compatibilism

[phyllo]

What does BM have to do with it?

[henry quirk]

What does BM have to do with it?

You needn't worry, BM: I have no interest in talkin' about my views with you.

More generally: I have no interest in talkin' about my views (especially when so much about the current topic hasn't been resolved).

[phyllo]

Next.

[henry quirk]

Next.

Ah, I see. Not your fault, of course.

Meat machine.

[BigMike]

What does BM have to do with it?

You needn't worry, BM: I have no interest in talkin' about my views with you.

More generally: I have no interest in talkin' about my views (especially when so much about the current topic hasn't been resolved).

I do not want you to explain how you are free will as opposed to having free will. However, I find it puzzling that you have not progressed beyond your meat machine discourse. Is this your concluding point? If it is, then simply cease.

[bahman]

There are two types of decisions, free and determined.

[BigMike]

There are two types of decisions, free and determined.

And which ones are free?

[henry quirk]

Is this your concluding point? If it is, then simply cease.

As you & phyllo have nuthin': I guess I will.

[BigMike]

Is this your concluding point? If it is, then simply cease.

As you & phyllo have nuthin': I guess I will.

Thanks

[bahman]

There are two types of decisions, free and determined.

And which ones are free?

You are either biased or not when you make a decision. Biased one is determined. Unbiased one is free.

[iambiguous]

Let me clue you in.

If we can't compare free-will Mary's reasons and determined Mary's reasons then there is no scope for discussion.

What could we be discussing?

Note to others:

Over and again, I'll admit that when it comes to resolving this age-old conundrum, your own well-informed or wild-ass guess is as good as mine.

And that certainly includes phyllo.

But -- click -- in regard to Mary aborting Jane what on earth is the point he is trying to make here?

How do we finally pin down if any comparison that we do make here is in fact made of our own volition or is in fact the only possible comparison that our material brains compel us to make?

And, if Mary is able to opt for or against aborting Jane -- the "click" assumption -- how is that choice not rooted existentially in dasein?

Thus, even if we do possess free will, it would seem that in a No God world it is reasonable to argue that abortion as a moral issue is but an existential, subjective/intersubjective manifestation of the life that we live out in a particular world historically, culturally and personally, and not something that philosophers/ethicists/political scientists etc., can pin down ontologically or teleologically.

[phyllo]

How do we finally pin down if any comparison that we do make here is in fact made of our own volition or is in fact the only possible comparison that our material brains compel us to make?

What does volition have to do with correct reasoning and logic?

[BigMike]

There are two types of decisions, free and determined.

And which ones are free?

You are either biased or not when you make a decision. Biased one is determined. Unbiased one is free.

Do you have references for this claim, or did you just make it up?

[iambiguous]

But I'm not saying that Mary makes no choices in a wholly determined universe. I'm broaching the surreal assumption that any choices that she or any of us make [including buying and selling bazookas and typing and reading these words] were "somehow" inherently/necessarily embedded in the laws of matter "somehow" evolving into conscious human brains. To even speak of it is fraught with all manner of equally surreal explanations.

A wordy way of sayin' Mary, Spittin' Guy, and me had no choice in abortin', spittin', or fulminatin'.

You can't have it both ways, moron: if we're not free wills, then we're meat machines.

Note to others:

With this fulminating fanatic objectivist -- "my" take on him -- I always come back to two points that -- click -- he ever and always avoids responding to:

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.

And...

On the other hand, he does admit that in the past he has been wrong about things like this. So, sure, by his own admission, he may well be wrong about this too.

The rest is just him becoming Mr. Snippet. And that's just another way of becoming Mr. Wiggle, Wiggle, Wiggle.

If, of course, you are in possession of the autonomy needed to agree or disagree "on your own" with me here.

Though even that is but an existential manifestation of dasein.

[iambiguous]

More bullshit.

Those of you familiar with Larry from over at ILP, this doesn't surprise you, right?

Next up: Moe and Curly?

I'm not wasting my time on this.

Like he has any real choice here that is not but the psychological illusion of free will.

Note to nature:

What say you?