compatibilism

[Belinda]

Descartes had imagined himself to be completely fooled by a demon so that nothing D was experiencing really existed. Did D himself exist? Was there something that was undeniably Descartes or was he himself an illusion? Thinking was happening and the demon could not deny that thinking existed. That thinking exists is not the same as that a thinker exists and even less that there exists a thinker named I or me.

In a relative world an experiencer has to experience in a relative context. But that's not the same as that the experiencer endures from one moment to the next. You are not the same Bobmax as you were one second ago but experience that you attribute to Bobmax endures even after Bobmax is deceased.

Yes, I'm not the Bobmax of a second ago.

But what does it mean to be Bobmax?
Doesn't that mean having Bobmax specific attributes?

And since these attributes are never stable but constantly evolving, then the Bobmax of now is inexorably different from the Bobmax of a second ago.

This mutability doesn't just affect Bobmax, but everything in the world.
Nothing is ever the same as it was.

But here we should consider two important aspects:

1) What identifies Bobmax, as well as everything else, is not actually Bobmax, but something that Bobmax has.
What is never identical to itself are precisely these attributes that constantly change, not Bobmax's being!
Bobmax's being is only supposed.
Bobmax is a nothing with so many attributes stuck to it.
And this being nothing is also valid for anything else.
Including Bobmax's thoughts.

2) From the previous point it follows that there is a fundamental difference between being and existing.
Because existence consists in the experience of attributes that are supposed to belong to a being, which, however, is only hypothesized.
There is no attribute that can identify the being.

So that being does not exist, being is equivalent to nothing.

Now, experience is the same existence.
Assuming its endurance regardless of that moment in which it occurred, means wanting to base it on a being that is however nothing.

Has this discussion changed from definitions to identifications?

How others identify Bobmax ,even in real life, is uncertain as you look different with different clothing style and hair style or wig and beard if previously you were shaved. All we have to go on are dental records, DNA, fingerprints, and personal documents in your possession. How you identify Bobmax to Bobmax is a coherent set of memories.

Anyway, philosophical Free Will so called is nothing but choosing at random. In actual fact, all our choices except pure games of chance, are caused. Only God or Nature is self caused origin of all causes and that is where the buck stops.

[bobmax]

Anyway, philosophical Free Will so called is nothing but choosing at random. In actual fact, all our choices except pure games of chance, are caused. Only God or Nature is self caused origin of all causes and that is where the buck stops.

Free will is an illusion.
But not because there is really a concatenation of causes and effects.

The law of necessity allows you to make sense of what is there.
But there is no before and after.

There is in fact only the present.
Where everything is possible.

That what happens appears necessary is only a gift from God.
A gift made to himself.
God loves himself.

Only God is.
"I am who I am"

[Harbal]

Free will is an illusion.

So is your perception that you know what you are talking about, if I may respectfully say.

[Dontaskme]

There is in fact only the present.
Where everything is possible.

That what happens appears necessary is only a gift from God.
A gift made to himself.
God loves himself.

A gift can be returned to sender. But you can never return your life.

Life might be seen as a gift, but it’s a gift you have to pay for.

So it’s not really a gift.

A gift implies a giver and receiver. So why would you send yourself agony, pain and suffering …only an idiot would gift that to itself.

[bobmax]

Free will is an illusion.

So is your perception that you know what you are talking about, if I may respectfully say.

I don't think it is "knowledge", rather it is an observation that is very difficult to complete.

Because whoever ascertains vanishes in the act itself.
So we stop first. Remaining in the contradiction.

When, rarely, the stop does not occur, great is the compassion that can turn into bliss.

[Harbal]

I don't think it is "knowledge", rather it is an observation that is very difficult to complete.

There are too many things that we simply don't know for us to say to what extent we do or don't have free will. Our perceived experience when we excercise what feels like freewill is undoubtedly misleading to some extent, but we can only guess at what is really going on.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't think it is "knowledge", rather it is an observation that is very difficult to complete.

There are too many things that we simply don't know for us to say to what extent we do or don't have free will. Our perceived experience when we excercise what feels like freewill is undoubtedly misleading to some extent, but we can only guess at what is really going on.

And we have epistemological problems if we claim to know we are determined.

All my thoughts and actions are determined.

Well, then how would you know that the conclusions you've reached you reached rationally? You might be right, but your own process would be utterly opaque to you, since you would be compelled to experience the 'that made sense' quale in reaction to whatever your though process was.

[iambiguous]

Yo, henry! You're up!!

Instead of an enduring self there are clusters of ephemeral memories glued together by causality.

You really believe that, B?

Click.

More to the point for the compatibilists as I understand them, she was never able not to believe what she does...yet she is still responsible for believing it.

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.

Which one?

Your own wild-ass guess here is as good as mine.

[bobmax]

There is in fact only the present.
Where everything is possible.

That what happens appears necessary is only a gift from God.
A gift made to himself.
God loves himself.

A gift can be returned to sender. But you can never return your life.

Life might be seen as a gift, but it’s a gift you have to pay for.

So it’s not really a gift.

A gift implies a giver and receiver. So why would you send yourself agony, pain and suffering …only an idiot would gift that to itself.

Yes you are right.
Only an idiot can give himself such gifts.

But the One can be anything, even an idiot.
Isn't it the One source of infinite possibilities?

There is joy, there is pain, there is hope and despair. Happy stories and sad stories.
But what matters is that once the curtain fell, evil never happened.

[henry quirk]

Yo, henry! You're up!!

Been there, done that: beginning on page 6 of this thread.

[phyllo]

I don't think it is "knowledge", rather it is an observation that is very difficult to complete.

There are too many things that we simply don't know for us to say to what extent we do or don't have free will. Our perceived experience when we excercise what feels like freewill is undoubtedly misleading to some extent, but we can only guess at what is really going on.

And we have epistemological problems if we claim to know we are determined.

All my thoughts and actions are determined.

Well, then how would you know that the conclusions you've reached you reached rationally? You might be right, but your own process would be utterly opaque to you, since you would be compelled to experience the 'that made sense' quale in reaction to whatever your though process was.

There are methods and rules to rationality and one can check if they are being followed.

It's not any different than knowing the answer to 2+2.

One can be wrong and not realize it, but that's also true if one has free-will.

[Dontaskme]

Yes you are right.
Only an idiot can give himself such gifts.

But the One can be anything, even an idiot.
Isn't it the One source of infinite possibilities?

There is joy, there is pain, there is hope and despair. Happy stories and sad stories.
But what matters is that once the curtain fell, evil never happened.

The gift idea seems to be flawed in my opinion. A gift implies two, a giver and reciever.

As ONE-ness ... the very idea that this ONE is also the infinite many, could only be the illusion of Oneness itself.

Why would Oneness ever have the need or the necessity to gift itself, without creating the illusion of a SELF who is both a giver and a reciever...giving to itself....WHY would it need to do that? ..except as a pretense, or as a dream that never happened?

Why would what is already 'Whole' need to gift itself anything at all, since the very idea of ''Wholeness'' already implies it is Everything.

Also, if the gift idea is valid, then this Wholeness/One... could gift itself some intelligence. But what I would like to know bobmax is would that 'Intelligence' gift itself a Holocaust?....Hmm,something feels very off about this...perhaps you bobmax, could explain things better for me, shed some intelligent rational thinking on the matter....make your point really count, rather than just speculate your own ideas as if you knew exactly what is absolutely true and real....or you could just admit you do not know, and that you are just making it all up, as you imagine things to be.

I would like to openly straight talk with you about what you think you are talking about when you infer 'the gift idea' into life......so lets just try and see if we can make proper sense of what it is we are both trying to show each other using words..ok?


.

[Belinda]

There is in fact only the present.
Where everything is possible.

That what happens appears necessary is only a gift from God.
A gift made to himself.
God loves himself.

A gift can be returned to sender. But you can never return your life.

Life might be seen as a gift, but it’s a gift you have to pay for.

So it’s not really a gift.

A gift implies a giver and receiver. So why would you send yourself agony, pain and suffering …only an idiot would gift that to itself.

Christian doctrine makes sense of DAM's question and implied complaint, although I think modern people have to interpret the doctrine metaphorically. Buddhism has another more practical answer to DAM's question.

[Iwannaplato]

There are methods and rules to rationality and one can check if they are being followed.

Yes, one can check them. But the same compulsion to not notice errors or assumptions might be there as well.

It's not any different than knowing the answer to 2+2.

I think there is a qualitative difference in the level of complexity and presense of possible ontological assumptions that this example is not remotely a good one. I mean, I know you know this, but the implication is such an argument or logical analysis would be simply a lot of steps parallel to this math problem is not a valid argument.

One can be wrong and not realize it, but that's also true if one has free-will.

Again, it doesn't matter what the problems might be for those with some other philosophical problem may have. I am pointing out a problem that is entailed by those with this position. And further it is NOT just that they can make errors, or I would have said that. And I know that no determinist is going to say no errors can be made. It's that the very position itself causes problems for claims to being rational on any particular issue and in general. The free will position has all sorts of problems, and those are the free will position's problems.

[phyllo]

I fail to see how determinism causes more problems with rationality than free-will.

In both cases, the biases and limitations on knowledge appear to be the same.

Perhaps you could explain your idea in more detail.