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 »

Where is the idea that in 'determinism' there is 'no ability to choose' coming from EXACTLY?

I have NEVER expressed 'that idea's NOR even just suggested 'that idea' anywhere.
You used the phrase and lots of posters have expressed the idea.
Why?
Cause I make these futile attempts to get people to do some reasoning instead of just posting assertions.
WHERE EXACTLY is 'the idea' that there is no learning in determinism' coming from?

I have NEVER even thought of 'that idea', let alone expressed it nor suggested it anywhere.
Another common idea expressed by many posters on this site.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 10:25 pm
BigMike wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:26 pm Since I don't have a Facebook page, I can't say for certain, but I think that this forum is just as disorganized and disorderly as I imagine Facebook is. It increasingly resembles a madhouse in my eyes. I also anticipate that my decision to withdraw from here will be enthusiastically embraced, loudly applauded, passionately appreciated, and favorably received.
With any luck [and in a free will world] it was something that I said.

By now even my notches have notches. :wink:
I suspect that this question broke the camel's back :
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?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:42 pm
Age wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:16 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am Stop gossiping about philosophy and do some.
What does the word 'philosophy' even MEAN, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY? In other words, how EXACTLY does one DO 'philosophy', to you?
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am Prove the assertion....
When 'you' LEARN and UNDERSTAND how thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' is FOUND, OBTAINED, and thus becomes KNOWN, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND that it is NEVER up to just one person, nor even many people, to define terms. It is up to absolutely EVERY one to come to an AGREEMENT and an ACCEPTANCE of what the definitions of words ARE, and which would ACTUALLY WORK and would ACTUALLY FIT IN, PERFECTLY I will add, with 'that', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.

So, if you HAD ALREADY SOUGHT OUT CLARIFICATION, FIRST, then you would have ALREADY COME TO KNOW that WHEN the terms 'free will' AND 'determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, this HAPPENS WHEN EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE with those DEFINITIONS.

So, in other words, to PROVE the assertion can ONLY HAPPEN when EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE with the DEFINITIONS for the terms 'free will' AND 'determinism'. Until then the assertion REMAINS truly OPEN to being completely or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am

There was no qualification that this is 'from your perspective'.
There NEVER needs to be. This is BECAUSE WHEN EVERY one comes to an AGREEMENT and an ACCEPTANCE of the DEFINITIONS for those terms, then this WILL PROVE or DISPROVE the 'assertion', itself.

But, this is from my perspective, anyway.

Oh, and by the way, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing I WRITE and SAY here is, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

Would you like me to make that qualification IN EVERY sentence, or EVERY paragraph, or WITH EVERY thread, or something else?
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am So, given this is a philosophy forum and you think people should prove what they say, etc....
But I do NOT 'think' this AT ALL. People are absolutely FREE to do whatever they think they 'should' do.

But I KNOW if people want to SAY and CLAIM 'things', then it would be better for ALL of 'us' if those people could PROVE what they SAY and CLAIM is true. Otherwise, there is NO REAL use in speaking and writing here, because what they SAY and CLAIM could be just False, or Wrong, or Incorrect anyway.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am Go for it. And it's not that a disagree. I think it would be interesting to see you do something other than sniping.
What do you MEAN by 'sniping' here?

As I just, partly, SAID and EXPLAINED, it takes EVERY one to be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE of the DEFINITIONS of the terms here in order for what I SAID and CLAIMED to be PROVED True, or False.

But if ANY one wants DEFINITIONS to START to with, in order to FIND and SEE what EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, then I am more than willing to BEGIN. Otherwise, absolutely ANY one else COULD START this.

But, AGAIN, I will suggest that the DEFINITIONS, which are YET to be AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED are ones that could ACTUALLY be, AT LEAST, A POSSIBILITY to exist.

As I ALREADY EXPLAINED, to one above, PROVIDING DEFINITIONS that could NOT even be a possibility to exist, is just ABSURD, but then just DECLARING that my view, which is on the OPPOSING "side" of 'things', is therefore the TRUE ONE is even MORE ABSURD, and just plain ridiculous AND stupid, to say the least.
You said....
When the terms 'free will' AND determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST.

And, this could NEVER be REFUTED.

So, define the terms in a way that does this.
If that is what you wanted, or now just want, then I suggest just saying so. I also suggest just asking, instead of demanding, that way I found 'me' and "others" are more inclined to give you what you want.

You can show us your definitions of the terms and then do the proof using those definitions.
[/quote]

OBVIOUSLY you have completely and utterly MISSED the point I was making above, but here goes anyway.

From my perspective;

'free will', having the ability to choose.

'determinism', what is happening NOW is solely because of past events.


Now, if ANY or ALL of this is false, wrong, or incorrect, then it is OPEN to being fixed and corrected.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 4:15 am From my perspective;

'free will', having the ability to choose.

'determinism', what is happening NOW is solely because of past events.


Now, if ANY or ALL of this is false, wrong, or incorrect, then it is OPEN to being fixed and corrected.
Great, now you have defined the terms. So, then, could you prove the following statement of yours using your own definitions above.
When the terms 'free will' AND determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST.

And, this could NEVER be REFUTED.
As a side note: why would you say
Now, if ANY or ALL of this is false, wrong, or incorrect, then it is OPEN to being fixed and corrected.
if it could never be refuted?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

phyllo wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:20 am
Where is the idea that in 'determinism' there is 'no ability to choose' coming from EXACTLY?

I have NEVER expressed 'that idea's NOR even just suggested 'that idea' anywhere.
You used the phrase
I used what EXACT phrase, SUPPOSEDLY?
phyllo wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:20 am and lots of posters have expressed the idea.
And WHO are they, EXACTLY?
phyllo wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:20 am Cause I make these futile attempts to get people to do some reasoning instead of just posting assertions.
Another common idea expressed by many posters on this site.
Seems like you are just expressing the views of "others", which it may be found are the ones who have been arguing and fighting here, and arguing/fighting over the EXACT SAME discussion also, which has been continually fought over for quite some time now.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:48 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 4:15 am From my perspective;

'free will', having the ability to choose.

'determinism', what is happening NOW is solely because of past events.


Now, if ANY or ALL of this is false, wrong, or incorrect, then it is OPEN to being fixed and corrected.
Great, now you have defined the terms.
You say this like I have NOT done it before.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:48 am So, then, could you prove the following statement of yours using your own definitions above.
When the terms 'free will' AND determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST.

And, this could NEVER be REFUTED.
YES, and EXACTLY in the WAY I talked about, explained, and described, previously above ALREADY.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:48 am As a side note: why would you say
Now, if ANY or ALL of this is false, wrong, or incorrect, then it is OPEN to being fixed and corrected.
if it could never be refuted?
OBVIOUSLY, you are STILL CONTINUALLY MISSING THE MARK, and THE POINT, which I expressed before.

What EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, WILL either PROVE, or DISPROVE, what you want me to PROVE here, AND, WHEN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE is reached with and by EVERY one, then 'this' WILL OBVIOUSLY BE IRREFUTABLE.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:58 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:48 am So, then, could you prove the following statement of yours using your own definitions above.
When the terms 'free will' AND determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST.

And, this could NEVER be REFUTED.
YES, and EXACTLY in the WAY I talked about, explained, and described, previously above ALREADY.
Could you link me to that post or copy the exact portion where you prove that statement. Thank you.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:34 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:58 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:48 am So, then, could you prove the following statement of yours using your own definitions above.
YES, and EXACTLY in the WAY I talked about, explained, and described, previously above ALREADY.
Could you link me to that post or copy the exact portion where you prove that statement. Thank you.
OBVIOUSLY you have NOT been reading the words that I have been CLEARLY WRITING here.

I will guide you to my reply directly preceding your reply, which I am replying to here. Let me know what part of it you can not yet understand.

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 OTHER post in which I have ALREADY talked about the above is about five posts down on page 117, you know the one where you STILL have NOT answered the questions that were posed to you.

What I wrote in that reply was:

When 'you' LEARN and UNDERSTAND how thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' is FOUND, OBTAINED, and thus becomes KNOWN, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND that it is NEVER up to just one person, nor even many people, to define terms. It is up to absolutely EVERY one to come to an AGREEMENT and an ACCEPTANCE of what the definitions of words ARE, and which would ACTUALLY WORK and would ACTUALLY FIT IN, PERFECTLY I will add, with 'that', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.

So, if you HAD ALREADY SOUGHT OUT CLARIFICATION, FIRST, then you would have ALREADY COME TO KNOW that WHEN the terms 'free will' AND 'determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, this HAPPENS WHEN EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE with those DEFINITIONS.

So, in other words, to PROVE the assertion can ONLY HAPPEN when EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE with the DEFINITIONS for the terms 'free will' AND 'determinism'. Until then the assertion REMAINS truly OPEN to being completely or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.


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.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Sculptor »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:13 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:07 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:56 am Rubbish: "being compelled by your brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, to not agree with something that Sculptor's brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compels him to assert must be true because as a deterministic agent he is compelled to post it here."

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.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:20 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:34 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:58 am

YES, and EXACTLY in the WAY I talked about, explained, and described, previously above ALREADY.
Could you link me to that post or copy the exact portion where you prove that statement. Thank you.
OBVIOUSLY you have NOT been reading the words that I have been CLEARLY WRITING here.

I will guide you to my reply directly preceding your reply, which I am replying to here. Let me know what part of it you can not yet understand.

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 OTHER post in which I have ALREADY talked about the above is about five posts down on page 117, you know the one where you STILL have NOT answered the questions that were posed to you.

What I wrote in that reply was:

When 'you' LEARN and UNDERSTAND how thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' is FOUND, OBTAINED, and thus becomes KNOWN, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND that it is NEVER up to just one person, nor even many people, to define terms. It is up to absolutely EVERY one to come to an AGREEMENT and an ACCEPTANCE of what the definitions of words ARE, and which would ACTUALLY WORK and would ACTUALLY FIT IN, PERFECTLY I will add, with 'that', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.

So, if you HAD ALREADY SOUGHT OUT CLARIFICATION, FIRST, then you would have ALREADY COME TO KNOW that WHEN the terms 'free will' AND 'determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, this HAPPENS WHEN EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE with those DEFINITIONS.

So, in other words, to PROVE the assertion can ONLY HAPPEN when EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE with the DEFINITIONS for the terms 'free will' AND 'determinism'. Until then the assertion REMAINS truly OPEN to being completely or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.


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.
Oh, I read that and understood it. Obviously we are not going to get everyone on earth to agree to the ways those words are defined. If you think we will, please prove that. So, I gave what I thought was a charitable reading of your post. I did not assume you meant you could only demonstrate your assertion if everyone on earth agreed to something. I did not assume you thought such an assertion would be worth making.

But you and I in a discussion can agree to the definitions and they you can demonstrate what you claimed. So, I suggested you use your definitions of those terms. You did give your definitions of the terms, but then did not continue with the proof. Yes, that proof would only hold between us, and any reader who agreed to those terms, but I could see the proof and read how you backed up your claim.

This seems like something you are not going to do. You made a claim, but you will not prove it. That's fine. But I believe you wasted some time, mainly yours.

You made many many claims in the post I have cited here. Please feel free do prove any of them. Some suggestions:
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.

or with a different emphasis, could you demonstrate that the following is not confusing objective (IRREFUTABLY TRUE) with universal (everyone agreeing).
When 'you' LEARN and UNDERSTAND how thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' is FOUND, OBTAINED, and thus becomes KNOWN, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND that it is NEVER up to just one person, nor even many people, to define terms. It is up to absolutely EVERY one to come to an AGREEMENT and an ACCEPTANCE of what the definitions of words ARE, and which would ACTUALLY WORK and would ACTUALLY FIT IN, PERFECTLY I will add, with 'that', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.
and then...
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. Everyone else at this forum? Everyone? Who are you referring to and could you please demonstrate that everyone in that group understands and agrees with you.

Thank you.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:39 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:20 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:34 am
Could you link me to that post or copy the exact portion where you prove that statement. Thank you.
OBVIOUSLY you have NOT been reading the words that I have been CLEARLY WRITING here.

I will guide you to my reply directly preceding your reply, which I am replying to here. Let me know what part of it you can not yet understand.

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 OTHER post in which I have ALREADY talked about the above is about five posts down on page 117, you know the one where you STILL have NOT answered the questions that were posed to you.

What I wrote in that reply was:

When 'you' LEARN and UNDERSTAND how thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' is FOUND, OBTAINED, and thus becomes KNOWN, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND that it is NEVER up to just one person, nor even many people, to define terms. It is up to absolutely EVERY one to come to an AGREEMENT and an ACCEPTANCE of what the definitions of words ARE, and which would ACTUALLY WORK and would ACTUALLY FIT IN, PERFECTLY I will add, with 'that', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.

So, if you HAD ALREADY SOUGHT OUT CLARIFICATION, FIRST, then you would have ALREADY COME TO KNOW that WHEN the terms 'free will' AND 'determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, this HAPPENS WHEN EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE with those DEFINITIONS.

So, in other words, to PROVE the assertion can ONLY HAPPEN when EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE with the DEFINITIONS for the terms 'free will' AND 'determinism'. Until then the assertion REMAINS truly OPEN to being completely or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.


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.
Oh, I read that and understood it.


We will have to wait and see what you have written here first.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:39 am Obviously we are not going to get everyone on earth to agree to the ways those words are defined.
Are you purposely being STUPID here?

NO one EVER said 'we' were going to get everyone on earth, or anywhere else for that matter, to agree to the ways those words are defined. In fact I have been saying the EXACT OPPOSITE in what I have written a few times now, and which I have AGAIN even REPEATED, and have even now BOLDED for you, "iwannaplato". So, WHY say what you just did here?

Obviously what you wholeheartedly BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY True is OBVIOUS here, but what do you think or imagine 'it' IS that is STOPPING and PREVENTING 'you', "iwannaplato" from SEEING and HEARING what the rest of 'us' can VERY CLEARLY SEE, HEAR, and UNDERSTAND here?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:39 am But you and I in a discussion can agree to the definitions and they you can demonstrate what you claimed. So, I suggested you use your definitions of those terms. You did give your definitions of the terms, but they did not continue with the proof. Yes, that proof would only hold between us, and any reader who agreed to those terms, but I could see the proof and read how you backed up your claim.
As long as you could see it then all well and good. BUT, maybe you meant som thing DIFFERENT here. We will just have to wait, to SEE.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:39 am This seems like something you are not going to do. You made a claim, but you will not prove it. That's fine.
You have just PROVEN that you have, ONCE AGAIN, REALLY NOT understood just about anything here. AT ALL.

I SHOWED HOW the PROOF IS OBTAINED. But you have been too BLIND and/or too STUPID here to just SEE and RECOGNIZE this Fact.

You have completely skimmed OVER 'this' BECAUSE you have been COMPLETELY BLINDED by you very OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

So, your first sentence here is just plain old False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:39 amBut I believe you wasted some time, mainly yours.
You are FREE to BELIEVE whatever you WANT to BELIEVE, BUT AGAIN, those BELIEFS can BLOCK you to SEEING and HEARING what is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and Right, and Correct, which, by the way, I have NOT wasted ANY time AT ALL here, for two reasons. One being, with the help from you I have gotten to PROVE, IRREFUTABLY, once again, just how much BELIEFS STOP and thus PREVENT 'you', human beings, from SEEING and HEARING what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS, EXACTLY.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:39 am
You made many many claims in the post I have cited here. Please feel free do prove any of them. Some suggestions:
ALREADY DONE.

BUT, BECAUSE OF YOUR BELIEFS HERE you are NOT ABLE to RECOGNIZE nor SEE that I HAVE.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:39 am
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"
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:39 am or with a different emphasis, could you demonstrate that the following is not confusing objective (IRREFUTABLY TRUE) with universal (everyone agreeing).
When 'you' LEARN and UNDERSTAND how thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' is FOUND, OBTAINED, and thus becomes KNOWN, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND that it is NEVER up to just one person, nor even many people, to define terms. It is up to absolutely EVERY one to come to an AGREEMENT and an ACCEPTANCE of what the definitions of words ARE, and which would ACTUALLY WORK and would ACTUALLY FIT IN, PERFECTLY I will add, with 'that', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.
YES.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:39 am and then...
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:39 am 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?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:39 am and could you please demonstrate that everyone in that group understands and agrees with you.

Thank you.
YES.

For PROOF you would just NEED to ask them.

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.

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.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 12:55 pm 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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:39 am 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.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

ME TO HIM:
henry quirk wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 9:34 pm Oh, biggy has what he believes is a sweet deal: he formally commits to nuthin', feels empowered to take everyone to task for their objectivism, and when called out on his own fulminations, he pleads I'm fractured! I can see the issue from all perspectives!.
Click.

Yeah, I do have a "sweet deal" in regard to discussions such as this. But it revolves far more around the assumption that "I" am not excluded from my own point of view here. In other words, given human identity in regard to conflicting moral, political and spiritual value judgments and in regard to the Big Questions like free will, I accumulated a particular set of personal experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge. And because my own lived life may well have been very, very different from others here, why should it surprise anyone that we will come to conflicting conclusions about these things.

So, the question in a philosophy forum is this: given the at times profoundly problematic existential parameters of our lives, is there a way, using the tools of philosophy, to ascertain how all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are, in fact, obligated to think and feel about conflicting goods and the Big Questions?

The wisest conclusions?

After all, in the either/or world, we are able to come up with all manner of things we agree are objectively true for all of us.

Right?

And yet for thousands and thousands of years, here we all are as philosophers still squabbling over conflicting goods and things like determinism.

Gee, I wonder why?

It's just that, in my view, the fulminating fanatic objectivists among us have their own "sweet deal". They start with the assumption that the is/ought world is just another component of the either/or world. You either think like they do or you are a "moron", or "simply wrong". And you become their "enemy".

Then the rest, as they say, is history. Ask Vladimir Putin for example about the distinction he makes between the is/ought world and the either/or world.

And ask henry.

It's just that some include a God, the God, their God, and some don't.
Only I'm the first to admit that "I" am entirely incapable of demonstrating that myself. It's just my own personal opinion rooted existentially in dasein.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 9:34 pmThis is his MO.

And he wonders why I, and others, have no substantive conversations with him.
No, I've explained my "method" above. And the irony here is this:

It is what I construe to be the "meat-minds" here and the "pinheads" there that steer clear of substantive exchanges. Just note how henry here will often respond to me in a few words or in a single sentence.

And his responses are often just his own repetitive iterations:

"If a person doesn't recognize that he is free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property; if a person doesn't recognize the other guy is free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, then, yeah, he's a moron."

That's his M.O.

He hurls words like this at you all the time. But it is always understood [by him] that if others don't define the meaning of these words exactly as he does, that's what makes them morons. It could be about Ukraine or abortion or guns or determinism. Or any conflicting good.

Then, as always, the truly mysterious manner in which he connects those words to his dearly departed God. A God that provided all mere mortals with the capacity to "follow the dictates of reason and nature" and, apparently, tasked henry with the job of providing us with the One True Path.

Well, here at least.
HIM TO ME?
henry quirk wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:50 pm
buggy (to fishes swimming below him) wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 7:26 pm
And the two-bit hero of the piece (the piece, his piece) monologues...again.
And, incredibly enough, this is not The New ILP!!
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: compatibilism

Post by henry quirk »

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.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:25 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 10:25 pm
BigMike wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:26 pm Since I don't have a Facebook page, I can't say for certain, but I think that this forum is just as disorganized and disorderly as I imagine Facebook is. It increasingly resembles a madhouse in my eyes. I also anticipate that my decision to withdraw from here will be enthusiastically embraced, loudly applauded, passionately appreciated, and favorably received.
With any luck [and in a free will world] it was something that I said.

By now even my notches have notches. :wink:
I suspect that this question broke the camel's back :
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?
Yes, it often does for those who, by and large, practice philosophy up in the "general description intellectual contraption" clouds of abstraction.

Whereas, in regard to such things as Communism and abortion, I try to bring the discussion down to earth.

With respect to conflciting goods and [on this thread] with respect to whether or not in reacting to such things as Communism and abortion, we are even reacting of our own volition.

Abortion because -- click -- as I have noted to you many times over the years, it literally revolves around life and death, it is an issue almost everyone is familiar with, and it is the "conflicting good" that was instrumental in my tumbling down into the fractured and fragmented "hole" that "I" am in. The issue [along with William Barrett's Irrational Man ] that collapsed objectivism for me once and for all.

Or, rather, so far.

Again -- click -- given how I understand determinism, Mary was never able to not abort Jane. And given how I understand free will, a friend of Marys, of her own volition, was able to convince Mary that, of her own volition, she should not abort Jane. Jane is around today.

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.

The part I've admitted may well revolve around my own inability [here and now] to grasp what is actually a reasonable point of view.
Post Reply