compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

I am rational, this argument was rational, your argument doesn't work...

Well, if you are determinist, you oughta know, you got no way of knowing that.
All you need is feedback from other people who can explain your error or confirm that you are correct.

It's no different than someone thinking that 6x7=44. Someone can show why and how this is not correct.

Sure, he might not be able to understand the explanation but on the other hand he might understand and learn something.
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 »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 3:06 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 2:29 pm
I am just pointing out a silliness that doesn't seem to get noticed.
Oh, it's been noticed, and commented on, multiple times, in-forum, across multiple threads, by the two or three free willists who post here
Ah, yes. I meant by those who are asserting they are completely determined.
Yeah, I know. That's who I'm talkin' about too. At no point does any hard determinist say I'm determined, my view point is determined, the very words I'm sayin' or typin' are totally determined, I'm a robot. You'd think, over the years, I'd have run across at least one hard determinist who'd say sumthin' like that (cuz --if determinism were truly applicable to man -- there'd have to be at least a few determined to act like determinists).

Instead, I always get folks who argue for hard determinism but never act as determinists. Now, yeah, if determinism is truly applicable to man, it can be said they're determined to act as sumthin' other than a determinist. But why should this be? It just makes sense that at least some, a few at any rate, would be determined to, as I say, say something like I'm determined, my view point is determined, the very words I'm sayin' or typin' are totally determined, I'm a robot.

But I've never run across one, in RL or on-line.

I find that suspicious. It's as though I were playin' consecutive games of pool, usin' different sticks, balls, tables, and shots for each game, while gettin' the same exact results each game.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:14 pm
mind and brain (i.e. matter extended in space) are not the same in several respects; not least because brain occupies space and mind doesn't occupy space.
Careful, B: most in-forum don't even believe mind exists as anything other than brain function. You keep talkin' like that you might find yourself on the outs with your compadres.
It's pity about the few commonsense realists. Me, I am not about to be brain washed of my appreciation of mind as experience. Some experiences are more mental and some more physical, and I can safely leave it to you to decide which is which.

Mind exists other than as brain function. I agree.
But also brain function exists other than as some idea we invented.
Both of the above are true. Each individual is a mind/body. Take a medic for instance: sometimes a medic will talk to and prescribe for a patient as if she is a mind and sometimes as if she is a body. Both approaches are needed and are integrated .
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

to act like determinists
What could that possibly mean??
Instead, I always get folks who argue for hard determinism but never act as determinists. Now, yeah, if determinism is truly applicable to man, it can be said they're determined to act as sumthin' other than a determinist. But why should this be? It just makes sense that at least some, a few at any rate, would be determined to, as I say, say something like I'm determined, my view point is determined, the very words I'm sayin' or typin' are totally determined, I'm a robot.
:lol:
phyllo wrote:
Nope. I'm entirely the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature. The only difference between me and a robot constructed in a factory and programmed, is that I'm aware of my own self.
I wrote that at ILP.
I find that suspicious. It's as though I were playin' consecutive games of pool, usin' different sticks, balls, tables, and shots for each game, while gettin' the same exact results each game.
You think that you would get the same results if you made those changes?
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 »

You think that you would get the same results if you made those changes?
Nope, and that's my point. If I played consecutive games, with all the elements of the game changed each time, I wouid get different results. In the same way: each conversation with a hard determinist ought to, at least some of the time, render different responses from those determinists, and at least once over the years I ought to have heard or read sumthin' like I'm determined, my view point is determined, the very words I'm sayin' or typin' are totally determined, I'm a robot.

I never have.

No, I get hard determinists who always argue as though they were free wills (cuz they are).

This...
Nope. I'm entirely the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature. The only difference between me and a robot constructed in a factory and programmed, is that I'm aware of my own self.
...is about as close as I've ever seen someone get to declarin' themselves an event, and it falls short of fully committin'.

Hard determinism: no one, not even the hard determinist, really believes it applies to man.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

...is about as close as I've ever seen someone get to declarin' themselves an event, and it falls short of fully committin'.
And what would qualify as "fully committin'"?
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 »

phyllo wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:08 pm
...is about as close as I've ever seen someone get to declarin' themselves an event, and it falls short of fully committin'.
And what would qualify as "fully committin'"?
For someone to say, and actually live as though, I'm determined, my view point is determined, the very words I'm sayin' or typin' are totally determined, I'm a robot.
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 »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 11:42 am
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:14 pm
mind and brain (i.e. matter extended in space) are not the same in several respects; not least because brain occupies space and mind doesn't occupy space.
Careful, B: most in-forum don't even believe mind exists as anything other than brain function. You keep talkin' like that you might find yourself on the outs with your compadres.
It's pity about the few commonsense realists. Me, I am not about to be brain washed of my appreciation of mind as experience. Some experiences are more mental and some more physical, and I can safely leave it to you to decide which is which.

Mind exists other than as brain function. I agree.
But also brain function exists other than as some idea we invented.
Both of the above are true. *Each individual is a mind/body. Take a medic for instance: sometimes a medic will talk to and prescribe for a patient as if she is a mind and sometimes as if she is a body. Both approaches are needed and are integrated .
*Yes. As I say: two very different things irrevocably melded, neither worth a good goddamn without the other.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:18 pm
phyllo wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:08 pm
...is about as close as I've ever seen someone get to declarin' themselves an event, and it falls short of fully committin'.
And what would qualify as "fully committin'"?
For someone to say, and actually live as though, I'm determined, my view point is determined, the very words I'm sayin' or typin' are totally determined, I'm a robot.
I have no idea what that means.

What would this person be doing that's different from a person with free-will?
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 »

I have no idea what that means.
Really?
What would this person be doing that's different from a person with free-will?
Hell if I know...I've never met one...cuz they don't exist.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

phyllo wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:29 pm I have no idea what that means.

What would this person be doing that's different from a person with free-will?
I think it would be odd, if one understood determinism, to somehow at the same time speak with great certainty about one's arguments. If one is utterly determined, then one's sense one made sense is utterly determined. The quale that says, that was a good argument, is utterly determined. You might be being rational. You might not be, but once you admit or really assert that you are utterly determined this entails that you can't really tell why you draw the conclusions you do. You are compelled to make them and compelled to think you are making sense. I could see someone saying 'It sure seems like everything is determined, including me, but I really can't know.'

Of course, they could say 'I am compelled to assert this as if I am sure'. But I don't hear that often.

And if one wants to respond that free will doesn't seem to offer a foundation for rationality, that's a separate topic.

So, obviously a determinist could act like they KNOW and think this makes sense with determinism. But it doesn't. A person could be freely choosing to not make sense or a person could be compelled to not make sense, sure. But man it's odd determinists tend not to notice this problem, regardless of what the universe is like.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:22 pm
I have no idea what that means.
Really?
What would this person be doing that's different from a person with free-will?
Hell if I know...I've never met one...cuz they don't exist.
Okay. You don't know.
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 »

they could say 'I am compelled to assert this as if I am sure'. But I don't hear that often
I've never heard or read such a thing come from the mouth or fingers of a determinist.

Seems like, over the years, I'd have heard or read such a thing at least once (and not a cagey response, but simply as an admission...phyllo, for example, could declare now Henry, I'm a bio-robot, but, rightfully, I would suspect him of just bein' a contrarian, not that he actually believes he is, or lives as, a bio-robot).
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 »

phyllo wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:34 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:22 pm
I have no idea what that means.
Really?
What would this person be doing that's different from a person with free-will?
Hell if I know...I've never met one...cuz they don't exist.
Okay. You don't know.
Feels like iambiguous all over again.

Just waitin' for the daesin to drop.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:24 pm
phyllo wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:29 pm I have no idea what that means.

What would this person be doing that's different from a person with free-will?
I think it would be odd, if one understood determinism, to somehow at the same time speak with great certainty about one's arguments. If one is utterly determined, then one's sense one made sense is utterly determined. The quale that says, that was a good argument, is utterly determined. You might be being rational. You might not be, but once you admit or really assert that you are utterly determined this entails that you can't really tell why you draw the conclusions you do. You are compelled to make them and compelled to think you are making sense. I could see someone saying 'It sure seems like everything is determined, including me, but I really can't know.'

Of course, they could say 'I am compelled to assert this as if I am sure'. But I don't hear that often.

And if one wants to respond that free will doesn't seem to offer a foundation for rationality, that's a separate topic.

So, obviously a determinist could act like they KNOW and think this makes sense with determinism. But it doesn't. A person could be freely choosing to not make sense or a person could be compelled to not make sense, sure. But man it's odd determinists tend not to notice this problem, regardless of what the universe is like.
Free-will isn't some magic power. It doesn't stop you from being wrong. It doesn't stop you from thinking you are right when you are wrong.

Stupid people with free-will are still stupid.

The Dunning-Kruger effect still applies.
Post Reply