compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

All compatibilists should read the "No Free Will: But So Much More" book by Domenic Halvah. It sure clears up things a lot of things.

Dom, why do you dismiss free will (dismiss havin' or bein' one)?

Because free will is simply not true. What is more, and much worse, is that it is the cause of most of the evil in the world today. Good people should shun it like fire, when they are first made aware of it. Only arrogantly wicked individuals refuse to even learn, let alone accept, the truth.

How can there be evil in a determined universe? There's just stuff that we don't like caused way back in the Big Bang.

[henry quirk]

All compatibilists should read the "No Free Will: But So Much More" book by Domenic Halvah. It sure clears up things a lot of things.

Dom, why do you dismiss free will (dismiss havin' or bein' one)?

A tack most free will defenders don't take is that even if determinism is true, it might be bad to believe it. So it ends up being a kind of virus.
https://theconversation.com/the-psychol ... will-97193
That article links to research showing that shifting from a belief into free will leads to a variety of anti-social behaviors.
More controversial (also covered in the article) is that people believing in free will may be happier.
Links for this also in the article.

I'll comment on the piece later...right now, I wanna mess with Dom.

[Iwannaplato]

I'll comment on the piece later...right now, I wanna mess with Dom.

No worries. Think of it as a public service announcement on the radio.

[henry quirk]

Because free will is simply not true.

I say it is true. I say you are a free will. I say you are a cause, not an event.

What is more, and much worse, is that it is the cause of most of the evil in the world today.

Well, sure. Bein' a free will means you get to do bad things. If you couldn't choose to ignore another's natural rights, you'd be nuthin' but a robot, a mechanism.

Good people should shun it like fire, when they are first made aware of it.

Only free wills can be moral or immoral (good or bad); toasters aren't, can't be, moral.

Are you a toaster?

Only arrogantly wicked individuals refuse to even learn, let alone accept, the truth.

And the truth is: you, Dom, are a free will.

You don't seem wicked to me.

[henry quirk]

I'll comment on the piece later...right now, I wanna mess with Dom.

No worries. Think of it as a public service announcement on the radio.

[iambiguous]

when have you ever admitted to being wrong about anything? If you do admit that you were wrong about something like guns and abortion and free will, you are acknowledging that you may well be wrong about others things as well.

In-forum, multiple times. In the Real World, multiple times.

Absolutely. As I said to you the first time you said all this: I could very well be wrong about everything.

Okay, cite some examples of this please. In particular in regard to issues that are especially important to you.

And just to be clear, are you acknowledging basically that in regard to things like guns, abortions and free will, you embrace the "you're right from your side, I'm right from mine" school of thought?

Or, instead, do you believe that there is in fact the optional or the only rational/objective moral truth in regard to issues such as this, but you are not insisting that your own arguments are necessarily the right ones.

Again, of course, assuming that we do possess free will.

So: go ahead, show me I'm not a free will. Offer your string of evidences I have no natural rights.

Once again, you're not paying attention:

Given this...

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.

...how could any of us definitively pin down answers to questions regarding the existence of free will or natural rights.

Though, again, given the manner in which you inflect your point --- all but daring me to prove that you are wrong -- you project as always [to me] as an arrogant, authoritarian bully. All but scoffing at those who refuse to see things as you do.

I can't show you one way or the other. Not in regard to "I" in the is/ought world or in regard to the Big Questions. After all, have or have not some truly extraordinary minds down through the ages been grappling with these issues to no avail. Or, sure, link me to the definitive assessment of conflicting goods or metaphysical conundrums.

Prove I have no right to my life, my liberty, my property. Prove my property is forfeit becuz of what other folks do with theirs.

Same thing. This assumption on your part that, what, ontological and teleological proofs regarding conflicting political prejudices like this are there to be embodied in the behaviors we choose.

As though your own assumptions about buying and selling bazookas proves that your own rendition of "natural rights" must prevail. As though those who argue that we don't have the "natural right" to possess military grade weapons missed the point when the Deist God handed out Souls able to grasp these things in the most logical and rational manner.

Presto! Just as you do. Only you admit that you may well be wrong about it.

Now, as you have before (remember?) you'll challenge me to prove my positions. I've offered you, and others, multiple times, the evidences that convince me, and, along with those evidences, I've always issued the caveat: **none of this may work for you.

Exactly! That's my argument too. Your moral convictions work for you precisely because the life that you actually lived predisposed you existentially to embrace one set of political prejudices rather that another. It's just that, as with most objectivists, you really don't allow others who have led very different lives in very different historical, cultural and experiential contexts to insist that, no, it's their own moral convictions that must prevail.

Sure, you claim to be presenting just one subjective point of view about guns, but you don't come off that way at all to me. Instead, you seem clearly to present your own prejudices as that which really does reflect "natural rights".

See, unlike you with nihilism, I don't require you to believe what I do, or that you should be moved by what moves me.

Again, note where I have ever argued that others are required to think like or believe what I do. Note where I have ever argued that nihilism [moral nihilism] reflects what others ought to be "moved" by.

As long as you understand I do believe these things about myself and you, that I believe these things with, what is for me, good reason, then you can go and live as you like and I'll keep doin' the same.

Come on, henry, my whole argument here as that the reasons we give for what we do in the is/ought world are the embodiment of dasein rather than anything that can be ascribed by those like philosophers to "natural rights".

Indeed, in my view, it's your own precious Self here that is on the line. You need to anchor your identity in that which comforts and consoles you psychologically. To me, you're just another run-of-the-mill rendition of the "psychology pf objectivism" encompassed in the OP here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Seems like a good deal to me. But not to you. It's imperative for folks like you that folks like me stop.

Why?

Quite the contrary, it's folks like you that represent the second most dangerous frame of mind in this world. Those who gain power in any community and basically impose their own rendition of "right makes might?" on it.

The most dangerous, ironically enough, still being the amoral "show me the money" moral nihilists who own and operate the global economy. Wall Street and its equivalent in nations like Russia and China.

I challenge you to note something from a post of mine that, in regard to value judgments or the Big Questions, amounts to me insisting that just because I say something that makes it true.

In pretty every post you assert nihilism is the One, True, Way. Any one disagrees and you fulminate with the best of us.

Again, note excerpts from actual posts of mine in which I argue that if I say something that makes it true.

And just for the record: the odds that how I understand the "human condition" reflects the most rational assessment is extremely remote to say the least. In regard to "I" in the is/ought world, my own opinions seem clearly to be derived existentially from dasein out in this particular world understood "here and now" by this particular individual. Me.

[henry quirk]

cite some examples of this please

From in-forum: nope, I'm not backtrackin' myself to prove to you I've admitted to bein' wrong on big stuff. Go ask Flash Dangerpants: he's caught me up three or four times. No doubt he'll explain in delicious detail my errors, and grudgingly admit I copped to each and every one. Or, he might tell you to get bent. You never know with Flash.

From the Real World: Nope. For one, my life is none of your business. For two, I can't offer any evidence of my Real World mistakes or mea culpas (not without splayin' open my life for you which I'm not doin').

*

are you acknowledging...you embrace the "you're right from your side, I'm right from mine" school of thought?

Of course not.

*

you believe that there is in fact the optional or the only rational/objective moral truth in regard to issues such as this, but you are not insisting that your own arguments are necessarily the right ones.

Nope, I'm sure mine are the right ones, but -- as sure as I am -- I have to hold to the remote possibility I'm wrong. If I'm wrong then I'm not a free will with a natural right to my life, liberty, and property. If I'm wrong then I'm bio-automation with no right to anything.

*

assuming that we do possess free will.

We, each of us, don't possess free will. We, each of us, is a free will.

*

how could any of us definitively pin down answers to questions regarding the existence of free will or natural rights.

Oh, that's easy. Ask yourself: are all my choices necessitated by what's behind me, or do I sometimes decide based on what I hope to find, or cause, in front of me? If truly all your decisions are rooted in yesterday then, yeah, you might be a robot (or very, very timid and unimaginative). But if you can truly say at least some of your choices are made in anticipation of what hasn't happened yet and what you intend to make happen, then you're a free will.

Same thing with natural rights: ask yourself is my life mine? If truly you think your life is not yours, then, yeah, you might be a meat machine (or just whupped on so much you've given up). But, if you can say my life is mine and know it's true, then you've taken the first step to recognizin' your natural right to your life, liberty, and property.

*

all but daring me to prove that you are wrong

I didn't all but nuthin'. I plainly, directly, unambiguously dared you (or anyone) to prove to me I am not a free will with a natural right to my life, liberty, and property.

And note: I'm the most radical kind of free will. I'm an agent capable of beginning, ending, and bending causal chains. I'm a full-blown when-it-comes-to-human-beings-determinism-is-unadulterated-Grade-A-horseshit incompatibilist.

None of this fence-sittin', middle of the road, half-measured, limp-wristed, let's try to square free will with determinism malarky for me, no siree.

I -- like you, like anyone readin' these words, like the billions who never will read these words -- am a Free Will, a magnificent point of causal & creative power in a marvelous, but ultimately mechanistic, Reality.

*

arrogant, authoritarian bully

Did I hurt your feelings?

*

I can't show you one way or the other.

You can, as I outline above, definitely show yourself you are a free will with natural rights. Courage, my friend. Step up and acknowledge the truth of yourself: you are a cause, not an event and no matter how shabby your circumstance, it's yours, it belongs to you. Even an obese agoraphobic such as yourself matters, has inherent value, can exercise himself in the world.

Think about it: even if I'm wrong (but truly I'm not) how can layin' claim to your life go wrong? Even if we're all meat machines with no right to anything (but truly we're all so much more) how can cultivatin' self-efficacy be a bad thing?

It's exhilarating bein' in charge of yourself. It's worth fightin' for.

*

truly extraordinary minds

Yeah, quit consutin' them and rely on you.

*

**none of this may work for you.

Exactly! That's my argument too.

As I say: **it's remarkable to me it doesn't...I assert you know you're a free will, know you have a natural right to your life, liberty, and property, and know it's wrong, as moral fact, for others to unjustly deprive you of life, liberty, and property...so, yeah, it's remarkable to me when folks like yourself argue you're robots with no natural claim to yourself

*

note where I have ever argued that others are required to think like or believe what I do

Every damn post where you say over and over if folks don't accept everything and everyone is rooted in your version of dasein then they're fulminating objectivists. You're as my way or the highway as as anyone.

*

it's folks like you that represent the second most dangerous frame of mind in this world

Then, with my monstrous intelligence and appetites, it's a good thing my bent is toward neither a leader nor a follower be. If my ambitions were more malevolent I might take over the world! and then leave everybody be

*

The most dangerous still being the amoral nihilists who own and operate the global economy.

Wait, aren't you an *amoral nihilist?




*can a nihilist be moral?

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

I say you are a free will. I say you are a cause, not an event.

You are indeed a cause and you yourself are caused by causes other than yourself.

[BigMike]

What makes you believe in free will? Seems to me your argument is kind of "since the earth looks flat, it must be".

[Belinda]

What makes you believe in free will? Seems to me your argument is kind of "since the earth looks flat, it must be".

That's so. Sometimes Henry sounds as if he believes in Sartrean freedom which tends to tip over into cartesianism. It's more likely Henry simply rationalises his interesting prejudice towards the right to own a gun.

[BigMike]

What makes you believe in free will? Seems to me your argument is kind of "since the earth looks flat, it must be".

That's so. Sometimes Henry sounds as if he believes in Sartrean freedom which tends to tip over into cartesianism. It's more likely Henry simply rationalises his interesting prejudice towards the right to own a gun.

You may be right.

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:

I say you are a free will. I say you are a cause, not an event.

You are indeed a cause and you yourself are caused by causes other than yourself.

Domo arigato, Miss Roboto.

[henry quirk]

What makes you believe in free will? Seems to me your argument is kind of "since the earth looks flat, it must be".

As I say, Dom: many (most, all?) of my decisions are founded on what I hope to cause tomorrow. Those choices, those intentions, have no roots in yesterday. I'm not pushed from behind by what happened, but am enticed forward by what I imagine I can make happen. And, yep, it, my argument, is that simple (so simple I don't have to write a book about it).

[henry quirk]

What makes you believe in free will? Seems to me your argument is kind of "since the earth looks flat, it must be".

That's so. Sometimes Henry sounds as if he believes in Sartrean freedom which tends to tip over into cartesianism. It's more likely Henry simply rationalises his interesting prejudice towards the right to own a gun.

Again: domo arigato, Miss Roboto.

[BigMike]

What makes you believe in free will? Seems to me your argument is kind of "since the earth looks flat, it must be".

As I say, Dom: many (most, all?) of my decisions are founded on what I hope to cause tomorrow. Those choices, those intentions, have no roots in yesterday. I'm not pushed from behind by what happened, but am enticed forward by what I imagine I can make happen. And, yep, it, my argument, is that simple (so simple I don't have to write a book about it).

But hasn't everything you've learned and remembered strengthened relevant synapses in your brain? And haven't all of these changes in your brain added up over time, making you in some ways a product of your past? And doesn't everything you do today come from your brain, which has changed over time and tells your muscles to do this or that by the nerve signals it's sending? Or do you think that your will exists independent of your brain?