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.