compatibilism

[henry quirk]

It only gets more clearly determined if you are exactly the same moment to moment.

Yes, my being a consistent, coherent agent across time means what I cause is clearly determined...by me.

[iambiguous]

Now, phyllo may or may not be a Christian. So, perhaps, he explains it as a manifestation of a God-given soul. After all, isn't God and religion how he justifies objective morality?

WTF

Indeed, "what the fuck?" is often my own reaction to you here. One way or another you believe what you do about free will. One way or another you believe what you do about objective morality. One way or another you believe what you do about God.

But how exactly are they all intertwined when confronting an issue like Mary aborting Jane...given your own understanding of compatibilism and moral responsibility.

[henry quirk]

I mean, unless you perversely decide, for no reason at all, to go against your nature, and do things you don't want to do and nothing in you would lead you to do, again for no reason at all.

I'm havin' déjà vu.

If my nature is to self-direct, why would I choose to be directed by others? I could. I could grit my teeth and take orders. I'd have to have some damned good incentive to do that (I don't do larks).

[henry quirk]

Thanks, henry. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Really? No other outcome was possible. That sounds like libertarian free will?

How strange, strange bedfellows can be.

Henry defending his position Iambiguous.....

Well, yes things happen around me, happen to me. The world is dynamic, circumstances shift. Thank Crom I remain stable, coherent, consistent in the midst of it.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm giving him/her a change to scrap the huffing and puffing -- the Stooge Stuff -- and actually explore Sam Harris's view here in a substantive manner.

Instead...grammar!!!

Not just grammar. Meaning. This sentence structure you use so frequently doesn't have meaning for other people, other than you. You know what you mean by it, because you are you, but we don't know what you mean by it, because it's not a complete thought.

Then what he wants or does not want and Schopenhauer's assessment of that.

What do you mean "then what he wants"? "Then <noun>" isn't a sentence. It doesn't have meaning.

Then apple. Then banana. Then strawberry. Then lemongrass.

What about it? What about apple, banana, strawberry, lemongrass? Nobody knows, because "then apple" isn't a complete thought, it's just a noun preceded by the word "then".

It's not just grammar. It's meaning. I'm trying to encourage you to write sentences that mean things. "Then apples" isn't a meaningful (or complete) sentence.

[phyllo]

Now, phyllo may or may not be a Christian. So, perhaps, he explains it as a manifestation of a God-given soul. After all, isn't God and religion how he justifies objective morality?

WTF

Indeed, "what the fuck?" is often my own reaction to you here. One way or another you believe what you do about free will. One way or another you believe what you do about objective morality. One way of another you believe what you do about God.

But how exactly are they all intertwined when confronting an issue like Mary aborting Jane...given your own understanding of compatibilism and moral responsibility.

I go out of my way to stay on topic.

To leave the god shit out when I'm not talking about god shit.
To leave out the objective/subjective shit.

And still, someone can't focus.

[henry quirk]

Those are just assertions.

There is no reasoning to support them.

They are assertions, yes.

Oh, I have reasoning and intuition, so, no.

But you probably mean There is no evidence to support them, yes? If so: no, I know, as fact, I have no evidence to offer you will accept.

[phyllo]

Those are just assertions.

There is no reasoning to support them.

They are assertions, yes.

Oh, I have reasoning and intuition, so, no.

But you probably mean There is no evidence to support them, yes? If so: no, I know, as fact, I have no evidence to offer you will accept.

No, I mean that you don't know how to argue for your point.

And you're not a mind reader so you don't know what I will accept as evidence.

[henry quirk]

No, I mean that you don't know how to argue for your point.

I haven't been arguing. Neither have you. We've both been just asserting.

And you're not a mind reader so you don't know what I will accept as evidence.

I know, based on experience, folks who say there is no free will and mind is just a product of brain dismiss anything that sez man might be a free will and mind might be sumthin' other than brain product.

But, okay.

The folks here...

https://mindmatters.ai/

...as biased as they are, lay out a variety of evidences for free will, for mind as a reality in its own right, etc. Take a gander. If anything there catches your eye, seems like it might be worth haggling over, bring your thoughts here and we'll tussle over 'em.

[Iwannaplato]

Thanks, henry. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Really? No other outcome was possible. That sounds like libertarian free will?

How strange, strange bedfellows can be.

I'm not arguing for or against autonomy, determinism or compatibilism.

I didn't think you were.

It made no sense that you were agreeing with him about what Phyllo said. Phyllo made it clear that what happened was always going to happen. That does not fit with Libertarian free will.

I understand that it was convenient to agree with him. And I understand why it was convenient for HQ consciously or unconsciously to pretend what Phyllo said was like libertarian free will.

But given that is was clearly determinism, it was only convenience that led to strange bedfellows.

Sure, Libertarian free will may well be the most rational frame of mind here.

I'm not saying that.

Do you actually read what people write or does what people write just remind you of things you've said?

I was just pointing out how, in my view, henry's point to phyllo did not seem all that far removed from my own to him. But even then, the post was largely tongue in cheek.

Yes, you're both confused about Libertarian Free Will if you think inevitable choices and only one possible outcome fit with it.

On the other hand, I'm back to the brain being matter and how all other matter seems to be entirely in sync with the laws of matter. So, if autonomy has become a component of human interactions, how exactly is that actually explained?

yeah, keep using a term I am not using and which you haven't defined, as if it somehow fits.

Just keep acting like Sam Harris and FJ and Phyllo have been claiming that humans brains are exceptions to the laws of matter and are autonomous. I appreciate it's easier than actually dealing with what they are saying.

[henry quirk]

I understand why it was convenient for HQ consciously or unconsciously to pretend what Phyllo said was like libertarian free will.

Pretend? That's about a hair away from callin' me a liar.

This...

You are in a jungle with a machete. You look around. You decide where the best place is to cut. The decision is based on the environment, your ability, your goals, your tools. The path is created by your cutting. It wasn't there before you cut it. When you look back, you say "Yeah, that path was determined. I would not cut anything differently. I thought that it was the best cut to make at that time and place. "

...sounds like libertarian free will to me. I've explained why.

Yes, you're both confused about Libertarian Free Will if you think inevitable choices and only one possible outcome fit with it.

Uh, where did I say any of that garbage?

[Iwannaplato]

You are in a jungle with a machete. You look around. You decide where the best place is to cut. The decision is based on the environment, your ability, your goals, your tools. The path is created by your cutting. It wasn't there before you cut it. When you look back, you say "Yeah, that path was determined. I would not cut anything differently. I thought that it was the best cut to make at that time and place. "

...sounds like libertarian free will to me. I've explained why.

It was never going to have a different outcome. He was always going to make the choices he made. It was determined.

That's not libertarian free will.

It was utterly caused the internal and external causes.

[Flannel Jesus]

You are in a jungle with a machete. You look around. You decide where the best place is to cut. The decision is based on the environment, your ability, your goals, your tools. The path is created by your cutting. It wasn't there before you cut it. When you look back, you say "Yeah, that path was determined. I would not cut anything differently. I thought that it was the best cut to make at that time and place. "

...sounds like libertarian free will to me. I've explained why.

If you don't see how that's exactly what compatibilists think, you aren't really trying. I expect that from biggy, but surely you can do better than him

[henry quirk]

It was never going to have a different outcome.

The full line: Yeah, that path was determined. I would not cut anything differently. I thought that it was the best cut to make at that time and place

Determined by who? Assessed as perfect by who? Potentially reassessed and changed by who?

And this: The decision is based on the environment, your ability, your goals, your tools

Who's decision? Who assessed the environment? Who self-assesses his ability? Who chose the goal? Who picked the tools?

Despite what phy intended: that passage can be taken as libertarian free will, as agent causation.

It was utterly caused by the internal and external causes.

No. It, the clearing and the resultant path, was caused by a person, an agent, a free will.

You wanna say I'm misinterpreting, fine. I say I offer a different take.

If you don't see how that's exactly what compatibilists think

Yeah, I touched on that upthread.

That's cuz the compatibilist is right (free will is real). Where he's wrong makes the difference.

You might say that difference doesn't matter, practically, functionally. Mebbe so. Doesn't change the fact there is a difference.

[Flannel Jesus]

Just alluding to the possibility that he's wrong without talking about specifically what makes him wrong isn't useful. Alluding to the difference without talking about the difference isn't useful.