compatibilism

[Belinda]

Humans, as far as is known, are the only animals that can use symbolic language to abstract ideas from experiences, and subsequently create new ideas.

There can be no substantial difference between anything in the world.
Of this I am convinced.

Truth is necessarily everywhere.

There is always a quantitative difference, never a qualitative one.

My dog, my chickens, even the annoying insects, are nothing other than me.

Greater or less complexity, greater or lesser rationality, but there is never a difference of essence
This requires the One.
The negation of the negation.

Yes, but you experience the world differently from the insect that bites you. Even your beloved dog experiences the world differently from you.
Bobmax experiences the world differently from me or anyone else. If this were not so Bobmax would be unable to exchange points of view.

[promethean75]

"So, what kind of choice are you discussing? Free choice, or the other kind?"

Neil was a better drummer than philosopher and I have no idea what he's talking about. i know he was big into Ayn Rand and Ayn wasn't the greatest philosopher in the determinism/freewill debate, so. prolly some half thought out idea he got from her after readin the fountain head or sumthin. in fact, as the band's lyricist, he dedicated a song to Objectivism (Rand's): https://youtu.be/a9h2H5Sgzfw

Lol the lyrics are sooo noble randian rational egoist.

that dude wuz a fuckin powerhouse on the drums and there wasn't/isn't one drummer i know of then in the mainstream rock genre that could play like him. i mean the standard rock bands.

i personally have no problem uaing the term 'choosing' to talk meaningfully about human behavior without having to imply freewill exists.

most of the confusion in this thread around that word comes from people assuming it, choice, is a metaphysical event and not just a description of a human cognitive feature like perception and judgement, for instance.  but what compels a choice is what everybody wants ta know. my thing is u r still choosing regardless of what compels u. a computer makes a choice if it performs one function rather than another when it is instructed to.

[promethean75]

Neil Peart was probably Canada's greatest accomplishment.

[BigMike]

There can be no substantial difference between anything in the world.
Of this I am convinced.

Truth is necessarily everywhere.

There is always a quantitative difference, never a qualitative one.

Are you saying that since any false statement is truly false, it must be true? Or are you arguing that contradictory statements are both true simply because they have been made (because they exist)?

[promethean75]

"Live for yourself, there’s no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry for more

Though I know they’ve always
Told you selfishness is wrong
Yet it was for me not you
I came to write this song"

You fucking rock Ayn!

U really are too hard on her, biggs. She wuz a pretty solid thinker. I mean it's critiqueable but still solid and simple. Watered down Nietzsche I've heard her called, but the only thing that matters is that

6sipj3.jpg

[BigMike]

Sidney Hook compared Ayn Rand's certainty to "the way philosophy is written in the Soviet Union" and Gore Vidal described her viewpoint as "nearly perfect in its immorality".

[promethean75]

I feel like I'm trolling the thread but I can't post this anywhere else cuz I already said sumthin about it here so u gotta bear with me. I need to say this to get it off my chest.

Listen, earlier i didn't mean to exclude or imply that alex and geddy, being part of Rush, aren't part of Canada's greatest accomplishment.

I'm saying there are more guitarists and bassists similar to alex and geddy than there are drummers similar to Neil. that gives N a unique status in this estimation.

[bobmax]

Humans, as far as is known, are the only animals that can use symbolic language to abstract ideas from experiences, and subsequently create new ideas.

There can be no substantial difference between anything in the world.
Of this I am convinced.

Truth is necessarily everywhere.

There is always a quantitative difference, never a qualitative one.

My dog, my chickens, even the annoying insects, are nothing other than me.

Greater or less complexity, greater or lesser rationality, but there is never a difference of essence
This requires the One.
The negation of the negation.

Yes, but you experience the world differently from the insect that bites you. Even your beloved dog experiences the world differently from you.
Bobmax experiences the world differently from me or anyone else. If this were not so Bobmax would be unable to exchange points of view.

I agree.

It is this difference that causes communication.

And yet, the same communication is possible because there is a common foundation.

[Age]

Humans, as far as is known, are the only animals that can use symbolic language to abstract ideas from experiences, and subsequently create new ideas.

There can be no substantial difference between anything in the world.
Of this I am convinced.

Truth is necessarily everywhere.

There is always a quantitative difference, never a qualitative one.

My dog, my chickens, even the annoying insects, are nothing other than me.

So, WHY do 'you', annoy 'you', as well as allow 'you', to be annoyed by 'you'?

WHY do this?

Greater or less complexity, greater or lesser rationality, but there is never a difference of essence
This requires the One.
The negation of the negation.

[bobmax]

Are you saying that since any false statement is truly false, it must be true? Or are you arguing that contradictory statements are both true simply because they have been made (because they exist)?

In our existence, the truth is never absolute.

Because even if a certain truth is indisputable for us, in order to exist it needs to deny any possibility that would make it false.
The truth, in existence, is a negation of any possible falsification of it.

While the absolute Truth is self-sufficient. It does not need to deny anything.
It is negation of negation.

The overcoming of the contradiction cannot take place in existence. Because existence is a continuous affirmation of the truth against all falsehoods.

Overcoming the contradiction can take place as
"coincidence of opposites" (Nicholas of Cusa). Which is Being, that is, the Truth.

If we can communicate, and existence is communication, it is only thanks to the absolute Truth.

[bobmax]

Humans, as far as is known, are the only animals that can use symbolic language to abstract ideas from experiences, and subsequently create new ideas.

There can be no substantial difference between anything in the world.
Of this I am convinced.

Truth is necessarily everywhere.

There is always a quantitative difference, never a qualitative one.

My dog, my chickens, even the annoying insects, are nothing other than me.

So, WHY do 'you', annoy 'you', as well as allow 'you', to be annoyed by 'you'?

WHY do this?

Because I'm not really myself yet.

That is, I am not.
I exist but I am not.

I was thrown into the world as a son.
I have thrown this son into the world as the Father.

There is me as the only begotten child and the world. And the world is the Father.

When I no longer exist I will return to being what I have always been: the Father.

[iambiguous]

If the soft determinists don't fully understand but the hard determinists do, how is this too not just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world?

How can some learn or care more than others -- about anything -- and it not be embedded in the same fated, destined world too?

It is "just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world". And it is "embedded in the same fated, destined world". That's why I said that "the hardcore determinists to whom you refer are, in my view, correct in their fundamental claims."

Okay, so you acknowledge that your own arguments here are just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world? That, in fact, all contributions to this thread -- all 88 pages, all 1,314 posts -- can inherently be connected back to whatever brought into existence "existence itself" with its laws of matter. No exceptions.

But...

Like all the rest of us, you are unable to propound a definitive explanation for where BigMike fits into 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.

So, as with all the rest of us, your argument falls somewhere between an educated guess and a wild-ass guess.

And, compelled or not, you respond to all of this by noting...

Well, it's hard to answer many of the questions you raise above. We can't fully answer them yet. But let's put one brick on top of the other. I am confident we will eventually answer them all. Every day, we make huge strides in our understanding of consciousness.

The fact that we cannot answer all questions right now, however, does not mean that we should disregard everything we already know to be true: science. And any hypothesis that contradicts what we already know to be true, such as the notion that people have free will, must be rejected.

Again, how is this not an assessment that one would expect from a free will advocate?

Note to the libertarians among us:

How would you put this differently? Other than [for some] by insisting that it's easy to answer my questions...as you do.

Whereas some determinists might insist that the strides we'll make in understanding consciousness are no less a necessary manifestation of human brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

Here, scientists are just like all the rest of us, right? Wholly determined.

[phyllo]

The theme being that anything achieved within a deterministic reality is somehow tarnished.

"You managed to use fusion to generate electricity. You didn't really do anything. It's not any kind of achievement. Nothing to be proud of."

[BigMike]

But...

Like all the rest of us, you are unable to propound a definitive explanation for where BigMike fits into 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.

So, as with all the rest of us, your argument falls somewhere between an educated guess and a wild-ass guess.

I don't see how your "But...", normally used to start a sentence in contrast to what has already been said, introduces anything relevant to what was said about determinism. I have not attempted to explain the things that you find so perplexing and I have no problem waiting until such information becomes accessible. The only effect it will have on my worldview is to enlighten me on that one unrelated thing.

The question of how we should collectively adapt to a world that has rejected the concept of free will is far more urgent and intriguing, in my view. And "everybody" should take part in this process because, in the end, our collective decisions will have a big effect on everyone's life.

[Immanuel Can]

What exactly is astonishing about determinists having a discussion?

What’s irreconcilable is that a true “Determinist” would see value in “discussing” anything.

Why “discuss”? Among the things Determinism insists are impossible are 1) changing anybody’s mind, 2) altering the inevitable outcome of anybody’s behaviour, and 3) actually making something different happen than would otherwise have happened, especially by immaterial means like altering a “mind.”

So why discuss anything? The whole “discussion,” according to Determinism, must merely be a phenomenon that is ultimately strictly material in nature, but which deludes the participants that their opinions “matter” in a way that Determinism itself insists they can’t possibly matter at all.