compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

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?

Yeah, weird that he applies that criticism to you so readily but not to himself ever. Wonder what the thinking is there? Wonder if there's thinking there at all...

[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?

Yeah, weird that he applies that criticism to you so readily but not to himself ever. Wonder what the thinking is there? Wonder if there's thinking there at all...

I suppose he could he say he couldn't help but be hypocritical, but I find few willing to go there. That they can't help other things, fine, but this seems to cut too close to the bone.

[iambiguous]

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?

Again, the hard determinist argument goes, I call certain people shameless here because I was never able not to. But then my brain compels me in turn to grasp that they are really not shameless at all. Not if, like me, they can post only what the "only possible reality" commands of them.

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.

You're stuck. Just like all the rest of us. Groping to grasp the nature of the human brain and the human condition. Pondering [futilely here and now] where they fit into the existence of existence itself.

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.

More to the point [mine], this "stance"...is it of our own volition or not?

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. determinism.

This frame of mind [to me] seems similar to phyllo's...that complaints and judgments -- stances -- are there in either a wholly determined world or a world where human beings "somehow" acquired free will. So, in the end it's all interchangeable?

[iambiguous]

Why Sam Harris is confused about free will
Dan Jones

To make sense of Harris’s position, it’s important to recognise that he is not making a metaphysical or conceptual case for moral responsibility, but a legalistic or practical case for responsibility.

Back to that again. As though whether Sam thinks of moral responsibility metaphysically and conceptually or legalistically and practically, he is any less compelled to by his brain.

Harris rightly argues that regardless of whether a danger to people is the product of freely willed behaviour or blindly mechanical actions, a threat is a threat: an out-of-control lawnmower is dangerous, and we would want to stop the lawnmower by unplugging it, or directing it into a shed and locking the door behind it (a lawnmower prison), without thinking about free will for a second.

Okay, there are all of the things we should do here. But what does it mean to say we should do something that we were never able not to do in the first place? If something is a threat to us how can it not make all the difference in the world whether we either are or are not of our own free will able to thwart it?

As Harris points out, this practical perspective brings into focus questions about how we treat people who do bad things. He writes: “Clearly, we need to build prisons for people who are intent on harming others. But if we could incarcerate earthquakes and hurricanes for their crimes, we would build prisons for them as well.”

Practical perspective. In other words, when we discuss free will here, is that any different from when we act out what we believe here given the behaviors we choose? If how we think about people who do bad things and how for all practical purposes we react to this by punishing them are both manifestations of the only possible reality...?

What does it mean to say we need to build prisons in a world where we were never able not to say it? A world where the prisons were never not going to be built?

And, again, if the matter in a human brain obeys the same immutable laws that the matter in earthquakes and hurricanes obey, how then are the consequences of human behaviors not just another necessary component of the only possible reality?

[iambiguous]

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?

Yeah, weird that he applies that criticism to you so readily but not to himself ever. Wonder what the thinking is there? Wonder if there's thinking there at all...

First of all -- click -- I rarely employ "shameless" in my posts. It almost always pops into my head only when I believe that others here either become Mr. Snippet or Mr. Wiggle. Just as I employ the word "Stooge" when I believe others shift the discussions from philosophy to me.

But over and again I come around to noting that this is just a subjective judgment call on my part. A subjuntive reaction rooted existentially in dasein. I recognize that others here don't react as I do at all to particular posters. And I would never suggest that they ought to.

Also, I have a predilection toward polemics:

What does this mean to be a polemicist? It means that I enjoy provocative exchanges. A provocative exchange is one in which folks take opposite sides on an issue and aggressively pursue their own point of view. A polemicist might employ such devices as red herrings, irony, dissembling, sarcasm, needling, poking and prodding, huffing and puffing, satire. But it's almost never meant to be personal. It's just a way to ratchet up a discussion and make it more invigorating, intriguing, stimulating. When the best minds are goaded, they are often driven in turn to make their points all the more forcefully. It's like both of you are down in the arena using words for swords. From my experience these are almost always the most interesting exchanges.

Hope that helped.

[Flannel Jesus]

First of all -- click -- I rarely employ "shameless" in my posts. It almost always pops into my head only when I believe that others here either become Mr. Snippet or Mr. Wiggle. Just as I employ the word "Stooge" when I believe others shift the discussions from philosophy to me.

You rarely employ it? Really? As far as I can tell, you employ it more than everyone else on the forum combined. By any reasonable metric, that's the opposite of rare.

It would have been nice, in an alternate reality, if you could talk to people without that emotional crutch.

A polemicist might employ such devices as red herrings, irony, dissembling, sarcasm, needling, poking and prodding, huffing and puffing, satire. But it's almost never meant to be personal. It's just a way to ratchet up a discussion and make it more invigorating, intriguing, stimulating.

If you took a poll of the people you talk to the most, I imagine most of them would say your manner of interacting has the opposite effect. What do you think? Is it effective?

[iambiguous]

First of all -- click -- I rarely employ "shameless" in my posts. It almost always pops into my head only when I believe that others here either become Mr. Snippet or Mr. Wiggle. Just as I employ the word "Stooge" when I believe others shift the discussions from philosophy to me.

You rarely employ it? Really? As far as I can tell, you employ it more than everyone else on the forum combined. By any reasonable metric, that's the opposite of rare.

It would have been nice, in an alternate reality, if you could talk to people without that emotional crutch.

A polemicist might employ such devices as red herrings, irony, dissembling, sarcasm, needling, poking and prodding, huffing and puffing, satire. But it's almost never meant to be personal. It's just a way to ratchet up a discussion and make it more invigorating, intriguing, stimulating.

If you took a poll of the people you talk to the most, I imagine most of them would say your manner of interacting has the opposite effect. What do you think? Is it effective?

I guess it didn't help then.

[Iwannaplato]

First of all -- click -- I rarely employ "shameless" in my posts.

You're used it over 100 times. But the rareness of you're employing is not relevant. You've had enough experience of doing it, to understand how non-libertarians can make moral judgments, Mr. Wiggle. You said:

then why do you level these accusations at me in the manner in which a libertarian might?

And so I asked you the same question. given that you make moral judgments, just like a libertarian would. IOW you should know via your own experience how this can happen.

If I yell at a hammer and someone (who yells at his TV when the reception is bad) asks me how I could yell at an object, I'll point out he yells as the TV. This is a much better way to explain how this could happen, then some long philosophical/psychological explanation.

And, then, also, hopefully, that person might wonder WHY they needed to ask the question in the first place.

And it's not trivial. It's right on topic. You seem to wonder how moral judgments can be made by determinists. But your own behavior and doing this yourself can provide clues, yet somehow it doesn't for you. Yes, you are not a determinist, but you are not a libertarian. And yet you manage to judge people here and also objectivists.

And if this somehow leads to you repeating that you view your own moral reactiosn as dasein-based, etc., we've heard it all before. But little friend, that's not really happening in relation to objectivists, see below. Nor to us when you use shameless.

Now retired, I would guess, withdrawn from most IRL interactions with others, your bursts of moral outrage have little consequence. But it should be easy to extrapolate how they might lead to consequences if you were engaged in work and politics, even everyday politics. So, you're incredulity about how these things could happen and why determinists still make moral judgments and even act on them, seems the result of inadequate introspection and self-observation.

I believe you have guns at home. Would you not be quite likely to use one if threatened by violent seeming intruder just as an objectivist libertarian would?

Where does your not understanding about how determinists making moral judgments and holding people responsible really come from?

I know, it's not personal with us, but presumably you treat yourself like a person, are aware you are a person. And there's so much you can find to help you understand right there.

It almost always pops into my head only when I believe that others here either become Mr. Snippet or Mr. Wiggle.

Same thing. It's odd that you don't understand that you are just demonstrating my point.

Just as I employ the word "Stooge" when I believe others shift the discussions from philosophy to me.

And same thing again.

But over and again I come around to noting that this is just a subjective judgment call on my part. A subjuntive reaction rooted existentially in dasein. I recognize that others here don't react as I do at all to particular posters. And I would never suggest that they ought to.

Every time you call someone shameless, you are doing precisely that. You're not saying 'I don't like that.' You are labelling someone negative morally. Just as an antiaborotionist calling a woman heading into a family planning clinic 'Shameless' is doing it.

Also, I have a predilection to opposite sides on an issue and aggressively pursue their own point of view.

I'm sorry you've been aggressively pursuing your negative view of objectivists for years. As I HAVE ALREADY SAID, but which you ignore. Yes, on many specific moral issues you are fractured and fragmented. But as far as your moral judgment of objecivists you are not. You have no prediliction for the other side also.

A polemicist might employ such devices as red herrings, irony, dissembling, sarcasm, needling, poking and prodding, huffing and puffing, satire. But it's almost never meant to be personal. It's just a way to ratchet up a discussion and make it more invigorating, intriguing, stimulating. When the best minds are goaded, they are often driven in turn to make their points all the more forcefully. It's like both of you are down in the arena using words for swords. From my experience these are almost always the most interesting exchanges.

So, you're a polemicist when you huff and puff. It's fine when you do whatever you want in a dialogue, but if other people react to your 'polemics' they are stooges and shameless. And you then complain about their behavior and label it as morally negative.

But I agree, it's nothing personal. You act interpersonally, but you seem not aware, really, that you are interacting with people.

And you certainly view yourelf as a libertarian would above. Just to bring it back to the point I made earlier. You should understand how one who isn't a libertarian could communicate and act like one, given that you do this also.

[Flannel Jesus]

I guess it didn't help then.

Yes, that's right, your polemics clearly hasn't helped you achieve the goals you say you have. Either you're lying about your goals or you're too stupid to change strategy when you find your strategy not working.

Luckily, if it's the second case, it's not too late for you to change strategy.

[iambiguous]

First of all -- click -- I rarely employ "shameless" in my posts. It almost always pops into my head only when I believe that others here either become Mr. Snippet or Mr. Wiggle. Just as I employ the word "Stooge" when I believe others shift the discussions from philosophy to me.

But over and again I come around to noting that this is just a subjective judgment call on my part. A subjunctive reaction rooted existentially in dasein. I recognize that others here don't react as I do at all to particular posters. And I would never suggest that they ought to.

You're used it over 100 times.

And I've submitted 6,271 posts here. You do the math.

But the rareness of you're employing is not relevant. You've had enough experience of doing it, to understand how non-libertarians can make moral judgments, Mr. Wiggle.

Yes, they make moral judgments. But, some determinists insist, as with the libertarians, only moral judgments they were never able not to make. So, what does it mean to "choose" behaivors that are inherent components of the only possible reality? What does it mean to "judge" them given the only possible reality?

You said:

...then why do you level these accusations at me in the manner in which a libertarian might?

And so I asked you the same question. given that you make moral judgments, just like a libertarian would. IOW you should know via your own experience how this can happen.

Yes, and I noted that "here and now" I take an existential leap to determinism. At least until someone explains to me how, given a No God universe, nature itself managed to impart free will in mere mortals. Thus, I recognize my own value judgments, given free will, as but moral and political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.

And how on Earth would I go about grasping how and why the human brain itself fits into "what's happening"? Cue the FFOs among us for that frame of mind.

Then, however this...

If I yell at a hammer and someone (who yells at his TV when the reception is bad) asks me how I could yell at an object, I'll point out he yells as the TV. This is a much better way to explain how this could happen, then some long philosophical/psychological explanation.

And, then, also, hopefully, that person might wonder WHY they needed to ask the question in the first place.

And it's not trivial. It's right on topic. You seem to wonder how moral judgments can be made by determinists. But your own behavior and doing this yourself can provide clues, yet somehow it doesn't for you. Yes, you are not a determinist, but you are not a libertarian. And yet you manage to judge people here and also objectivists.

...is relevant to the points I raise.

From yelling at a hammer or a TV to having an abortion or purchasing a weapon of mass destruction from henry quirk, nothing that any of us do is not an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

You claim here that I "wonder how moral judgments can be made by determinists". Well, given the manner in which some determinists "think this through" [compelled or not], they make them the same way in which the libertarians and compatibilists do...in which the moral objectivists and the moral nihilists do. It's just that the determinists argue that given this all moral judgments are essentially interchangeable in the only possible reality.

Sure, go ahead and judge others here. But it's not like you were ever free to opt otherwise.

Now, I'll skip the psycho-babble Stooge stuff if you don't mind. And, who knows, maybe of my own volition.

[iambiguous]

I guess it didn't help then.

Yes, that's right, your polemics clearly hasn't helped you achieve the goals you say you have. Either you're lying about your goals or you're too stupid to change strategy when you find your strategy not working.

Luckily, if it's the second case, it's not too late for you to change strategy.

Absolutely shameless!!





On the other hand, what goals? Here and now my "goals" revolve around waiting for godot.

Click?

[Flannel Jesus]

Ok, too stupid to change it is. I thought that might be the case.

And just to answer the "goals" question, you provided the answer yourself here:

A polemicist might employ such devices as red herrings, irony, dissembling, sarcasm, needling, poking and prodding, huffing and puffing, satire. But it's almost never meant to be personal. It's just a way to ratchet up a discussion and make it more invigorating, intriguing, stimulating.

Those are your own alleged aims in applying polemics. You haven't achieved those aims. Your conversations are not invigorating, intriguing or stimulating. If you were not stupid, you'd notice that now and consider leaving your silly "polemics" behind.

[Iwannaplato]

Ok, too stupid to change it is. I thought that might be the case.

And just to answer the "goals" question, you provided the answer yourself here:

A polemicist might employ such devices as red herrings, irony, dissembling, sarcasm, needling, poking and prodding, huffing and puffing, satire. But it's almost never meant to be personal. It's just a way to ratchet up a discussion and make it more invigorating, intriguing, stimulating.

Those are your own alleged aims in applying polemics. You haven't achieved those aims. Your conversations are not invigorating, intriguing or stimulating. If you were not stupid, you'd notice that now and consider leaving your silly "polemics" behind.

A simple way to make the conversations more invigorating, intriguing and stimulating would be if Iambiguous stopped repeating the same things over and over and over.

Perhaps that's just too obvious to point out.

[Flannel Jesus]

A simple way to make the conversations more invigorating, intriguing and stimulating would be if Iambiguous stopped repeating the same things over and over and over.

Perhaps that's just too obvious to point out.

You mean, writing something other than "you could never not say that" and engaging with the words other people post?

Note to nature: stooge mode engaged

[iambiguous]

Ok, too stupid to change it is. I thought that might be the case.

Sure, I've acknowledged any number of times that -- click -- one of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...has already discovered or invented the One True Path to Enlightenment. But I am too stupid [or too ignorant] to grasp it. You got me there.

How about you though? Are you simply too smart to ever be too stupid regarding things like morality and religion and the Big Questions? Are you a metaphysical FFO yourself?

Or, instead, as I suspect, is someone "stupid" here if they don't think exactly as you about, say, to cite just one example, everything?

And just to answer the "goals" question, you provided the answer yourself here:

A polemicist might employ such devices as red herrings, irony, dissembling, sarcasm, needling, poking and prodding, huffing and puffing, satire. But it's almost never meant to be personal. It's just a way to ratchet up a discussion and make it more invigorating, intriguing, stimulating.

Those are your own alleged aims in applying polemics. You haven't achieved those aims. Your conversations are not invigorating, intriguing or stimulating. If you were not stupid, you'd notice that now and consider leaving your silly "polemics" behind.

My aim revolves around "win/win". And every time I reduce a "serious philosopher" like you down to posts like this, I suspect they are reacting as they do because my own conclusions are getting closer and closer to upending their own.

Come on, if my own posts were all of those things, how do you explain the fact that my threads/posts garner hundreds and hundreds of views a week. And you're clearly too stupid yourself to stop reading them.

Well, unless, of course, the determinists are right, and you were never really free to opt not to?