compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:10 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:04 pm
phyllo wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:35 pm I'm responsible for all my actions.
Thus "in your head" demonstrating that you are. You believe it. Case closed.

As though merely posting it in and of itself establishes the definitive proof that you are.
Who other than me is doing my actions?

Does this need demonstrating?
Who other than you is doing the actions in your dreams? Who other than the Terminator sets out to kill Sarah Connor?

Now, imagine asking the Terminator if it is immoral to kill Sarah Connor.


Now, back to this, Mr. Wiggle:

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

As they pertain to moral responsibility.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Who other than you is doing the acting in your dreams? Who other than the Terminator sets out to kill Sarah Connor?
Notice that you can't tell me who is doing my actions if it is not me.

Who is it?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:56 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:44 pm Click.

Again, from my frame of mind, how is this assessment really any different from one that might be given to us by a libertarian?

He tells us what he thinks and what he feels and what he wants as though "somehow" his brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, did not compel him to.
Explain
1) What is the point of saying you think my assessment is not really different from a libertarians? Is that an insult? Are you making an argument when you say that?
2) How did I my post assert that my brain wasn't following the laws of matter? Of course I could be compelled to incorrectly conclude things. Duh. I was stating my views - determined, free arrived at, I don't know. But those are my views. Any arguments in there that you disagree with?
Click.

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.
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.

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.

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.
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?
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.
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. 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. Or they are wrong. Even while agreeing that determinism revolves around them being compelled to think of them as they do.
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.
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.

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.

Meanwhile, what have the philosophers and the scientists come up with to explain it? Antinomies don't get much more profoundly problematic than the free will discussion and debate. Indeed, only such questions as "why something instead of nothing?" and "why this something and not something else?" are more mind/brain boggling.

Only with this quandary, we get around to such things as moral responsibility; in a world where our behaviors precipitate actual consequences.
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.

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.
Last edited by iambiguous on Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:10 pm
Age wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:02 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:54 pm 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".
AND I ASKED you, is 'today', that is; ' the day that it is 'now' ', the day WHEN you WROTE those words or the day WHEN those words are READ?

How much MORE SIMPLER and EASIER could I make my CLARIFYING QUESTION for you here?

SURELY, you are ABLE TO UNDERSTAND these two QUESTIONS, right?

If yes, then WHY do you NOT just ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTIONS ASKED?
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:10 pm 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?
Define what the 'you' MEANS and/or REFERS TO here?

In other words what is your ANSWER to the QUESTION 'Who are 'you', EXACTLY? And while you are at it, what is your answer to the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY?

WHEN and IF you EVER ANSWER these QUESTIONS, then 'I' can INFORM 'you' of what 'My' ANSWER IS to this QUESTION of 'yours' here. Is this UNDERSTAND, by 'you'?
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:10 pm Is that why you struggle with the concept of a day?
But I have NOT YET struggled with the concept of a 'day'. AND, the ACTUAL QUESTION 'I' posed and ASKED 'you' had absolutely NOTHING to do with 'the concept of a day'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True above.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:10 pm Or are you just such a busy time traveler that you get mixed up between what is "now" and what isn't?
So, WHEN is 'now', EXACTLY?

SHOW and PROVE to us that 'you' FULLY UNDERSTAND WHEN, EXACTLY, IS 'now'. That is; IF 'you' CAN.

By the way, we have ANOTHER example of ANOTHER one who ends up just DEFLECTING and/or DISTRACTING AWAY FROM what I have WRITTEN and SAID in regards to 'free will', 'determinism', AND 'compatibilism'.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 7:47 pm
phyllo wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:26 pm
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.
But 'matter' NEVER 'came into existence'. 'Matter' has 'ALWAYS been IN Existence'. As is ALREADY Proved True.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 7:47 pm "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?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:25 pm 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.
Who here claimed that?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:52 pm
phyllo wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:10 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:04 pm

Thus "in your head" demonstrating that you are. You believe it. Case closed.

As though merely posting it in and of itself establishes the definitive proof that you are.
Who other than me is doing my actions?

Does this need demonstrating?
Who other than you is doing the actions in your dreams?
A QUESTION where AN ANSWER, which can be MUCH BETTER UNDERSTOOD, can BE PROVIDED is WHO is NOTICING the actions, mis/behaviors, and the dreams of 'that body'?
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:52 pm Who other than the Terminator sets out to kill Sarah Connor?

Now, imagine asking the Terminator if it is immoral to kill Sarah Connor.


Now, back to this, Mr. Wiggle:

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

As they pertain to moral responsibility.
EASY. 'Moral responsibility' ARRIVES, in 'compatibilism', (which is the ONLY REAL one EXISTING), at a CERTAIN POINT.

Now, WHEN 'that point' IS, EXACTLY, then that can be and WILL BE REVEALED WHEN ANY one would like to DISCUSS 'this', Honestly, OPENLY, and FULLY.

Until 'THEN' 'you', adult human beings, WILL REMAIN WONDERING.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Age wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:33 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 7:47 pm
phyllo wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:26 pm "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.
But 'matter' NEVER 'came into existence'. 'Matter' has 'ALWAYS been IN Existence'. As is ALREADY Proved True.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 7:47 pm "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?
Nature to iambiguous:

I gave Age a "condition". So, he's off the hook too. 8)
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:38 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:25 pm 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.
Who here claimed that?
What difference does that make? For any number of determinists, none of us are able to claim anything at all other than what our brains compel us to claim.

In other words, much as I hate to admit it, you are still off the hook.

Only, unlike with Age and his ilk here, nature didn't afflict you with a "condition".

Well, to the best of my knowledge anyway. :wink:
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

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.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:56 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:38 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:25 pm 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.
Who here claimed that?
What difference does that make?
Well, if you keep coming back, over and over again, to the determinist here who claim that, but there are no determinists here who claim that, that means you're just talking nonsense to yourself. So there is either someone here who is claiming that, or you're talking bollocks. That's what difference it makes.

So who is claiming those things?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:25 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:56 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:44 pm Click.

Again, from my frame of mind, how is this assessment really any different from one that might be given to us by a libertarian?

He tells us what he thinks and what he feels and what he wants as though "somehow" his brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, did not compel him to.
Explain
1) What is the point of saying you think my assessment is not really different from a libertarians? Is that an insult? Are you making an argument when you say that?
2) How did I my post assert that my brain wasn't following the laws of matter? Of course I could be compelled to incorrectly conclude things. Duh. I was stating my views - determined, free arrived at, I don't know. But those are my views. Any arguments in there that you disagree with?
Click.

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.
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.
BUT, SOME of us ALREADY DO KNOW, FOR SURE. Although SOME of 'you' BELIEVE, OTHERWISE.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:25 pm 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.
Going by your last sentence and STATEMENT here, sounds like you ALSO ALREADY KNOW, FOR SURE, what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:25 pm 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.
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?
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?
These were VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY QUESTIONS to ANSWER. But, VERY SADLY, some of the people back in the days when this was being written ACTUALLY BELIEVED that these QUESTIONS could NOT be ANSWERED, by 'them'.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:25 pm 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.
Wrong.

And thus WHY what BECAME Truly OBVIOUS REMAINED A 'mystery', to 'them'.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:25 pm
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. 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. Or they are wrong. Even while agreeing that determinism revolves around them being compelled to think of them as they do.
In an ONLY 'deterministic' 'universe/world', ' 'they' can NOT help but do what they do ', and the word 'they' refers to EVERY one as 'they' get JUDGED and LABELLED. As 'those' who LABEL and JUDGE "others", obviously, can NOT help but do what they do, AS WELL. So, NO matter how much so-called 'moral responsibility' is TAKEN, GIVEN, or FORCED 'things' WILL ALWAYS BE the way 'they' ARE.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:25 pm
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.
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.

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.

Meanwhile, what have the philosophers and the scientists come up with to explain it? Antinomies don't get much more profoundly problematic than the free will discussion and debate.
And it WAS because 'you', adult human beings, call 'this' A DEBATE thus the very reason WHY 'you' are STILL ARGUING OVER what some of us ALREADY KNOW to be IRREFUTABLY True.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:25 pm Indeed, only such questions as "why something instead of nothing?" and "why this something and not something else?" are more mind/brain boggling.
LOL These QUESTIONS have ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED, and thus RESOLVED. Which, by the way, the ANSWER and this CLAIM are BOTH, ALSO, IRREFUTABLY True.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:25 pm Only with this quandary, we get around to such things as moral responsibility; in a world where our behaviors precipitate actual consequences.
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.

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.
OBVIOUSLY, if there is ONLY a deterministic world/universe, absolutely NO could be, LOGICALLY, held ACCOUNTABLE for 'what they do' BECAUSE:

1. 'they do NOT KNOW WHY they do what they do/did'. And,

2. 'they, obviously, could NOT do absolutely ANY thing else other than what they do/did'.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 11:34 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 5:39 am
In his book Freedom Evolves (2004), Daniel Dennett illustrates this with the example, borrowed from John Austin, of a golfer who misses an easy putt, and then thinks: ‘I could have holed it.’ If you think this means that, were time to be rewound to the moment the golfer played the shot, then she could have played it differently, you’d be wrong. The golfer herself probably doesn’t mean that either. Rather, she means that holing the shot was well within her skillset, and that this was the kind of shot she would usually pull off.

The thought ‘I could have holed it’ does not therefore serve to inform us of an alternative reality that didn’t come to pass. It is to focus the mind of the golfer on the mistake so that she doesn’t repeat it next time, perhaps by making her think about what it was that made her slip up.

All ‘could have done otherwise’ thoughts have a similar value and function. It is only because we reflect on the things that could so easily have been done differently if conditions or our frame of mind had been slightly different that we learn to take responsibility and do better next time. Such helpful thoughts differ from others when we could not have done differently in any comparable situation. There is a sense in which the golfer could not have done otherwise, whether she missed an easy shot or an almost impossible one. But whereas it makes sense to think about the easy miss as something that could have been avoided, it serves no purpose to think about the impossible shot in the same way.
Fantastic, I've approached it a similar way mentally myself. If free will is the "feeling that I could have done otherwise", there are absolutely other useful ways to interpret that feeling that aren't contrary to determinism. 100% on board with that approach
But 'free will', itself, is NOT that 'feeling' NOR ANY 'feeling', so the rest is moot. Although 'that feeling' could arise from HAVING 'free will'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, ALL of 'you', human beings, HAVE.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 11:34 am
Praise and blame don’t depend on absolute freedom

The idea that we need the concept of voluntarist free will for praise and blame, reward and punishment is also highly questionable. The major philosophical justifications for punishment are retribution, deterrence, reform of the offender and signalling societal disapproval. Of these, only the first requires voluntarist free will for its justification, and many find the notion of retribution repugnant in any case.

A rethink of free will requires not the abandonment of the idea of responsibility but its reform. No one is ultimately responsible for who they are, nor therefore for what they have done. But responsibility does not need to be ultimate to be real. Responsibility is not given out whole and complete at birth but is something we learn to take more of. To accept that one has done wrong and take responsibility for it is to resolve to try not to do it again and to put right anything that went wrong. We evidently do have the capacity to do this, and that is all that matters. Whether at some fundamental level these responses are inevitable is beside the point.
Fantastic again. Couldn't agree more.
Worries about free will tend to shift these coercive forces to within us, most obviously when people say: ‘My brain made me do it.’ But ‘your brain’ can’t make ‘you’ do anything, unless ‘you’ is something separate from your brain. If your brain is part of you, ‘my brain made me do it’ makes no sense. After all, if your brain wasn’t key to your decision-making, what else could be? Your immaterial soul? It is telling that almost everyone who defends voluntarist free will answers ‘yes’ to this ostensibly rhetorical question and has a religious belief in such souls. For those of us who accept the materiality of human animals, this option is a non-starter.
I agree with this, BUT I'd also say that the idea of mind dualism or souls or some other magical place for our thoughts and our will to exist doesn't, in my mind, change the larger picture at discussion here. Everything I think now, I would think the same if we found out tomorrow that mind dualism or souls are real. I don't even think we need to assume materialism - I consider materialism a reasonable assumption, and a good jumping off point for this discussion, but not actually a necessary component to reach these conclusions.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:55 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 11:34 am I agree with this, BUT I'd also say that the idea of mind dualism or souls or some other magical place for our thoughts and our will to exist doesn't, in my mind, change the larger picture at discussion here. Everything I think now, I would think the same if we found out tomorrow that mind dualism or souls are real. I don't even think we need to assume materialism - I consider materialism a reasonable assumption, and a good jumping off point for this discussion, but not actually a necessary component to reach these conclusions.
I think I agree. Presumably most dualisms have causation between substances. I suppose in a dualism one could think that the brain is not you and you soul is you. Though if your brain has total control of you, but you disidentify with your brain, then your soul is not an agent. There are spiritualities that are like this, even some interpretations of some religions - parts of HInduism and Buddhism come to mind. But then there really is no you to push around. You're just the Buddha or the all consciousness or Vishnu observing yourself.

If your soul is an agent, then you can't be compelled by your brain, at least there must be some kind of intersubstance causation in both directions. But if your soul has, say, a longing to be close to God or to love others or to participate in nature, and it can do something about it. If it's desires are parts of causal chains, then 'my brain compelled me to.....' is at the very least painting something in binary terms when it is more complicated.
Here is a TERRIFIC example of CONFLATION at its BEST, and WHY these people took SO LONG to CATCH UP.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:46 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:31 pm Let him note where I have ever been "happy to say" that Flannel Jesus or anyone here is the same as the Nazis and the Gulag makers. Let him note where I have even flat out insisted that FJ is an objectivist. ... given my own fractured and fragmented moral and political philosophy, I'm not really "for all practical purposes" able to attack anyone. Not the Nazis. Not the Taliban.
I really hate all this pussyfooting. Calling someone an objectivist, saying "objectivists are dangerous because Nazis were objectivists", and then cowering down behind this "but but but I'm fragmented."

It's like a pedo priest who has just had his way with a child, and just as the townsfolk are about to beat him to death for it, he pleads with them, "please, I was very fragmented while I did it. I'm not even sure I liked it!"

It doesn't matter how fragmented you are when you say it you goof. If you say it, justify it. If you realize you can't justify it, admit that and say you were wrong. Your fragmentation does nothing but excuse you for your douchebageries.
But, LOL, 'you', "flannel jesus", can NOT 'justify' some of what 'you' have SAID and CLAIMED here. So, WHY do 'you' NOT just ADMIT that and SAY that 'you' ARE Wrong?

Maybe 'you' do NOT YET REALIZE that 'you' can NOT 'justify' 'it', right?
Post Reply