compatibilism

[iambiguous]

This idea that people can't be rational if determinism is true, and they can only be rational if indeterminism is true, is worth exploring. I'd explore it with Biggy but I know from experience that he doesn't seem to know how to stay on a topic or answer questions clearly.

That's simply not the point some determinists are compelled to note. Being rational or irrational regarding something that we say or do when we were never able to opt freely not to say or do it?

No, instead, some argue that while lions, driven by instinct, are not really free in a libertarian sense to hunt and kill wildebeests, human beings "somehow" did acquire autonomy when the brains of lions "somehow" evolved into human brains.

And I know from experience that when others here accuse me of failing to stay on topic or of not answering their questions clearly, that usually means staying on topic as they construe the topic to be or thinking clearly about it as they do.

But, again...

With others here, they share in the belief that one can stay on topic and think clearly. When the exchanges revolve around conflicting objectivist moral dogmas. With me however I question the possibility of objective morality in a No God world. What's at stake with me is the possibility that the objectivists might begin to tumble down into the same fractured and fragmented hole that "I" am now in. God or No God, there must be an objective morality. Otherwise, how on Earth, from day to day, can we sustain an essentially meaningful and purposeful existence? Let alone carry on for all the rest of eternity...saved!

[Flannel Jesus]

This idea that people can't be rational if determinism is true, and they can only be rational if indeterminism is true, is worth exploring. I'd explore it with Biggy but I know from experience that he doesn't seem to know how to stay on a topic or answer questions clearly.

That's simply not the point some determinists are compelled to note.

I have no idea why you're talking about some determinists "noting" things. It's a point YOU make often.

I have no idea why you so frequently bring up what "some people" think. Why would that matter? When you're talking to me, what matters is what I think and what you think. When you're talking to Phyllo, what matters is what you think and what Phyllo thinks. When you're talking to Iwannaplato... you get it, I hope. Who in the world cares about what "some determinists note"?

This is one of the many elements that give all of us the impression that you can't stay on topic.

[iambiguous]

This idea that people can't be rational if determinism is true, and they can only be rational if indeterminism is true, is worth exploring. I'd explore it with Biggy but I know from experience that he doesn't seem to know how to stay on a topic or answer questions clearly.

That's simply not the point some determinists are compelled to note. Being rational or irrational regarding something that we say or do when we were never able to opt freely not to say or do it?

No, instead, some argue that while lions, driven by instinct, are not really free in a libertarian sense to hunt and kill wildebeests, human beings "somehow" did acquire autonomy when the brains of lions "somehow" evolved into human brains.

And I know from experience that when others here accuse me of failing to stay on topic or of not answering their questions clearly, that usually means staying on topic as they construe the topic to be or thinking clearly about it as they do.

But, again...

With others here, they share in the belief that one can stay on topic and think clearly. When the exchanges revolve around conflicting objectivist moral dogmas. With me however I question the possibility of objective morality in a No God world. What's at stake with me is the possibility that the objectivists might begin to tumble down into the same fractured and fragmented hole that "I" am now in. God or No God, there must be an objective morality. Otherwise, how on Earth, from day to day, can we sustain an essentially meaningful and purposeful existence? Let alone carry on for all the rest of eternity...saved!

I have no idea why you're talking about some determinists "noting" things. It's a point YOU make often.

I have no idea why you so frequently bring up what "some people" think. Why would that matter? When you're talking to me, what matters is what I think and what you think. When you're talking to Phyllo, what matters is what you think and what Phyllo thinks. When you're talking to Iwannaplato... you get it, I hope. Who in the world cares about what "some determinists note"?

This is one of the many elements that give all of us the impression that you can't stay on topic.

Click...

As per usual, we are in in two entirely different discussions here. What you post, in my view, has little or nothing to do with what I post. And you apparently are of the same mind regarding what I post.

[Flannel Jesus]

Click...

As per usual, we are in in two entirely different discussions here. What you post, in my view, has little or nothing to do with what I post. And you apparently are of the same mind regarding what I post.

I think you'll find that, in general, when you're talking to a person about some topic, trying to come to a mutual understanding about that topic, it's rarely relevant to talk about what "some people note". You're talking to me, not to "some people".

And why use the word "note"? Do you mean believe? Do you mean simply that some determinists don't believe that thing? "Note" is such a strange and ambiguous word choice.

[phyllo]

I can't think of any determinists who think that human brains somehow acquired libertarian autonomy.

Has anybody heard about this?

[Flannel Jesus]

I can't think of any determinists who think that human brains somehow acquired libertarian autonomy.

Has anybody heard about this?

He is very very unclear in how he uses the word "autonomy". It's such a poor word choice, but he's shown himself unwilling to explore that word choice and how it applies to determinists and compatibilists. He treats it like it's just this obvious thing that everyone understands the same way and doesn't need any elucidating - like I'm stupid for even asking about it.

No doubt you're a stooge for bringing it up too.

[phyllo]

Wow

The December 2023/January 2024 issue of Philosophy Now is all about free-will and determinism.

Get your copy today.

[iambiguous]

I can't think of any determinists who think that human brains somehow acquired libertarian autonomy.

Has anybody heard about this?

Well, in that case will Sam Harris agree that even though he makes the arguments that he does about all of this -- both in and out of debates with others -- he flat out agrees that his arguments and their arguments unfold in the only possible manner that they ever could have? And though some might be compelled by their own brains to argue that Sam won or lost these debates, they too are simply reacting to them on cue.

In a world where "somehow" we are but the equivalent of dominoes fated or destined to topple over given whatever explanation there is for the laws of nature themselves. After all, for all we know, if there is a God, He's just another domino.

[Iwannaplato]

I can't think of any determinists who think that human brains somehow acquired libertarian autonomy.

Has anybody heard about this?

My guess is that he thinks determinists MUST believe it given their confidence in their conclusions. But he doesn't make the full argument. It just seems obvious to him.

Thezy talk like they know their conclusions are rational. But in a determinist universe they could only think what they think. So, they aren't really any more rational than a stone rolling down the side of a mountain. So, if they aren't like the stone - utterly controlled by physical forces - then they must think their brains are autonomous.

But he never clearly lays out the argument.

The motivation for this is unclear. It could be that he thinks it is so self-evident, it doesn't need an argument.
It's also convenient.
He would himself, then, be being an objectivist, drawing his own conclusions, asserting clearly what X and Y entail/indicate, and this argument would in turn itself be open to criticism, not only in the conclusion but in the steps.

I think also there's a way in which his posts have a bemoaning/lamentation style. And that style is observation based, not justification based.

[Flannel Jesus]

I can't think of any determinists who think that human brains somehow acquired libertarian autonomy.

Has anybody heard about this?

Well, in that case will Sam Harris agree

Sam Harris is a determinist. He doesn't believe in free will. Not even compatibilist free will. He believes what pretty much all determinists believe: the future causally follows from the past, just pure physics.

Why do you care so much about what Sam Harris thinks?

[phyllo]

I can't think of any determinists who think that human brains somehow acquired libertarian autonomy.

Has anybody heard about this?

Well, in that case will Sam Harris agree

Sam Harris is a determinist. He doesn't believe in free will. Not even compatibilist free will. He believes what pretty much all determinists believe: the future causally follows from the past, just pure physics.

Why do you care so much about what Sam Harris thinks?

I don't you read his reply correctly.
He wants SH to agree that Sam is a domino.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't you read his reply correctly.
He wants SH to agree that Sam is a domino.

I think the answer to that is implicit in my reply. Iambiguous is saying anything and anyone inside determinism is a "domino", and Sam Harris certainly doesn't think humans are some kind of exception to the laws of physics, so... I'm not sure what question is left unanswered.

[phyllo]

So, if they aren't like the stone - utterly controlled by physical forces - then they must think their brains are autonomous.

Yes, this part. He uses a domino as his 'controlled' object rather than a stone.

Any sort of thinking, deciding, evaluating seems to indicate autonomy to him.

And since determinists don't deny thinking is taking place, they must, therefore, be claiming autonomy. According to his understanding.

[Flannel Jesus]

So, if they aren't like the stone - utterly controlled by physical forces - then they must think their brains are autonomous.

Yes, this part. He uses a domino as his 'controlled' object rather than a stone.

Any sort of thinking, deciding, evaluating seems to indicate autonomy to him.

And since determinists don't deny thinking is taking place, they must, therefore, be claiming autonomy. According to his understanding.

Okay well that just sounds like a confusion unique to biggy then. Sam Harris certainly doesn't think humans don't think (lol), and he obviously doesn't think the process of thought is somehow mutually exclusive with determinism.

"Autonomy" is, now as ever, an ambiguous word.

[phyllo]

Okay well that just sounds like a confusion unique to biggy then. Sam Harris certainly doesn't think humans don't think (lol), and he obviously doesn't think the process of thought is somehow mutually exclusive with determinism.

Iambiguous would call Harris a "free-will determinist". Right?