Compatibilism is impossible

[Age]

But there is NO need for 'you' to so-call 'argue' 'this'. AS NO one would DISAGREE WITH 'you' here.

So you agree?

It probably goes without saying but age has no idea what he's talking about. He's actually disagreeing with you - you think compatibilists exist, he's saying they don't.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of one ASSUMING or BELIEVING some 'thing' IS TRUE, BEFORE EVER SEEKING ANY CLARIFICATION AT ALL FIRST, which LED TO 'this one' MAKING this MOST ABSURD, False, AND Wrong CONCLUSION, and CLAIM, here.

[bahman]

But there is NO need for 'you' to so-call 'argue' 'this'. AS NO one would DISAGREE WITH 'you' here.

So you agree?

If 'you' are SAYING that 'free will' is impossible in a deterministic only world, then yes.

Cool.

[Iwannaplato]

So you agree?

If 'you' are SAYING that 'free will' is impossible in a deterministic only world, then yes.

Cool.

And here, actually, in the context of the thread where different definitions of 'free will' are central to a discussion, it would have been good if you and Age, ironically, checked in to see if you both meant the same one.

[Age]

But there is NO need for 'you' to so-call 'argue' 'this'. AS NO one would DISAGREE WITH 'you' here.

So you agree?

It probably goes without saying but age has no idea what he's talking about. He's actually disagreeing with you - you think compatibilists exist, he's saying they don't.

Oh, thanks for the clarification.

'This' here SHOWS just HOW STUPID 'these people' REALLY WERE, BACK THEN.

They', literally, would ACCEPT 'the words' OF 'one', ALONE, even when 'those words' were ABOUT what "another one's" WORDS were MEANING.

Even when ACTUAL CLARIFICATION was NOT even EVER SOUGHT OUT, and OBTAINED, as SEEN here Truly UNJUSTIFIED, UNSUBSTANTIATED, Wrong AND False CLAIMS can be and WILL BE ACCEPTED as CLARIFICATION/CLARITY.

[Age]

So you agree?

If 'you' are SAYING that 'free will' is impossible in a deterministic only world, then yes.

Cool.

So, if this is what 'you' were SAYING, and MEANT, then as I ALREADY MEANT, NO one could DISAGREE WITH 'you' here.

[Age]

If 'you' are SAYING that 'free will' is impossible in a deterministic only world, then yes.

Cool.

And here, actually, in the context of the thread where different definitions of 'free will' are central to a discussion, it would have been good if you and Age, ironically, checked in to see if you both meant the same one.

YES, YES, AND YES.

FINALLY 'this' IS CATCHING ON.

Also, is there ANY thread here, in this forum, where DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS, of the words in 'them', does NOT exist?

And, CENTRAL TO ALL DISCUSSIONS is FINDING OUT the DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of the words being USED.

Furthermore, and literally, CENTRAL TO ANY and ALL Truly Peaceful discussions, and the second step in a three step process TO Creating A Truly Peaceful AND Harmonious world, IS DISCUSSING, AGREEING UPON, and ACCEPTING the DEFINITIONS OF the words BEING USED.

[bahman]

If 'you' are SAYING that 'free will' is impossible in a deterministic only world, then yes.

Cool.

And here, actually, in the context of the thread where different definitions of 'free will' are central to a discussion, it would have been good if you and Age, ironically, checked in to see if you both meant the same one.

I already define free will in OP.

[Flannel Jesus]

Cool.

And here, actually, in the context of the thread where different definitions of 'free will' are central to a discussion, it would have been good if you and Age, ironically, checked in to see if you both meant the same one.

YES, YES, AND YES.

FINALLY 'this' IS CATCHING ON.

Entertaining that age thinks it's "catching on" but absolves himself of participating in the very system he's ostensibly supporting.

Other people should ask for clarification and definitions, but me? No I don't need to do that. I'm age, I'm a deity from the future. I'm all good.

[Iwannaplato]

Cool.

And here, actually, in the context of the thread where different definitions of 'free will' are central to a discussion, it would have been good if you and Age, ironically, checked in to see if you both meant the same one.

I already define free will in OP.

Right and if it's clear that AGe checked that definition AND understands that other people in the thread are defining that term differently, then it will be clear if he is disagreeing with them, for example, given he said no one could possibly disagree or a similar statement. If that's all worked out, great.

[Age]

Cool.

And here, actually, in the context of the thread where different definitions of 'free will' are central to a discussion, it would have been good if you and Age, ironically, checked in to see if you both meant the same one.

YES, YES, AND YES.

FINALLY 'this' IS CATCHING ON.

Entertaining that age thinks it's "catching on" but absolves himself of participating in the very system he's ostensibly supporting.

Is 'this' what 'you' THINK or BELIEVE is true "flannel jesus"?

Other people should ask for clarification and definitions, but me?

WHY ARE 'you' ASKING 'you' A QUESTION here, PUBLICLY?

No I don't need to do that. I'm age, I'm a deity from the future. I'm all good.

Here is ANOTHER example of 'these people', BACK THEN, thinking or BELIEVING that 'they' were SO KNOWLEDGEABLE and SO SURE OF "themselves" that 'they' COULD Accurately TALK FOR, and even ABOUT, 'me'.

[Age]

And here, actually, in the context of the thread where different definitions of 'free will' are central to a discussion, it would have been good if you and Age, ironically, checked in to see if you both meant the same one.

I already define free will in OP.

Right and if it's clear that AGe checked that definition AND understands that other people in the thread are defining that term differently, then it will be clear if he is disagreeing with them, for example, given he said no one could possibly disagree or a similar statement. If that's all worked out, great.

Okay. But 'this' RELIES ON 'if' 'this', ACTUALLY, DID TAKE PLACE.

[Flannel Jesus]

And here, actually, in the context of the thread where different definitions of 'free will' are central to a discussion, it would have been good if you and Age, ironically, checked in to see if you both meant the same one.

I already define free will in OP.

Right and if it's clear that AGe checked that definition AND understands that other people in the thread are defining that term differently, then it will be clear if he is disagreeing with them, for example, given he said no one could possibly disagree or a similar statement. If that's all worked out, great.

Have you seen the definition? What do you think of it?

[Iwannaplato]

I already define free will in OP.

Right and if it's clear that AGe checked that definition AND understands that other people in the thread are defining that term differently, then it will be clear if he is disagreeing with them, for example, given he said no one could possibly disagree or a similar statement. If that's all worked out, great.

Have you seen the definition? What do you think of it?

It's not the definition used by most compatiblists, to my knowledge at least. It sounds like a unique way of defining libertarian free will. (and I say 'unique' as a neutral judgment. At first glance it doesn't sound like a bad take on libertarian free will, perhaps even an elegant one.) I haven't read the whole thread, but just looking at the OP, he isn't really countering Compatibilism but rather Libertarian free will. That's my take.

Which is why I hopped in when he or she and Age communicated. In the wider context of the thread it is very obvious that people would disagree since they have and also because the OP doesn't refute compatibilism. Implicit in the OP is that he has. So, Age's

But there is NO need for 'you' to so-call 'argue' 'this'. AS NO one would DISAGREE WITH 'you' here.

this is false on a number of grounds.
Out of context his reaction is better, since it may be presuming libertarian free will. Though I think, in many interpretations of the word 'need' one still needs to 'argue' this. Of course the citation marks around 'argue' create unnecessary problems.

[Iwannaplato]

Entertaining that age thinks it's "catching on" but absolves himself of participating in the very system he's ostensibly supporting.

Other people should ask for clarification and definitions, but me? No I don't need to do that. I'm age, I'm a deity from the future. I'm all good.

And while it's a tangent, I'll weigh in here: yes, he has double standards. But beyond that he wants all terms defined, but assumes we can understand even the request that we do this. IOW there are always cultural and intuitive assumptions in EVERY conversation, even his. We have to do this or we end up with infinite regress justification or circularity.

There are ways out of infinite regresses and circularity - claiming some truths/definitions are self-evident, or coherentist versions of truth or pragmatic versions of communication. I tend to the latter and I thimk most people,including myself use all three to varying degrees. If Age met another Age-ish entity we would have endless questioning, unless they had exactly the same intuitions about what is self-evident or what is coherent or what is useful.

I mention this because Bahman has also started an infinite regress thread, which I thought was ironic in the context of this thread and Age not asking for clarification.

[Flannel Jesus]

Right and if it's clear that AGe checked that definition AND understands that other people in the thread are defining that term differently, then it will be clear if he is disagreeing with them, for example, given he said no one could possibly disagree or a similar statement. If that's all worked out, great.

Have you seen the definition? What do you think of it?

It's not the definition used by most compatiblists, to my knowledge at least. It sounds like a unique way of defining libertarian free will. (and I say 'unique' as a neutral judgment. At first glance it doesn't sound like a bad take on libertarian free will, perhaps even an elegant one.) I haven't read the whole thread, but just looking at the OP, he isn't really countering Compatibilism but rather Libertarian free will. That's my take.

Even as a definition for librarian free will... I mean, can one actually terminate a chain of causality? Do libertarians believe that?

Like, let's say a row of dominoes are toppling over. Before the entire set of dominoes falls, you put your hand between two and stop the rest from falling. Have you really terminated a chain of causality?

Well... no. Physics says every force produces an equal and opposite force, and all energy is preserved in the universe. If you stop a domino toppling, the chain of causality doesn't just STOP - the momentum from that last domino is transferred to your hand, distributed through your body, perhaps converted to heat or something - things keep happening in the chain of causality.

I don't think one CAN terminate a chain of causality.

This isn't meant to be an argument against libertarian free will, just that particular definition. Maybe I'm taking it too literally, idk.