compatibilism

[phyllo]

How "for all practical purposes" would you go about closing the gap between what you think we know about the human condition "here and now" and all that would need to be known about how and why it fits into the existence of existence itself? You know, before pinning down precisely what the human brain is either capable or not capable of doing?

As for Rummy's Rule, this part...

"...But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know..."

Or are you so arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian in regard to your own understanding of free will that there really is absolutely nothing at all that you don't know about it.

The binary choice:

Either you know everything or you can't "pin" anything down.

There is no middle ground where you can make some reasonable, valid, statements about certain aspects. There is no partial knowledge.

Allow me to disagree. We are not omniscient but we are not entirely non-scient. We can know some things. We can observe and we can reason.

[Iwannaplato]

How "for all practical purposes" would you go about closing the gap between what you think we know about the human condition "here and now" and all that would need to be known about how and why it fits into the existence of existence itself? You know, before pinning down precisely what the human brain is either capable or not capable of doing?

As for Rummy's Rule, this part...

"...But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know..."

Or are you so arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian in regard to your own understanding of free will that there really is absolutely nothing at all that you don't know about it.

The binary choice:

Either you know everything or you can't "pin" anything down.

There is no middle ground where you can make some reasonable, valid, statements about certain aspects. There is no partial knowledge.

Allow me to disagree. We are not omniscient but we are not entirely non-scient. We can know some things. We can observe and we can reason.

He allows himself to present a binary situation. Either you are so arrogant (etc.) or you are aligned with his supposedly utterly agnostic position on a wide range of issues.

IOW when he communicates with you he presents, and notice the certainty of his presentation, that if you don't have his position then you are arrogant etc.

Of course he will say, or has said anyway, if I pointed this out to him, that he is the first admit that he could be wrong. Blah, blah. But this doesn't stop him from labelling people, categorizing them, value judging them as fanatics, presenting things in binary ways that he does not justify and so on.

He is free to act out the judgmental objectivist behavior because on other occasions he says he is not one. He gets to act like he is certain, because other times he says he doesn't know stuff. It's a lovely freedom he grants himself and implies all the time is superior to the ways objectivists interact.

The very thing you are saying to him about it not being binary, is something that can be seen as an assumption in his posts, even if when pressed he will claim he does not have these beliefs.

How people act is a better measure of their beliefs than what they claim to believe, I think.

[iambiguous]

You gotta love the economy of it.

It amounts to :

One doesn't know enough to say anything.

Here we go again: Know enough to say anything about what? In the either/or world there are countless things that we know enough about such that, in interacting from day to day, communication breakdowns are the clear exception.

Now, in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, what anyone knows about anything at all is merely that which they were never able not to know about it. Thus, even communication breakdowns themselves in the is/ought world are only as they ever could have been.

One has no control over what one says.

Again, only in assuming that the hardcore determinists are ontologically correct regarding the human brain. That, in other words, it compels us to say only that which we were never able not to say.

Whatever one says is irrelevant.

Back to those aliens in the free will part of the universe observing men and women interacting down here on Earth. Earth being smack dab in the middle of that part of the universe governed entirely by the laws of matter.

They see clearly that men and women down here say and do things. And, as a result of this, other men and women react and say and do things in return. It seems so real and spontaneous -- like in our dreams -- that the aliens have to remind themselves that nothing unfolding between mere mortals down here is ever other than what it can only be.

[iambiguous]

Again, that is what some determinists argue.

So the stuff you post as an answer to almost everything in this thread, is not even your position.

It's the position of "some determinists" who are not here and who are not arguing here. And who shall remain unidentified.

Ha.

Absolutely shameless!

If I must say so myself.

Click...

My position here is "fractured and fragmented". I've heard the arguments from the free will folks and the determinists folks: https://www.google.com/search?q=free+wi ... s-wiz-serp

Even assuming free will, there are all manner of problematic consequences.

Instead, the main focus of this thread is on compatibilism. In particular, "how do compatibilist reconcile determinism and moral responsibility?"

Or Google "science, philosophy and free will": https://www.google.com/search?q=science ... s-wiz-serp

Tons of confusion and uncertainty and ambiguity there as well.

Even the arguments revolving around compatibilism produce conflicting assessments: https://www.google.com/search?q=compati ... s-wiz-serp

[iambiguous]

How "for all practical purposes" would you go about closing the gap between what you think we know about the human condition "here and now" and all that would need to be known about how and why it fits into the existence of existence itself? You know, before pinning down precisely what the human brain is either capable or not capable of doing?

As for Rummy's Rule, this part...

"...But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know..."

Or are you so arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian in regard to your own understanding of free will that there really is absolutely nothing at all that you don't know about it.

The binary choice:

Either you know everything or you can't "pin" anything down.

There is no middle ground where you can make some reasonable, valid, statements about certain aspects. There is no partial knowledge.

Allow me to disagree. We are not omniscient but we are not entirely non-scient. We can know some things. We can observe and we can reason.

I dealt with this in a post above. And no doubt many more additional times below.

[iambiguous]

How "for all practical purposes" would you go about closing the gap between what you think we know about the human condition "here and now" and all that would need to be known about how and why it fits into the existence of existence itself? You know, before pinning down precisely what the human brain is either capable or not capable of doing?

As for Rummy's Rule, this part...

"...But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know..."

Or are you so arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian in regard to your own understanding of free will that there really is absolutely nothing at all that you don't know about it.

The binary choice:

Either you know everything or you can't "pin" anything down.

There is no middle ground where you can make some reasonable, valid, statements about certain aspects. There is no partial knowledge.

Allow me to disagree. We are not omniscient but we are not entirely non-scient. We can know some things. We can observe and we can reason.

He allows himself to present a binary situation. Either you are so arrogant (etc.) or you are aligned with his supposedly utterly agnostic position on a wide range of issues.

IOW when he communicates with you he presents, and notice the certainty of his presentation, that if you don't have his position then you are arrogant etc.

Of course he will say, or has said anyway, if I pointed this out to him, that he is the first admit that he could be wrong. Blah, blah. But this doesn't stop him from labelling people, categorizing them, value judging them as fanatics, presenting things in binary ways that he does not justify and so on.

He is free to act out the judgmental objectivist behavior because on other occasions he says he is not one. He gets to act like he is certain, because other times he says he doesn't know stuff. It's a lovely freedom he grants himself and implies all the time is superior to the ways objectivists interact.

The very thing you are saying to him about it not being binary, is something that can be seen as an assumption in his posts, even if when pressed he will claim he does not have these beliefs.

How people act is a better measure of their beliefs than what they claim to believe, I think.

Curly? That would be Felix Da Cat. Doesn't post here though to the best of my knowledge.

[phyllo]

Here we go again: Know enough to say anything about what? In the either/or world there are countless things that we know enough about such that, in interacting from day to day, communication breakdowns are the clear exception.

One would not know things in the either/or world and one would not know things in the is/ought world.

Which highlights the artificiality of those divisions.

Now, in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, what anyone knows about anything at all is merely that which they were never able not to know about it. Thus, even communication breakdowns themselves in the is/ought world are only as they ever could have been.

One would not know things in the determined world and one would not know things in the free-will world.

Again, highlighting another artificial division.

One has no more control over what one knows in the free-will world than one does in the determined world.

[Iwannaplato]

I dealt with this in a post above. And no doubt many more additional times below.

Well, there it is. He dealt with this. Period.
No bemoaning that what he said those many times was perhaps utterly determined in the Big Bang. Suddenly it's simply evaluated as....

I dealt with this.

The handwringing. The we can't know anything. Everything you and I are saying, we can't help but say it. The things he throws at anyone at random times as if there is no point and everyone must prove to him that pointlessness isn't present....
disapears.

And is replaced by....

I dealt this this

Confident.

Confident is in his reasoning.

Confident in his evaluation of his own reasoning.

If anyone else spoke with confidence, sooner or later, and geneerally sooner it will be judged as hubris and objectivism and fanaticism. And how could we possibly know anything.

That there can be biases that affect out evaluation of our own reasoning is something that even really quite extreme epistemological objectivists acknowledge.

[Iwannaplato]

Again, that is what some determinists argue.

So the stuff you post as an answer to almost everything in this thread, is not even your position.

It's the position of "some determinists" who are not here and who are not arguing here. And who shall remain unidentified.

Ha.

Absolutely shameless!

If I must say so myself.

Click...

My position here is "fractured and fragmented". I've heard the arguments from the free will folks and the determinists folks: https://www.google.com/search?q=free+wi ... s-wiz-serp

Even assuming free will, there are all manner of problematic consequences.

Instead, the main focus of this thread is on compatibilism. In particular, "how do compatibilist reconcile determinism and moral responsibility?"

Or Google "science, philosophy and free will": https://www.google.com/search?q=science ... s-wiz-serp

Tons of confusion and uncertainty and ambiguity there as well.

Even the arguments revolving around compatibilism produce conflicting assessments: https://www.google.com/search?q=compati ... s-wiz-serp

So, here we have a post beginning with a moral condemnation - why almost objectivist in certainty.

And then we have it presented as we know we can't be certain. Without the insight that his also is staking a certainty...all those who think they know are confused because I have read the literature and I know that we should only be confused.


He's so sure of that he calls people fanatics if they disagree.

If this is extrication from objectivism, I can't see it.

[Flannel Jesus]

Biggy isn't here to talk about compatibilism. He's here to rant to himself about compatibilism and say "shameless" or "stooge" or some other distraction to anybody naive enough to talk to him.

If he can bait you into talking to him, he's won.

[iambiguous]

I dealt with this in a post above. And no doubt many more additional times below.

Well, there it is. He dealt with this. Period.
No bemoaning that what he said those many times was perhaps utterly determined in the Big Bang. Suddenly it's simply evaluated as....

I dealt with this.

The handwringing. The we can't know anything. Everything you and I are saying, we can't help but say it. The things he throws at anyone at random times as if there is no point and everyone must prove to him that pointlessness isn't present....
disapears.

And is replaced by....

I dealt this this

Confident.

Confident is in his reasoning.

Confident in his evaluation of his own reasoning.

If anyone else spoke with confidence, sooner or later, and geneerally sooner it will be judged as hubris and objectivism and fanaticism. And how could we possibly know anything.

That there can be biases that affect out evaluation of our own reasoning is something that even really quite extreme epistemological objectivists acknowledge.

We'll need a context of course.

[iambiguous]

So the stuff you post as an answer to almost everything in this thread, is not even your position.

It's the position of "some determinists" who are not here and who are not arguing here. And who shall remain unidentified.

Ha.

Absolutely shameless!

If I must say so myself.

Click...

My position here is "fractured and fragmented". I've heard the arguments from the free will folks and the determinists folks: https://www.google.com/search?q=free+wi ... s-wiz-serp

Even assuming free will, there are all manner of problematic consequences.

Instead, the main focus of this thread is on compatibilism. In particular, "how do compatibilist reconcile determinism and moral responsibility?"

Or Google "science, philosophy and free will": https://www.google.com/search?q=science ... s-wiz-serp

Tons of confusion and uncertainty and ambiguity there as well.

Even the arguments revolving around compatibilism produce conflicting assessments: https://www.google.com/search?q=compati ... s-wiz-serp

So, here we have a post beginning with a moral condemnation - why almost objectivist in certainty.

And then we have it presented as we know we can't be certain. Without the insight that his also is staking a certainty...all those who think they know are confused because I have read the literature and I know that we should only be confused.


He's so sure of that he calls people fanatics if they disagree.

If this is extrication from objectivism, I can't see it.

He forgot "click".

Otherwise, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he could not not have posted it.

[iambiguous]

Biggy isn't here to talk about compatibilism. He's here to rant to himself about compatibilism and say "shameless" or "stooge" or some other distraction to anybody naive enough to talk to him.

If he can bait you into talking to him, he's won.

It's official.

If you get my drift.

[Flannel Jesus]

The Solipsist believes someone might catch his drift. Cute.

[Iwannaplato]

We'll need a context of course.

It's funny. The man with thousands of posts here and posts in other forums going back decades....
Man, if what you do here isn't a context, you ain't got a context.