compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

phyllo wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:38 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:47 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:13 pm

Click.

Different audience.



How about this...

In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, I was never able to not post it at both forums.

Now, for the compatibilists among us, please explain how you reconcile this with my still being responsible for doing so.

In other words, I was never able to freely opt to not post it at both forums, but I can still be scolded justly by you for doing so.



Note to Mary:

Maybe next time.
Randomness doesn't give you responsibility. If you accept the concept of responsibility in an indeterminate universe, and the only difference between indeterminism and determinism is randomness, and it's true that randomness doesn't grant you responsibility, then you have exactly as much responsibility in a deterministic universe as you do in an indeterminate one.
He doesn't think it's about randomness.

He thinks free-will gives you some sort of magic mojo which lets you respond in an unlimited way in any situation.
Well sure, but either that magic mojo exists in a 100% deterministic context, or it exists in a less deterministic (and thus more random) context. And since the randomness doesn't grant control, it cannot really grant responsibility. In my view anyway.

Nice to see you btw phyllo. Did you know I'm a fan of yours?
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Well sure, but either that magic mojo exists in a 100% deterministic context, or it exists in a less deterministic (and thus more random) context. And since the randomness doesn't grant control, it cannot really grant responsibility. In my view anyway.
In the hundreds of pages of posts about determinism, arguments about randomness have never gained any traction.

We will see if you have any success. If you decide to pursue it.
Nice to see you btw phyllo. Did you know I'm a fan of yours?
I didn't know that I had any fans.

I have a few disinterested associates. And some contemptuous coposters.

Nice to see you. You're suddenly active. What happened?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

phyllo wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:59 pm Nice to see you. You're suddenly active. What happened?
I must have been swept up by a sudden wave of masochism lmao.

I think you're a pretty smart dude, I often like reading what you have to say. Can I subscribe to your only fans?
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

:lol:
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Sam Ruhmkorff
Hard Determinism
First, [hard determinism] does not make our choices meaningless. Hard determinists hold that what you do for the rest of your life is determined. But it is determined in part by the way you make choices.

If you sit on the couch and bemoan your fate as a line-follower, your life-line will not be very dynamic. If you try to make your life go well, you have a chance at a much more enjoyable fate.
This is always the part where [to me] the hard determinist reconfigures into the free will advocate. The lives that we lived are determined. But "somehow" that doesn't include the way we make choices.

Huh?

The choices themselves can only be as they must be, but: "how" we make them allows for...for what exactly?

If you sit of the couch and bemoan your life [for whatever "reason"], you were never able not to. If you "try" to make your life better, you were still never able not to.

Again, Mary has an abortion. Meaning that, in a wholly determined world she was never free to opt not to. But the way she makes the choice to abort is, well, sort of free?

Explain that to me, Mr. Compatibilist. Given that -- click -- I am always willing to concede that I am the one misunderstanding all of this.
According to hard determinism, Jay-Z is just as determined in his actions as someone sitting on their couch in existential crisis. But, I'm assuming, it's better to be Jay-Z. So hard determinism implies that you should still try whatever it is you think will make your life go best.
Back I go...

What we assume is in turn what we were never able not to assume. So, given my entirely compelled understanding of hard determinism, a better or worse life is inherently interchangeable. Your life might "seem" better or worse but it was never able to not seem that way. Why? Because you were never able not to behave as you did in order to make it "seem" one or the other. It's always your brain calling all the shots.

Just like in your dreams.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:47 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:13 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:53 pm

What's the point of posting your response to me here and not ILP?

You asked me to explain something to you, and then instead of engaging with me in my explanation you tangented off into your own take. If you want my take, listen to my take. If you don't want it, keep doing what you're doing.

But skip the cross posting shit please
Click.

Different audience.



How about this...

In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, I was never able to not post it at both forums.

Now, for the compatibilists among us, please explain how you reconcile this with my still being responsible for doing so.

In other words, I was never able to freely opt to not post it at both forums, but I can still be scolded justly by you for doing so.



Note to Mary:

Maybe next time.
Randomness doesn't give you responsibility. If you accept the concept of responsibility in an indeterminate universe, and the only difference between indeterminism and determinism is randomness, and it's true that randomness doesn't grant you responsibility, then you have exactly as much responsibility in a deterministic universe as you do in an indeterminate one.
Again, compelled or not, we clearly understand determinism differently. In a world where all matter is governed by immutable laws nothing is ever random. There's just this...

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.

...and how that inevitably led to human brains compelled to "think up" randomness. To think up quantum mechanics. Particles and waves and slots: https://youtu.be/Hk3fgjHNQ2Q

Boggling many, many minds that then come to conclude the only explanation for the existence of existence itself is God. And, as luck would have it, their God.

Free will? Well, that's easy. God packs that into our soul.

It always comes back to the profound mystery of human consciousness itself. I merely point out the gap between those like me still utterly mystified by it all and those like peacegirl and others who post "my way or the highway" dogmas that scoff at those too dumb to grasp what they already know to be the objective truth. Some then take this either/or mentality into the is/ought realm. Not only is Mary responsible for aborting Jane but in doing so she behaved immorally.

Now, back to this:

In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, I was never able to not post it at both forums.

Now, for the compatibilists among us, please explain how you reconcile this with my still being responsible for doing so.

In other words, I was never able to freely opt to not post it at both forums, but I can still be scolded justly by you for doing so.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:58 pm
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.
You keep saying this, but you haven't laid any of the groundwork to make this relevant to me, it anybody else. It's a one liner that only you understand.

Which is why I was trying to lead our previous conversation, going through it step by step rather than dumping big streaming piles of confusion on you.

You've thought about this issue a lot, and this thing you keep saying that you've bolded I'm sure means a lot to you, but ONLY to you. Which is why nobody is biting on it. It doesn't mean anything to anybody else. You gotta go slower, step by step.

I invited you to go step by step with me before, which you graciously accepted but then you decided you didn't want to listen after all. I would have liked for you to give it a real shot, I do like you iamb and I feel we could have gotten somewhere if you stuck to your word and committed to listen.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:38 pm He doesn't think it's about randomness.

He thinks free-will gives you some sort of magic mojo which lets you respond in an unlimited way in any situation.
No, he thinks that whatever he thinks he was never able not to think in a world where human brains are just more matter inherently in sync with whatever or whoever brought into existence the laws of matter themselves.

Free will gave Mary the option to not abort Jane. Jane is now around waiting for you to explain to her your own take on determinism and human responsibility.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

Free will gave Mary the option to not abort Jane.
Right there ... that's the magic mojo.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:02 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:58 pm
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.
You keep saying this, but you haven't laid any of the groundwork to make this relevant to me, it anybody else. It's a one liner that only you understand.
Like I said: stuck.

I keep saying it because my brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compels me to say it. I could never have not said it. Only I too have no way of actually demonstrating this because, like you, I cannot untangle this:

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.

Then, rather than explaining to Mary how she was compelled to abort Jane but is still morally responsible for doing so, straight up into the intellectual contraption clouds you go...
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:02 pmWhich is why I was trying to lead our previous conversation, going through it step by step rather than dumping big streaming piles of confusion on you.

You've thought about this issue a lot, and this thing you keep saying that you've bolded I'm sure means a lot to you, but ONLY to you. Which is why nobody is biting on it. It doesn't mean anything to anybody else. You gotta go slower, step by step.

I invited you to go step by step with me before, which you graciously accepted but then you decided you didn't want to listen after all. I would have liked for you to give it a real shot, I do like you iamb and I feel we could have gotten somewhere if you stuck to your word and committed to listen.
Again, reconcile determinism with moral responsibility. Step by step. It's you and Mary. I'm not around at all.

Discussing determinism with you is a lot like discussing race with AJ. Assuming a free will world.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:23 pm
Again, reconcile determinism with moral responsibility. Step by step. It's you and Mary. I'm not around at all.

Discussing determinism with you is a lot like discussing race with AJ. Assuming a free will world.
I have no idea who aj or Mary are, but I suspect Mary is another attempt of yours to impose your own framing onto me after you've offered to listen.

I'm not a determinist, so all your silly loopholes about determinism don't work on me. If you want to listen, that means not imposing your own framework. Your own framing has failed to give you a comprehension of compatibilism, so continuing to frame it in the same way will continue to fail. You have the option to stop imposing that and listen - a real option, remember, I'm not a determinist.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:12 pm
Free will gave Mary the option to not abort Jane.
Right there ... that's the magic mojo.
What's magic about it? If "somehow" non-living matter did manage to evolve into living matter here on planet Earth, and then "somehow" evolved further into conscious and then self-conscious matter, human brains do acquire the capacity to opt among different behaviors.

Mary is then not just another domino toppling over inevitably into the abortion clinic. Jane is now among us. And she's still waiting for you to explain the magic mojo stuff.

Only, you do believe in...God? Is that the source of the magic mojo? The soul packed with free will...straight from the Garden of Eden?
Last edited by iambiguous on Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Mr. Wiggle wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:27 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:23 pm
Again, reconcile determinism with moral responsibility. Step by step. It's you and Mary. I'm not around at all.

Discussing determinism with you is a lot like discussing race with AJ. Assuming a free will world.
I have no idea who aj or Mary are, but I suspect Mary is another attempt of yours to impose your own framing onto me after you've offered to listen.

I'm not a determinist, so all your silly loopholes about determinism don't work on me. If you want to listen, that means not imposing your own framework. Your own framing has failed to give you a comprehension of compatibilism, so continuing to frame it in the same way will continue to fail. You have the option to stop imposing that and listen - a real option, remember, I'm not a determinist.
See, there he goes. Insisting that I do have the option to stop what I am doing and do what he wants to do instead.

Stuck! stuck! stuck!

Look, are there any compatibilists here who -- click -- are willing to explain to Mary [who just aborted Jane] why they believe that determinism and moral responsibility are entirely reconcilable.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

It's that hard for you to agree to listen? Stuck indeed. And all of your own choosing.

Imagine hating listening that much.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:42 pm It's that hard for you to agree to listen? Stuck indeed. And all of your own choosing.

Imagine hating listening that much.
Pick one:

1] STUCK!
2] STUCK!!
3] STUCK!!!




Note from Mary:

So, am I morally responsible or not?
Post Reply