compatibilism

[iambiguous]

In a free will world, it would mean HQ was doing bad things and what makes his behavior even more immoral, even to a nihilist, is that he is so brazen about it.

No, in a free will world as I understand it here and now, henry's moral, political and spiritual conviction's -- like mine, like IWP -- are derived existentially from the arguments I make on these threads:

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

Which is why I am shameless: seein' biggy as the crapsack con man he is, and treatin' him as such, is nuthin' but moral.

No, you are shameless, from own subjective frame of mind because over and over again [with me] you configure into Mr. Snippet and Mr. Wiggle. You basically steer clear of responding substantively to the points I raise...merely snipping out a line or two and then repeating your our arguments based largely on the assumption that how you define the meaning of the words in the arguments makes the arguments true. Thus how you "own yourself" in regard to such things as "life, liberty, property."..."abortion, guns"...is the default in any "discussion". If others don't totally agree with your own definition of things such as this that automatically makes them "morons".

Go ahead, with Iwannaplato see if he or she is a moron in regard this or that issue.

[henry quirk]

Go ahead, with Iwannaplato see if he or she is a moron in regard this or that issue.

Okay, I will...
even if IWP disagrees with me, talkin' with him will be an absolute pleasure compared to navigatin' your scripted horse shit...and: since I'm tired of lookin' at you, and don't wanna have to wade thru your manure to get to IWP's posts, I'm puttin' you in the penalty box for the duration of whatever conversation IWP and me have...when he and I conclude our business, I'll release your obese ass to waddle, once again, across my forum view...

-----

Oh, IWP, tell me what you think of this...

You are a free man with a natural, unalienable right to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

[iambiguous]

Go ahead, with Iwannaplato see if he or she is a moron in regard this or that issue.

Okay, I will...
even if IWP disagrees with me, talkin' with him will be an absolute pleasure compared to navigatin' your scripted horse shit...and: since I'm tired of lookin' at you, I'm puttin' you in the penalty box for the duration of whatever conversation IWP and me have...when he and I conclude our business, I'll release your obese ass to waddle, once again, across my forum view...

-----

Oh, IWP, tell me what you think of this...

You are a free man with a natural, unalienable right to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

See what I mean?

Now, sure, you might not find him absolutely shameless. And, with any luck, that's because nature compels you not to find him that way. You're off the hook.



Note to IWP:

Click.

I dare you to take him up on that. Go down the list of moral conflagrations...abortion, guns, the role of government, animal rights, gender roles etc.

Provide him with your own definition of the words he includes in his request to you above.

Then, one by one, issue by issue, find out if you either are or are not a moron.

Or, perhaps, as "I" insinuate instead...a meat mind?

[Iwannaplato]

Go ahead, with Iwannaplato see if he or she is a moron in regard this or that issue.

Okay, I will...
even if IWP disagrees with me, talkin' with him will be an absolute pleasure compared to navigatin' your scripted horse shit...and: since I'm tired of lookin' at you, and don't wanna have to wade thru your manure to get to IWP's posts, I'm puttin' you in the penalty box for the duration of whatever conversation IWP and me have...when he and I conclude our business, I'll release your obese ass to waddle, once again, across my forum view...

-----

Oh, IWP, tell me what you think of this...

You are a free man with a natural, unalienable right to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Well, first off, I am pretty convinced that Iambiguous is incapable of dialogue. It's not obvious, like some internet trolls. It can seem like he is responding, until you realize that he did not respond to what you wrote. So, being inspired to ask me something from this flypaper of a poster seems like a bad idea. Like it's tainted from the start. He's hoping we'll come to bad terms, because this will seem, to him only, like his position is somehow justified. So, it's like having a toxic master of ceremonies.

That said. I don't really think in terms of rights. I sort of understand what people mean and I could join a conversation and use the word correctly. But at the level of ontology, I don't know what we really mean.

But yes, generally, I have a live and let live anarchist/libertarian set of preferences with a huge skepticism about powerful impersonal organizations like corporations and governments. But who knows that that works out to be once we get down into the details of life and compare our reactions to various situations and behaviors.

I am not sure how this relates to compatiblism.

Oh, did I mention that Iambiguous is toxic?

[CHNOPS]

AND you also have the ability to CHOOSE what to discuss about.

Or, do you BELIEVE you have NO ability to CHOOSE?

Yes, we have the ability to CHOOSE, in the same way an autonomous make choices when it has to decide if stop or not when see a person passing in front.

Maybe that decision is wrong, maybe is right.

The same with us. We make decisiones, choices.

you have obviously MISSED the point here.

And this is BECAUSE you have NOT, YET anyway, sought out what THE POINT IS, EXACTLY.

you are just ASSUMING what is being meant, and then you run with THAT ASSUMPTION, ALONE.

And all this is determined. I mean, if we repeat the Big Bang 1000 times, the 1000 times we make the same choice.

you propose this CLAIM as though:

1. That bang was the beginning of ALL. And,

2. As though your Claim here is true.

For your information;

That bang was NOT the beginning of ALL. And,

your CLAIM.is NOT necessarily true.

But matter changes and evolves always no matter if human beings discuss things or not.

Of course. When the stars born, there is no need for humans in that evolution of matter.

But in the biological evolution, I mean, in this kind of matter that we call "biological matter", the decisions we make, generate the evolution going to differents states or structures of this biological matter.

And, because of who and what 'you', human beings, ARE, EXACTLY, and, because of what WHO and WHAT 'I' am, EXACTLY, ALL of this CAN BE CHANGED, and IS, in Fact, CHANGING, and in a WAY that IS, currently, UNIMAGINABLE or IMPOSSIBLE to 'you' at the moment, "chnops".

Again, I see a child. It remove the desire of answer you. It seems like if it this not productivy.


Forget about the Big Bang then, just make an arbitraty point in the past, for example, yesterday, and I say:

"If you repeat the exact moment of yesterday, 100 times, then the 100 times you will do the same you do today".


But you dont answer nothing. You dont want to do that, because you dont want to learn more about who you are. You think u understand all already.


You need to quote the example of the robot that I make, and tell me where there is a difference in that robot and us.


But again, I know you dont want to do that. Because you are a child. You dont want to go to school.

[henry quirk]

I don't really think in terms of rights. I sort of understand what people mean and I could join a conversation and use the word correctly. But at the level of ontology, I don't know what we really mean.

You don't have to. Ask yourself: is my life (my being, my existence) mine? Is my liberty (my choices, my direction in the world) mine? Is my property (what I create, what I fairly transact for, my self) mine?

*

But yes, generally, I have a live and let live anarchist/libertarian set of preferences with a huge skepticism about powerful impersonal organizations like corporations and governments. But who knows that that works out to be once we get down into the details of life and compare our reactions to various situations and behaviors.

I'm fond of this Heinlein quote...

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

How it works out is how it works out, I reckon. You have no say about what the other guy does, and absolute say about what you do. If he's a decent sort then you can cooperate to get things done that benefit you both. At the very least, you and he can agree to leave each other alone. If he's not a decent sort then you defend yourself against him.

*

I am not sure how this relates to compatiblism.

In a roundabout way, I guess it does. By definition, a free man is a free will. If he's a meat machine, as the determinists and compatiblists think, then life, liberty, and property and claims to life, liberty, and property are just monkeyshine.

[Age]

Yes, we have the ability to CHOOSE, in the same way an autonomous make choices when it has to decide if stop or not when see a person passing in front.

Maybe that decision is wrong, maybe is right.

The same with us. We make decisiones, choices.

you have obviously MISSED the point here.

And this is BECAUSE you have NOT, YET anyway, sought out what THE POINT IS, EXACTLY.

you are just ASSUMING what is being meant, and then you run with THAT ASSUMPTION, ALONE.

And all this is determined. I mean, if we repeat the Big Bang 1000 times, the 1000 times we make the same choice.

you propose this CLAIM as though:

1. That bang was the beginning of ALL. And,

2. As though your Claim here is true.

For your information;

That bang was NOT the beginning of ALL. And,

your CLAIM.is NOT necessarily true.

Of course. When the stars born, there is no need for humans in that evolution of matter.

But in the biological evolution, I mean, in this kind of matter that we call "biological matter", the decisions we make, generate the evolution going to differents states or structures of this biological matter.

And, because of who and what 'you', human beings, ARE, EXACTLY, and, because of what WHO and WHAT 'I' am, EXACTLY, ALL of this CAN BE CHANGED, and IS, in Fact, CHANGING, and in a WAY that IS, currently, UNIMAGINABLE or IMPOSSIBLE to 'you' at the moment, "chnops".

Again, I see a child. It remove the desire of answer you. It seems like if it this not productivy.

Are you under some sort of ILLUSION that children are NOT meant to QUESTION and/nor CHALLENGE what is FED to them to by 'you', adult human beings?

Childhood-logic usually always overrides the 'rubbish' that 'you' adults CLAIM are true.

For example, when 'you' adults, say and CLAIM, "God created Everything", then thee Truly INTELLIGENT ones, also known as, 'childen' will, unintentionally, challenge this CLAIM with a question like, 'What then creates God?", which then leaves those adults absolutely BAFFLED and LOST for words.

As I just pointed out this kind of childhood-logic, which is also almost instantaneous, overpowers and overrides ALL of the CRAP that 'you', adult human beings, talk about and 'TRY TO' CLAIM is true. Like, for example, your EXCUSE above here for NOT answering my CLARIFYING questions, posed to you. The Truth WHY you do NOT have a desire to answer MY questions IS because you do NOT have the true, right, and correct answers and/or because if you did answer me Honestly, then you would CONTRADICT "yourself".

Also, talk about ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of when one USES their OWN MADE UP, but completely Wrong, ASSUMPTION, to then LOOK AT and SEE things. Which EXPLAINS FULLY WHY these adult human beings were so LOST, DISTORTED, and CONFUSED, back in the days when this was being written.

Forget about the Big Bang then, just make an arbitraty point in the past, for example, yesterday, and I say:

"If you repeat the exact moment of yesterday, 100 times, then the 100 times you will do the same you do today".

We KNOW that this just what you BELIEVE is true. But considering what thee ACTUAL Truth Is, EXACTLY. if you WANT to continue to BELIEVE that this true, then you are completely FREE to CHOOSE so.

Also, considering that the Universe is ETERNAL we could just use the eternal NOW for an EXACT moment.

But anyway, as it said above, what you say and CLAIM here is NOT necessarily true, OBVIOUSLY. And, you, also OBVIOUSLY, have NOT YET anyway, RECOGNISED and NOTICED your CIRCULAR 'reasoning' here.

But you dont answer nothing. You dont want to do that, because you dont want to learn more about who you are. You think u understand all already.

But I do NOT THINK I understand already. I KNOW what I UNDERSTAND, ALREADY, and one of that is KNOWING who and what 'you' ARE ALREADY, as well as KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING thy 'Self', ALREADY, ALSO.

You need to quote the example of the robot that I make, and tell me where there is a difference in that robot and us.

Firstly I do NOT 'need' to do ANY such thing AT ALL.

But, secondly I WILL TELL you WHERE there is A DIFFERENCE.

Although BOTH 'you', human beings, and 'robots' can make decisions and BOTH of you can only make decisions based upon only 'that', which has been 'programmed' into each of you, the difference between 'robots' and 'you', human beings, is that WITHIN human beings there is an ABILITY to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY thing, whereas this ability does NOT exist within robots, YET

ANOTHER difference is human beings can learn to understand the reasons WHY they made or make decisions. Robots can NOT, YET.

Also it is GREAT that you have brought this example, 'to the table here', as some might say.

But again, I know you dont want to do that. Because you are a child. You dont want to go to school.

NOTHING here makes sense, let alone even follows logically. Even your first ASSUMPTION and BELIEF here is and always was TOTALLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. Therefore, the rest does NOT logically follow AT ALL.

[Age]

I don't really think in terms of rights. I sort of understand what people mean and I could join a conversation and use the word correctly. But at the level of ontology, I don't know what we really mean.

You don't have to. Ask yourself: is my life (my being, my existence) mine? Is my liberty (my choices, my direction in the world) mine? Is my property (what I create, what I fairly transact for, my self) mine?

From what age "henry quirk"?

And, can 'you' REALLY STILL NOT YET SEE THE BLATANTLY OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION here with 'this' and when 'you' also SAY and CLAIM that 'you', personally, have the so-called 'right' to TAKE AWAY or STEAL "another's" OWN property, liberty, and/or life when 'you', self-CHOOSE TO DO SO?

Come on FINALLY be OPEN and Honest here with 'us' "henry quirk" and INFORM 'us' of EITHER:

'you' REALLY can NOT YET SEE the CONTRADICTION here. Or

To 'you' there is NO CONTRADICTION here, and so then START EXPLAINING WHY NOT.

*

But yes, generally, I have a live and let live anarchist/libertarian set of preferences with a huge skepticism about powerful impersonal organizations like corporations and governments. But who knows that that works out to be once we get down into the details of life and compare our reactions to various situations and behaviors.

I'm fond of this Heinlein quote...

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

Adding the word 'tolerate' here is just an EXCUSE for, REALLY, ALLOWING oneself to have BECOME just ANOTHER SLAVE.

How it works out is how it works out, I reckon. You have no say about what the other guy does,

BUT , 'you' keep TELLING and INFORMING 'us' that 'you' CAN and WILL SHOOT the "other guy" DEAD, if 'they' do what 'you' do NOT like.

and absolute say about what you do.

So, WHEN 'you' SHOOT DEAD "another guy" just because they just 'touched', lol, "your stuff", then WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY, do 'you' HAVE TO answer to?

If he's a decent sort then you can cooperate to get things done that benefit you both. At the very least, you and he can agree to leave each other alone. If he's not a decent sort then you defend yourself against him.

LOL Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how AFRAID and SCARED SOME of the adult human beings REALLY WERE, back in those VERY OLDEN and DARK ages. They ACTUALLY JUDGED "each other", PLACED INTO SEPARATED and LABELED DIFFERENT groups, and as clearly exampled here would get ARMED and READIED to DEFEND "themselves", from the "other", BEFORE they had even MET one, "an other".

SOME, like this one here here, lived in absolute fear and seemingly ALWAYS PETRIFIED of, laughably, human beings, of all things.

*

I am not sure how this relates to compatiblism.

In a roundabout way, I guess it does. By definition, a free man is a free will. If he's a meat machine, as the determinists and compatiblists think, then life, liberty, and property and claims to life, liberty, and property are just monkeyshine.

LOL What do 'you', "henry quirk" even think or BELIEVE the word 'compatiblist" means or refers to, EXACTLY?

[henry quirk]

As you're not IWP, and becuz you're a lyin' sack of crap (as well as eye-blisterin'), you're in my penalty box for the duration.

[iambiguous]

Well, first off, I am pretty convinced that Iambiguous is incapable of dialogue. It's not obvious, like some internet trolls. It can seem like he is responding, until you realize that he did not respond to what you wrote.

Note to others:

Click.

Decide for yourselves, of course, if I am incapable of dialogue.

But what still fascinates me most here is IWP's caustic reaction me. Is he/she a moral objectivist? Is he/she a true believer in one or another religious dogma? Because it is from those like them that I get reactions like his or her declamations here.

So, he or she will either go there or not.

On the other hand, based on reactions I've gotten like this over the years from the objectivists [meat minds or not], they invariably make it all about me. And when they argue that I am not responding to what they wrote, it often means this: that in responding to what they wrote I didn't agree with it.

IWP reminds me in particular of Moreno/Karpel Tunnel over at ILP. He often shared my own moral and political prejudices...but he reacted viscerally to my arguments regarding dasein. It was the part that revolved around this...

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

...that seemed to disturb him the most.

Why? Because, in my view, that's the part that sustains my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. And if it is one thing that perturbs/disturbs objectivists most, it is the possibility that this might be applicable to them as well. What if they [like me] are forced to abandon the comfort and the consolation that being an objectivist sustains?

So, the more incensed they become at me personally, the more I suspect my points are really starting to get to them. They stop engaging with me altogether rather than risk that possibility.

Or, again, existentially, subjectively, so it seems to me "here and now".

You tell me.

Then back to henry...

So, being inspired to ask me something from this flypaper of a poster seems like a bad idea. Like it's tainted from the start. He's hoping we'll come to bad terms, because this will seem, to him only, like his position is somehow justified. So, it's like having a toxic master of ceremonies.

That said. I don't really think in terms of rights. I sort of understand what people mean and I could join a conversation and use the word correctly. But at the level of ontology, I don't know what we really mean.

But yes, generally, I have a live and let live anarchist/libertarian set of preferences with a huge skepticism about powerful impersonal organizations like corporations and governments. But who knows that that works out to be once we get down into the details of life and compare our reactions to various situations and behaviors.

Who knows indeed.

Note to henry:

Explore that with him. Abortion, guns...whatever

Find out if he or she either is or is not a classic moron in regard to actual contexts pertaining to actual "conflicting goods".

I am not sure how this relates to compatibilism.

Huh?

Many determinists argue that this entire thread is inherently, necessarily a manifestation of the only possible material reality in the only possible material world. Why? Because the brains that concocted it are.

Most free will advocates insist that each of us of our own volition are able to think through these issues and autonomously opt for one frame of mind rather than another.

Some compatibilists seem to argue that even if the determinists are right about the only possible reality in the only possible world, we are still responsible for what we post here. And, in regard to Mary and Jane, even though Mary was never able not to abort Jane, she is still morally responsible for doing so.

Oh, did I mention that Iambiguous is toxic?

Click.

Again, you tell me.

[iambiguous]

I don't really think in terms of rights. I sort of understand what people mean and I could join a conversation and use the word correctly. But at the level of ontology, I don't know what we really mean.

You don't have to. Ask yourself: is my life (my being, my existence) mine? Is my liberty (my choices, my direction in the world) mine? Is my property (what I create, what I fairly transact for, my self) mine?

Click.

Come on, this is still an exchange of "general description intellectual contraptions". Bring it down to earth and exchange political convictions -- or, from my own frame of mind, existential prejudices -- regarding a moral conflagration like gun control.

Think of it like this...

Henry is a castaway on an island. He is the only inhabitant. He treasures his bazooka, but that is only between him and his God. Long since departed. One day another man [john] shows up on the island. Another castaway from another shipwreck say. John is adamantly opposed to henry having a bazooka. Henry goes on and on with him defining the one true meaning of life and liberty and property. But john has his own very much conflicting one true meaning of them.

Then what?

Basically, henry is an advocate of might makes right here. Why? Because he is, in turn, an advocate of right makes might. No moderation, negotiation and compromise for him. You either "follow the dictates of reason and nature" as he does or it's Ruby Ridge, you moron!!

Anyway, if nothing else, I'm curious to know if, like henry, IWP is a "fulminating fanatic objectivist" -- if not a meat mind -- regarding an issue like this. Is he/she a Capital L henry Libertarian here, or a small l political prejudice libertarian.

With or without God?

[Age]

As you're not IWP, and becuz you're a lyin' sack of crap (as well as eye-blisterin'), you're in my penalty box for the duration.

you can keep me there FOREVER for all I care.

But what we have here is ANOTHER example of ANOTHER one who MAKES CLAIMS, but RUNS AWAY and HIDES WITHOUT EVER backing up and supporting THEIR CLAIMS. Which is EXACTLY what a True COWARD would do here.

If 'you' had NOT RUN AWAY and HIDE, like the Truly FRIGHTENED one that 'you' are "henry quirk", then I would have asked 'you' about what am I SUPPOSEDLY LYING about here EXACTLY?

Also, as for 'your' EXCUSE for NOT responding to me and for RUNNING AWAY and HIDING is absolutely LAUGHABLE.

[Iwannaplato]

You don't have to. Ask yourself: is my life (my being, my existence) mine? Is my liberty (my choices, my direction in the world) mine? Is my property (what I create, what I fairly transact for, my self) mine?

We use language quite differently. Property sure, I can use 'mine' happily with. My being and my existence, well I'm happy to have those possessive adjectives before them.....Though somehow say their are 'mine' sound strange to me. Why the possessive adjectives don't bother me and the possessive pronoun would, I don't know. I just find that sentence odd.

I'm fond of this Heinlein quote...

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

I utterly agree and I also partly disagree. Of course I am responsible. But then at the same time, if I am in a system that is fucked to the bone, I know I will choose sometimes to do things I would otherwise prefer not to. When that happens I have blame for others and blame for myself. I'm not a moral realist, but I still get pissed off at behaviors and idiocy. I can choose between options, but I can't always choose what the options are. And this leads to customer dissatisfaction.

In a roundabout way, I guess it does. By definition, a free man is a free will. If he's a meat machine, as the determinists and compatiblists think, then life, liberty, and property and claims to life, liberty, and property are just monkeyshine.

And one way to scam this conundrum is to say one is not sure, to wildly proclaim how horrible it all is, hurl a moral outrage at anyone who thinks they know the answer to the conundrum, while claiming to be a nihilist who is a victim of others.

Oh, shit, I'm back on day one again. The newest habit is hard to break.

[henry quirk]

We use language quite differently.

I'm less concerned with language and more with the -- in context -- deep-in-the-bone intuition we, as individuals, have about ourselves. All men, any-where or -when, have this deep, peculiar understanding of self-possession, of ownness. No one doubts that he is his own, that his life, his liberty, his property are his. It's an intuition that precedes language (and legislation).

*

I can choose between options, but I can't always choose what the options are.

I disagree. A or B, these are your only options, choose...no, I reject both, I won't choose, I won't participate, and, as I can, I'll create C.

[Iwannaplato]

I can choose between options, but I can't always choose what the options are.

I disagree. A or B, these are your only options, choose...no, I reject both, I won't choose, I won't participate, and, as I can, I'll create C.
[/quote]Sure, but that's work. I am creating C all the time. I only have so much energy for creating and fighting and risking. I also have to deal with survival and a range of needs and wants. I can run with a flag and scream 'no compromise' but where I live I don't really have the right skill set to have the control I would like in the work world. Also given the economy here, I have less options. This means I probably challenge my employers less than I would otherwise.