compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 6936
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 10:23 pm What set of assumptions am I using?

Out with it. :twisted:
Note to nature:

You tell him. 8)
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1400
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 10:26 pm
phyllo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 10:23 pm What set of assumptions am I using?

Out with it. :twisted:
Note to nature:

You tell him. 8)
FFS
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2545
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 9:55 pm
Again, this may well be a profound and insightful assessment of this distinction. The part I keep missing. But, as with phyllo's own set of assumptions above, I'm inclined to see his as ridiculous in turn. In a free will world as I understand it, there is at least the possibility of Jane not being aborted.

Surely this Jane you're speaking of was aborted in the past. I don't know of any "free will world", whatever that means, where free will means one can change the past. Do you think free will involves the ability to change the past?

Jane was aborted. Maybe she was aborted in a free will world. Maybe she was aborted in a deterministic world. Maybe she was aborted in a world that's deterministic AND the compatibilists are right, and free will is also in that world.

But regardless of which of those worlds we in, we're in a world where the past is the past, and Jane was aborted.

Your continued desire to frame deterministic worlds as one where abortions happen, and free will world as one where abortions don't happen, is pretty absurd. There's nothing stopping people from getting abortions in free will worlds too. There's no reason to assume nobody would be talked out of abortions in deterministic worlds.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 6936
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 10:44 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 10:26 pm
phyllo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 10:23 pm What set of assumptions am I using?

Out with it. :twisted:
Note to nature:

You tell him. 8)
FFS
Yo, Nature! That is the best you can do?!!

8)
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1400
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

This appears to be the best that you can do.

Feel free to quote yourself the next time you are bitching about the poor level of philosophy on this site and moaning about how it is no better than ILP.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2545
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

phyllo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 3:20 pm This appears to be the best that you can do.

Feel free to quote yourself the next time you are bitching about the poor level of philosophy on this site and moaning about how it is no better than ILP.
Note to nature:

What do I say now? This is the first time I've sent a message to nature, what do I say? Nice work?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 6936
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:23 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 9:55 pm
Again, this may well be a profound and insightful assessment of this distinction. The part I keep missing. But, as with phyllo's own set of assumptions above, I'm inclined to see his as ridiculous in turn. In a free will world as I understand it, there is at least the possibility of Jane not being aborted.

In a wholly determined world as the truly hardcore ilk among us encompass it, Jane was toast going all the way back to...the Big Bang?
Surely this Jane you're speaking of was aborted in the past. I don't know of any "free will world", whatever that means, where free will means one can change the past. Do you think free will involves the ability to change the past?
We don't live in the past. And back then Mary either did or did not have the capacity to hear John out, change her mind about the abortion and give birth to Jane.

But in a wholly determined world as some construe it, once Jane is aborted that's just more of nature's dominoes toppling over onto each other autonomically. It's the Benjamin Button Syndrome only all of the interactions we encounter are fated and destined to unfold mechanically given the nature of Nature itself. And here, of course, some come around to God.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:23 pmJane was aborted. Maybe she was aborted in a free will world. Maybe she was aborted in a deterministic world. Maybe she was aborted in a world that's deterministic AND the compatibilists are right, and free will is also in that world.

But regardless of which of those worlds we in, we're in a world where the past is the past, and Jane was aborted.
That really does make sense to you, doesn't it? Jane may well be around today if Mary had changed her mind in a free will world back then but she was never able to change her mind because Jane was never not going to be aborted. Not that Mary isn't morally responsible however.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:23 pmYour continued desire to frame deterministic worlds as one where abortions happen, and free will world as one where abortions don't happen, is pretty absurd. There's nothing stopping people from getting abortions in free will worlds too. There's no reason to assume nobody would be talked out of abortions in deterministic worlds.
What is absurd here, from my own frame of mind, is how you construe my thinking in a manner that bears little or no resemblance whatsoever to how I think that I think about Mary and Jane.

Note where I have argued that in a determined world abortions happen while in a free will world they do not. Abortions can happen or not happen in either world. But in a world where "somehow" human brains acquired autonomy, women agonizing over an unwanted pregnancy can at least encounter points of view other than their own, prompting them to change their mind. In a wholly determined world, past, present and future, all abortions are in sync with the only possible reality.

Or, rather, here and now, so it seems to me.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2545
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:02 pm Jane may well be around today if Mary had changed her mind in a free will world back then but she was never able to change her mind because Jane was never not going to be aborted.
So you know for a fact determinism is the case, definitely? How did you find that out?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2545
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:02 pm Note where I have argued that in a determined world abortions happen while in a free will world they do not.
You're literally always saying this shit. You said it on the previous page. Mary has an abortion in the determined world. In the free will world she doesn't. You state it like it's a matter of fact. As if you somehow know that she doesn't have an abortion in the free will world.
Again, run this by Jane. In a free will world, Mary's friend, of her own volition, chooses to talk to Mary about abortion. Mary chooses of her own free will to listen to her argument and as a result of the points her friend makes, she changes her mind and Jane is now among us.
You're stating these as hard facts about what happens in free will worlds. Why?
Last edited by Flannel Jesus on Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 6936
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

One more time!

ME:
iambiguous wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:02 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:23 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 9:55 pm
Again, this may well be a profound and insightful assessment of this distinction. The part I keep missing. But, as with phyllo's own set of assumptions above, I'm inclined to see his as ridiculous in turn. In a free will world as I understand it, there is at least the possibility of Jane not being aborted.

In a wholly determined world as the truly hardcore ilk among us encompass it, Jane was toast going all the way back to...the Big Bang?
Surely this Jane you're speaking of was aborted in the past. I don't know of any "free will world", whatever that means, where free will means one can change the past. Do you think free will involves the ability to change the past?
We don't live in the past. And back then Mary either did or did not have the capacity to hear John out, change her mind about the abortion and give birth to Jane.

But in a wholly determined world as some construe it, once Jane is aborted that's just more of nature's dominoes toppling over onto each other autonomically. It's the Benjamin Button Syndrome only all of the interactions we encounter are fated and destined to unfold mechanically given the nature of Nature itself. And here, of course, some come around to God.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:23 pmJane was aborted. Maybe she was aborted in a free will world. Maybe she was aborted in a deterministic world. Maybe she was aborted in a world that's deterministic AND the compatibilists are right, and free will is also in that world.

But regardless of which of those worlds we in, we're in a world where the past is the past, and Jane was aborted.
That really does make sense to you, doesn't it? Jane may well be around today if Mary had changed her mind in a free will world back then but she was never able to change her mind because Jane was never not going to be aborted. Not that Mary isn't morally responsible however.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:23 pmYour continued desire to frame deterministic worlds as one where abortions happen, and free will world as one where abortions don't happen, is pretty absurd. There's nothing stopping people from getting abortions in free will worlds too. There's no reason to assume nobody would be talked out of abortions in deterministic worlds.
What is absurd here, from my own frame of mind, is how you construe my thinking in a manner that bears little or no resemblance whatsoever to how I think that I think about Mary and Jane.

Note where I have argued that in a determined world abortions happen while in a free will world they do not. Abortions can happen or not happen in either world. But in a world where "somehow" human brains acquired autonomy, women agonizing over an unwanted pregnancy can at least encounter points of view other than their own, prompting them to change their mind. In a wholly determined world, past, present and future, all abortions are in sync with the only possible reality.

Or, rather, here and now, so it seems to me.
HIM:
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:20 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:02 pm Jane may well be around today if Mary had changed her mind in a free will world back then but she was never able to change her mind because Jane was never not going to be aborted.
So you know for a fact determinism is the case, definitely? How did you find that out?
Absolutely shameless!!!

Only let's have a vote on it this time. :wink:




Over and again, I note that I am no less included here...
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 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.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.
I challenge FJ to note where I have ever claimed to know for a fact that "determinism is the case, definitely".
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2545
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:38 pm

I challenge FJ to note where I have ever claimed to know for a fact that "determinism is the case, definitely".
Right here:
she was never able to change her mind
You're stating this like it's a fact. This is a fact about the world - she aborted and she was never able not to.

How do you know that?

Are you, perchance, shameless?

Grow up. You're too old for all the "shameless" shit. You make a fool of yourself.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 6936
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:40 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:38 pm

I challenge FJ to note where I have ever claimed to know for a fact that "determinism is the case, definitely".
Right here:
she was never able to change her mind
You're stating this like it's a fact. This is a fact about the world - she aborted and she was never able not to.

How do you know that?

Are you, perchance, shameless?

Grow up. You're too old for all the "shameless" shit.
No, over and again I note what some hardcore determinists insist determinism means "for all practical purposes": that everything we think, feel, say and do, we think, feel, say and do because we were never ever able not to think, feel, say and do them.

That seems reasonable to me "here and now"...if the human brain itself is no less entirely in sync with the laws of matter.

After all, what part of "everything" is hard to understand here?

But how on Earth could I possibly know that for sure?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2545
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

You tell me, why are you stating it like it's a fact? If you don't know it for sure, why do you state it so casually like it's obviously the case?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 6936
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:51 pm You tell me, why are you stating it like it's a fact? If you don't know it for sure, why do you state it so casually like it's obviously the case?
Uh, because my brain compels me to? :)

But -- click -- just for the record [again], I do not know for a fact much of anything at all regarding the human brain as it pertains to the philosophical conundrum that has fascinated and exasperated both scientists and philosophers now for literally thousands of years.

Do we have free will? Derived from God...or from the universe itself in a No God world?

Damned if I know. And, according to some here, I'll be damned for all the rest of eternity if I don't come around to their God.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2545
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Okay, so you don't know. All you know is, Jane was aborted. Maybe this IS a free will world, and therefore maybe she was aborted in a free will world. And therefore, every time you say "Jane would not be aborted in a free will world, because Mary's friend would talk her out of it," maybe you're saying the exact opposite of the truth.
Post Reply