compatibilism

[phyllo]

What script?

You're the one who described determinism as actors performing according to a script.

Now you don't remember. Holy shit

Let me refresh your mind:

But what's crucial is that, in a free will world, among our own species, the possibilities are there to choose from. Jane may or may not be aborted. But in a wholly determined universe, it is as though John and Mary and I were acting in a movie. We were directed to follow the script.

Only with nature and its laws of matter, as some understand them, everything that we think and feel and say and do is entirely scripted by, well, whatever or whoever concocted the laws of matter in the first place.

viewtopic.php?p=682359&hilit=script#p682359

[iambiguous]

What script?

You're the one who described determinism as actors performing according to a script.

Now you don't remember. Holy shit

Right, like we haven't been around and around in regard to that as well. We watch a movie and note the actors are entirely scripted regarding what they say and do. Only in noting this we too are entirely scripted by...by what? by who?

And this is what the aliens in the free will sector of the universe note about us. We have come to embody the psychological illusion of free will in posting and reading submissions here...but they know that we were never able not to submit or read anything other than what we are compelled to.

But that's no less sheer speculation on my part because I have no way in which to demonstrate it one way or the other.

Let me refresh your mind:

But what's crucial is that, in a free will world, among our own species, the possibilities are there to choose from. Jane may or may not be aborted. But in a wholly determined universe, it is as though John and Mary and I were acting in a movie. We were directed to follow the script.

Only with nature and its laws of matter, as some understand them, everything that we think and feel and say and do is entirely scripted by, well, whatever or whoever concocted the laws of matter in the first place.

Again, nature and its laws as some understand them. Me, I'm no less fractured and fragmented in regard to free will. All I can conclude "here and now" is that if the human brain is just more matter, then the laws of matter are no less applicable.

Instead, the truly profound mystery here is grappling with the human brain in a No God world. With God, well, He is said to be omniscient and omnipotent, right? Everything can be explained by Him, through Him. But in a No God universe? "Somehow" the universe itself pulled it off?!!

[Flannel Jesus]

The dude still spends all those words just to say nothing at all

[Iwannaplato]

Oh, right, yes, that script. The one I mentioned earlier. Got it.
For example....

[iambiguous]

No doubt his thought process was rooted existentially in dasein.

At first I thought he must have meant that the belief in free will is grounded in dasein - which is reasonable. But rereading the context ruled this out.

God, I don't understand why he doesn't use 'experience' instead of dasein. It just mystifies things.

"Dasein" has got to be one of the most unclear word choices he could use there. But that's fully in character.

Okay -- click -- we "somehow" acquired free will in what I construe to be a No God universe.

Now, from my frame of mind, dasein revolves historically, culturally and interpersonally around human interactions in the is/ought world. As they pertain to the value judgments we acquire existentially given the points I raise in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Thus, given a particular moral conflagration of note, how is this not applicable to the moral objectivists among us?

Whereas components of our lives -- demographics, circumstances, empirical facts, etc. -- derived from the either/or world are generally applicable to everyone. Dasein here revolves largely around the "facts of life". While in the world of conflicting goods, "I" is considerably more problematic.

Agan, I suspect the objectivists among us eschew my take on dasein because the very last thing they want is to be "fractured and fragmented" themselves. Instead, they attach their precious egos to one or another "my way or the highway" dogma, allowing them to divide up the world between "one of us", the rational and virtuous few and "one of them", the irrational and immoral many.

And while there are dozens and dozens of One True Paths out there from which to choose, each and every one on their own path here will insist that all of the others are wrong. Only their own moral narrative and political agenda count.

Go ahead, ask them.

[Atla]

At first I thought he must have meant that the belief in free will is grounded in dasein - which is reasonable. But rereading the context ruled this out.

God, I don't understand why he doesn't use 'experience' instead of dasein. It just mystifies things.

"Dasein" has got to be one of the most unclear word choices he could use there. But that's fully in character.

Okay -- click -- we "somehow" acquired free will in what I construe to be a No God universe.

Now, from my frame of mind, dasein revolves historically, culturally and interpersonally around human interactions in the is/ought world. As they pertain to the value judgments we acquire existentially given the points I raise in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Thus, given a particular moral conflagration of note, how is this not applicable to the moral objectivists among us?

Whereas components of our lives -- demographics, circumstances, empirical facts, etc. -- derived from the either/or world are generally applicable to everyone. Dasein here revolves largely around the "facts of life". While in the world of conflicting goods, "I" is considerably more problematic.

Agan, I suspect the objectivists among us eschew my take on dasein because the very last thing they want is to be "fractured and fragmented" themselves. Instead, they attach their precious egos to one or another "my way or the highway" dogma, allowing them to divide up the world between "one of us", the rational and virtuous few and "one of them", the irrational and immoral many.

And while there are dozens and dozens of One True Paths out there from which to choose, each and every one on their own path here will insist that all of the others are wrong. Only their own moral narrative and political agenda count.

Go ahead, ask them.

Stop whining about life and just deal with it

[Iwannaplato]

"Dasein" has got to be one of the most unclear word choices he could use there. But that's fully in character.

Okay -- click -- we "somehow" acquired free will in what I construe to be a No God universe.

Are you saying that Flannel Jesus said that? Where did he say that? If you are not saying he said that, how is this and the rest of what you wrote a response to his post?

[Iwannaplato]

Agan, I suspect the objectivists among us eschew my take on dasein because the very last thing they want is to be "fractured and fragmented" themselves. Instead, they attach their precious egos to one or another "my way or the highway" dogma, allowing them to divide up the world between "one of us", the rational and virtuous few and "one of them", the irrational and immoral many.

Which, ironically, is how you are dividing up the world also, right inside the above accusation.

And, yes, yes, you are the first to admit you beliefs are based on....dasein....etc. Which is precisely the criterion you use to divide up the world into the virtuous few and the irrational and immoral many.

That is the act that is taking place, regardless of disclaimers.

[Flannel Jesus]

"Dasein" has got to be one of the most unclear word choices he could use there. But that's fully in character.

Okay -- click -- we "somehow" acquired free will in what I construe to be a No God universe.

Now, from my frame of mind, dasein revolves historically, culturally and interpersonally around human interactions in the is/ought world. As they pertain to the value judgments we acquire existentially given the points I raise in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Thus, given a particular moral conflagration of note, how is this not applicable to the moral objectivists among us?

Whereas components of our lives -- demographics, circumstances, empirical facts, etc. -- derived from the either/or world are generally applicable to everyone. Dasein here revolves largely around the "facts of life". While in the world of conflicting goods, "I" is considerably more problematic.

Agan, I suspect the objectivists among us eschew my take on dasein because the very last thing they want is to be "fractured and fragmented" themselves. Instead, they attach their precious egos to one or another "my way or the highway" dogma, allowing them to divide up the world between "one of us", the rational and virtuous few and "one of them", the irrational and immoral many.

And while there are dozens and dozens of One True Paths out there from which to choose, each and every one on their own path here will insist that all of the others are wrong. Only their own moral narrative and political agenda count.

Go ahead, ask them.

How is any of that a response to what I said?

People don't like your "take on dasein" because it's not clear what you mean. Most of the time you think people don't like you because you have these amazing and challenging ideas, that's not the case, people just don't like how vague you are when communicating them, or how any time they try to talk to you you can't seem to focus on the conversation.

[Iwannaplato]

"Dasein" has got to be one of the most unclear word choices he could use there. But that's fully in character.

Okay -- click -- we "somehow" acquired free will in what I construe to be a No God universe.

How is any of that a response to what I said?

The first sentence in his response is incredible.

[Iwannaplato]

'Response' posts by Iambiguous:

[Text from a post in response to Iambiguous]

[quoted by Iambiguous]

Then...

Text by Iambiguous as if in response. The text must:
1) repeat or paraphrase things Iambiguous has said many times before
2) NOT in any clear way or any way at all respond to what the person has written.
3) complain about objectivists and/or the No God World.
4) imply or state that someone, who hasn't - has taken the position that brains are - unlike the rest of matter, autonomous

When this is pointed out, call the pointer-outer a Stooge.
Rinse and repeat.

Yes, in a determined universe, he can't help but have done this in the past. Some people, even in a determined universe, learn, when such patterns are pointed out, to improve responses; some don't. These two subsets of people will be, often, treated quite differently.

[Flannel Jesus]

Me:

Text by Iambiguous

Him:

'Response' posts by Iambiguous:

[Text from a post in response to Iambiguous]

[quoted by Iambiguous]

Then...

Text by Iambiguous as if in response. The text must:
1) repeat or paraphrase things Iambiguous has said many times before
2) NOT in any clear way or any way at all respond to what the person has written.
3) complain about objectivists and/or the No God World.
4) imply or state that someone, who hasn't - has taken the position that brains are - unlike the rest of matter, autonomous

When this is pointed out, call the pointer-outer a Stooge.
Rinse and repeat.

Yes, in a determined universe, he can't help but have done this in the past. Some people, even in a determined universe, learn, when such patterns are pointed out, to improve responses; some don't. These two subsets of people will be, often, treated quite differently.

Shameless

Note to any stooges: doo doo de loo doo

Doo doo

[phyllo]

Agan, I suspect the objectivists among us eschew my take on dasein because the very last thing they want is to be "fractured and fragmented" themselves.

Why would acceptance of dasein make someone "fractured and fragmented"?

From reading the posts, it seems that most people who discuss it with him, find dasein to be obviously true. It doesn't lead to any fragmentation.

The idea that dasein is some sort of hand grenade, is completely in Iambiguous' mind.

[Flannel Jesus]

Agan, I suspect the objectivists among us eschew my take on dasein because the very last thing they want is to be "fractured and fragmented" themselves.

Why would acceptance of dasein make someone "fractured and fragmented"?

From reading the posts, it seems that most people who discuss it with him, find dasein to be obviously true. It doesn't lead to any fragmentation.

The idea that dasein is some sort of hand grenade, is completely in Iambiguous' mind.

Obviously true AND much more clearly expressed than using one of the most easily misunderstood pieces of philosophical jargon in history, and not worth bringing up every other post either.

[Iwannaplato]

Agan, I suspect the objectivists among us eschew my take on dasein because the very last thing they want is to be "fractured and fragmented" themselves.

Why would acceptance of dasein make someone "fractured and fragmented"?

From reading the posts, it seems that most people who discuss it with him, find dasein to be obviously true. It doesn't lead to any fragmentation.

The idea that dasein is some sort of hand grenade, is completely in Iambiguous' mind.

It bothers him, to an extreme degree, so it must bother others (deep down, at least) he assume. But if he truly believed in dasein, he'd understand that universal reactions are not so easily predicted.

And further, it is making other people the issue: which by his own definitions, makes him a Stooge.