compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

You aren't suggesting such useless words as 'explain' or 'describe' could have been used???

In any case 'encompass' carries positive connotations, explain and describe are neutral.

You only think that cause you're rooted existentially in dasein. My feelings on the matter are encompassed here:

https://youtu.be/-W2xedNY4Xg?si=x0hYVB7wC6QxF6F6

Shameless. You are making me the issue. Which means you are a Stooge who thinks his brain is autonomous.
https://www.youtube.com/@iambiguous2280/videos

[iambiguous]

Why Sam Harris is confused about free will
Dan Jones

An out-of-control lawnmower may pose a danger to guests at a barbecue, but this threat does not depend on the lawnmower acting under its own free will. At the same time, this observation has nothing to do with showing that moral responsibility is compatible with hard determinism. Recognising that some entity poses a threat to people says nothing about whether that entity would be morally responsible should the potential threat become an actual harm.

Unless, of course, it says everything about it. After all, the gap between the matter in the lawn mower and the matter in the human brain that was able to invent it...?

Unless, of course, there is no gap at all.

Now all we need to do is to pin that down in such a way we can demonstrate how we opted freely to do so. That, in other words, we were not in turn compelled to by that same brain.

So if we say a human is morally responsible for their actions, but a lawnmower isn’t, this difference can’t turn on whether they’re deterministic systems — for they both are.

Indeed, it may be that we say this only because we were never able not to say it. Only the determinists themselves are no more capable of demonstrating that. And around and around we go here trying to pin it all down...philosophically? As though the arguments we make here are or are not necessarily autonomous?

Citing the thoughts, intentions, beliefs and desires of the human, which the lawnmower lacks, is not enough either, as these are as much the product of deterministic process as those that drive the behaviour of the lawnmower!

Unless, of course, those that cite this do so autonomically? Or unless "somehow" God and/or the universe did manage to install free will in minds that are "somehow" distinct from brains. The creation of souls, for example?

So what invests these deterministically caused causes with what it takes to establish moral responsibility? These are the kinds of questions that a compatibilist philosophy tries to deal with in one way or another. Harris doesn’t buy into these compatibilist approaches, and so it remains unclear why he should attach any importance at all to deterministically caused thoughts, intentions, beliefs and desires in underpinning moral responsibility.

Yeah, the part I keep coming back to. But it remains unclear because given this...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

...clarity itself remains well beyond the reach of both philosophers and scientists.

[iambiguous]

The first sentence in his response is incredible.

What else is there but for me to remind the Stooges here that -- click -- I encompass my own understanding of dasein in the OPs here:

Here was the first sentence I was referring to...

Okay -- click -- we "somehow" acquired free will in what I construe to be a No God universe.

Flannel Jesus never asserted anything like this, yet this was your response. In fact, he has very clearly, when this issue has come up earlier, said that he does not believe that to be the case.

Yet you respond as if he has just asserted it, which he didn't.

It's nuts.

Well, even if it is, it's not like I was ever actually free to post otherwise. But -- click -- what if it's not "nuts"? What if your reaction is "nuts" instead?

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Now, if, in regard to their own value judgments, that is not applicable to them, let them commence a new exchange with me regarding human morality in a free will, wholly determined or a compatibilist universe.

"WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT!!", they'll exclaim.

It seems like here your reaction is. I don't really care if it made any sense what I said the Flannel Jesus had nothing to do with what he wrote or believes even if it seemed to indicate it did.

If you are going to point this out, then you have to explain all this other stuff until I am satisfied and demonstrate your innocence of objectivism or whichever of your various bête noire of your those links would take me to.

You do all this instead of either saying 'yeah, you're right, it didn't fit Flannel Jesus'
or
Here's why it does fit Flannel Jesus'

But you don't do this.

It's shameless Stooge shit. It doesn't bother you at all that you imply and accuse people of things that have no relevence to what they wrote.
It doesn't bother you that your response really had nothing to do with what he said. That it's a faux response.
That is precisely shameless, as FJ cannily pointed out.

I still have no idea how any of this is pertinent to the points I raise here. Other than to suggest that all of the points that all of us raise here are pertinent because none of the points were ever able not to be raised.

For someone who claims to be unsure of everything, you're quite convinced other people are always the problem.

This again.

I am not unsure of everything. I am as sure of mathematics and physics and chemistry and the empirical world around me and the rules of logic, as anyone else is here. I'm just fractured and fragmented in regard to morality and religion and the Big Questions.

And if you are not drawn and quartered yourself here then let's commence that new exchange.

[iambiguous]

Actually, I'm suggesting that from time to time he needs to remind himself of this: that everything either side proposes in these debates they propose solely because they were never able not to. And if that is the case, there are no winners and losers given the manner in which the free will folks would encompass that.

Why would he 'need to remind himself this?

Because he either believes that his own take on determinism is applicable to his own arguments or he does not. Suppose you believed that everything that you posted here you could never have not posted? That your brain does compel you to think, feel, say and do what you do in the waking world as in your dreams? How exactly would you go about pinning this down? And what if that effort in and of itself was wholly determined by your autonomic brain?

It's like you're watching a baseball game in which every inning unfolds mechanically on cue given the only possible sequence of behaviors. They all unfold only as the ever could have. So, in the end there's a "winner" and a "loser", but what does that actually mean given the only possible reality?

Yeah, it's all determined in advance. It's determinism.

Okay, Jim is watching the game. He claims that the home team lost because the manager chose to bring in the wrong relief pitcher. But if the manager was compelled by his brain to "choose" who he did bring in...? If the game was never able to be won given that the loss was the only possible reality...?

It often seems like there is some unstated conclusion or argument in your posts.
In a determinist universe atheists could come together to rid the scourge that is God as they would view it. Perhaps they will.

Okay, they do come together and the world is rid of God and religion. But this was never going to not happen in the only possible reality. So, sure, they might slap each other on the back in celebration...but if they do, this too is only another inherent manifestation of the immutable laws of matter.

Yes, that's deteminism. Again, it still seems like there's something you're not saying. Are you saying they're dumb to celebrate?

Again, I'm only noting that if some determinists are correct, whatever I say, I say because I was never able not to say it. How can something be deemed smart or dumb if it was never able not to happen? Some say smart and others say dumb. But only because their brains leave them no other choice either.

IOW if I read the above it seems like you are saying Christians will always be because of determinism. I don't know how you know that if that's what you're saying.

Huh?

No, seriously. To the extent that Christians will always be depends on the extent to which the laws of matter down here on Earth sustain their existence. But they will be or not be such that it is beyond the control of individual Christians themselves. They are only just more dominoes toppling over on cue.

And what difference does it make what either one of us knows "here and now" in our heads if what we do know we could never have not known?

Why don't you try that as a statement? You seem to believe that nothing matters if there is determinism, but you don't actually say it.

That's because anything that I do say, I say solely because I was never free to opt to say anything other than that. We think that different things matter here. But only because we think what our brains compel us to think. Obviously, because we think differently about morality and religion and determinism, our behaviors will be in sync with that. But then so what if there was never an option to be out of sync?

Same thing with what we as individuals find meaningful. If you convince yourself that what you find meaningful in regard to morality, religion and determinism you were wholly determined "beyond your control" to find meaningful what does it mean to find it meaningful? Why what you find meaningful rather than what another finds meaningful if neither one of you was ever able to opt not to find another meaning? At least until nature compels you to?

That's my point "here and now".

[iambiguous]

Agan, I suspect the objectivists among us eschew my take on dasein because the very last thing they want is to be "fractured and fragmented" themselves. Instead, they attach their precious egos to one or another "my way or the highway" dogma, allowing them to divide up the world between "one of us", the rational and virtuous few and "one of them", the irrational and immoral many.

Which, ironically, is how you are dividing up the world also, right inside the above accusation.

Over and again -- click -- we will just have to agree to disagree about this. I admit that my own frame of mind here [as with exchanges pertaining to objective morality and the existence of God] is rooted existentially in dasein. There's no way I would argue that others are wrong if they don't think as I do. And that, in fact, right and wrong themselves are essentially interchangeable in a world where we do only that which we were never able not to do.

There are some things that are applicable to all of us. Mary did in fact abort her unborn baby. Someone could insist that she did not, but they would be wrong. But what I focus on instead is whether she can be held morally responsible for doing so in a world where she was simply unable not to "choose" the abortion. And here I suggest that some will argue that she is...but only because they themselves were never able to argue otherwise.

But I don't divide up the world between those who think as I do about free will, determinism and compatibilism and the fools.

Right, you don't divide up the world THAT way into the virtuous and the immoral, irrational many. You divide them up around objectivism and non-objectivism. I'm not sure what the big improvement is.

Again, that's your own take on what I am doing here.

The biggest difference of all of course is that -- click -- in the either/or world there actually is that crucial distinction to make. Someone can argue that Donald Trump is still the president of the United States because, in fact, Joe Biden "stole" the election from him. Is that true objectively? On the other hand, in a wholly determined universe as some construe it, the entire election itself unfolded only as it ever could have. Biden "won" but only because there was never the possibility of him losing.

And, yes, yes, you are the first to admit you beliefs are based on....dasein....etc.

Yes -- click -- I do.

As though that were just a trivial component of my own fractured and fragmented assessment of morality and religion and the Big Questions. Though, sure, compelled or not, if that allows you to sustain the belief that "I got him!" for the rest on your tag team here -- those in Stooge mode -- fine, I can live with that.

You want to be the guardian of "the facts" here? Okay, you "win".

It's not trivial, which I did not say. I did not say it was trivial. However, since you complained about objectivists dividing the world up in, those two categories that you yourself divide the world up into, it is ironic and hypocritical. Because you could be fractured and fragmented and non-objectivists AND NOT DO THAT.

Look, as long as I acknolwedge that my own arguments pertaining to morality and religion and the Big Questions are no less problematic than others here, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that in turn.

Though, sure, compelled or not, if that allows you to sustain the belief that "I got him!" for the rest on your tag team here -- those in Stooge mode -- fine, I can live with that.

That's a non-statement. It means nothing. It's as if you have no opinion.

Actually, it's just my way of playing the Stooge myself in regard to those like you and phyllo and FJ. Yes, it's sheer speculation on my part. And that it means nothing to you is just, well, your own opinion. And any "victory" that any of us celebrate here is no less embodied in the psychological illusion of free will.

Unless, of course, it's not.

[iambiguous]

Yes, in a determined universe, he can't help but have done this in the past. Some people, even in a determined universe, learn, when such patterns are pointed out, to improve responses; some don't. These two subsets of people will be, often, treated quite differently.

What on Earth is being suggested here? That in the past I may have been entirely entangled in determinism, compelled to think, feel, say and do solely what my brain compelled me to [as in my dreams] but "somehow" in the present and in the future I can learn not to be?

No, you could learn to actually respond to people's posts,f or example.
Just like some kids learn how to ride bikes.

On the other hand, if my understanding of determinism "here and now" is correct, I respond to everyone here in exactly the same manner that you do: in the only way that we ever could have responded.

I never said anything about somehow learning to not be determined.
In a deterministic universe some people will learn when confronted by their mistakes, assumptions, poor interaction skills. Some won't.
You seem to be in the latter group.
It has nothing to do with anyone stepping out of determinism.
I don't know why you see this ghost everywhere. I don't know if you can learn from us when we tell you that's not what we believe or have said.

Always the assumption that I should learn from you and your "serious philosopher" ilk here and never that you and they should learn from me. But, again, what on Earth does it mean for any of us to learn anything at all if what we do "learn" we were compelled to by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

What "for all practical purposes" does this...

"In a deterministic universe some people will learn when confronted by their mistakes, assumptions, poor interaction skills. Some won't."

...mean in a world where what we learn or do not learn is fated or destined?

Then the "philosophical arguments" that attempt to distinguish something being wholly determined by the laws of matter and something being fated or destined. Back to those "external" and "internal" components. As though to nature that actually means something other than what it must mean.

Or, again, sure, the part I keep missing. Being as fractured and fragmented regarding free will as "I" am regarding morality and religion, I flat-out agree that the problem here may well be me instead. After all, among other things, I actually take "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" and the "Benjamin Button Syndrome" seriously myself.

Or you're not a very good reader. Shall I now expect that for the next few months you will say that I said one could be utterly determined and grow our of that?

Again, it's me not reading you correctly and never you not reading me correctly. Now, you either believe that everything that we do learn or do not learn [past, present, future] unfolded only as it ever could have, or "somehow" we can still hold those who don't learn the same things that we do responsible for failing to.

You say...

No, I was saying that some people regardless of whether they are determined or free, I don't know which is the case, seem to be able to learn/change from feedback. You seem utterly incapable of that. Some can learn. Others can't. Yes, if determinism is the case, it was always going to be that way. You would always reach a stage where you can't learn anymore.

If my own life is such that I was never able to learn what you claim to have learned about determinism, then what does it really mean for you to argue that I seem incapable of learning it...as though I could have opted to think like you do but chose not to?

[iambiguous]

What else is there but for me to remind the Stooges here that -- click -- I encompass my own understanding of dasein in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

I have no idea why you think anybody cares about "encompassing" anything about dasein.

Indeed, the moral and political and religious objectivists among us are absolutely adamant that the points I raise in the links above are not applicable to them. Why? Because if they ever do come around in a free will world to sharing them, then they too would become fractured and fragmented in regard to their own value judgments.

Same with determinism. If the free will advocates here ever come around to accepting determinism, then they would have to admit that everything that they do think, feel, say and do they were never free to opt not to. And if that were the case then none of us here is right or wrong as, say, the libertarians construe that.

[Iwannaplato]

Over and again -- click -- we will just have to agree to disagree about this. I admit that my own frame of mind here [as with exchanges pertaining to objective morality and the existence of God] is rooted existentially in dasein. There's no way I would argue that others are wrong if they don't think as I do.

Right, not about, for example, abortion. Any specific moral issue. But if they are objectivists, which is a different way of thinking about morality, then they are wrong OR much of your communication is extremely misleading. Since you repeatedly categorize them as a them and a problematic them.

[Iwannaplato]

On the other hand, if my understanding of determinism "here and now" is correct, I respond to everyone here in exactly the same manner that you do: in the only way that we ever could have responded.

Right and yet you will treat your broken car or clock differently from ones that work. I don't know how many times people have to acknowledge that determinism leads to inevitable consequences.

In any case I said

Text by Iambiguous as if in response. The text must:
1) repeat or paraphrase things Iambiguous has said many times before
2) NOT in any clear way or any way at all respond to what the person has written.
3) complain about objectivists and/or the No God World.
4) imply or state that someone, who hasn't - has taken the position that brains are - unlike the rest of matter, autonomous

Yes, in a determined universe, he can't help but have done this in the past. Some people, even in a determined universe, learn, when such patterns are pointed out, to improve responses; some don't. These two subsets of people will be, often, treated quite differently.

Which can be the case in a determined universe. In a determined universe some clocks and cars are broken, some work. In a determined universe we can notice this. In a determined universe we might talk to others about why a car is totalled or why not to buy it or why not to get in it. Sure, this is all, determined.

So, I was talking about a person. And correctly noted that some people can change patterns and others cannot. Some people, when confronted with their behavior, change their behavior. Others do not.

That is all true in a determinst universe.

You responded that I was somehow saying your brain was not determined in a determined universe. YOu keep seeing that ghost.
Sure, if this is a determinist universe you can't help but project this conclusion where it doesn't belong, when people aren't asserting it. But it is still, like the clock that runs backwards, a problem that other humans do not have.

And if I am correct that you, to a degree others do not show, fail to respond to posts made, than that observation, whether we have free will or are determined, is still something that affects our evaluation of you.

Just as you evaluate people.

And like, yeah, keep on going never admitting that you made something up, here in real life on the ground.

Just admit you might be wrong ONLY in the abstract. Up in the clouds, sort of Platonic mistakes. Never here in any specific case, where it affects other people.

[iambiguous]

Over and again -- click -- we will just have to agree to disagree about this. I admit that my own frame of mind here [as with exchanges pertaining to objective morality and the existence of God] is rooted existentially in dasein. There's no way I would argue that others are wrong if they don't think as I do.

Right, not about, for example, abortion. Any specific moral issue. But if they are objectivists, which is a different way of thinking about morality, then they are wrong OR much of your communication is extremely misleading. Since you repeatedly categorize them as a them and a problematic them.

Again, on this thread, the focus is less on what we think about morality [objective or not] and more on whether what we do think about it, we think about it of our own volition.

Can there really be any miscommunication in a world where we communicate only what our brains compel us to communicate?

And over and over, it's you insisting that I am arguing that the moral objectivists are wrong. How on Earth could I possibly go about demonstrating that? Instead, I argue that in a free will world moral objectivism can precipitate all manner of human pain and suffering. In other words, when those ideologues or theocrats or deontologists or biological imperative Nazis gain actual access to power in any particular community. My way or the highway...my way or else.

On the other hand, I also note that considerable human pain and suffering has been sustained over the centuries by the moral nihilists as well. The narcissists, the sociopaths, the amoral capitalists who own and operate the global economy.

[Iwannaplato]

Right, not about, for example, abortion. Any specific moral issue. But if they are objectivists, which is a different way of thinking about morality, then they are wrong OR much of your communication is extremely misleading. Since you repeatedly categorize them as a them and a problematic them.

Again, on this thread, the focus is less on what we think about morality [objective or not] and more on whether what we do think about it, we think about it of our own volition.

I was responding to your categorization of objectivists. If it wasn't relevant to the thread, then why bring it up? I pointed out that your description fit you. You discuss this, then suddenly it's off topic.

Can there really be any miscommunication in a world where we communicate only what our brains compel us to communicate?

Make an assertion. All these appeals to incredulity....

And over and over, it's you insisting that I am arguing that the moral objectivists are wrong. How on Earth could I possibly go about demonstrating that?

Instead, they attach their precious egos to one or another "my way or the highway" dogma, allowing them to divide up the world between "one of us", the rational and virtuous few and "one of them", the irrational and immoral many.

To which I replied....

Which, ironically, is how you are dividing up the world also, right inside the above accusation.

Now you present yet another appeal to incredulity: How could you possibly...?

Well, that's precisely my point.

Instead, I argue that in a free will world moral objectivism can precipitate all manner of human pain and suffering.

But it's not wrong. LOL.

In other words, when those ideologues or theocrats or deontologists or biological imperative Nazis gain actual access to power in any particular community. My way or the highway...my way or else.

Or they could be democracy lovers who hold 'these rights as self-evident.'

On the other hand, I also note that considerable human pain and suffering has been sustained over the centuries by the moral nihilists as well. The narcissists, the sociopaths, the amoral capitalists who own and operate the global economy.

Yeah, yeah.

NOne of which had to do with the point I made which you misrepresented now a couple of times, finally arguing that my focus doesn't fit the thread...except you brought it up, and not in the context of determinism.

One wonders if you can notice anything and go, oh, yeah, I see what you mean.

Of course, I don't but lottery tickets.

And yeah, I understand that in determinsm you could only have responded as you did. So, you really don't have to repeat that again, at least not for my sake.

Nor, to be clear, have I asserted above that brains in determinism somehow are autonomous in the sense of not being determined.

Nor is there any reason to mention a no-God world in response to this post.

Most people would have managed to either deny that they divide the world up the way you say objectivists do or acknowledge that it sounded like it there or admit that they did.

Somehow in some way actually address the point with denial, partial acknowledgement, clarification....

But as usual you don't actually respond to what I write.

But it sure reminds you of things you've written hundreds of times.

At least you did mention your working class background or dasein, so I'll count my blessings.

[iambiguous]

On the other hand, if my understanding of determinism "here and now" is correct, I respond to everyone here in exactly the same manner that you do: in the only way that we ever could have responded.

Right and yet you will treat your broken car or clock differently from ones that work. I don't know how many times people have to acknowledge that determinism leads to inevitable consequences.

Same thing. If how we treat others is just another inevitable consequence of determinism as some construe it, then, like cars and clocks, we are "broken" or "work" given the only possible reality.

In other words, you posted this...

Text by Iambiguous as if in response. The text must:
1) repeat or paraphrase things Iambiguous has said many times before
2) NOT in any clear way or any way at all respond to what the person has written.
3) complain about objectivists and/or the No God World.
4) imply or state that someone, who hasn't - has taken the position that brains are - unlike the rest of matter, autonomous

Yes, in a determined universe, he can't help but have done this in the past. Some people, even in a determined universe, learn, when such patterns are pointed out, to improve responses; some don't. These two subsets of people will be, often, treated quite differently.

...only because you were never able not to post it. And I responded to it in the only possible manner in which I could ever have responded to it.

That's the beauty of determinism for some folks: We are all off the hook.

When the hardcore determinists argue that everything we think, feel, say and do is an inherent manifestation of the only possible world, what part of every don't you understand? Other than what your own brain compels you to...misunderstand?

If we treat people in very different ways solely because it is the only way that we could have treated them...?

Again, what do I keep missing here that I was never able...not to miss?

Which can be the case in a determined universe. In a determined universe some clocks and cars are broken, some work. In a determined universe we can notice this. In a determined universe we might talk to others about why a car is totalled or why not to buy it or why not to get in it. Sure, this is all, determined.

So, I was talking about a person. And correctly noted that some people can change patterns and others cannot. Some people, when confronted with their behavior, change their behavior. Others do not.

That is all true in a determinst universe.

Yes, this seems to be a crucial insight from your frame of mind. But from my frame of mind "here and now", it was the only insight that your brain compelled you to sustain.

But then nature comes along and, given new wholly determined experiences, you change your mind. But only because you were never able not to?

You responded that I was somehow saying your brain was not determined in a determined universe. YOu keep seeing that ghost.
Sure, if this is a determinist universe you can't help but project this conclusion where it doesn't belong, when people aren't asserting it. But it is still, like the clock that runs backwards, a problem that other humans do not have.

And around and around we go. If we encounter problems and solutions in the only possible reality, how would that be the same or different from problems and solutions for those who "just know" that "somehow" they did acquire free will? The Libertarians hold others responsible for problems that they perceive because they believe others are responsible for causing them.

Only -- click -- to the Libertarians, I susggest that problems and solutions in the is/ought world are rooted existentially in dasein. In other words, what some construe to be the problem in regard to an unwanted pregnancy is resolved through abortion. But others insist that this is not the solution at all. Okay, Mr. Serious Philosopher, given free will, what is the most rational solution?

Then back to your own subjective/subjunctive assessment of me...

And if I am correct that you, to a degree others do not show, fail to respond to posts made, than that observation, whether we have free will or are determined, is still something that affects our evaluation of you.

Just as you evaluate people.

And like, yeah, keep on going never admitting that you made something up, here in real life on the ground.

Just admit you might be wrong ONLY in the abstract. Up in the clouds, sort of Platonic mistakes. Never here in any specific case, where it affects other people.

Note to others:

You tell me. Is he correct? And what does it mean to be correct or incorrect in a world where everything does unfold in the only possible manner?

[Iwannaplato]

On the other hand, if my understanding of determinism "here and now" is correct, I respond to everyone here in exactly the same manner that you do: in the only way that we ever could have responded.

Right and yet you will treat your broken car or clock differently from ones that work. I don't know how many times people have to acknowledge that determinism leads to inevitable consequences.

Same thing. If how we treat others is just another inevitable consequence of determinism as some construe it, then, like cars and clocks, we are "broken" or "work" given the only possible reality.

Obviously. My point was simply that we treat broken clocks and cars differently than we do functioning ones. So, the way you get treated, if for example here, you don't really interact with the ideas other people write, this leads to different consequences from people who do interact with the ideas. Which is a lot like holding someone responsible in practical terms.

In other words, you posted this...

...only because you were never able not to post it. And I responded to it in the only possible manner in which I could ever have responded to it.

That's the beauty of determinism for some folks: We are all off the hook.

For some folks. Are you one of them?

When the hardcore determinists argue that everything we think, feel, say and do is an inherent manifestation of the only possible world, what part of every don't you understand? Other than what your own brain compels you to...misunderstand?

I do understand that. I have repeatedly, for example, said that neither determinism nor compatiblism have some loophole for brains.

If we treat people in very different ways solely because it is the only way that we could have treated them...?

Again, what do I keep missing here that I was never able...not to miss?

I dunno, but it seems like you repeatedly tell me things I not only know ´but have made clear I know. You also don't interact with my writing, but it does seem to remind you of things you've said before.

I don't know why you're like this or what is happening in you.

Yes, this seems to be a crucial insight from your frame of mind. But from my frame of mind "here and now", it was the only insight that your brain compelled you to sustain.

And....? You leave a lot of steps out of your arguments.

But then nature comes along and, given new wholly determined experiences, you change your mind. But only because you were never able not to?

Correct, if determinism is the case.

So, when you make the moral judgment 'Shameless' despite not being sure if determinism or free will is the case, sure it might have been the only possible reaction you were ever going to have in that moment. Yet, there you go drawing a moral conclusion and acting on it verbally.

As an aside: do you feel a tremendous amount of guilt?

[iambiguous]

Right, not about, for example, abortion. Any specific moral issue. But if they are objectivists, which is a different way of thinking about morality, then they are wrong OR much of your communication is extremely misleading. Since you repeatedly categorize them as a them and a problematic them.

Again, on this thread, the focus is less on what we think about morality [objective or not] and more on whether what we do think about it, we think about it of our own volition.

I was responding to your categorization of objectivists. If it wasn't relevant to the thread, then why bring it up? I pointed out that your description fit you. You discuss this, then suddenly it's off topic.

Determinism pertains to the entirety of our exchange. Though if, instead, we do live in a free will world, what is relevant to it [or "off-topic"] isn't just something that you get to decide.

Besides, given all of the equally repetitive accusations you level at me, why in the world would you even bother to read my posts here? Well, unless, of course you are unable not to?

And over and over, it's you insisting that I am arguing that the moral objectivists are wrong. How on Earth could I possibly go about demonstrating that?

Instead, they attach their precious egos to one or another "my way or the highway" dogma, allowing them to divide up the world between "one of us", the rational and virtuous few and "one of them", the irrational and immoral many.

To which I replied....

Which, ironically, is how you are dividing up the world also, right inside the above accusation.

Now you present yet another appeal to incredulity: How could you possibly...?

Well, that's precisely my point.

And once again my point is basically that I don't really have a clear understanding as to what your point has to do with my point. As for "incredulity", I made what I construe to be that crucial distinction between what I believe or refuse to believe regarding the either/or world contrasted with "I" in the is/ought world. And, as well, I acknowledge time and again that in regard to morality, religion and determinism, I really don't know how much confidence I have [or can have] in my own posts here.

With you, on the other hand, my own main interest still revolves around figuring out how close to or far away from a fractured and fragmented frame of mind you are. Given a particular set of circumstances involving conflicting value judgments.

Instead, I argue that in a free will world moral objectivism can precipitate all manner of human pain and suffering.

But it's not wrong. LOL.

Wrong in what sense...philosophically? deontologically? Instead, I focus in on the historical reality of moral, political and religious objectivism. The fact of all the terrible pain and suffering that FFOs have brought about down through the ages. Cue Hamas and their counterpart in the Israeli government?

In other words, when those ideologues or theocrats or deontologists or biological imperative Nazis gain actual access to power in any particular community. My way or the highway...my way or else.

Or they could be democracy lovers who hold 'these rights as self-evident.'

Sure, they could be. But this thread explores the extend to which, whatever moral, political and religious values we hold dear, we came to acquire them of our own free will. And then the part that revolves around dasein. Some argue that abortion is moral, others that it is immoral. Okay, is this something that can be grasped deontologically using the tools of philosophy? Or is it rooted more [historically, culturally, experientially, existentially, subjectively, etc.] in the very, very different lives we might live?

On the other hand, I also note that considerable human pain and suffering has been sustained over the centuries by the moral nihilists as well. The narcissists, the sociopaths, the amoral capitalists who own and operate the global economy.

Yeah, yeah.

NOne of which had to do with the point I made which you misrepresented now a couple of times, finally arguing that my focus doesn't fit the thread...except you brought it up, and not in the context of determinism.

Again, you get to decide the relevancy of the points I raise; and whether or not they misrepresent you. Like you don't go off on your own tangents...convinced [of course] that they are entirely relevant to what I post.

For instance...

Of course, I don't but lottery tickets.

And, what, you assume you don't buy them because you choose not to buy them, or because you "choose" not to buy them?

Also, if you were compelled by your brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to buy them, are you still responsible for buying them anyway?

And yeah, I understand that in determinsm you could only have responded as you did. So, you really don't have to repeat that again, at least not for my sake.

Tell that to my brain? And if you do understand that I could only have responded as I did -- as I must in the only possible reality? -- then why do you level these accusations at me in the manner in which a libertarian might? Perhaps because you were never able not to?

As for mentioning a No God world, that is at the center of my philosophical universe. If there is a God that explains free will. Or, rather, after it is explained to us how an omniscient God can be squared with human autonomy in the first place.

And, come on, the only way you could know that I post the same things hundreds of times is if you have read what I posted hundreds of times.

Unless, of course, you do believe that your own brain compels you to read what my brain compels me to post? Meaning that we are both off the hook?

[Iwannaplato]

Tell that to my brain? And if you do understand that I could only have responded as I did -- as I must in the only possible reality? -- then why do you level these accusations at me in the manner in which a libertarian might? Perhaps because you were never able not to?

And if you do understand that I could only have responded as others have why do you call them shameless, an accusation right out of the moral objectivist (even theist) accusation book?

And, then, as I have said, I don't rule out either determinism or free will, though I am not sure what free will would be or if it would even be a good thing to be free even from one's own wishes, desires, as causal in one's choices.

And, again, I don't think one needs to have a stance on clocks to treat them differently if they are broken and to refer to them as of poor quality or bad or fucked up.

Or an app or program or computer, say. One might have all sorts of complaints and judgments of these things, regardless of one's stance on free will vs. deteminism.