compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

In regard to [his] own interactions with others, what does he propose Tallis means above?

What language is Iambiguous even speaking here? This question doesn't mean anything. The first 8 words are just completely superfluous, right? What in the world do they add to the sentence? The question is just, "What do you think Tallis means?" All the other 8 words do is make the question more opaque.

Iambiguous, you communicate like an absolute alien.

[Iwannaplato]

Frankish concedes that “Illusionism replaces the hard problem with the illusion problem – the problem of explaining how the illusion of phenomenality arises and why it is so powerful.”

Indeed. And how does that not revolve mainly around 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.

There are two 'things' that can be called illusionism in philosophy. One relates to free will and the one in Tallis' article which relates, as I have said several times, to substance and whether consciousness itself - which seems not to be physical - is illusory. It's not what we think it is.

If Iambiguous read the article with any care, he would have noticed 1) Tallis says nothing about free will (or compatibilism) or determinism. He does however mention physicalism/physicalist about 15 times. He mentions consciousness 43 times in the article.

But for some reason even after I point out what the actual topic is, Iambiguous doesn't seem to notice or consider it odd that an article supposedly about free will never mentions free will or determinism or compatibilism. But does in fact mention the things I said the article was about many times.

And it's not subtle: it starts right at the beginning. Here's the subtitle

Raymond Tallis sees through a physicalist confusion.

Here's the first sentence or what we are taught in school would be a hook indication the topic:

Consciousness has always been a serious embarrassment for those who believe that everything is physical and that physics is the most authoritative account of the material world.

I have sympathy for thinking that the article must be about the other illusionism argument - in those moments just after reading the title - but if one then goes on to read the article. It seems like he saw the title, saw Illusionism and made assumptions. OK, peachy. People make mistakes.

But can he manage to admit his error when it is pointed out? not so far.

Did he go back and read the article after I suggested he totally missed what the article was about? it sure doesn't seem like it. I don't know, but it is truly hard to imagine not noticing that I was correct - it never mentions free will - and not noticing it does mention what I said was the topic many, many times.

I even went so far as to point out that physicalists can believe in free will - just in case he thinks that any argument against physicalism must be an argument in favor of free will. (does this mean I agree with those physicalists who think free will is reconcilable with physicalism - no, and not relevant.

And note the focus of the article is narrow. It is not rebutting physicalism in general. It is focused on a specific defense of physicalism, the one there called illusionism.

And there he is writing walls of words and abstract posts and focusing on definitions of words, if poorly and implicitly, and that behavior is clearly fine with him when he does it, but if someone else, in a philosophy forum (LOL) does what he does when it suits him, then it's a sign of something negative.

[Iwannaplato]

In regard to [his] own interactions with others, what does he propose Tallis means above?

What language is Iambiguous even speaking here? This question doesn't mean anything. The first 8 words are just completely superfluous, right? What in the world do they add to the sentence? The question is just, "What do you think Tallis means?" All the other 8 words do is make the question more opaque.

Iambiguous, you communicate like an absolute alien.

It's possible he's trying to bring in the moral/conflicting goods issue, but, yeah, that sentence approaches gibberish. Often when people disagree with something he asserts - or, here, the entire misinterpretation of the article - his defense or counterattack includes the expection that others should weigh in on abortion or apply whatever was said to moral choices, as if any of that would somehow entail that the article was actually about free will.

Like if I can apply Tallis' ideas in the article to moral decisions, then the article is actually about free will.

Further, as I said elsewhere to Phyllo, I think his vague and confusing language is convenient.

[iambiguous]

Frankish concedes that “Illusionism replaces the hard problem with the illusion problem – the problem of explaining how the illusion of phenomenality arises and why it is so powerful.”

Indeed. And how does that not revolve mainly around 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.

There are two 'things' that can be called illusionism in philosophy. One relates to free will and the one in Tallis' article which relates, as I have said several times, to substance and whether consciousness itself - which seems not to be physical - is illusory. It's not what we think it is.

Please. Whenever the subject of human consciousness comes up, scientists and philosophers are still confronted with what they simply do not know about matter acquiring biological life that evolved further into human beings able to acquire self-consciousness. After all, no other animals on Earth even come close to that.

But how to explain a brain capable of producing such a mind? Where does physicalism and materialism end and autonomy begin when we choose behaviors?

It is, after all, when we choose behaviors that there are consequences. But how exactly did the human brain come to acquire this extraordinary new leap in the evolution of biological matter?

That is my own interest in regard to human consciousness. Why? Because my main interest in philosophy revolves around the existential relationship between identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. Why? Because here we are confronted with the existential relationship between compatibilism and moral responsibility. And that's the part that truly fascinates me the most.

But: Suppose all of this is in fact embedded in a wholly determined universe where all matter evolves only as it ever could have evolved?

If Iambiguous read the article with any care, he would have noticed 1) Tallis says nothing about free will (or compatibilism) or determinism. He does however mention physicalism/physicalist about 15 times. He mentions consciousness 43 times in the article.

Again: please.

Over and over again we encounter this sort of arrogant mentality here. Unless others react to an article or a video or a post as some here do, they are completely missing the point. As though Tallis's points can't be linked to determinism and free will.

But for some reason even after I point out what the actual topic is, Iambiguous doesn't seem to notice or consider it odd that an article supposedly about free will never mentions free will or determinism or compatibilism. But does in fact mention the things I said the article was about many times.

See? He truly does grasp Tallis's intent above and I don't. On the other hand, my argument is that neither he nor I nor Tallis nor anyone else here seems capable of demonstrating [one way or the other] whether we do in fact have the capacity to sustain this exchange autonomously.

And it's not like I reacted to the article by suggesting that Tallis was talking about, say, illusionists in the world of magic. Re films like The Prestige or The Illusionist. I was merely reacting to his points given my own interest in human consciousness.

This all reminds me of those here who insist that I completely mangle dasein because it's not how Heidegger construed it.

And it's not subtle: it starts right at the beginning. Here's the subtitle

Raymond Tallis sees through a physicalist confusion.

Here's the first sentence or what we are taught in school would be a hook indication the topic:

Consciousness has always been a serious embarrassment for those who believe that everything is physical and that physics is the most authoritative account of the material world.

Yeah, if the brain is entirely physical matter and all other physical matter that we know of obeys the laws of nature then what to make of human consciousness?

Am I in error as he argues? Or am I even cappable of not being in error if my own consciousness compels me to be? Then back to how anything can be deemed an error if everything [incuding us] unfolds only as it ever could have?

I even went so far as to point out that physicalists can believe in free will - just in case he thinks that any argument against physicalism must be an argument in favor of free will. (does this mean I agree with those physicalists who think free will is reconcilable with physicalism - no, and not relevant.

Okay, now demonstrate to us -- empirically, phenomenologically -- whether or not you went only as far as your brain compelled you to. And the point of some determinists, of course, is not that a particular physicalist believes in free will but that he or she believes this only because they were never able not to.



The rest then being basically Stooge Stuff.

Now -- click -- pick two:

1] IF I DO SAY SO MYSELF
2] UNLESS OF COURSE I"M WRONG

[Iwannaplato]

Please. Whenever the subject of human consciousness comes up, scientists and philosophers are still confronted with what they simply do not know about matter acquiring biological life that evolved further into human beings able to acquire self-consciousness. After all, no other animals on Earth even come close to that.

Iambiguous...yes, Tallis and his article may well be open to criticisms, but his article is not about free will.

But how to explain a brain capable of producing such a mind? Where does physicalism and materialism end and autonomy begin when we choose behaviors?

Which is an issue that the article is not talking about.

It is, after all, when we choose behaviors that there are consequences. But how exactly did the human brain come to acquire this extraordinary new leap in the evolution of biological matter?

And this is not what Tallis' article is about.

That is my own interest in regard to human consciousness. Why? Because my main interest in philosophy revolves around the existential relationship between identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. Why? Because here we are confronted with the existential relationship between compatibilism and moral responsibility. And that's the part that truly fascinates me the most.

And those are fine issues. But Tallis' article had nothing to do with free will, yet you responded to it as if it was an article about free will.

If Iambiguous read the article with any care, he would have noticed 1) Tallis says nothing about free will (or compatibilism) or determinism. He does however mention physicalism/physicalist about 15 times. He mentions consciousness 43 times in the article.

Again: please.

Over and over again we encounter this sort of arrogant mentality here. Unless others react to an article or a video or a post as some here do, they are completely missing the point. As though Tallis's points can't be linked to determinism and free will.

Notice that Iambiguous does not show how his reaction that the article had to do with free will.

See? He truly does grasp Tallis's intent above and I don't.

Nor does Iambiguous explain what his reaction is based on. I explained what my interpretation of the article is based on. Iambiguous does not do this.

On the other hand, my argument is that neither he nor I nor Tallis nor anyone else here seems capable of demonstrating [one way or the other] whether we do in fact have the capacity to sustain this exchange autonomously.

Read: it doesn't matter what the article is about.

And it's not like I reacted to the article by suggesting that Tallis was talking about, say, illusionists in the world of magic.

And now he brings up a random strawman, instead of addressing why he responded to the article as if it was about free will.

Re films like The Prestige or The Illusionist. I was merely reacting to his points given my own interest in human consciousness.

Actually you responded regarding free will.

This all reminds me of those here who insist that I completely mangle dasein because it's not how Heidegger construed it.

And another straw man having nothing to do with Tallis article or our interpretations of it.

more distraction and evasion elided.

Shameless and funny. It doesn't matter to him what the article is about because it's all just interpretations.

What he quotes in the posts of others and texts online...it doesn't matter if he has read them or read them well or is responding to what they say at all.

Good to know.

[Flannel Jesus]

Shameless and funny. It doesn't matter to him what the article is about because it's all just interpretations.

What he quotes in the posts of others and texts online...it doesn't matter if he has read them or read them well or is responding to what they say at all.

Good to know.

He doesn't REALLY read anything he reviews in these threads, I totally agree. I mean he might cross his gaze over the words, but not with the intention of trying to understand anything the author is saying. That's a constant in almost every response to any article in these threads.

He has a couple weird little techniques he uses to pretty much change the topic from what the author is talking about to whatever it is he wants to talk about.

Frankish concedes that “Illusionism replaces the hard problem with the illusion problem – the problem of explaining how the illusion of phenomenality arises and why it is so powerful.”

Indeed. And how does that not revolve mainly around this:

This is him doing it live. Let's take what Frankish is talking about, ignore it entirely, and change the subject to "revolve mainly around" the thing iambiguous wants to talk about.

Why pretend to read all these articles if you don't even care about what they have to say? I'm not convinced iambiguous has even read the article carefully enough to know what Tallis thinks. Because, to him, it doesn't matter what Tallis thinks, that's not why he's reading Tallis words at all.

And when he replies to you, rest easy that understanding what you think isn't the reason why he's reading your words either.

[Iwannaplato]

And when he replies to you, rest easy that understanding what you think isn't the reason why he's reading your words either.

Well, it's good to know that it doesn't matter (to him) what the articles are about. There are just lots of interpretations.
The articles and our responses to his posts are useful..........to inspire the thoughts he repeats over and over.
Why he doesn't simply start a blog is beyond me. He could leave the link to the blog here and those thousands of readers would follow him, I'm sure.

[iambiguous]

Please. Whenever the subject of human consciousness comes up, scientists and philosophers are still confronted with what they simply do not know about matter acquiring biological life that evolved further into human beings able to acquire self-consciousness. After all, no other animals on Earth even come close to that.

Iambiguous...yes, Tallis and his article may well be open to criticisms, but his article is not about free will.

In other words, only a fool would ponder human consciousness, physicalism, and illusionism, and then connect the dots between them and what we actually become conscious of from day to day...either autonomously or not.

But how to explain a brain capable of producing such a mind? Where does physicalism and materialism end and autonomy begin when we choose behaviors?

Which is an issue that the article is not talking about.

Again, no serious philosopher would ever take it there?

It is, after all, when we choose behaviors that there are consequences. But how exactly did the human brain come to acquire this extraordinary new leap in the evolution of biological matter?

And this is not what Tallis' article is about.

Again, no serious philosopher would ever take it there?

That is my own interest in regard to human consciousness. Why? Because my main interest in philosophy revolves around the existential relationship between identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. Why? Because here we are confronted with the existential relationship between compatibilism and moral responsibility. And that's the part that truly fascinates me the most.

And those are fine issues. But Tallis' article had nothing to do with free will, yet you responded to it as if it was an article about free will.

Okay, none of the points I raised above impressed you. Fine. None of the points that you are making here impress me.

This, in my view, is just another attempt on your part to dismiss the arguments I make by making me the argument. There is an SOP that all serious philosophers subscribe to and I refuse to embrace it.

[iambiguous]

And when he replies to you, rest easy that understanding what you think isn't the reason why he's reading your words either.

Well, it's good to know that it doesn't matter (to him) what the articles are about. There are just lots of interpretations.
The articles and our responses to his posts are useful..........to inspire the thoughts he repeats over and over.
Why he doesn't simply start a blog is beyond me. He could leave the link to the blog here and those thousands of readers would follow him, I'm sure.

Well, at least I can take some satisfaction in knowing I'm able to reduce Stooges down to "gotcha" posts like this. Again, if it doesn't embarrass them to "thump" me like this, it doesn't embarrass me to suggest that they ought to be embarrassed.



Just out of curiosity, is it actually an obligation here now to read my posts?

[iambiguous]

The Illusion of Illusionism
Raymond Tallis sees through a physicalist confusion.

Behind illusionism, and the wider project of defending physicalism, is a fundamental failure to see the mystery in the fact that the world is made explicit in consciousness, not the least in the phenomenal consciousness of entities called physicists.

Ultimately, what lies behind illusionism and physicalism remains the profound mystery embedded in how the human brain is able to create a self-conscious awareness of itself in the first place. If it's not a manifestation of God, then would it not need to reflect a component subsumed in the material universe itself...a factor that "somehow" made it all possible?

Also, something that explains quantum interactions and the staggering vastness of the universe.

There seems to be nothing in the material world – or the world seen through the eyes of physics – that explains the experience that it exists.

Again, come back to it all in a hundred years. The only question is this...will the physicists have finally resolved it all? Will they be able to demonstrate that their resolution is in fact the real deal and not just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality? Or will they still have to fall back on philosophers for other equally important components.

At the most basic level, this awareness is delivered in phenomenal experience, without which there would be no physical science, because no observations of data.

Back then to the gap between what Tallis construes the most basic level of understanding is here and all that would need to be grasped about human consciousness in order to close it completely. Then the surreal reality of how, yes, awareness certainly seems to be "delivered" by some entity that may well have acquired a true autonomy. Or maybe the mystery of existence itself ultimately comes down to information and knowledge that our own brains, even if autonomous, are simply not sophisticated enough to grasp.

It's all still no less mind-boggling once you go out far enough into the deep end of the reality pool.

Nor would there be any philosophers arguing about the implications of the physicalist world picture for our understanding of phenomenal consciousness, or, more importantly, of phenomenal consciousness for our understanding of the physical world. Saying phenomenal consciousness is an illusion is more, not less, embarrassing for those who want to defend physicalism.

Come on, admit it. The existence of the human brain, the human condition and existence itself, while utterly fascinating to explore philosophically are still far beyond the reach even of the hard sciences.

On the other hand, sure, if philosophers ever do concoct a brand new argument allowing them to intertwine their theoretical conjectures about the human brain and their own actual interactions with others, I'd be particularly interested in that.

[Flannel Jesus]

Back then to the gap between what Tallis construes the most basic level of understanding is here and all that would need to be grasped about human consciousness in order to close it completely.

Even for iambiguous, that's a surprisingly nonsensical sentence. It's like he just threw darts at a board with words on it and wrote what came out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv61yEcOqpw

[Iwannaplato]

Back then to the gap between what Tallis construes the most basic level of understanding is here and all that would need to be grasped about human consciousness in order to close it completely.

Even for iambiguous, that's a surprisingly nonsensical sentence. It's like he just threw darts at a board with words on it and wrote what came out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv61yEcOqpw

LOL.
What I find amazing is that despite the number of posts in which he quotes parts of Tallis' argument, he never once addresses the argument itself. The one where Tallis is saying the illusionist defense of physicalism doesn't work and explains why he thinks it doesn't. First, he writes as if it is about free will. In later posts, it's unclear what he thinks Tallis' article is about. His responses are paraphrases of points he, Iambiguous, has made many times. There focus seems to be about whether we will ever be able to understand _____________________[and in here there could be a number of possible philosophical issues/questions]. The Tallis article's quotes could be replaced by quotes from a wide range of articles with a variety of positions on a variety of philosophical issues, without increasing or decreasing the connection.

It doesn't matter to him what the actual focus of the Tallis article is.

If this is pointed out....we haven't solved things like conflicting goods or how free will arose, so our posts are Stooge-posts.

In this last post he respondes to Tallis again, in much the same way, while toning down, but not eliminating, the free will aspects. So, pointing out it really wasn't about free will has had some kind of effect - though this is never admitted - but really the same how-can-we-know-stuff-about-things-like-this comments are presented yet again,

with the same post in two threads.

The other thread the Illusion of Illusionism. Interestingly the only person who directly took on Tallis' argument is Trafiklogic. Consul understands the article is about physicalism (not free will) and responds regarding the weakness of non-physicalist positions. He does say that Tallis undermines himself, but I can't quite see where he justifies this. Seed somehow jumps to a discussion of the existence of God.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yeah, it really doesn't matter one iota what Tallis is talking about. Iambiguous decided what he was going to write about even before reading Tallis' words, reading the words was just a necessary chore to allow iambiguous to continue his scripted rant. Whatever Tallis writes about, iambiguous (in his own words) could never not write what he was always going to write.

His writing style is like a little microcosm of fatalism, reflecting his beliefs perfectly in his actions.

But honestly, our actions trouble me, iwannaplato. We're still here, occasionally reading this guy's posts, and he's borderline illiterate. He couldn't write a book report on any of the things he reads, nor can he consistently construct meaningful sentences. Why do we read his words sometimes still? If a monkey smeared his shit on a wall, we wouldn't comb through the shit looking for meaning.

Perhaps we're mistakenly expecting more from iambiguous than a shit smearing monkey.

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah, it really doesn't matter one iota what Tallis is talking about. Iambiguous decided what he was going to write about even before reading Tallis' words, reading the words was just a necessary chore to allow iambiguous to continue his scripted rant. Whatever Tallis writes about, iambiguous (in his own words) could never not write what he was always going to write.

His writing style is like a little microcosm of fatalism, reflecting his beliefs perfectly in his actions.

But honestly, our actions trouble me, iwannaplato. We're still here, occasionally reading this guy's posts, and he's borderline illiterate. He couldn't write a book report on any of the things he reads, nor can he consistently construct meaningful sentences. Why do we read his words sometimes still? If a monkey smeared his shit on a wall, we wouldn't comb through the shit looking for meaning.

Perhaps we're mistakenly expecting more from iambiguous than a shit smearing monkey.

and now it's tempting to bring in free will issues and say 'we can't help it'.

Yes, they trouble me also. That said.....

..... I find it fascinating. Then after a while it gets less fascinating. Then my interest gets piqued again. Can one point out something that is really quite obvious and have this conceded. Just that point. He could agree 'OK, yes, the article doesn't seem to be about free will,' without this entailing that his concerns or positions are misguided or false.

When it is pointed out that the article is not about free will, he attacks me. He doesn't justify his interpretation of the article. 'No, it is about free will because....'

Fascinating. Does he not notice that he doesn't justify his interpretation?

And so on.

I'm afraid there is a kind of reset button in me (us?) It's been a while, he can't really avoid admitting the topic of the articles was something else, can he?

It's like what one learns through experience builds, but then we have memory decay....(here are some ways of framing the issue)

Extinction: In behavioral psychology, extinction is the process by which a previously learned behavior diminishes or disappears over time when it is no longer reinforced. For example, if you have learned to avoid someone because of negative experiences, but over time you don't encounter them and have no negative reinforcement, your conditioned response to avoid them might weaken.

Habituation: This term refers to the diminishing of a physiological or emotional response to a frequently repeated stimulus. In the interpersonal context, it can describe becoming accustomed to a person's presence or behavior to the point where you no longer react strongly to it.

Desensitization: This involves a reduced emotional response to a negative or feared stimulus after repeated exposure. If you haven't encountered a difficult person for a long time, your sensitivity to the negative emotions associated with them may lessen.

Fading: This is a general term that can describe the gradual reduction in the intensity or frequency of a behavior or response over time. In interpersonal relationships, this might mean that your vigilance or wariness of someone fades over time due to a lack of recent negative experiences.

But I would also add that I think there is some pro-social factor involved. Perhaps, in general it's a good thing that we have a kind of reset to people in general. A kind of built in give them another chance. A return to a naive state.

And then, to bring this back to the thread topic', is our response determined or somehow a free choice. I would say that in general the above processes are considered deterministic.

But I don't know if determinism is the case. I don't know if free will (the full on, ontological free will) is possible or quite what that means. I don't rule it out.

What does it matter for me in my personal, not discussing philosophy life? Not much.

But it's certainly a viable philosophical topic. On the other hand, it seems to me it would fall under the pejorative category Iambiguous has of 'serious philosophy'.

So, why are we or really why am I coming back to him and his posts. Well, my motivations are mixed, some I might be proud of, others less so. But I think the kinds of processes I mentioned above and quoted some descriptions of, allow for the possibility of this. I think if I truly knew there was no chance he would take a nuanced, exploratory reaction to something you or I said, I'd lose interest. The re-created naivete is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for my repeated interaction.

[iambiguous]

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

Determinism, in the most common philosophical sense of the term, is “the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way” (Cambridge Online Dictionary, 2019). This means that everything that happens was bound to happen including human actions, and this implies that choice is some sort of illusion.

Then the parts that [compelled or not] fascinate me the most:

1] Figuring out how particular compatibilists are able to convince themselves that, even though we are determined to do what we could never not do, we are still morally responsible. Unless, of course, this argument too is just another inherent component of the only possible world.

2] Trying to grasp the frame of mind of those like Sam Harris. In other words, those who seem to accept that we do live in a wholly determined universe...and yet "somehow" their arguments must prevail because they really are the best arguments. But how can things be thought of as better or worse in a world where they could never have beed otherwise? Other than because we think of things like this in turn because our brains compel us to.

If determinism is true, this shatters our fundamental understanding of ourselves and the universe, not to mention our moral practices. Nevertheless, the conclusion determinists themselves come to concerning its implications for moral responsibility are not always the same.

And around and around and around we go. If some come to believe this because they are compelled to while others come to reject it because they are compelled to...? What about the implications of that?

What does it mean to live in a world where something is shattered, where others are blamed for shattering it, but both the act of shattering it and the reactions to the shattering are just inherent and necessary manifestations of the only possible world?