Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:03 pm
Maybe to someone who subscribes to a self-contradictory position
For what it's worth, I think your communication hasn't been very clear.
I think 1) you may be assuming what free will means to a compatibilist which it doesn't mean.
2) I think sometimes you are saying they don't believe that what they believe goes against determinism, but you think it does. So some answers were referring to what compatabilists think and then others what their belief actually entails. so, it seemed like you were shifting positions, when you weren't. Though I do think it could have been clearer. I was as confused as FJ when I read the first 10-12 posts of the exchange.
And now I see your lastest post above and I think this supports my sense of where the confusion is coming from. I think that post is now heading in a better direction.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:03 pm
Maybe to someone who subscribes to a self-contradictory position
Maybe because when I ask you "what do compatibilists say that contradicts science?" I expect you to respond with a post about what compatibilists say, and how it contradicts science.
I did respond, it's you who so far you have said exactly nothing.
Yes, you responded, and then when I assumed your response was about what compatibilists say, you keep saying "I never implied they say that".
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:17 pm
For what it's worth, I think your communication hasn't been very clear.
I think 1) you may be assuming what free will means to a compatibilist which it doesn't mean.
No, as I said, then it's a conflation fallacy. That's the point. We can't pick determinism and free will from two arguably unrelated topics.
Maybe because when I ask you "what do compatibilists say that contradicts science?" I expect you to respond with a post about what compatibilists say, and how it contradicts science.
I did respond, it's you who so far you have said exactly nothing.
Yes, you responded, and then when I assumed your response was about what compatibilists say, you keep saying "I never implied they say that".
You want me to be clear on a position that makes no sense because it states X and not X at the same time. Maybe twice over.
Do compatibilists claim to break determinism? No, they think the world is deterministic.
Do compatibilists claim to break determinism? Yes, as free will would mean breaking determinism.
Are compatibilists just determinisist, who are using an irrelevant meaning of free will (conflation fallacy)? Yes
Are compatibilists just determinisist, who are using an irrelevant meaning of free will (conflation fallacy)? No, as then we would just have determinsim and free will with no third (and biggest) category called compatibilism.
You want me to be clear on a position that makes no sense because it states X and not X at the same time. Maybe twice over.
Do compatibilists claim to break determinism? No, they think the world is deterministic.
Do compatibilists claim to break determinism? Yes, as free will would mean breaking determinism.
You left all your thoughts implicit, instead of spelling them out, and you got mad when you weren't understood.
This is what I meant by "you can put in more effort". You could have clarified what you meant 2 pages ago.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:18 pm
Yes, you responded, and then when I assumed your response was about what compatibilists say, you keep saying "I never implied they say that".
You want me to be clear on a position that makes no sense because it states X and not X at the same time. Maybe twice over.
Do compatibilists claim to break determinism? No, they think the world is deterministic.
Do compatibilists claim to break determinism? Yes, as free will would mean breaking determinism.
You left all your thoughts implicit, instead of spelling them out, and you got mad when you weren't understood.
This is what I meant by "you can put in more effort". You could have clarified what you meant 2 pages ago.
This looks all blatantly obvious to me so I don't know what to clarify.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:40 pm
This looks all blatantly obvious to me so I don't know what to clarify.
Yes, that's the communication problem. You're assuming your thoughts are blatantly obvious to people who do not share a brain with you. That doesn't tend to work.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:40 pm
This looks all blatantly obvious to me so I don't know what to clarify.
Yes, that's the communication problem. You're assuming your thoughts are blatantly obvious to people who do not share a brain with you. That doesn't tend to work.
Being explicit is a better strategy.
I disagree, if things like this need to be explained then the conversation is not worth it.
You want me to be clear on a position that makes no sense because it states X and not X at the same time. Maybe twice over.
Do compatibilists claim to break determinism? No, they think the world is deterministic.
Do compatibilists claim to break determinism? Yes, as free will would mean breaking determinism.
Are compatibilists just determinisist, who are using an irrelevant meaning of free will (conflation fallacy)? Yes
Are compatibilists just determinisist, who are using an irrelevant meaning of free will (conflation fallacy)? No, as then we would just have determinsim and free will with no third (and biggest) category called compatibilism.
Why don't you just come out and clearly state what necessary part of free-will breaks determinism if it's in effect?
What is required for free-will not to have an "irrelevant meaning"?
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:40 pm
This looks all blatantly obvious to me so I don't know what to clarify.
Yes, that's the communication problem. You're assuming your thoughts are blatantly obvious to people who do not share a brain with you. That doesn't tend to work.
Being explicit is a better strategy.
I disagree, if things like this need to be explained then the conversation is not worth it.
If nothing needed to be explained, there'd be no point talking to anyone about anything.
So will someone actually try to show how determinism and free will are compatible, without resorting to fallacies? Because so far compatiblism has about as much going for it as the belief in the Tooth Fairy.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:37 am
I'm not even saying anything controversial. "Compatibilists don't think free will is an illusion".
And yet, that's the exact effect of what they believe. Determinism is certain, they think: and free will has to be explained-away.
If you can't see that that makes free will phony, I don't know what to tell you. The deep truth, all of them assert, is Determinism.
I actually think you do understand what I'm saying. You're just set on not admitting it. But it's simple and straightforward enough that I can't imagine you don't get it.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:37 am
I'm not even saying anything controversial. "Compatibilists don't think free will is an illusion".
And yet, that's the exact effect of what they believe. Determinism is certain, they think: and free will has to be explained-away.
If you can't see that that makes free will phony, I don't know what to tell you.
As long as you realise they don't say it, it's all good.
I've now said three times exactly why they won't say "illusion." It's because their goal is to allegedly "compatiblize" the two: but they are incoherent in that, because they still always end up casting free will as an illusion. None of the Compatibilist views will suggest for even a moment that Determinism might not be right: but they will trade-away the term "free will," in favour of some Deterministic equivalent. Doing so renders any actuality of free will a simple illusion.
So illusion is exactly the right word, even if they're too irrational to admit it.
