding to the argument that I am making to you, how is our exchange here either fated/destined or not fated/destined?

Same with Mary and Jane.

[iambiguous]

ME TO HIM:

None of that was for me. You weren't talkin' to me. I was the topic, not the audience.

HIM TO ME?

None of that was for you. I wasn't talkin' to you. You were the topic, not the audience.

this is not The New ILP!!

Nope, it's the old PNF: same as it's always been.

Again: absolutely shameless!!!

Pick one:







At least until the powers that be here are willing to include the legendary dancing banana as an emoji option.

You know, in a free will world.

[Iwannaplato]

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 ti 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.

I 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.

The relevant definition of the responsible is

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

Now in determinism one could argue that the Big Bang is the ultimate cause. But in your arguement 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.

There'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.

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.

Best, I think if you are very specific about what you think holding someone responsible means/entails.

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.

[iambiguous]

It feels a bit like arguing with someone with a head injury. What had seemed cagey, now seems fragile and, yes, damaged.

That's one tricky thing with the internet. Someone quite damaged can appear whole and confident. I don't know how isolated you are or if you have people who help you or not. I truly hope your main contact is not with someone who puts up with this kind of dominance and manipulative gamesmanship. Not just for their sake, but for yours. I would guess you will think I am simply insulting you here. In fact, I am just trying to give you a chance to consider your coping mechanisms are no longer healthy.

I will not communcate with you again. It's enabling you.

It is what I call a "condition" over at The New ILP. The Ecmandu Syndrome as it were. He'll post things that are reasonably coherent...but then those parts that lead me to believe that he may well be afflicted with, well, with what exactly?

He just doesn't seem to be altogether there.

Whatever that means, anyway.

Of course there are any number folks there and here who will argue that I have a "condition" of my own. Like repeating the same points over and over again. And being no less an objectivist myself.

Then this thread where "here and now" I believe that the thread itself is unfolding in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

Letting us all off the hook, right?

That one size fits all "condition" nature compels us to call the "laws of matter".

[Age]

ALREADY DONE.

No, sorry.

See, what is occurring here is ANOTHER GREAT example of how the BELIEFS, of one, are obviously currently being held onto, and so that one is also currently stuck in those beliefs, which are BLINDING "iwannaplato" COMPLETELY to what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS to "others" here.

The proof would need to include how you know others found it completely obvious, what beliefs I was holding onto and how you know this and how you know I am stuck in those beliefs.

Thee PROOF is in your OWN WORDS her "iwannaplato"

Hm, sad you know so little about what proof means. At times you confuse it with 'evidence', other times with 'pointing out what I think is a priori'.

Although you will most likely MISS this COMPLETELY AGAIN, because, AGAIN, of YOUR currently HELD ONTO BELIEFS, but the last paragraph, bolded for you "iwannaplato", EXPLAINS in more DETAIL, what you completely and utterly can NOT YET comprehend and understand. For the rest of 'us' it IS THERE.

I am not sure who 'the rest of us' refers to.

OF COURSE you are NOT.

Even this was BLATANTLY OBVIOUS BEFORE and ALSO ALREADY KNOWN.

Yes, keep using the passive tense. It is likely safer for someone like you who can't or won't back up things you say.

Everyone else at this forum? Everyone? Who are you referring to

Those who CAN SEE and HEAR it.

WHY did you use the 'everyone' word here, and TWICE for that matter?

If you can't distinguish between everyone else in a a particular group and everyone with no qualitifiction, I have a better idea about why you may have so many problems avoiding hypocrisy or understanding what words like 'proof' mean.

For PROOF you would just NEED to ask them.

IOW you think I should prove what you say. I should go and find evidence. Continued confusion on your part about who bears the onus for your assertions. And also social confusion: you are not picking up cues, and really obvious ones, that people here often think your ideas are confused and your communication problematic.

But HERE is the ISSUE 'you' are ALWAYS going to come across "iwannoplato", which again is a direct result of your CURRENTLY HELD ONTO BELIEF. You will NEVER SEE nor HEAR thee ACTUAL PROOF BECAUSE 'you' BELIEVE NONE exists.

Actually, not only is this irrelevant, it is not true. I thought there was a very good chance that I would have agreed with the original statement you made, given the definitions you produced for free will and determinism. But I did want to see what your proof was before I was sure. I was hoping to shift a pattern between us and my guess was I would agree. It would have been ok with me if you had produced a flawed proof and I could point this out. I was not sure what the outcome was. But, when I saw your definitions, I thought, ah, ok, he's actually going to do this, great.

I thought it would be interesting to see you produce a proof. And so I asked my questions and requested (or demanded) that proof.

But you did not prove the original statement. So, as many, many times before your beliefs about me and what is happening are not the case.

In fact, whatever irritation I have had at you in the past, I was surprised not only by your not following your own idea that people need to prove what they say here, but some of the 'arguments' you have made and also the degree of avoidance patterns.

I did not expect that.

Which is the EXACT SAME ISSUE 'you' have had and are going to KEEP having with 'me' and with "others" here.

The PROOF, that you BELIEVE NO proof exists, is in your writings, EXISTS just in the one written word that you use here for a username. Let alone also bing in the OTHER words that you USE here.

More confusion about what proof and to prove mean.

And, again you surprise me. I revealed what that one word name Iwannaplato means to me and represents. I shared something personal with you about my choice of name and how it honors the long-standing love I felt for a good friend. You responded here, so I know you saw this.
viewtopic.php?p=595739#p595739

But now you believe that it represents a proof (deep confusion about what a proof is) of something it most certainly does not.

Why did this surprise me? Actually I wouldn't have guessed you'd be so callous. You are tenacious in your approach but I have always assumed (until further evidence) that you were passionate about what you were doing because you think you know the source of many of the problems humans face, specifically those connected to communication, which obviously affects pretty much everything of importance. I do not agree with you on what you believe the approach must be, but I assumed there was a positive motivation behind it and the anger at those who do not live up to your standards.

Now I am less sure there is a positive motivation. Further, I had assumed you knew certain things, but it becomes more and more clear you do not.

It feels a bit like arguing with someone with a head injury. What had seemed cagey, now seems fragile and, yes, damaged.

That's one tricky thing with the internet. Someone quite damaged can appear whole and confident. I don't know how isolated you are or if you have people who help you or not. I truly hope your main contact is not with someone who puts up with this kind of dominance and manipulative gamesmanship. Not just for their sake, but for yours. I would guess you will think I am simply insulting you here. In fact, I am just trying to give you a chance to consider your coping mechanisms are no longer healthy.

I will not communcate with you again. It's enabling you.

Your ASSUMPTIONS here are Wrong AND Incorrect.

However, in your last section here it was me who has been COMPLETELY Wrong AND Incorrect, as I mixed up your username for someone else's. So I APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY for making such a HUGE MISTAKE.

Now, if I will suggest to you that if you WANT PROOF for some PARTICULAR 'thing' then you be far MORE SPECIFIC in communicating what 'it' is EXACTLY that you WANT PROOF FOR.

For example I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED to you HOW PROOF is OBTAINED.BUT, if you WANTED PROOF for some PARTICULAR 'thing' then when you, literally, SPELL 'it' OUT in WORDS, for me, what 'it' is that you WANT, then, and ONLY THEN, can I give 'it' to you.

By the way, I would suggest SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING CLARITY BEFORE you MAKE ASSUMPTIONS like you have done above. That way you will NOT be as Wrong as you are, nor as often as you have been.

(Note to 'self', it would be MUCH BETTER if "age" followed this SAME ADVICE AS WELL.)

[Age]

Tonight, when you go to sleep, if you dream, remember the dream.

Tell us about it.

Now, if your dreams are like mine, in the dream everything that I experience, I seem to experience as though I were not asleep and dreaming at all. Yet my "choices" in the dream are entirely compelled by my brain chemically and neurologically.

Though, sure, when I wake up, a part of me, like most of us, is convinced that the wide-awake brain is just "somehow" different.

Going back to fully understanding this part:
...
Anyway, bring your point above back to Mary aborting Jane. If Mary is not apart from her brain and her brain is matter and matter obeys natural laws, is Jane doomed or not?

Dreams are great evidence for determinism.
Think about it.

Unbelievable!!!

I think?

That's my point. Dreams involve a "reality" that, while in the dream, seem completely interchangeable with the reality we experience in the waking world. Even when the dream is completely surreal, we don't stop, in the dream, to explain to ourselves that it is just a dream.

Some of us have, and thus do.

But what exactly is your point regarding the wide-awake brain?

Given the argument that you are making in responding to the argument that I am making to you, how is our exchange here either fated/destined or not fated/destined?

Same with Mary and Jane.

[Age]

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 ti 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.

I 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.

The relevant definition of the responsible is

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

Now in determinism one could argue that the Big Bang is the ultimate cause. But in your arguement 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.

There'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.

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.

Best, I think if you are very specific about what you think holding someone responsible means/entails.

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.

Obviously in the imagined deterministic only Universe NO person could be held responsible for absolutely ANY thing that happens, and this is because NO one would have the ability to choose, differently.

[Age]

It feels a bit like arguing with someone with a head injury. What had seemed cagey, now seems fragile and, yes, damaged.

That's one tricky thing with the internet. Someone quite damaged can appear whole and confident. I don't know how isolated you are or if you have people who help you or not. I truly hope your main contact is not with someone who puts up with this kind of dominance and manipulative gamesmanship. Not just for their sake, but for yours. I would guess you will think I am simply insulting you here. In fact, I am just trying to give you a chance to consider your coping mechanisms are no longer healthy.

I will not communcate with you again. It's enabling you.

It is what I call a "condition" over at The New ILP. The Ecmandu Syndrome as it were. He'll post things that are reasonably coherent...but then those parts that lead me to believe that he may well be afflicted with, well, with what exactly?

Because you will NOT SEEK OUT ANY thing, and thus GAIN, CLARIFICATION about "those parts" you could NEVER GAIN UNDERSTANDING, neither.

You much prefer to just LOOK FOR, and DIAGNOSE, some PERCEIVED 'condition', INSTEAD.

And, as "iwannaplato" pointed out and said; "A tricky thing with the internet is someone quite damaged can appear whole and confident", AND what is also True is someone quite whole and confident, on the internet, can appear damaged and 'conditioned'.

AND, WITHOUT OBTAINING CLARITY FIRST one would NEVER REALLY LEARN and thus KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS EXACTLY.

He just doesn't seem to be altogether there.

Whatever that means, anyway.

Of course there are any number folks there and here who will argue that I have a "condition" of my own. Like repeating the same points over and over again. And being no less an objectivist myself.

Then this thread where "here and now" I believe that the thread itself is unfolding in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

Letting us all off the hook, right?

That one size fits all "condition" nature compels us to call the "laws of matter".

[iambiguous]

I MEAN how can it NOT be a "CONdition"?

[Age]

I MEAN how can it NOT be a "CONdition"?

And how can we KNOW what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, when the writer of 'it' does not even KNOW what 'it' IS, "themself", NOR what the 'it' word is even referring to EXACTLY?

SEE it is VERY EASY for one to ACCUSE ANOTHER of having 'it', BUT it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to, literally, EXPLAIN, to 'us', the reader, what 'it' IS that you are TALKING ABOUT

[Age]

I MEAN how can it NOT be a "CONdition"?

LOL one writes SOME words in capital letters, for a very specific reason and purpose, that reason and purpose being to HIGHLIGhT a MAIN MESSAGE in MY WRITINGS, which when that MESSAGE is RECOGNIZED and SEEN, the the ACTUAL PROOF for it will also be NOTICED and SEEN. That is; the way 'you', posters', have been responding PROVES WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER to SEEK OUT and OBTAIN CLARITY FIRST BEFORE having or making ANY ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL, in regarding DISCUSSIONS and COMMUNICATIONS.

Oh, and by the way, in the days when this was being written did ANY of 'you', adult human beings, NOT have a 'CONdition', as you call 'it'?

After all, NONE of 'you' could answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND correctly, and therefore 'you' were ALL FAKING 'it', in one way or another.

[Age]

The PROOF that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST is that 'you', human beings, will continue to CHOOSE what to do until 'you' get CHOOSING Right, which in turn WILL create the Truly Peaceful and Harmonious Heaven, Nirvana, or Utopia, with and in Spiritual Enlightenment, that was intended, predestined, and pre-determined to come about.

You KNOW the ONE, that 'life' or 'way of living', which 'you' ALL SHARE and which 'you' ALL Truly WANT and DESIRE from WITH-IN, and which is NOT just VERY POSSIBLE to come-about, but which thee One 'I' INSIDE ALL of 'you' is DETERMINED to make come-to-fruition.

THAT 'world' is coming-TO-BE, whether 'you' like it or not REALLY, because it IS thee 'deterministic world' that could only and WILL only come-to- BE, BE-CAUSE of BOTH 'free will'.AND 'determinism', which BOTH exist.m

The PROOF therefore, and again, is IN the CREATING OF.

The PROOF however that 'you', human beings, are 'free willed' beings and that 'you' are living WITH-IN a 'deterministic Universe', or WITH and IN 'determinism', itself, is that 'you' WILL KEEP HAVING the ABILITY to keep making 'CHOICES', and making MISTAKES, until 'you' FINALLY WORKOUT HOE to make the Right CHOICES ONLY, which, in turn, WILL give 'you' ALL what 'it' IS that 'you' ALL Truly WANT and DESIRE.

[henry quirk]

Again: absolutely shameless!!!

Yep.

*

Pick one:

I pick:

*

At least until the powers that be here are willing to include the legendary dancing banana as an emoji option.

I hope, becuz you want it, they never include it.

*

You know, in a free will world.

The real world, you mean.

[Age]

For those who think, believe, or say that there is only a 'free will world' or only a 'deterministic world', then how do you define the terms 'free will' and 'determinism', exactly?

[Sculptor]

Tonight, when you go to sleep, if you dream, remember the dream.

Tell us about it.

Now, if your dreams are like mine, in the dream everything that I experience, I seem to experience as though I were not asleep and dreaming at all. Yet my "choices" in the dream are entirely compelled by my brain chemically and neurologically.

Though, sure, when I wake up, a part of me, like most of us, is convinced that the wide-awake brain is just "somehow" different.

Going back to fully understanding this part:
...
Anyway, bring your point above back to Mary aborting Jane. If Mary is not apart from her brain and her brain is matter and matter obeys natural laws, is Jane doomed or not?

Dreams are great evidence for determinism.
Think about it.

Unbelievable!!!

I think?

Yes I should have been smarter. THe idea that you might be able to think is unbelievable.

That's my point. Dreams involve a "reality" that, while in the dream, seem completely interchangeable with the reality we experience in the waking world. Even when the dream is completely surreal, we don't stop, in the dream, to explain to ourselves that it is just a dream.

But what exactly is your point regarding the wide-awake brain?

Given the argument that you are making in responding to the argument that I am making to you, how is our exchange here either fated/destined or not fated/destined?

Same with Mary and Jane.