iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:27 pm
How about thin: we just presume that your own understanding of compatibilism is the correct one. How then is it applicable to Mary's abortion or a moral conflagration you prefer to focus in on.
If you were to assume that, and from that point on no longer say things implying compatibilists believe in some kind of brains that must have an indeterministic slice in order for free will to exist, then the quality of your writings about compatibilism would be improved.
Compatibilism doesn't say anything in particular about Mary or abortion.
When this Mary had her abortion, there were probably stronger factors that contributed to her decision than "dasein" and free will/lack thereof. Factors like: her personality, age, life circumstances, whether she wanted to have a child with that guy.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:17 pm
You've written pages and pages of content about compatibilism. I think it's reasonable to suppose that, for someone with such a keen interest in compatibilism, understanding the very basics of what compatibilism means would also be of interest to you.
It is. Which is why I suggest this to those who think they do grasp "the very basics of what compatibilism means": that they bring it down to Earth and encompass it in regard to Mary's abortion. Or in regard to a different set of conflicting goods in which the behaviors we choose/"choose" is important to them personally.
Well, "click", of course.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:17 pmWhen you say things like this:
Again, as though when mindless matter evolved into biological matter evolved into brain matter evolved into us, the brains of human beings "somehow" bifurcated "internally" into autonomous motivations and values...as opposed to all other matter that is entirely compelled by the laws of matter.
it sounds like you're saying that compatibilists think that there's some piece of brains that is not under the laws of physics. I would like to clarify this issue for you: compatibilists do not think that. Compatibilists believe determinism is compatible with free will, they do not feel the need to create an exception for determinism in some part of the human brain.
I hope this will help you to improve your writings about compatibilism in the future.
Again, you've noted this above, and I responded to it above. We disagree about that, however.
Then [for me] back to this:
But: You would still believe it only because you were never able not to believe it. So, the compatibilist reconciles an inevitable, wholly determined abortion with moral responsibility but only because every single component of their brain, in sync with the laws of matter, compels them to? Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that the compatibilist thinking that it is is?
You disagree with it, wonderful. This would be a fantastic time for you to explain why. Why is it that you disagree? Can you produce any quotes by compatibilists or from trustworthy literature that supports the idea that compatibilists believe that sort of thing?
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:27 pm
How about this: we just presume that your own understanding of compatibilism is the correct one. How then is it applicable to Mary's abortion or a moral conflagration you prefer to focus in on.
If you were to assume that, and from that point on no longer say things implying compatibilists believe in some kind of brains that must have an indeterministic slice in order for free will to exist, then the quality of your writings about compatibilism would be improved.
Compatibilism doesn't say anything in particular about Mary or abortion.
Note to any compatibilists here among us:
You would still believe what you do about the morality of Mary's abortion only because you were never able not to believe it? So, you reconcile an inevitable, wholly determined abortion with moral responsibility but only because every single component of your brain, in sync with the laws of matter, compels you to? Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that as a compatibilist you think that it is is?
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:47 pm
You disagree with it, wonderful. This would be a fantastic time for you to explain why. Why is it that you disagree? Can you produce any quotes by compatibilists or from trustworthy literature that supports the idea that compatibilists believe that sort of thing?
I did explain why. But you insist that I did not. So, from my frame of mind, it now revolves around actual compatibilists among us reacting to both of our perspectives.
Then, as actual compatibilists, they can react to the point I noted here:
You would still believe what you do about the morality of Mary's abortion only because you were never able not to believe it? So, you reconcile an inevitable, wholly determined abortion with moral responsibility but only because every single component of your brain, in sync with the laws of matter, compels you to? Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that as a compatibilist you think that it is is?
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:47 pm
You disagree with it, wonderful. This would be a fantastic time for you to explain why. Why is it that you disagree? Can you produce any quotes by compatibilists or from trustworthy literature that supports the idea that compatibilists believe that sort of thing?
I did explain why.
It would be appreciated if you could quote yourself, quote the post where you explained why. I haven't seen any post I've read as an explanation for why you disagree, but that might be that I didn't read it or perhaps I misunderstood. Please quote only the parts that are relevant so that I can't clearly see why you disagree.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:47 pm
You disagree with it, wonderful. This would be a fantastic time for you to explain why. Why is it that you disagree? Can you produce any quotes by compatibilists or from trustworthy literature that supports the idea that compatibilists believe that sort of thing?
I did explain why.
It would be appreciated if you could quote yourself, quote the post where you explained why. I haven't seen any post I've read as an explanation for why you disagree, but that might be that I didn't read it or perhaps I misunderstood. Please quote only the parts that are relevant so that I can't clearly see why you disagree.
Like I said, we are clearly "stuck".
Now, back to this...
You would still believe what you do about the morality of Mary's abortion only because you were never able not to believe it? So, you reconcile an inevitable, wholly determined abortion with moral responsibility but only because every single component of your brain, in sync with the laws of matter, compels you to? Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that as a compatibilist you think that it is is?
I don't think we are stuck. I made a request that would take exceptionally little effort for you to fulfill, and when you do fulfill it I can either respond to the explanation or explain myself why I don't see an explanation in it. We are not stuck, because there is a clear and unambiguous next step. We would only be stuck if there were no clear next steps.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 6:31 pm
I don't think we are stuck. I made a request that would take exceptionally little effort for you to fulfill, and when you do fulfill it I can either respond to the explanation or explain myself why I don't see an explanation in it. We are not stuck, because there is a clear and unambiguous next step. We would only be stuck if there were no clear next steps.
No, trust me: we're stuck.
Now, back to this:
You would still believe what you do about the morality of Mary's abortion only because you were never able not to believe it? So, you reconcile an inevitable, wholly determined abortion with moral responsibility but only because every single component of your brain, in sync with the laws of matter, compels you to? Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that as a compatibilist you think that it is is?
It's very premature to move on to those questions. You are still misunderstanding what compatibilism is about. I'd like to help clear that up with you, which will benefit you and every person who reads your posts about compatibilism. We are not stuck. If there is a clear next step to take, we cannot be stuck.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 6:37 pm
It's very premature to move on to those questions. You are still misunderstanding what compatibilism is about. I'd like to help clear that up with you, which will benefit you and every person who reads your posts about compatibilism. We are not stuck. If there is a clear next step to take, we cannot be stuck.
Again: back to this...
You would still believe what you do about the morality of Mary's abortion only because you were never able not to believe it? So, you reconcile an inevitable, wholly determined abortion with moral responsibility but only because every single component of your brain, in sync with the laws of matter, compels you to? Is that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that as a compatibilist you think that it is is?
Either you will note the relevance of what I construe to be your own world of words assessment of compatibilism above here or you won't.
How about this: you and iwannaplato explore that up in the technical clouds. I will follow the exchange and see if I myself can connect the dots between the logical and epistemological parameters of compatibilism and Mary's abortion.
Click, of course.
In the interim, we can wait and see if any compatibilists among us will choose/"choose"/"choose" to comment on the exchange so far.
Given a particular context of their own choosing/ "choosing"/"choosing"
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 6:57 pmIs that what you are concluding? Not that moral responsibility actually is reconcilable with determinism, but that as a compatibilist you think that it is is?[/b]
Well... No, I haven't been concluding anything like that, I've been focused on one thing very clearly: the question of if compatibilists believe the thing you say compatibilists believe.
You have a thread over 200 pages long where you review compatibilist literature that you find online. It seems to me that you might be interested in correcting any misunderstandings of what compatibilism even is, since if you don't have that down, everything else said about compatibilism across these 200 pages might just be entirely moot. So, I'm here to help you improve your understanding of what compatibilism means.
Compatibilism does not mean making exceptions for determinism inside human brains.
