compatibilism

[phyllo]

Biggus

Edited my post to make it clear.

Not much ambiguous about HQ either.

[Flannel Jesus]

There is nothing ambiguous about lots of what Iambiguous writes.

For example ...

You need the ability to choose otherwise for there to be moral responsibility.

I would class that as ambiguous, because as far as I know he's never even tried to answer the question "how does indeterminism result in free will?" If you need indeterminism in order to have that ability, then where does free will come in once you've allowed indeterminism in? It's an important question. And believe me, I've tried to ask him. He doesn't like hard questions.

There's plenty more he's ambiguous about in his writings. For example his love of the word "autonomy" - I don't know that he's ever clarified what exactly he means by that in the contexts he uses it in. He uses it very liberally, in a way where it means one thing in one context and a different thing in a different context.

He also likes to write in ambiguous ways. Take for example this sentence, if you can even call it that, from a couple pages ago: "Then what he wants or does not want and Schopenhauer's assessment of that." If you go look at the post, there's no context surrounding that that makes it clear what he means by that. Then what he wants... what do you mean THEN what he wants? What about what he wants? It's nonsense.

HQ has also been extremely ambiguous in the past on these questions. I could detail that if requested.

[phyllo]

There's plenty more he's ambiguous about in his writings. For example his love of the word "autonomy" - I don't know that he's ever clarified what exactly he means by that in the contexts he uses it in. He uses it very liberally, in a way where it means one thing in one context and a different thing in a different context.

I don't recall him using it with different meanings.

He also likes to write in ambiguous ways. Take for example this sentence, if you can even call it that, from a couple pages ago: "Then what he wants or does not want and Schopenhauer's assessment of that." If you go look at the post, there's no context surrounding that that makes it clear what he means by that. Then what he wants... what do you mean THEN what he wants? What about what he wants? It's nonsense.

He regularly uses that Schopenhauer quote. The meaning is clear from the previous uses.

HQ has also been extremely ambiguous in the past on these questions.

'Inconsistent' and 'ambiguous' are not the same.

[Sculptor]

Penal reform only makes sense of you believe the world is deterministic. Determinism recognises that criminality is caused.

In the greatest Protestant tradiction especially Calvinist, prisons are institutes of "REFORM", and that is why they were called "Correctional". Because this appraoch understands that free will is a mirage

If crime is just about free will, then no amount of adjustment and learning is going to trun a criminal into a decent citizen.
But outside the USA (where privatisation has just about fucked the whole system) rehabilitation worlks and the rst of the world has much lower rates of repeat offending.
If you steer criminals to a better life, give them skills , job prospects, and so on, they tend to stay away form prison and get on with their lives. Such intervention CAUSES change in most prisoners.
However if you believe they are just willful and evil then you might as well lock them up and throw away the key.

It's all entirely 'freaky' to consider actually.

I watch a lot of true crime and generally simply on the news where some rapist\murderer has been given a second chance and let to live once again, among us...they do it again. So for certain crimes I don't care about their prospects for 'rehabilitation' fuck 'em throw away the key.

The point here is that 90% of abusers are never convicted. If they are near a new offence they are the ones that get the scrutiny, and get convicted a second time. But in a system where there is no chance of rehab, or correction WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT. And with your sort of attitude people who think they have a problem have no where to go to get hep BEFORE they offend.
So you really have no case here. You might as well just kill them, because nothing the penal system is doing now is working, but killing is not going to stop the vast majority of rapists either.
Education and rehabilitation is the only thing likely to have an impact.

Sure, give them something to do in gaol, teach them how to make a nice cabinet - but there is NO intelligent reason to let them back into society where another woman, child or me has to deal with 'em.

There are so many more crimes than sex-crimes.
Have you ever wondered why the US has more prisoners than any where else in the world, by far??
It's probably because of that attitude which you have absorbed.
Something like. people who commit crimes are animals, so lock them in a cage as if they were animals.
Now sure what that is supposed to achieve, but it does not seem to be working.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't recall him using it with different meanings.

What does it mean then? When he asks a determinist "how did humans gain autonomy?" , which is honestly a much more clear and straight forward question than he actually does ask, in the rare circumstance where he chooses to ask a question instead of ranting to himself, what does he mean by that? What autonomy does he think determinists think humans have?

He regularly uses that Schopenhauer quote. The meaning is clear from the previous uses.

Explain it to me please, what does "Then what he wants or does not want and Schopenhauer's assessment of that." mean? What is he saying about what he wants or does not want? What is he saying about Schopenhauer's assessment? How does the word "then" play into the meaning of this sentence?

Is he trying to say that I should consider those wants, and schops assessment, and that he agrees with that assessment? Is he trying to present the assessment and ask me what I think of it? Or what Sam Harris thinks of it? Is it an argument for or against something? What is it an argument for or against?

It's so ambiguous! It could mean so many different things! "And then x, and then y" - it's not explicit why I'm saying x, why I'm saying y. It's ambiguous.

'Inconsistent' and 'ambiguous' are not the same.

Inconsistency is a pretty good way to make your position ambiguous to readers.

[Iwannaplato]

There is nothing ambiguous about lots of what Iambiguous writes.

For example ...

You need the ability to choose otherwise for there to be moral responsibility.

How many times has he stated that?

How many times has he ignored or mocked any other concept of moral responsibility?

I agree that he can be clear. On occasion.

Your first quote above is a clear position, though one should explain what counts as choosing and what does not count as choosing. And, for example, when criticizing Sam Harris, it would be clear if he actually integrated his reasoning for why

You need the ability to choose otherwise for there to be moral responsibility.

is true AND goes against Harris' arguments. Do they agree on on what choice means? Do they agree on what moral responsibility means? Do Harris actually say that brains evolved to where, unlike the rest of matter, they are free.

So, while the sentence is not ambiguous, it is unclear how it relates to Sam Harris and his arguments.

Perhaps unclear + evasive (consciously or not) would be a better word than ambiguous.

If you point these kinds of things out, he brings in points that might relate but seem only indirectly relevant.

My sense is he is being somewhat careful to not claim any of the things he believes, because then he's be just like everyone else. Which inhibits actually justifying any claims he manages to make clearly.

[phyllo]

What does it mean then? When he asks a determinist "how did humans gain autonomy?" , which is honestly a much more clear and straight forward question than he actually does ask, in the rare circumstance where he chooses to ask a question instead of ranting to himself, what does he mean by that? What autonomy does he think determinists think humans have?

He means free from external influence.

You have an idea about subject A. Determinism says that you have learned about A, you have experiences about/with A. This forms your idea about A.

Autonomy as he understands it permits you to have a completely different idea about A. An idea which is not rigidly locked into your experiences. It would be an original idea created on your own.

Explain it to me please, what does "Then what he wants or does not want and Schopenhauer's assessment of that." mean? What is he saying about what he wants or does not want? What is he saying about Schopenhauer's assessment? How does the word "then" play into the meaning of this sentence?

He started out with a sentence about likes and dislikes. "Then" he moves on to wants/not wants.

S. says that we do not choose our wants. We learn things from our parents, friends, schools, institutions. We learn "wants". For example, we want a car because we are told that we should want a car by friends, by advertisements ... So that's what we want. We didn't free choose to want it. It's a result of our environment and experiences.

Same thing with wanting responsibility to be compatible with determinism. All the stuff that Harris talks about ...

He can't help himself.

Basically, Iambiguous is questioning the legitimacy of everything said within the context of determinism.

[Flannel Jesus]

Basically, Iambiguous is questioning the legitimacy of everything said within the context of determinism.

How in the world am I supposed to get that from "then what Schopenhauer thinks"?

Schopenhauer himself didn't say that. How would I ever interpret that from him just saying "then this, then that"? It's ambiguous, right? That's as ambiguous as anything. The fact that you're able to read between the lines isn't an indication that it's not ambiguous, it's an indication that you have to have interacted with him for years to be able to decode his ambiguity. And that's assuming you have decoded it correctly - I'm not convinced. In fact I'm pretty confident you've got it wrong, that's not at all what he meant, and I have a pretty good argument for that which I will supply upon request. The fact that you've misinterpreted it yourself is of course another piece of evidence in favour of what his name is telling us all: he is ambiguous.

[Flannel Jesus]

What does it mean then? When he asks a determinist "how did humans gain autonomy?" , which is honestly a much more clear and straight forward question than he actually does ask, in the rare circumstance where he chooses to ask a question instead of ranting to himself, what does he mean by that? What autonomy does he think determinists think humans have?

He means free from external influence.

You have an idea about subject A. Determinism says that you have learned about A, you have experiences about/with A. This forms your idea about A.

Autonomy as he understands it permits you to have a completely different idea about A. An idea which is not rigidly locked into your experiences. It would be an original idea created on your own.

But... determinists don't think people are free from external influence. This is exactly why being CLEAR about the word "autonomy" instead of throwing it about and refusing to clarify is important - once you clarify what you mean, a determinist can just tell you, "we don't think that."

Perhaps that's why iambiguous doesn't like clarity - he would prefer to avoid being corrected about his misunderstandings. That makes sense.

[phyllo]

is true AND goes against Harris' arguments. Do they agree on on what choice means? Do they agree on what moral responsibility means? Do Harris actually say that brains evolved to where, unlike the rest of matter, they are free.

So, while the sentence is not ambiguous, it is unclear how it relates to Sam Harris and his arguments.

Perhaps unclear + evasive (consciously or not) would be a better word than ambiguous.

If you point these kinds of things out, he brings in points that might relate but seem only indirectly relevant.

My sense is he is being somewhat careful to not claim any of the things he believes, because then he's be just like everyone else. Which inhibits actually justifying any claims he manages to make clearly.

Iambiguous adapts all statements to his own ideas.

Whenever he sees the words "moral responsibility", he jumps to his own definition of it.

So when Harris writes "moral responsibility", then that has to mean Harris believes in autonomy(the Iambiguous version) and free-will(the Iambiguous version). Harris is therefore a "free-will determinist".

And Harris needs to explain how human brains got autonomy. Etc.

Well, you know the routine.

[phyllo]

But... determinists don't think people are free from external influence. This is exactly why being CLEAR about the word "autonomy" instead of throwing it about and refusing to clarify is important - once you clarify what you mean, a determinist can just tell you, "we don't think that."

Neither do the free-willers.

Notice that HQ is "informed" by his history and biology but not "determined" by it.

When Iambiguous talks about free-will Mary, she changes her mind about having an abortion after a chance encounter with a friend. Presumably without the encounter, she would not change her mind.

But there is always this gap between "external influence" and decision, in the free-willer's mind.

[phyllo]

Basically, Iambiguous is questioning the legitimacy of everything said within the context of determinism.

How in the world am I supposed to get that from "then what Schopenhauer thinks"?

Schopenhauer himself didn't say that. How would I ever interpret that from him just saying "then this, then that"? It's ambiguous, right? That's as ambiguous as anything. The fact that you're able to read between the lines isn't an indication that it's not ambiguous, it's an indication that you have to have interacted with him for years to be able to decode his ambiguity. And that's assuming you have decoded it correctly - I'm not convinced. In fact I'm pretty confident you've got it wrong, that's not at all what he meant, and I have a pretty good argument for that which I will supply upon request. The fact that you've misinterpreted it yourself is of course another piece of evidence in favour of what his name is telling us all: he is ambiguous.

Okay, supply your argument. Please.

[phyllo]

Here is a weird part of these discussions:

You live in a free-will world and you want a car. That's okay.

You live in a determined world and you want a car. There's something suspicious and illegitimate about that.

[Iwannaplato]

Basically, Iambiguous is questioning the legitimacy of everything said within the context of determinism.

He thinks he's managing to do that, but it doesn't affect his own assertions. His sense of what is self-evident is not questioned. Never in the specific. He may make abstract disclaimers: I could be wrong. But he cannot admit he is wrong in a specific case. In other words despite that determinism might be undermining any attempt to know things, he's never wrong in any instance. He has never managed to admit that someone has a good point. So, his ability to dismiss accusations is based on a strong faith in his ability to evaluate his own behavior and arguments. No confirmation bias there.

Again: yes, he can admit in the abstract that he might be wrong. But anyone criticizing his behavior is a Stooge. Period. That's it.

He does his best to give everyone the burden of proof and tries not to assert too much because they he'd have the burden. But the problem is that he can't help but imply and insult based on his sense of the truth. He acts inter-personally on his certainties.

And he thinks that if he makes abstract disclaimers, he's somehow different from all the people who are not fractured and fragmented.

It's faux skepticism.

[Iwannaplato]

Here is a weird part of these discussions:

You live in a free-will world and you want a car. That's okay.

You live in a determined world and you want a car. There's something suspicious and illegitimate about that.

Where's that discussion?