compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

Which, of course, I'll need to explore in regard to the reality of women like Mary aborting their unborn babies or clumps of cells. Some here will then insist that they have done this with me. As though only their own spin here counts.

The replies you have received haven't explored Mary and abortion? There must be literally hundreds of replies about that subject, spanning more than a decade.

So what have all the posters who have written about Mary and abortion been doing?

Which critical aspect of Mary and abortion have they missed?

You make the mistake of thinking he WANTS to actually make progress thinking about this. His words clearly indicate, I think, that he wants to ask really vague questions and ignore all attempts at understanding the responses. What he writes to people here indicates that, what he writes about articles he reads indicates it even more. He's not trying to read your thoughts and understand you. He doesn't care what you say broski. He's in full stooge mode. Shameless. Click.

See how often he talks about getting stuck? He loves being stuck.HE'S stuck. He doesn't want to try to get unstuck.

[henry quirk]

He doesn't want to try to get unstuck.

buggy: I'm drowning! Save me!
Anyone: here's a life preserver!
buggy: Bah! It's the wrong color! The wrong shape! You, picking such a device, have shown yourself to be a dupe, well-indoctrinated!
Anyone: hey , buddy, it's a life preserver! Grab it!
buggy: I will not. It may, in fact, save my life, but I reject it anyway!
Anyone: But, man, look! It floats! Grab it!
buggy: That it floats is not evidence I will accept of its life-preserving properties! Furthermore, I blame the manufacturer of that floatation device for my imminent demise!
Anyone: Hold up, how is it the manufacturer's fault you're drowning?
buggy: He, the manufacturer, obviously knows of the dangers of being out to sea, understands people can drown, but he's done nothing to prevent it.
Anyone: How the hell is the manufacturer supposed to stop you or anyone from going out to sea?
buggy: How am I, a mere sailor, supposed to know how? All I know, insofar as I'm situated in a particular place and a particular time, with only finite information, is the manufacturer is responsble, if, indeed, there is a manufacturer, and if, indeed, I'm capable to assessing my situation.
Anyone:
buggy: See here, all this, me drowning, you attempting to save me, me rejecting that attempt, and my reasoning for the rejection, these may all simply be the playing out of cause and effect. The manufacturer, should he actually exist, me in my predicament, you with your attempts, we're all like leaves being carried in a fast-moving stream. None of us have any say-so in these events. Unless, of course, I'm wrong and we do.
Anyone: Okay, so you're not really drowning. If you were you'd have taken the preserver. No, you've fabricated this whole circumstance so you can, I suppose, lob crap at other folks who go to sea.
buggy: Sir, your fulminations do not impress me. Try again.
Anyone: No.
buggy (to fishes swimming below him): See what I've reduced him to?

[Flannel Jesus]

<3

See what he's reduced us to?

[henry quirk]

<3

See what he's reduced us to?

We're shameless!

[iambiguous]

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

David Hume’s Compatibilism

Yet in A Treatise of Human Nature, the Scottish enlightenment philosopher David Hume tells us that there is no conflict between determinism and moral responsibility. This conclusion can only be explained through his account of the term ‘determinism’.

Another attempt on my part to -- click -- figure out how on Earth anyone can defend compatibilism in a wholly determined universe other than because they were never able not to defend it?

In order to understand determinism in Hume’s account, one needs to bear in mind Hume’s empiricism, which underlies all his philosophical inquiry. As an empiricist, Hume believed that our knowledge of the world comes only through sensory perception, not through innate ideas or intuition.

This is the part where I suggest that, perhaps, given the arguments of the hard determinists, human sensory perceptions and human reasoning are both intertwined in brains that are inherently intertwined in the laws of matter. Deduction and induction are then both interchangeable in that either "idea first" or "observation first", what comes first and then what follows is entirely in sync with "the only possible reality".

Mother Nature, in other words. With or without a teleology?

Based on this premise, he believed there are certain principles that help us acquire knowledge or know anything at all, for that matter.

Okay, but what about basing it on the premises put forward by the determinists instead? Principally, Hume believed only what his brain matter compelled him to believe. The true mystery [for some of us] then revolves around how in a No God world matter itself "somehow" was capable of becoming conscious of itself as biological matter evolving well beyond instinct and libidos into...philosophy?

[iambiguous]

Which, of course, I'll need to explore in regard to the reality of women like Mary aborting their unborn babies or clumps of cells. Some here will then insist that they have done this with me. As though only their own spin here counts.

The replies you have received haven't explored Mary and abortion? There must be literally hundreds of replies about that subject, spanning more than a decade.

So what have all the posters who have written about Mary and abortion been doing?

Which critical aspect of Mary and abortion have they missed?

Come on, it's not just us on this thread but, instead, over and over and over again on thread after thread after thread...posters who insist that in regard to abortion or guns or immigration or race or gender or sexual orientation or even The Big Questions like this one, there is but one objective reality, one universal morality, one rational and virtuous assessment.

Hint: their own

This thread, however, doesn't focus in on what we believe about these things so much as on whether or not what we do believe about them we could have, of our own volition, chosen not to believe instead. Or believed something entirely different. Then the part where philosophers here accumulate argument after argument about it [myself included] in which free will and determinism and compatibilism are just words that we define the meaning of in order to define the meaning of all the other words.

So again...

If you are a compatibilist, do you believe that Mary was compelled to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells and morally responsible for doing so?

How do you go about demonstrating [even to yourself] that this is compatible with a true understanding of matter, a true understanding of the human brain, a true understanding of the human condition going all the way back to...to what?

To God? Don't you come back to a God, the God here? Or has all that changed?

Finally, in regard to your own interactions with others, how would you describe the sequence of events in your own brain as you go about "choosing" behaviors. In particular, that "eureka!" moment when you come screaming naked here shouting, "I knew it! I knew it!!"

[Iwannaplato]

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

David Hume’s Compatibilism

Yet in A Treatise of Human Nature, the Scottish enlightenment philosopher David Hume tells us that there is no conflict between determinism and moral responsibility. This conclusion can only be explained through his account of the term ‘determinism’.

Another attempt on my part to -- click -- figure out how on Earth anyone can defend compatibilism in a wholly determined universe other than because they were never able not to defend it?

In order to understand determinism in Hume’s account, one needs to bear in mind Hume’s empiricism, which underlies all his philosophical inquiry. As an empiricist, Hume believed that our knowledge of the world comes only through sensory perception, not through innate ideas or intuition.

This is the part where I suggest that, perhaps, given the arguments of the hard determinists, human sensory perceptions and human reasoning are both intertwined in brains that are inherently intertwined in the laws of matter. Deduction and induction are then both interchangeable in that either "idea first" or "observation first", what comes first and then what follows is entirely in sync with "the only possible reality".

Mother Nature, in other words. With or without a teleology?

Based on this premise, he believed there are certain principles that help us acquire knowledge or know anything at all, for that matter.

Okay, but what about basing it on the premises put forward by the determinists instead? Principally, Hume believed only what his brain matter compelled him to believe. The true mystery [for some of us] then revolves around how in a No God world matter itself "somehow" was capable of becoming conscious of itself as biological matter evolving well beyond instinct and libidos into...philosophy?

And here again we have a post that could be the not-really-a-response to what is quoted. It could be written after quotes from any article within philosophy. There is no reason to quote Hume. One could also wait until one has actually come to the argument Hume makes.

Further, Iambiguous has often made it very clear he sees a qualitative distinction between is and ought issues and questions. One can find solutions, the other, as far as he can see so far, we cannot find solutions regarding.

Yet, here and often recently he is essentially arguing that both is and ought questions cannot be resolved. So, not just moral nihilism, but epistemological nihilism.

Fine, that's a position in philosophy, but where is the admission that his asserting for years that there is a clear distinction between is and ought was false? We can't know either. We may merely think our answers to the latter are correct because we are compelled to.

Further, here we are in a philosophy discussion forum. If any suggestion about how moral responsbility will be responded to with 'but maybe you're compelled to think that makes sense', then there is no point in discussion.

We could, for example, acknowledge that our conclusions may be wrong for any of a number of reasons, and then reason anyway, with that asterisk that various factors or ontological aspect entail we could be wrong.

Iambiguous reasons. He expects people to reason in relation to abortions, for example.

But when other people reason they are met with the from his perspective conversation killer. No need to look at Hume's argument or Phyllo's or anyone else's.

Yet he continues as if there could be a discussion with him. And as if he is engaging with the works he quotes.

[Iwannaplato]

Which, of course, I'll need to explore in regard to the reality of women like Mary aborting their unborn babies or clumps of cells. Some here will then insist that they have done this with me. As though only their own spin here counts.

The replies you have received haven't explored Mary and abortion? There must be literally hundreds of replies about that subject, spanning more than a decade.

So what have all the posters who have written about Mary and abortion been doing?

Which critical aspect of Mary and abortion have they missed?

If you are a compatibilist, do you believe that Mary was compelled to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells and morally responsible for doing so?

How do you go about demonstrating [even to yourself] that this is compatible with a true understanding of matter, a true understanding of the human brain, a true understanding of the human condition going all the way back to...to what?

And Phyllo is correct. A number of people have given direct responses to this issue of determinism being compatible with moral responsibility. I believe Phyllo, Flannel Jesus and FJ have done this. There may be others.

[phyllo]

Come on, it's not just us on this thread but, instead, over and over and over again on thread after thread after thread...posters who insist that in regard to abortion or guns or immigration or race or gender or sexual orientation or even The Big Questions like this one, there is but one objective reality, one universal morality, one rational and virtuous assessment.

Hint: their own

So you don't like their attitude.

That doesn't invalidate their points and it doesn't negate the fact that they have already addressed the issues of Mary and abortion.

A lot of people don't like your attitude.

This thread, however, doesn't focus in on what we believe about these things so much as on whether or not what we do believe about them we could have, of our own volition, chosen not to believe instead. Or believed something entirely different.

There is overwhelming evidence that thinking and decisions take place in the brain. Therefore, that's where volition would be.

If you think the source of volition is elsewhere, then make a case for it.

Then the question becomes ... what kind of volition do you want?
It seems that the only one that makes sense is a volition that responds to the demands of the situation. IOW it reacts to external requirements. You believe what the environment requires your to believe.

If you think that your volition ought to make you believe something else, then make a case for it.

Then the part where philosophers here accumulate argument after argument about it [myself included] in which free will and determinism and compatibilism are just words that we define the meaning of in order to define the meaning of all the other words.

There are observations that can be made and conclusions that can be logically reached.

Therefore, I don't think it's a word game.

[iambiguous]

Based on this premise, he believed there are certain principles that help us acquire knowledge or know anything at all, for that matter.

Okay, but what about basing it on the premises put forward by the determinists instead? Principally, Hume believed only what his brain matter compelled him to believe. The true mystery [for some of us] then revolves around how in a No God world matter itself "somehow" was capable of becoming conscious of itself as biological matter evolving well beyond instinct and libidos into...philosophy?

And here again we have a post that could be the not-really-a-response to what is quoted. It could be written after quotes from any article within philosophy. There is no reason to quote Hume. One could also wait until one has actually come to the argument Hume makes.

How is this "for all practical purposes" pertinent to the point I make? The part where none of us have the capacity to pin down what Hume means other than in how our brains compel us to react to him. And Hume here is no exception for the determinists.

Further, Iambiguous has often made it very clear he sees a qualitative distinction between is and ought issues and questions. One can find solutions, the other, as far as he can see so far, we cannot find solutions regarding.

With determinism as some understand it, both problems and solutions [to anything] are interchangeable. And if some wish to insist that it's their solution that ultimately resolves it, well, what does it even mean to take credit for something you could never have not taken credit for?

Yet, here and often recently he is essentially arguing that both is and ought questions cannot be resolved. So, not just moral nihilism, but epistemological nihilism.

Look, if he wishes to insist here that how he understands me is more reasonable than how I understand myself, well, que sera, sera? As for "solutions", okay, let's hear them. Some here claim to have responded to my requests that we bring compatibilism down out of the theoretical clouds...down to Mary and her unborn baby/clump of cells. Or with respect to other moral conflagrations.

Well -- click -- if they did, their arguments failed to register with me. And mine with them. So, all we can do is to try, try again or move on to others.

Fine, that's a position in philosophy, but where is the admission that his asserting for years that there is a clear distinction between is and ought was false? We can't know either. We may merely think our answers to the latter are correct because we are compelled to.

I've lost count of how many times I have noted that I do not exclude myself here from my own point of view. Instead, the most profound mystery of all [for me] still revolves around the gap -- the chasm, the grand canyon -- between what we think we know about the human brain "in our head" and all that would need to be known regarding how the human condition itself fits into the existence of existence itself.

Morally or epistemological.

Further, here we are in a philosophy discussion forum. If any suggestion about how moral responsbility will be responded to with 'but maybe you're compelled to think that makes sense', then there is no point in discussion.

Exactly? We continue to pursue these questions...

Why something instead of nothing?
Why this something and not something else?
Where does the human condition fit into the whole understanding of this particular something itself?
What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
What of the multiverse?
What of God?

...assuming that we do possess some measure of autonomy.

In fact, there are any number of posters here who seem adamant in commanding others to accept only their own answers. They'll go to the grave perhaps absolutely convinced there is but one answer to questions like these. In the other words, the answers that comfort and console them the most.

And if some here really do refuse to make a distinction between the either/or world and the is/ought world, well, they'd be fools not to steer clear of me.

We could, for example, acknowledge that our conclusions may be wrong for any of a number of reasons, and then reason anyway, with that asterisk that various factors or ontological aspect entail we could be wrong.

My point here is only in assuming that if there is no God, this may well be the best of all possible worlds. And if that's the case then, in my view, democracy and rule of law encompasses it. Whereas the objectivists are far more drawn to the conviction that "right makes might".

Iambiguous reasons.

Whose reasons other than my own would they be? And it is precisely in order to avoid ambiguity and ambivalence and uncertainty and equivocation and confusion, etc., that they try to sustain "the psychology of objectivism" all the way to the grave.

He expects people to reason in relation to abortions, for example.

No, I make the distinction between doctors being reasonable in regard to performing abortions and ethicists being reasonable in regard to the morality of it.

But when other people reason they are met with the from his perspective conversation killer. No need to look at Hume's argument or Phyllo's or anyone else's.

Again, if that's how he needs to see me, so be it. And it is the truly hardcore objectivists among us -- click -- who are intent on killing conversations. In other words, if you don't become "one of them"...?

[iambiguous]

Come on, it's not just us on this thread but, instead, over and over and over again on thread after thread after thread...posters who insist that in regard to abortion or guns or immigration or race or gender or sexual orientation or even The Big Questions like this one, there is but one objective reality, one universal morality, one rational and virtuous assessment.

Hint: their own

So you don't like their attitude.

What rubs me the wrong way about them existentially is that their attitude is often anchored in one or another rendition of "or else". Then the part where "or else" itself can revolve around such things as cults or reeducation camps or gulags or fatwas or crusades or inquistions or show trials or final solutions.

That doesn't invalidate their points and it doesn't negate the fact that they have already addressed the issues of Mary and abortion.

On the other hand, if the hardcore determinists are correct, no points can be invalid. Why? Because all points are embedded inherently and necessarily in the only possible reality.

And as I noted with iwannaplato, "...some here claim to have responded to my requests that we bring compatibilism down out of the theoretical clouds...down to Mary and her unborn baby/clump of cells. Or with respect to other moral conflagrations.

Well -- click -- if they did, their arguments failed to register with me. And mine with them. So, all we can do is to try, try again or move on to others."

A lot of people don't like your attitude.

Or a lot of people are uncomfortable with the arguments I make because they simply do not want to accept the possibility that human existence may well be essentially meaningless, that feeling fractured and fragmented is a reasonable moral philosophy in a No God world and that immortality and salvation are the real deal.

The good news? That to the best of my knowledge no one here is actually required to read what I post.

This thread, however, doesn't focus in on what we believe about these things so much as on whether or not what we do believe about them we could have, of our own volition, chosen not to believe instead. Or believed something entirely different.

There is overwhelming evidence that thinking and decisions take place in the brain. Therefore, that's where volition would be.

Now [of course] all you have to do is to actually demonstrate experimentally, experientially, empirically, etc., that you do in fact have free will. Then back to the part where you astonish us all the more with a bold analysis of how and why the human condition and the existence of existence itself provide this "overwhelming evidence".

If you think the source of volition is elsewhere, then make a case for it.

And how exactly would anyone of us go about accomplishing that? In the interim, I think the human brain in a No God universe is just another inherent manifestation of the laws of matter. Which I then myself have no capacity to demonstrate.

Then the question becomes ... what kind of volition do you want?

No, the question still revolves around whether we can pin down once and for all that what we think we want we do in fact want of our own volition.

It seems that the only one that makes sense is a volition that responds to the demands of the situation. IOW it reacts to external requirements. You believe what the environment requires your to believe.

No, I believe "here and now" that the variables involved are intertwined in an ineffable complexity of social, political and economic permutations that not even the science guys and gals can untangle.

If you think that your volition ought to make you believe something else, then make a case for it.

My case revolves around the assumption I make regarding the human brain. That it is is but more matter "somehow" compelled to act and to react to the actions of others as so many dominoes toppling over on cue given the laws of nature.

But that's all it can ever be, it seems. An assumption embedded in my own incapacity to demonstrate it.

Then the part where philosophers here accumulate argument after argument about it [myself included] in which free will and determinism and compatibilism are just words that we define the meaning of in order to define the meaning of all the other words.

There are observations that can be made and conclusions that can be logically reached.

Therefore, I don't think it's a word game.

From my frame of mind, what you think, you think only because you were never able to opt to think otherwise. Only I think that is also applicable to me. Then what? Just as with folks from Flatland, we exist inside a three-dimensional reality in which the reality itself is beyond our fully grasping. What other dimensions might there be? Do they all come back to a God, the God? Is the universe itself Divine?

[Iwannaplato]

From article:
Based on this premise, he believed there are certain principles that help us acquire knowledge or know anything at all, for that matter.

Okay, but what about basing it on the premises put forward by the determinists instead? Principally, Hume believed only what his brain matter compelled him to believe. The true mystery [for some of us] then revolves around how in a No God world matter itself "somehow" was capable of becoming conscious of itself as biological matter evolving well beyond instinct and libidos into...philosophy?

And here again we have a post that could be the not-really-a-response to what is quoted. It could be written after quotes from any article within philosophy. There is no reason to quote Hume. One could also wait until one has actually come to the argument Hume makes.

How is this "for all practical purposes" pertinent to the point I make? The part where none of us have the capacity to pin down what Hume means other than in how our brains compel us to react to him. And Hume here is no exception for the determinists.

It's right there in what you quoted.

It could be written after quotes from any article within philosophy. There is no reason to quote Hume. One could also wait until one has actually come to the argument Hume makes.

Notice how you phrase your objection: How is this pertinent to the point I am making, you say. My point was that your point is not a response to what YOU quoted. You could say it after any quote. Why bother to quote anyone, if you are going to say that? It's a conversation stopper. Same as saying 'How do we know we're not a brain in a vat? Or How do I know I am not insane? Or is it possible what seems obvious to us isn't?

You could throw these out in relation to any post. Fine, if you want to just stop discussion and even stop your own consideration of the ideas you are quote, well, it's a good strategy. Though there is absolutely no need to quote anyone. You could simply just make the assertions you keep making. Skip the pretend middle man.

Further, Iambiguous has often made it very clear he sees a qualitative distinction between is and ought issues and questions. One can find solutions, the other, as far as he can see so far, we cannot find solutions regarding.

With determinism as some understand it, both problems and solutions [to anything] are interchangeable. And if some wish to insist that it's their solution that ultimately resolves it, well, what does it even mean to take credit for something you could never have not taken credit for?

And this is a non-response.

My point was that in the past and recently you have drawn a distinction between moral conslusions and, for example, scientific conclusions. But if you are going to quote person after person and say 'But for all we know we are compelled to think this makes sense' THAT PRECISE QUOTE would apply to scientific conclusions also.

When you decide to do some analysis, fine reason exists at least as possible. When others whom you quote assert ANYTHING, you throw out your new conversation stopper. One that holds for science as well as for discussions of morals.

Yet, here and often recently he is essentially arguing that both is and ought questions cannot be resolved. So, not just moral nihilism, but epistemological nihilism.

Look, if he wishes to insist here that how he understands me is more reasonable than how I understand myself, well, que sera, sera?

that's NOT what I said, and I notice the shift to insisted. You assert things, I assert things, no need to reframe it. In any case, what I did say was about things you have said. Not about you. I said that you have long made a distinction between is assertions, say in science, where you have said we can be objective, and ought assertions where, so far, you see not adequate justification for claims to objectivity.

If you can't remember making that distinction, then things just go surreal. You've been making it for years.

Then I mentioned how your current conversation stopper about being compelled to believe HOLDS FOR 'IS' assertions also. We can't know if we aren't being compelled to think scientific conclusions, for example. That contradicts you're long time saying that these two kinds of assertions - one about morals, one about what science draws conclusions about - are different. The conversation stopper you use now works on both kinds of conclusions.

So, note again - I did make a claim that I understood you better than yourself. I mentioned what you have written, hundreds of times, about the difference between assertions about reality that can be tested -f or example in science - and assertions about morality.

Then I pointed out how the conversations stopper, something else you have said it is easy to find instances SINCE I QUOTED THEM where you say this, has the same effect on scientific conclusions.

Nowhere me saying I understand you better than you do.

As for "solutions", okay, let's hear them. Some here claim to have responded to my requests that we bring compatibilism down out of the theoretical clouds...down to Mary and her unborn baby/clump of cells. Or with respect to other moral conflagrations.

We did that already.

Well -- click -- if they did, their arguments failed to register with me.

UH, huh.

And mine with them.

That doesn't follow and isnt the case.

So, all we can do is to try, try again or move on to others.

Fine, that's a position in philosophy, but where is the admission that his asserting for years that there is a clear distinction between is and ought was false? We can't know either. We may merely think our answers to the latter are correct because we are compelled to.

I've lost count of how many times I have noted that I do not exclude myself here from my own point of view.

That is not a response to what I wrote. I didn't say you might be wrong and can't admit that. I am talking about a specific distinction you have made and how this new thing about determinism compelling us to think things are true eliminates that disctinction since it can be used on both is and oughy kinds of assertions.

Further, here we are in a philosophy discussion forum. If any suggestion about how moral responsbility will be responded to with 'but maybe you're compelled to think that makes sense', then there is no point in discussion.

In fact, there are any number of posters here who seem adamant in commanding others to accept only their own answers. They'll go to the grave perhaps absolutely convinced there is but one answer to questions like these. In the other words, the answers that comfort and console them the most.

And if some here really do refuse to make a distinction between the either/or world and the is/ought world, well, they'd be fools not to steer clear of me.

And there you've asserted it again. See, I wasn't making claims to understand you better than you or at all. I was claiming that you make this distinction, which you do in the quote above, while at the same time using a conversation stopper that eliminates the distinction.
Here's another example...

On the other hand, if the hardcore determinists are correct, no points can be invalid.

We can all acknowledge that possibly we may be wrong about things, then look at arguments as well as we can on their merit. If there's no point in doing that, then what is the point of posting here?

[phyllo]

What rubs me the wrong way about them existentially is that their attitude is often anchored in one or another rendition of "or else". Then the part where "or else" itself can revolve around such things as cults or reeducation camps or gulags or fatwas or crusades or inquistions or show trials or final solutions.

That "part" isn't applicable to posts on an internet forum. You're not going to end up on a meat-hook because of something you post here.

On the other hand, if the hardcore determinists are correct, no points can be invalid. Why? Because all points are embedded inherently and necessarily in the only possible reality.

You often use these "hardcore determinists" to support your statements but you never provide a reference to a specific determinist who actually said the things you claim.

"No points can be invalid" is utter nonsense. The statement 2+2=5 is invalid whether the universe is determined or not. It's inconsistent with the rules of mathematics.

You're confusing the inability of making a mistake with the evaluation of what constitutes a mistake.

If no points can be invalid, then it would be impossible to calculate the forces on a bridge and therefore it would be impossible to build a bridge that stays intact. For example.

Well -- click -- if they did, their arguments failed to register with me. And mine with them. So, all we can do is to try, try again or move on to others."

Your arguments registered with me. You have three points ... we don't know enough ... we have no control over what we think and do ... it doesn't matter what we think and do. I responded to all three several times.

Now [of course] all you have to do is to actually demonstrate experimentally, experientially, empirically, etc., that you do in fact have free will. Then back to the part where you astonish us all the more with a bold analysis of how and why the human condition and the existence of existence itself provide this "overwhelming evidence".

It's already been shown experimentally that the brain is the organ that thinks and decides.

If you believe that thinking and deciding is done somewhere else, then it's on you to show some evidence.

It's remarkable how much value you place in science and demonstrations but when presented with scientific facts, you throw them aside as irrelevant or worthless.

And how exactly would anyone of us go about accomplishing that?

Well, you show some observations where the brain is not doing the thinking and deciding. Or you show some logical reasoning which shows why the brain cannot be doing the thinking and deciding.

No, I believe "here and now" that the variables involved are intertwined in an ineffable complexity of social, political and economic permutations that not even the science guys and gals can untangle.

Yeah, I have noticed that as soon as one can come to some sort of conclusions, you introduce more and more details to sabotage it.

Let's call this ... your agenda.

My case revolves around the assumption I make regarding the human brain. That it is is but more matter "somehow" compelled to act and to react to the actions of others as so many dominoes toppling over on cue given the laws of nature.

Dominoes are a terrible analogy. Dominoes fall down once and that's it. They have no ability to alter how they fall or interest in how they fall.

Brains observe and remember what has happened to others. They engage in thousands of interactions per day. They survive those interactions. They learn from those interactions. They can alter their responses. They have desires and interests.

[Flannel Jesus]

What rubs me the wrong way about them existentially is that their attitude is often anchored in one or another rendition of "or else". Then the part where "or else" itself can revolve around such things as cults or reeducation camps or gulags or fatwas or crusades or inquistions or show trials or final solutions.

That "part" isn't applicable to posts on an internet forum. You're not going to end up on a meat-hook because of something you post here.

Does he think you're just supposed to smack the word "existentially" in the middle of sentences to sound smart?

How does one being rubbed the wrong way "existentially" differ from just being rubbed the wrong way, without the word "existentially"?

[Iwannaplato]

What rubs me the wrong way about them existentially is that their attitude is often anchored in one or another rendition of "or else". Then the part where "or else" itself can revolve around such things as cults or reeducation camps or gulags or fatwas or crusades or inquistions or show trials or final solutions.

That "part" isn't applicable to posts on an internet forum. You're not going to end up on a meat-hook because of something you post here.

Does he think you're just supposed to smack the word "existentially" in the middle of sentences to sound smart?

How does one being rubbed the wrong way "existentially" differ from just being rubbed the wrong way, without the word "existentially"?

I'd think the more amazing part is what rubs Iambiguous the wrong way. I mean, it rubs me the wrong way when people walk onto the bike path without looking. I have slightly (ironic word choice) stronger feelings about being put in a re-education camp, say. Then there's the implicit moral objectivism, hush, hush.

It irked me when they killed my whole family for being Jews.
It ruffled my feathers when I was sentenced the hard labor in Siberia for 20 years.