compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 5:39 am I've tried a couple of times to send us back to the discussion of compatiblism. (though I obviously participated also in the large tangent about participatnts)

Here's another shot at coming back to compatiblism:

I think this article articulates the points a few people are making here that are useful and I'll put in some quotes from the article below the link. Note: I will continue to black box the actual metaphysical truth. I do not think the article resolves it (nor do I really think an article good, my guess), but I thought it was clear on many parts of the issues....

https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-think-a ... H2BOVix6_s

1) Here an argument in favor of thinking as if one had free will, why this is helpful in improvement:
To the extent that the idea of free will involves some fictions, this could be a good thing, as long as we are aware that they are fictions. Take the idea that we ‘could have done otherwise’, so central to the free will debate. There is a sense in which this is never literally true. But the thought that we could have done otherwise is neither meaningless nor useless.

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.
2) Here, actually, earlier in the article, using, more or less, the golf example as a way of showing that improving oneself morally could function similarly and that praise and blame (especially in relation to oneself) can work and be justified along similar lines.
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.

Here he takes up the 'brain made me do it' confusion. And also what people really mean when they say they are free.
In giving up the voluntarist conception, we don’t have to throw out the notion of free will altogether. Free will isn’t an illusion, it’s just that the voluntarist conception of free will is flawed and untenable. It understands the free/unfree distinction to hinge upon whether our beliefs, desires and choices have causes or not, which is ridiculous, since obviously everything is caused. What we need is a ‘compatibilist’ conception of free will, one that reconciles human freedom with the causal necessity of the physical world.Such a conception is hiding in plain sight, in the ways in which we distinguish between free and unfree actions in real life. We rarely, if ever, ground this distinction in a metaphysical thesis about causation. Rather, we distinguish between coerced and uncoerced choices. If no one ‘made me do it’, I acted freely.

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 appreciate his pointing out the problem of hoping to be free to go against one's own desires and values....
I suggest that WHEN, and IF, 'you', posters, here EVER come to AN AGREEMENT on what the words 'free will', 'determinism', AND 'compatibilism' could even MEAN and REFER TO, which makes ACTUAL SENSE, INSTEAD of HOLDING your OWN meanings/definitions, while ARGUING or FIGHTING for your OWN personal POSITIONS, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, and HOW SIMPLE and EASY it WAS to OBTAIN, AS WELL.

Now, we WILL just have to WAIT, to SEE what these 'posters' ACTUALLY DID, back in the days when this was being written.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:59 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:20 pm As far as I can tell we are not different from philosophical zombies.
That suggests that the reason we talk about consciousness is entirely disconnected from the fact that we are conscious. Like if you removed the conscious experience from our bodies, our bodies would continue talking about conscious experience in exactly the same way we do now, except they'd be lying.

I don't know about you guys, but I definitely think the reason my body talks about conscious experience is directly related to the fact that I'm having conscious experiences.
BUT, WHO and/or WHAT is the 'I'?

SURELY someone as COMPETENT as 'you' could ANSWER 'this', BY NOW, right?

The main reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, here are STILL fighting/arguing OVER 'free will' and 'determinism' IS BECAUSE 'you' EACH HAVE and USE DIFFERENT NONSENSICAL and ILLOGICAL 'definitions' for those words.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True above here.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:50 pm
Age wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:33 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 7:47 pm

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)
'you' can 'give' WHATEVER 'you' like, "imabiguous", but, OBVIOUSLY, that does NOT MEAN that what 'you' 'give' is in ANY WAY True NOR Right.

In fact 'giving' "another" a so-called 'condition' while BELIEVING that one, itself, does NOT have a 'condition' could be a SURE SIGN of ACTUALLY HAVING a VERY SERIOUS 'condition'.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

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? For any number of determinists, none of us are able to claim anything at all other than what our brains compel us to claim.
WHY do 'you' USE the MOST STUPID and NONSENSICAL RIDICULOUS phrase as 'our brains'?

Especially as 'you' have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to WHO and WHAT HAS, or OWNS, 'our brains'?

These people, back then, were SO BLIND and SO VERY CONFUSED that it was Truly AMAZING that they survived for as long as they did.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:56 pm 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:
And 'this' coming from one who was OBVIOUSLY Truly VERY CONFUSED and UNKNOWING.

Also, and which was VERY COMMON, back in those days, the CONSTANT USE of ACCUSATIONS WERE MADE, but NEVER ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE, let alone, PROOF was EVER PROVIDED.

The ONLY way they 'thought' that could look SUPERIOR to "another" was to just KEEP ACCUSING the "other" of SOME 'thing'.

What is Truly LAUGHABLE is that this one ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it' was NOT afflicted with absolutely ANY so-called 'condition', and thus BELIEVED 'itself' to be of PURE KNOWING of what IS TRUE and RIGHT. Which is OBVIOUSLY Truly HUMOROUS considering what 'it' has ACTUALLY WRITTEN and SAID above here.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:01 pm
The point [mine] isn't my reading what they wrote, but pinning down philosophically/scientifically whether I opted to read them of my own volition or was compelled to read them by a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.
Who believes that to be an important point? Aside from you?

Think about it. If you're the only one who thinks it's important, is it really important? Maybe it isn't. Why is it important or why not? Why do people disagree with you on that point?
The point [mine] isn't what someone believes or whether someone thinks my point is important, but pinning down philosophically/scientifically whether what they believe and think, they believe and think of own volition or were compelled to believe and think only what they must by a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

Then the part where Jane only exists because "somehow" -- God or No God -- when matter evolved into biological phenomena here on Earth, her mother was persuaded not to abort her.

I'll bet that Jane thinks it's important that "somehow" free will became a part of the human condition.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Mr. Wiggle wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:57 pm
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?
Again:
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 »

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

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:05 am Unbelievable :roll:
Nature to phyllo:

Believe it.



But let's just focus on this part:

Who other than you is acting in your dreams? Is it you acting in them?

Or is it entirely your brain chemically and neurologically creating these "realities". They literally only exist in your head.

So, okay, note the part where philosophers and scientists have finally explained how the wide-awake brain reality really, really is a manifestation of human autonomy. And how they went about demonstrating 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 11:07 pm
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.
Click.

That's ridiculous. Until we actually do grasp how -- why? -- self-conscious matter came to exist here on planet Earth, we can't know for certain how close any of us come in our arguments here to what is in fact true.

What I am interested in exploring is, given some measure of free will, how posters here encompass their own renditions of this:
Determinism as I understand it here and now:

"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, 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.

Given Mary and Jane or given a new context of their own choosing.
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:07 pm Something I have acknowledged before. As I have said several times to you, I understand what determinism entails.
Okay -- click -- what are you saying? That in regard to "punishment, avoidance, judgment and emotional reactions", determinism entails a fated and destined human condition? That we would never be able not to punish those were never able not to commit crimes? Because with some determinists here and over at ILP, compatibilism seems entirely applicable here. "Somehow" in punishing criminals there seems to be a measure of volition [for them] that I don't grasp at all.
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.
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:07 pmAnd here you repeat yourself, again. Bring in God, which has NOTHING to do with my post.
Please. Given that God is one possible explanation for free will, of course He is going to become a part of these discussions. Instead, in my view, it is in how woefully uncertain philosophy and science are here that becomes clearly apparent.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:07 pmDo 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.
I have no idea what point you are conveying here.

Though, sure, if free will is a reality, and the arguments I make are just too repetitive for some, let them simply move on to others. At the same time however how are your own new posts not in turn coming back again and again to the same points that you make? What is brand spanking new in this post?
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 11:07 pmThat's not a response with any substance. You are just saying that other people might say or believe similar things.
All I can do is to note contexts like Mary and Jane, and ask those who embrace determinism, free will or compatibilism to encompass how they construe things like punishment and judgment and emotional reactions and moral responsibility. As I did above.
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:56 pmBringing 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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:56 pmThat'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.
I am reacting subjectively to what you post based on the manner in which my own interests are explored. You note that [like me] you don't know for sure if you have free will or not. But what interests me is in grappling with how others here imagine a world in which determinism is the case. Do they [like me] go so far as to make no distinction between determinism and fate and destiny? Nothing [including the human brain] not being but more dominoes toppling over on cue. Or do they make this "internal"/"external" distinction that "somehow" permits compatibilism to be applicable in situations like Mary not able to opt to give birth to Jane but still morally responsible for killing her.
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.

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:56 pmThen 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.
I have complained to him. But he hasn't posted here since March 7th. And I'm just trying to understand how far you take determinism given how you understand it in regard to those things. Are criminals destined/fated to commit crimes? Is society destined/fated to punish them?
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:07 pmThen 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.
No, what's ridiculous [to me] are those who react to that point as though it really isn't important [or even relevant] to the thread at all.

All I'm doing is acknowledging that maybe I am not thinking it all through correctly myself. Perhaps someone can come up an argument that does take it into consideration. Or in accepting the inherent limitations of what can be grasped about all of this, I can still come into contact with arguments that [to me] seem more reasonable than others.
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:07 pmAgain, not relevent to what I posted. Not a response to one thing I wrote.
Right, like only you get to decide what either is or is not relevant to the thread. Like we don't both have a frame of mind -- an understanding of these things -- that we tug the discussion toward.
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:07 pmSo, 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.
Pedophilia is [to determinists as I understand them] just another inherent human behavior that those who pursue it were never able not to engage in. And if they are punished it is only because those who punish them were never able not to punish them.

Only [for me] back to those determinists who argue that this is not the case at all. That "somehow" they are morally responsible for behaving in that manner; and that "somehow" we in society are able to punish them in such a way that we are not fated or destined to punish them.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:07 pmYou 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
Yes, that's how we acquire these points of view. We live particular lives out in particular worlds and accumulate particular sets of personal experiences and personal relationships, acquiring particular information and knowledge based on what we read or see or listen to.
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:07 pmNot 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.
Fine. Given some measure of free will, let's both steer clear of each other here.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

phyllo wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:05 am Unbelievable :roll:
As far as I can see, he takes no responsibility for his positions. They need no justification. He does not argue his beliefs, he places them in questions expressing incredulity that anything else could be true. So, everyone else is expected not only to demonstrate their point of view, but any other issue that is important to him they have to demonstrate also. If you present your views about responsibility and determinism, this means nothing unless you can explain how consciousness arose in humans. Even if you do not mention God, his response will act as if your post has done this. And, of course, regardless of what you say, you have somehow unfairly blamed Mary for getting an abortion when Mary couldn't have done anything else. Regardless.

So, he goes on expressing whatever he likes, but never has to justify it. But anyone interacting with him is expected to demonstrate/explain a wide range of issues.

And it is absolutely guaranteed that he will treat any post he encounters as a reason to repeat things he has posted (and never justified) many times. And he must know you, FJ and I have read these things. In his latest post to me he mentioned the how did consciousness/autonomy arise issue twice and it had nothing to do with what I wrote. It was not a response to anything in my post and not relevant.

He does not interact with other people's specific positions, arguments and points made. Their posts trigger him to cut and paste.

He may well be reading our posts, but he might as well not be.

And he is not going to make a case or explain anything. That's other people's job.

Though he does hold other people responsible for what they do here. He does make moral judgments of objectivists, for example. Somehow this never means that he is judging Mary.

So, I'll focus on your posts and FJ's and anyone else's, but not his. As you say, unbelievable. A word he takes literally.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Compelled or not then, we are now all on the same page.

You'll steer clear of my posts, I'll steer clear of yours.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:04 am
phyllo wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:05 am Unbelievable :roll:
As far as I can see, he takes no responsibility for his positions. They need no justification. He does not argue his beliefs, he places them in questions expressing incredulity that anything else could be true. So, everyone else is expected not only to demonstrate their point of view, but any other issue that is important to him they have to demonstrate also. If you present your views about responsibility and determinism, this means nothing unless you can explain how consciousness arose in humans. Even if you do not mention God, his response will act as if your post has done this. And, of course, regardless of what you say, you have somehow unfairly blamed Mary for getting an abortion when Mary couldn't have done anything else. Regardless.

So, he goes on expressing whatever he likes, but never has to justify it. But anyone interacting with him is expected to demonstrate/explain a wide range of issues.

And it is absolutely guaranteed that he will treat any post he encounters as a reason to repeat things he has posted (and never justified) many times. And he must know you, FJ and I have read these things. In his latest post to me he mentioned the how did consciousness/autonomy arise issue twice and it had nothing to do with what I wrote. It was not a response to anything in my post and not relevant.

He does not interact with other people's specific positions, arguments and points made. Their posts trigger him to cut and paste.

He may well be reading our posts, but he might as well not be.

And he is not going to make a case or explain anything. That's other people's job.

Though he does hold other people responsible for what they do here. He does make moral judgments of objectivists, for example. Somehow this never means that he is judging Mary.

So, I'll focus on your posts and FJ's and anyone else's, but not his. As you say, unbelievable. A word he takes literally.
That sums it up nicely.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
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

When it comes to free will, the Ayn Randoid Objectivists are Libertarians on steroids. Not only are they fanatical about it, they make no distinction whatsoever between human autonomy in the either/or world and human autonomy in the is/ought world. Providing, of course, you agree entirely with Ayn Rand regarding what is good and what is evil. You do? Then you too are necessarily Rational and Virtuous.

The "virtue of selfishness" Rand called it.

And here they go after the "dogged determinist" Daniel Dennett.
Daniel Dennett is a philosopher known for advocating a reductionistic view of consciousness, and for promoting the theory of evolution as of central importance to understanding man and his place in the universe. His most recent book is devoted to the issue of whether free will can be integrated with evolution.
Whether free will can be integrated into the evolution of biological life here on planet Earth? Is there anyone here [other than the Creationists] who would deny that "somehow" human consciousness did come into existence as a result of the biological evolution of living matter here on Earth? True, we don't know how or why this matter became self-conscious of itself as matter. And we can't pin down how or why it acquired the capacity to invent philosophy and the internet. But "somehow" it did.
The idea of free will, as normally understood, means that man generally has more than one action possible to him, with his actual action the result, directly or indirectly, of his own choices. Man is in some cases free to choose between several alternatives, all of which are possible, with the choice between them directly under his control and his actions, directly or indirectly, the result of these choices.
On the other hand, how do we pin down definitively that the ideas we do think up in our brain, we were free to think up? How do we know beyond all doubt whatsoever that the brain itself did not evolve to create the psychological illusion of autonomy here?

Well, because Ayn Rand thought otherwise.

And then the part where -- click -- any Libertarians or Objectivists among us confront the points I raise in this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

In regard to the role that dasein plays in our acquiring subjective, rooted existentially in the life we lived/live value judgments.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Daniel Dennett is Wrong About Free Will
by Daniel Miessler
I am exceedingly frustrated by Daniel Dennett’s response to Sam Harris’ recent book on free will.

It serves as the most elaborate, learned, and desperate hand-waving I’ve ever witnessed. It was such a weak argument that it looked more like an example that a brilliant philosophy professor, like Daniel Dennett, might use to highlight poor arguments to his students. Sadly it wasn’t a strawman used for instruction—it was his real position.
Clearly, not all folks are on the same page here regarding Dennett. But that hardly surprises me because assessments of this sort are, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein.

Well, click, of course.

What I would be inclined to explore with Dennett is the manner in which he himself construed the meaning of determinism. Did his own understanding of it encompass the belief that even his own understanding of it itself was determined by his brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter?
Here’s what he basically said:

It seems like we make choices, so we do. It’s useful to hold people responsible for their actions, so moral responsibility is real.
In other words, intuitively, viscerally, deep down in our gut, we "just know" that we have free will. So, we must have it. And who can deny that that it is useful for society to punish the bad guys. So, our feeling that it is useful must be the real deal.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

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?
Post Reply