compatibilism

[iambiguous]

Actually, my point is that in regard to the moral, political and religious objectivists in those links, the only way to satisfy them is by entirely agreeing with them. By becoming "one of us".

That seems like a trait you share with them.

Right, I'm no less the objectivist here myself. And even though I note that my own value judgments and assessment of free will are also rooted existentially in dasein -- given all of the many, many times I have changed my mind about morality and religion and determinism -- you're on to me. And all that "stuff" about "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" and the "Benjamin Button Syndrome"? What are the odds that they are in any way relevant here?

You don't seem satisfied in the least when people aren't fractured and fragmented or can't agree that we can't know X, for example.

Again, the "win/win" assumptions. Or do you actually believe that I revel in the belief that my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that I am fractured and fragmented morally and that oblivion may well be right around the corner. Sure, I'd like to bump into others I can empathize with. But that pales next to imagining that "somehow" someone can convince me to come up out of the truly dismal "hole" I've dug myself down into.

What is it that satisfies you?

Well, philosophy, music, film, books, the magazines I subscribe to, public television. Distractions I call them.

[iambiguous]

Or their response is one of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

[edit] I guess that's covered in "objectivists".

In any case, there's no way to satisfy him, you've understood correctly.

Actually, my point is that in regard to the moral, political and religious objectivists in those links, the only way to satisfy them is by entirely agreeing with them. By becoming "one of us".

Who cares though? Why is that your point? What's the point of that point? What's the relevance of it here, or anywhere? It seems entirely irrelevant to me to say any of that.

Huh?!!!

What is human history to date but one long and truly ghastly example of the terrible, terrible pain and suffering the moral and political and religious objectivists have inflicted on those who refused to toe their line? To become "one of us"?

The point of a conversation between You and Phyllo about compatibilism or moral responsiblity or whatever isn't for Phyllo to convince every religious person or political person or follow of every school of philosophy about something, it's for him and you to work towards at least somethign closer to a mutual understanding. That's it - You, and Him - not every religion, political ideology, or school of philosophy. Just you and him.

So why bring those up? Is it just to distract Phyllo from saying something you might actually find meaningful?

My guess? That your take on my exchange with him is out of sync with my own?

Only this thread explores the possibility of a mutual understanding regarding compatibilism and moral responsibility.

And -- click -- what might that be?

And, if there is one, let's run it by Jane.

[Flannel Jesus]

What are you blabbering on about now?

[Iwannaplato]

What is human history to date but one long and truly ghastly example of the terrible, terrible pain and suffering the moral and political and religious objectivists have inflicted on those who refused to toe their line? To become "one of us"?

It seems like you'll only be satisfied if he agrees with you.

Only this thread explores the possibility of a mutual understanding regarding compatibilism and moral responsibility.

And -- click -- what might that be?

And, if there is one, let's run it by Jane.

So, this thread explores the possibility of a mutual understanding...etc.
and to attain this we need to run our position/thoughts by fetus that was aborted.

I don't see the claim of your intent matching what you otherwise say here, and in other posts.
It seems like you say your intention is one thing, but really you're not interested in that.

[iambiguous]

What are you blabbering on about now?

Absolutely shameless!!!

If only in a free will world.

[iambiguous]

What is human history to date but one long and truly ghastly example of the terrible, terrible pain and suffering the moral and political and religious objectivists have inflicted on those who refused to toe their line? To become "one of us"?

It seems like you'll only be satisfied if he agrees with you.

Huh?!

Are you actually suggesting here that reasonable men and women are justified in not agreeing with that?

Only this thread explores the possibility of a mutual understanding regarding compatibilism and moral responsibility.

And -- click -- what might that be?

And, if there is one, let's run it by Jane.

So, this thread explores the possibility of a mutual understanding...etc.
and to attain this we need to run our position/thoughts by fetus that was aborted.

No, this thread [from my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind in a free will world] suggests that on a planet in a universe where Mary was compelled by her brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to abort Jane, there is no possibility of running it by Jane.

Mutual in what sense then?

From my own vantage point, which may be reasonable or unreasonable, any discussion with Jane starts with the assumption that either Mary was compelled by her brain to give birth to her, or "somehow" human brains did acquire autonomy and Mary chose to give birth to her. But, given the Benjamin Button Syndrome, there are so many variables in our lives beyond our fully understanding or controlling, the permutations can well be ineffable.

I don't see the claim of your intent matching by what you otherwise say here, and in other posts.
It seems like you say your intention is one thing, but really you're not interested in that.

Again, if that's what you need to believe about me, fine, we can just agree to disagree.

[Flannel Jesus]

And, if there is one, let's run it by Jane.

So, this thread explores the possibility of a mutual understanding...etc.
and to attain this we need to run our position/thoughts by fetus that was aborted.

No, this thread [from my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind in a free will world] suggests that on a planet in a universe where Mary was compelled by her brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to abort Jane, there is no possibility of running it by Jane.

Mutual in what sense then?

From my own vantage point, which may be reasonable or unreasonable, any discussion with Jane starts with the assumption ...

The thing you don't seem to get, for some reason, is that when you tell someone "tell that to Jane" or "run it by Jane", we don't know what that means. Nobody except you knows what that means.

You are the only person in this thread demanding that other people in the thread speak with people who don't exist. Now, assuming that you're sane and not fully in the midst of a schizophrenic break...

HOW? If you want to demand someone speaks with a nonexistent person, the least you could do is explain to them how you expect them to do that.

[iambiguous]

And, if there is one, let's run it by Jane.

So, this thread explores the possibility of a mutual understanding...etc.
and to attain this we need to run our position/thoughts by fetus that was aborted.

No, this thread [from my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind in a free will world] suggests that on a planet in a universe where Mary was compelled by her brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to abort Jane, there is no possibility of running it by Jane.

Mutual in what sense then?

From my own vantage point, which may be reasonable or unreasonable, any discussion with Jane starts with the assumption ...

The thing you don't seem to get, for some reason, is that when you tell someone "tell that to Jane" or "run it by Jane", we don't know what that means. Nobody except you knows what that means.

Come on, how hard is it to understand...given free will.

Year in and year out, thousands upon thousands of women are confronted with unwanted pregnancies. Some will choose abortion, others will choose to give birth.

So, the question [mine] becomes, "did these women choose of their own volition to abort or give birth, or were they all compelled by their brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter to 'choose' to abort or give birth?"

Now, if Mary had free will, there was the possibility that John or others of their own free will might have been successful in changing her mind about aborting Jane. But if she was compelled by the laws of matter to abort Jane, Jane is now on her way back to "star stuff". So, in discussing free will/determinism/compatibilism with Jane, either she is still around because in a determined universe Mary was compelled to give birth to her or in a free will universe Mary chose to give birth to her.

Then the part where some compatibilists argue that, yes, Mary was compelled to abort Jane but that doesn't make her any less morally responsible for doing so.

And then, finally, the part where I flat-out acknowledge how I may well be unable "here and now" to grasp why I am understanding all of this incorrectly. On the other hand, if there is but one and only one rational manner in which to grasp it, how come philosophers and scientists haven't reached an optimal consensus yet after thousands of years? In fact, it is the theologians who "settle it" once and for all: God installed free will in our very souls at the point of conception.

Next up however: God's own stillbirths and miscarriages.

[Flannel Jesus]

No, this thread [from my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind in a free will world] suggests that on a planet in a universe where Mary was compelled by her brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to abort Jane, there is no possibility of running it by Jane.

Mutual in what sense then?

From my own vantage point, which may be reasonable or unreasonable, any discussion with Jane starts with the assumption ...

The thing you don't seem to get, for some reason, is that when you tell someone "tell that to Jane" or "run it by Jane", we don't know what that means. Nobody except you knows what that means.

Come on, how hard is it to understand...given free will.

Year in and year out, thousands upon thousands of women are confronted with unwanted pregnancies. Some will choose abortion, others will choose to give birth.

So, the question [mine] becomes, "did these women choose of their own volition to abort or give birth, or were they all compelled by their brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter to 'choose' to abort or give birth?"

Now, if Mary had free will, there was the possibility that John or others of their own free will might have been successful in changing her mind about aborting Jane. But if she was compelled by the laws of matter to abort Jane, Jane is now on her way back to "star stuff". So, in discussing free will/determinism/compatibilism with Jane, either she is still around because in a determined universe Mary was compelled to give birth to her or in a free will universe Mary chose to give birth to her.

Then the part where some compatibilists argue that, yes, Mary was compelled to abort Jane but that doesn't make her any less morally responsible for doing so.

And then, finally, the part where I flat-out acknowledge how I may well be unable "here and now" to grasp why I am understanding all of this incorrectly. On the other hand, if there is but one and only one rational manner in which to grasp it, how come philosophers and scientists haven't reached an optimal consensus yet after thousands of years? In fact, it is the theologians who "settle it" once and for all: God installed free will in our very souls at the point of conception.

Next up however: God's own stillbirths and miscarriages.

Not a single word of that explains what you mean when you say "tell that to Jane". Not a single word of that explains how one of us might be expected to tell Jane anything at all

[iambiguous]

The thing you don't seem to get, for some reason, is that when you tell someone "tell that to Jane" or "run it by Jane", we don't know what that means. Nobody except you knows what that means.

Come on, how hard is it to understand...given free will.

Year in and year out, thousands upon thousands of women are confronted with unwanted pregnancies. Some will choose abortion, others will choose to give birth.

So, the question [mine] becomes, "did these women choose of their own volition to abort or give birth, or were they all compelled by their brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter to 'choose' to abort or give birth?"

Now, if Mary had free will, there was the possibility that John or others of their own free will might have been successful in changing her mind about aborting Jane. But if she was compelled by the laws of matter to abort Jane, Jane is now on her way back to "star stuff". So, in discussing free will/determinism/compatibilism with Jane, either she is still around because in a determined universe Mary was compelled to give birth to her or in a free will universe Mary chose to give birth to her.

Then the part where some compatibilists argue that, yes, Mary was compelled to abort Jane but that doesn't make her any less morally responsible for doing so.

And then, finally, the part where I flat-out acknowledge how I may well be unable "here and now" to grasp why I am understanding all of this incorrectly. On the other hand, if there is but one and only one rational manner in which to grasp it, how come philosophers and scientists haven't reached an optimal consensus yet after thousands of years? In fact, it is the theologians who "settle it" once and for all: God installed free will in our very souls at the point of conception.

Next up however: God's own stillbirths and miscarriages.

Not a single word of that explains what you mean when you say "tell that to Jane". Not a single word of that explains how one of us might be expected to tell Jane anything at all

Absolutely shameless!!!



You know, if I do say so myself.
You know, of my own volition.

[Flannel Jesus]

Absolutely shameless!!!



You know, if I do say so myself.
You know, of my own volition.

This isn't a good coping strategy. You're in a philosophy forum. You can expect people to ask you to explain what you mean.

Instead of cowering away from the task of explaining by using silly insults, just... explain.

[iambiguous]

Absolutely shameless!!!



You know, if I do say so myself.
You know, of my own volition.

This isn't a good coping strategy. You're in a philosophy forum. You can expect people to ask you to explain what you mean.

Instead of cowering away from the task of explaining by using silly insults, just... explain.

Shades of ILP?

Of course, to the best of my ability "here and now", I did explain my reasoning above. Only -- click -- it wasn't in sync with what FJ construes a reasonable explanation to be. So, I explained nothing.


Next up: phyllo and Iwannabeplato pat FJ on the back virtually and completely concur with his or her, uh, blistering critique.

[Flannel Jesus]

None of those words explained what you mean by "tell that to Jane".

"Tell that to Jane" sounds like a command, request, or suggestion. Is it one of those things?

[Iwannaplato]

Absolutely shameless!!!



You know, if I do say so myself.
You know, of my own volition.

This isn't a good coping strategy. You're in a philosophy forum. You can expect people to ask you to explain what you mean.

Instead of cowering away from the task of explaining by using silly insults, just... explain.

Shades of ILP?

Of course, to the best of my ability "here and now", I did explain my reasoning above. Only -- click -- it wasn't in sync with what FJ construes a reasonable explanation to be. So, I explained nothing.


Next up: phyllo and Iwannabeplato pat FJ on the back virtually and completely concur with his or her, uh, blistering critique.

When you say Tell that to Jane, do you mean that as expressive, not as a real suggestion that someone talk to Jane?
I mean, FJ is quite correct. You didn't explain what you mean by that phrase. That was a simple question and his critique of your response wasn't blistering. He pointed out that you didn't explain the phrase. You did repeat things that you've said before about the wider issue. But you didn't explain that phrase.

Heres' my charitable interpretation of what you meant:

It's a expressive phrase, often. Where it does not mean to go tell someone something but generally is reminding someone that person X had a bad experience.

Presidents should go out and greet the public directly.
Tell that to JFK.

That is most charitable explanation of that imperative sentence I can think of. It wasn't meant as a direct admonition to go talk to JFK.

But, 1) if that's how you meant it, why wouldn't you say that in response to his simple question? and 2) there are places elsewhere where it sounds much more literal. What would Sam Harris say to Jane is asked.

Further you presented a more balanced view of the abortion outcomes in your previous post. Mary might have been determined to give birth. You did leave out the in the free will world hundreds of mothers capriciously decide to abort, even though they want the babies, but their wants are not longer compelling in the least, because it's a free will universe where one can choose free of past influences including one's own desires.

If you just presented the scenario in a way that didn't make it seems like determinism leads to bad things and free will leads to less bad things, that would go a long way to people dropping their reactions.

[iambiguous]

This isn't a good coping strategy. You're in a philosophy forum. You can expect people to ask you to explain what you mean.

Instead of cowering away from the task of explaining by using silly insults, just... explain.

Shades of ILP?

Of course, to the best of my ability "here and now", I did explain my reasoning above. Only -- click -- it wasn't in sync with what FJ construes a reasonable explanation to be. So, I explained nothing.

Next up: phyllo and Iwannabeplato pat FJ on the back virtually and completely concur with his or her, uh, blistering critique.

When you say Tell that to Jane, do you mean that as expressive, not as a real suggestion that someone talk to Jane?
I mean, FJ is quite correct. You didn't explain what you mean by that phrase. That was a simple question and his critique of your response wasn't blistering. He pointed out that you didn't explain the phrase. You did repeat things that you've said before about the wider issue. But you didn't explain that phrase.

Again, here is my attempt above to explain my frame of mind in regard to Jane:

Year in and year out, thousands upon thousands of women are confronted with unwanted pregnancies. Some will choose abortion, others will choose to give birth.

So, the question [mine] becomes, "did these women choose of their own volition to abort or give birth, or were they all compelled by their brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter to 'choose' to abort or give birth?"

Now, if Mary had free will, there was the possibility that John or others of their own free will might have been successful in changing her mind about aborting Jane. But if she was compelled by the laws of matter to abort Jane, Jane is now on her way back to "star stuff". So, in discussing free will/determinism/compatibilism with Jane, either she is still around because in a determined universe Mary was compelled to give birth to her or in a free will universe Mary chose to give birth to her.

Then the part where some compatibilists argue that, yes, Mary was compelled to abort Jane but that doesn't make her any less morally responsible for doing so.

And then, finally, the part where I flat-out acknowledge how I may well be unable "here and now" to grasp why I am understanding all of this incorrectly. On the other hand, if there is but one and only one rational manner in which to grasp it, how come philosophers and scientists haven't reached an optimal consensus yet after thousands of years? In fact, it is the theologians who "settle it" once and for all: God installed free will in our very souls at the point of conception.

Then this...

Not a single word of that explains what you mean when you say "tell that to Jane". Not a single word of that explains how one of us might be expected to tell Jane anything at all

...from FJ.

And the "blistering critique" comment was meant to be ironic from my frame of mind. That and reflecting the manner in which from time to time I am inclined to play the polemicist here. Or as with Prom75 -- remember him? -- the smart-ass.

I actually thought that his/her post above was ludicrous. Only I admit it may well be my own reasoning here that is ludicrous.

So, once again, we will have to agree to disagree regarding the relevance of my points.

As for this...

Heres' my charitable interpretation of what you meant:

It's a expressive phrase, often. Where it does not mean to go tell someone something but generally is reminding someone that person X had a bad experience.

Presidents should go out and greet the public directly.
Tell that to JFK.

That is most charitable explanation of that imperative sentence I can think of. It wasn't meant as a direct admonition to go talk to JFK.

...I have no clear understanding at all what your point is here. It's not whether our experiences are bad or good but what on earth it means to call any experience bad or good in a world where you could never have not had the experience. A world in which, in calling an experience bad or good, you were in turn entirely compelled to.

Same here...

But, 1) if that's how you meant it, why wouldn't you say that in response to his simple question? and 2) there are places elsewhere where it sounds much more literal. What would Sam Harris say to Jane is asked.

How this point pertains to my assessment above is beyond my grasp here and now.

Further you presented a more balanced view of the abortion outcomes in your previous post. Mary might have been determined to give birth. You did leave out the in the free will world hundreds of mothers capriciously decide to abort, even though they want the babies, but their wants are not longer compelling in the least, because it's a free will universe where one can choose free of past influences including one's own desires.

You'd have to run this by the women confronting "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy in a free will world.

If you just presented the scenario in a way that didn't make it seems like determinism leads to bad things and free will leads to less bad things, that would go a long way to people dropping their reactions.

Determinism leads to everything unfolding in the only possible reality. Free will, on the other hand, in regard to conflicting value judgments is, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein.