compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7210
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:57 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:49 pm assessments of this sort are, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein.
I find it hard to find the meaning in this, maybe you can help me out. Is there a field of human inquiry that isn't rooted in dasein?
Click.

Unbelievable.

As phyllo and iwannaplato would put it.

Over and over and over again, I note how my own understanding of dasein here -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 -- pertains to "I" in the is/ought world of moral and political value judgments. And in regard to things like God and religion.

Yes, there are aspects of our identity rooted in the either/or world. The year that we were born. The nation that we were born in. The color of our skin and our gender at birth. The parents we had. The community we lived in. The indoctrination we received as kids. But that's not really where I am going with it in my posts. Except where those components become intertwined in how existentially others evaluate and judge us.

Think Alexis Jacobi if you are not of Northern European white stock.






Now, by all means, take it up with phyllo and iwannaplato. The three of you can start your own compatibilism thread. If only as an object lesson regarding how "serious philosophers" discuss and debate things like this.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

I asked him what he meant by his own words, he didn't seem to like that. Hmmmm. Curious. I can see now why he doesn't count himself as a serious philosopher
Last edited by Flannel Jesus on Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7210
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:24 pm I asked him what he meant by his own words, he didn't seem to like that. Hmmmm. Curious. I can see how why he doesn't count himself as a serious philosopher
Nature to phyllo and iwannaplato:

He's all yours.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Phyllo and iwannaplato, what does nature sound like when she speaks to you?
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

I think he wants to be let alone so that he can post quotes and react to them without being disturbed.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7210
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Just for the record, you do have Satyr in your corner on this one:

"How long did it take them - PN - to realize that iamastupidcunt is a psychotic?
Faster than it took the retards on ILP, that's for sure."
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Who here thinks you're psychotic? I just think you speak in vagueries and have no desire, and perhaps no capacity, to move the conversation forward. That doesn't make you psychotic.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7210
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Click.

Anyone else? :wink:
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:36 pm Phyllo and iwannaplato, what does nature sound like when she speaks to you?
If I am dressed properly, my favorite way nature sounds is rain on deciduous leaves when I am far enough into the forest so that no human-made sounds reach me.

Even if, somehow, there is free will, I think this is a genetic response on my part. And even if I could change my response, I wouldn't.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Gorgeous. I haven't been that deep in nature for a little while. Maybe I'll go enjoy another beach sunrise soon, I do that with my lady and our dog now and then. That's my most natural connection.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7210
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

The Dogmatic Determinism of Daniel Dennett
Eyal Mozes
BOOK REVIEW: Daniel C. Dennett, Freedom Evolves.
at The Atlas Society
Historically, free will has been opposed by two different kinds of ideas: divine fatalism, which holds that while there often is more than one possible action that man could take, the choice is not made by man himself but by God or the gods; and determinism, holding that at any time there is exactly one possible action that a person can take consistently with the operation of the laws of nature, so there is no choice among alternatives.
Yes, but in regard to both there are many different [and ofttimes conflicting] assessments. There are the God World folks who do bring everything back to God. And the God World folks who manage to reconcile an omniscient God with human autonomy. Or the Deists who posit a God who created us...but then just left it at that.

Same with the No God folks. There are the hardcore determinists and then the compatibilists. And all of the many profoundly problematic ways in which the function of human brain matter can be construed in regard to both the "internal" components of the self and the "external" components. Where does one end and the other begin?

And even Ayn Rand herself was in the dark in regard to this quandary:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Although she would never have admitted it, I suppose.

Just out of curiosity, any Objectivists here care to take a stab at what she might have opined? The first John Galt invented matter?
In modern, scientifically informed discussion, divine fatalism is no longer taken seriously, and so determinism stands as the main alternative to free will.
Right, like science itself has an explanation regarding how biological matter came into existence here on planet Earth in order to "somehow" evolve into us.

It still doesn't, right?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:50 pm Gorgeous. I haven't been that deep in nature for a little while. Maybe I'll go enjoy another beach sunrise soon, I do that with my lady and our dog now and then. That's my most natural connection.
When thinking about 'nature', I wonder if we have abused freedom. I am not so much talking about pure ontological freedom, but in our escape from nature I think we often threw out the baby with the bathwater. We do better when we are in nature, at least some of the time. But we've spent a couple of thousand years trying to distance ourselves from nature, to our detriment in many ways. I'm not saying we should live like Cro-magnon man, but in the name of refining ourselves (and our grains) we have cut ourselves off from what actually suits our bodies, which is not the sedentary, artificial, overfed success story we are.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:01 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:50 pm Gorgeous. I haven't been that deep in nature for a little while. Maybe I'll go enjoy another beach sunrise soon, I do that with my lady and our dog now and then. That's my most natural connection.
When thinking about 'nature', I wonder if we have abused freedom. I am not so much talking about pure ontological freedom, but in our escape from nature I think we often threw out the baby with the bathwater. We do better when we are in nature, at least some of the time. But we've spent a couple of thousand years trying to distance ourselves from nature, to our detriment in many ways. I'm not saying we should live like Cro-magnon man, but in the name of refining ourselves (and our grains) we have cut ourselves off from what actually suits our bodies, which is not the sedentary, artificial, overfed success story we are.
I'm finding the same myself. All my hobbies are in front of a computer or at a desk, and yet I know I feel much better being outside, running, opening my lungs, feeling the elements
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:40 pm I'm finding the same myself. All my hobbies are in front of a computer or at a desk, and yet I know I feel much better being outside, running, opening my lungs, feeling the elements
Recently we came up with cheap electric run scooters and bikes. So, many people who would have walked or biked with their own steam now use these electric driven devices. So, we used freedom to go beyond our biology in a new way - of course the human-powered bike is tech also - and this has a kind of short term benefit - you don't have to work - and a lot of long term drawbacks on both physical and mental health. There are some side drawbacks too. The scooters are rented, for the most part. You're done with your ride, you just leave it anywhere. And while the companies do send people around to get them, they are often in the way, sometimes dangerously, usually just annoyingly. People also ride them on sidewalks more than bikers tend to, and they do it fast. Most bikers who bike on sidewalks bike like they are the intruders they are and do it cautiously. People scoot like quick idiots.

So, here we have us using freedom to at least broaden the cause and effect chains we can be a part of, that I don't think is particularly good for us overall. A net loss.

Why do I think it's a net loss?

In part because we thrive on doing stuff with our bodies. We feel better after and during being active.

Cultural concepts of status, leisure time and the good of reducing 'labor' play a role here.

Now our nature includes also the love of fun, and those scooters are fun. Our nature also includes not liking chore-like work and a lot of walking or biking can seem like a chore.

I see people electrically scoot to the gym. Which is really hilarious and then also sad. Once there they'll hop on a treadmill with their ear buds blasting.

But that's 'a workout', whereas the trip to the gym, that's something like commuting in their brains.

Call it a mix between nature and culture, this choice.

But overall I am looking at this choice to be freer that is sometimes great - I'm glad I'm not washing clothes on rocks in the river. But often I think marketing, culture, not really thinking at all, not really feeling into things at all, leads us to freely choose to increase our choices and these choices actually make us less happy because they do not fit our bodies.

Where I am the main car owners, ironically enough, are immigrants. A vastly higher percentage of the people with foreign backgrounds drive cars in this city. They're on welfare, they get a car. They have some shit cleaning job, they get a car. In their cultures it is still a status thing without as much guilt. Many have no experience with bikes - this is a biking city. It's also part of the culture to drive the wives to stores, which in the end, as one example, is worse for her health than walking, more stress - parking, traffic - for the husband, much higher monthly bills and so on.

None of this goes at the issue of are we ontologically free.

But I realized that there is this odd, almost teenager-like attitude that even most adult-humans have. If something makes us 'more free' it's good, even if it isn't. We all sneaking our parents cigarrettes and whisky. We're all driving too fast. And so on.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7210
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Daniel Dennett is Wrong About Free Will
by Daniel Miessler
Ask someone why a murderer deserves to die. Ask 1,000 people in a scientifically valid poll. You’ll find that most people believe the following: The murderer had a choice. That means that despite their bad upbringing, despite their drugged out mom, despite whatever hardships, they had the concrete, tangible, and available option to not commit that murder.

So they are 100% guilty. Period.
The part where things that are already tricky get trickier still. We don't know -- can't know? -- if the murderers' brains compel them to murder "beyond their control". That depends on whether our own brains wholly compel us to think about determinism only as we must.

But if -- click -- we do have free will, what about the part where it is clearly the case that, existentially, some of us will live lives making it far more likely that at least in some respects we will be less able to control ourselves in regard to harming others.

Instead, the legal system often just sweeps that part under the rug. Think Anatole France: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
That’s the resolution that most people have in this country when it comes to considering free will. Not everyone, but most. Go ahead. Try the poll. I’m happy to be proven wrong.
How about all of us here? Can we finally agree on the precise philosophical definition/meaning of free will so that there will be no more confusion regarding what we are talking about when confronting thinks like Mary aborting Jane.

By all means, someone create a poll comprised of all the different ways in which to understand free will.

We'll just assume that in creating it, you had free will.
Post Reply