iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:25 pm
That's my point though. None of us here, and none in the philosophical/scientific communities can [to the best of my knowledge] explain this part...
"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.
That point has NOTHING to do with my post. I have read that before, many times, and I have told you that I have read it before.
So, none of us really know for sure if this entire exchange that we are having here is or is no inherently/necessarily a part of the only possible reality.
Something I have acknowledged before. As I have said several times to you, I understand what determinism entails.
Compelled by my brain or not, I take a subjective, rooted existentially in dasein leap of faith to determinism as interchangeable with fate and destiny. Nothing that you or I or Dennett think, feel, say and do was ever going to be other than what it must be.
And you make no effort to show what this means in relation to what I wrote.
But:
Whatever that means, going back to this:
Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?
Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.
Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.
And here you repeat yourself, again. Bring in God, which has NOTHING to do with my post.
Do you see other people instrumentally?
I ask you this because it seems like you treat other people's posts utterly interchangeably. They all, despite their differences, elicit from you the same quotes you have posted time and again.
At no point do you actually interact with any of my ideas. At least not so far. Let's see if it changes.
That's always my own starting point.
When you note things like...
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
...how would the libertarians among us note them any differently?
That's not a response with any substance. You are just saying that other people might say or believe similar things.
Still not interacting in any way with my post. This seems like some kind of guilt or falsehood by association.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:56 pm
3) This has been pointed out to you by several people, but I'll phrase it as a uestion: Who is this 'him' who is compelled that is not 'his brain'? What are these two entities: the brain and the self? Why are there two of them?
Again, for the libertarians, "I" am not just my brain. "I" do not interact with others in the wide awake world the way my brain does wholly compel me to interact with them chemically and neurologically in the dream world.
Or, for the God World folks, "I" am my soul. "I" was given autonomy by my Creator at the point of conception.
Bringing in God again, for absolutely no reason in a response to my post. As far as the first sentence I don't know if you are expressing your view or libertarian views.
The part that revolves around Schopenhauer's we can want things, but we can't want what we want.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:56 pm
Obviously if determinism is the case, this is correct. I never denied it. It's not clear to me you read what I wrote.
Again, this thread revolves [for me] around compatibilism as construed by those like BigMike who claim to be hard determinists.
That's lovely. Then bring up stuff about Bike Mike in response to Big Mike. Bring up your problems with theist with the theists or people posting about God. Bring up your issue about how a post does not explain how consciousness arose
in response to a post that is trying to explain how consciousness arose.
You're not responding to what I wrote.
But in discussing punishment, avoidance, judgment and emotional reactions he and others seem intent [to me] on arguing that how they understand these things is how all others are obligated to understand them in turn.
Then complain to him about that.
Nowhere in my post did I say that all others are obligated to understand things the way I do.
You are not responding to my post.
Or they are wrong. Even while agreeing that determinism revolves around them being compelled to think of them as they do.
Same thing.
Then going back to what he himself can't explain regarding...
"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.
Shameless. Repeating the same things INSIDE the same post
that are not relevant.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:56 pm
Where did I say I could explain that? that issue that was not part of my post? I didn't solve the are morals objective issue either. I didn't find a better way to recycle cellphone parts either.
What a ridiculous non-relevant...criticism? response? tangent? complaint?
Click.
In my view "here and now", that issue is inherently embedded in all of our posts. Why? Because until this is resolved -- if it even can be -- we are still just the equivalent of the Flatlanders. Only our quandary revolves around the very existence of the human brain itself.
Then start your thread out saying that
nothing any of you say has any meaning or worth unless you can demonstrate the origins of consciousness.
Get it!? Instead of responding to my post, you dismissed it for not demonstrating the origins of consciousness.
I understand that for some reason you cannot see how ridiculous this is.
Matter actualy able to become cognizant of itself as brain matter. Why on Earth do you suppose so many come around to God here? Because that is one possible explanation.
Again, not relevent to what I posted. Not a response to one thing I wrote.
Punish Mary for aborting Jane in a world where Mary was never able not to abort her?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:56 pmWhere did I say anything about punishing Mary?
Did you read my post?
Yes, but -- click -- I can only read it from my own subjective frame of mind. I can only understand it based on my own set of assumptions here.
So, if I write that this response of yours supports pedophilia, you'll accept it when I say
I read your post from my own subjective frame of mind.
You don't quote something to show why you got this view, for example. You don't show some chain of deduction.
You're explanation is that it's in your subjective view. That's it.
LOL
And, over and over again, I come back to those here who do claim to be determinists...yet who do claim in turn that it is reasonable to punish Mary because it is reasonable to hold her responsible morally for killing Jane.
Not relevant. No engagement with any of the points I justifying my conclusions.
You could have simply ignored my post, but instead you wrote a bunch of things you've written dozens of times that were not revelant. You justify not one single point you make. You do not interact with any of my justifications.
Nothing.
Please assume that from here on out I am only posting for other participants in the thread, not to you, people who interact with and respond specifically to what I write.