compatibilism

[iambiguous]

I am waiting for a Libertarian...to...connect the dots between (his)...arguments about human autonomy...and the exact manner in which the brain scientists are able to confirm chemically and neurologically how that actually does unfold.

And I'm still waiting for a necessitarian/nihilist to connect the dots between his argument about the lack of human autonomy and the exact manner in which brain scientists are able to confirm this lack chemically and neurologically.

First of all, yet again I will note that what I do believe here and now about determinism and nihilism is no less rooted existentially in dasein. And therefore subject to change at any time given new experiences and new relationships and access to new information and knowledge

I don't bring a God, the God into the exchange. I don't posit one or another political/ideological manifesto. I don't embrace moral obligations up in the deontological clouds.

I flat out acknowledge that my own more or less intelligent assessment here may well be far, far removed from the whole truth. In fact, it almost certainly is.

Like age, in another thread, you want proof. I never promised you, offered you, or boasted about having, proof. I offered evidence. You rejected it.

Huh?

I argue here that I myself am unable to provide either substantive or substantial proof of what I believe "in my head" about human autonomy.

The human brain itself may well be unable to grasp it.

Instead, it's you and your fiercely fanatical ilk who treat those of my fractured and fragmented ilk [in the is/ought world] as though we embraced another one of your own "my way or the highway" "or else" scripture.

Only unlike those who accept democracy and the rule of law as the starting point in dealing with conflicting goods, you need to belong to yet another tribe.

The Ayn Rand/Satyr Syndrome where everyone embraces the rugged individual...but only if they all think exactly as their heroes do about, well, practically everything.

[iambiguous]

In the interim, I am waiting for a Libertarian sort here to insist that he or she can in fact connect the dots between their theoretical arguments about human autonomy up in the philosophical clouds and the exact manner in which the brain scientists are able to confirm chemically and neurologically how that actually does unfold.

Libertairans are not compatibilists, so this might be the wrong thread to wait in.

On the other hand, some might be compelled to argue that libertarians, determinists and compatibilists are all essentially interchangeable in a world where it actually is the case that they all inhabit the only possible reality.

[henry quirk]

First of all, yet again I will note that what I do believe here and now about determinism and nihilism is no less rooted existentially in dasein. And therefore subject to change at any time given new experiences and new relationships and access to new information and knowledge

Yes, I know: it's not your fault. With necessitarianism and dasein both, you are freed from self-responsibility. Either the relentless flux of particles made you do it, or the grand, overpowering influences of new experiences, new relationships, new information and knowledge made you do it. But you, you're not responsible. It's a very clever set up: you criticize while insulating yourself from criticism.

And, by the way: necessitarianism and dasein don't jibe. With the former, you cannot be influenced by new experiences, new relationships, new information and knowledge cuz you're just a meat machine. With the latter you're admitting compatibilism.

Please, pick one.

I don't bring a God, the God into the exchange. I don't posit one or another political/ideological manifesto. I don't embrace moral obligations up in the deontological clouds.

You do. You pine for belief and you champion democracy. God and ideology are defining factors in your posts. It's true you superficially reject moral reality but all your assessments of objectivists are flavored with objectivism. You are full of oughts and ought nots.

I flat out acknowledge that my own more or less intelligent assessment here may well be far, far removed from the whole truth. In fact, it almost certainly is. I argue here that I myself am unable to provide either substantive or substantial proof of what I believe "in my head" about human autonomy.

Yes, you're quick with the disclaimers. Again: very clever. You hold everyone responsible but avoid responsibility yourself.

Instead, it's you and your fiercely fanatical ilk who treat those of my fractured and fragmented ilk [in the is/ought world] as though we embraced another one of your own "my way or the highway" "or else" scripture.

If you mean to say: I hold you responsible for what you do. Yes, absolutely I do. Just as you hold me responsible for what I do, necessitarianism and dasein not withstanding. You are as judgmental as as I am. As much the fulminating objectivist as I am.

Only unlike those who accept democracy and the rule of law as the starting point in dealing with conflicting goods, you need to belong to yet another tribe.

Where is my tribe? I'd like to meet them. And, look here -- those who accept democracy and the rule of law as the starting point in dealing with conflicting goods -- clinging again to an ideology and a tribe (The People), perhaps even a morality.

The Ayn Rand/Satyr Syndrome where everyone embraces the rugged individual...but only if they all think exactly as their heroes do about, well, practically everything.

Heroes? What heroes? Name my heroes.

[Age]

I am waiting for a Libertarian...to...connect the dots between (his)...arguments about human autonomy...and the exact manner in which the brain scientists are able to confirm chemically and neurologically how that actually does unfold.

And I'm still waiting for a necessitarian/nihilist to connect the dots between his argument about the lack of human autonomy and the exact manner in which brain scientists are able to confirm this lack chemically and neurologically.

Shameless! With a condition?

Like age, in another thread, you want proof. I never promised you, offered you, or boasted about having, proof. I offered evidence. You rejected it.

This is another absolute lie, made up here by "henry quirk".

you are so blinded by your very own beliefs that you, still, cannot see that I never ever once even alluded to you having nor claiming that you had 'proof'.

I have just kept 'on you' about 'your claim' that there is evidence that the Universe began and that there is absolutely no evidence that the Universe is eternal.

I then asked you to provide 'the evidence', and NOT 'the proof', that the Universe began, which you claims exists.

I am, still, waiting for you to do so.

See, when it is you who claims some thing, then, sometimes, the 'burden of proof' is 'upon you'.

So, if you want to keep claiming that there is 'evidence' that the Universe began, then 'the burden' is 'upon you' to, what you would call, 'bandy' up 'the evidence'.

C'est la vie.

Obviously, you have an extremely "one sided" position and view on many things, like also in this thread for example, but I suggest you do not let that Truly "one sided viewing", and closed views, of things stop you from being able to learn, and discover, more.

[phyllo]

And, by the way: necessitarianism and dasein don't jibe. With the former, you cannot be influenced by new experiences, new relationships, new information and knowledge cuz you're just a meat machine.

If one is not influenced by experiences, relationships, information and knowledge then causes have no impact on what happens and therefore there is no cause and effect. That isn't determinism. It's literally the exact opposite of determinism.

[henry quirk]

And, by the way: necessitarianism and dasein don't jibe. With the former, you cannot be influenced by new experiences, new relationships, new information and knowledge cuz you're just a meat machine.

If one is not influenced by experiences, relationships, information and knowledge then causes have no impact on what happens and therefore there is no cause and effect. That isn't determinism. It's literally the exact opposite of determinism.

If you're a meat machine, just an aggregate of configured particles, then you are just an event, exactly like a domino smacked by another domino or a billiard ball set into motion by a stick. Experiences and knowledge have no effect. You may think they do, but those thoughts themselves are just events set in motion by other events set in motion by other events set in motion by...

You aren't a cause. You're particles set in motion by other particles and forces.

This is necessitarianism.

[phyllo]

If you're a meat machine, just an aggregate of configured particles, then you are just an event, exactly like a domino smacked by another domino or a billiard ball set into motion by a stick.

The event is the impact. It's not the domino, the ball or the stick. So how can a person be "an event"?

Experiences and knowledge have no effect.

The experience of being beating with a bat would have no effect on you?
If you had knowledge that a tiger was behind one closed door and a beautiful woman behind another closed door, it would not alter which door you open?

You aren't a cause. You're particles set in motion by other particles and forces.

If you throw a ball, then you are not the cause of the motion of the ball? What caused the ball to move?

[henry quirk]

The event is the impact. It's not the domino, the ball or the stick.

No. The event is one particle colliding with, transmitting force to, another.

So how can a person be "an event"?

A person, a free will, is not an event. A meat machine, an aggregate of particles, is.

The experience of being beating with a bat would have no effect on you?

As a free will: it would have an immediate, profound effect. Very quickly I'd be making choices as to a response.

As a meat machine: the effect would amount to nuthin' more than particles slamming into particles slamming into particles. Events causing events causing events, causing... Just another neccessary line extending back to the beginning.

If you had knowledge that a tiger was behind one closed door and a beautiful woman behind another closed door, it would not alter which door you open?

As a free will: absolutely.

As a meat machine: the sequence -- my knowledge, my choice -- would play out as it necessarily has to. As I say: I might believe I'm choosing, but that belief, that choice, are just events within events set off by prior events which were set off by prior events, etc.

If you throw a ball, then you are not the cause of the motion of the ball?

If I'm a free will: absolutely I'm the cause.

If I'm a meat machine: no, I'm just one step in a collision of particles and transmission of forces.

What caused the ball to move?

If I'm a free will: me.

If I'm a meat machine: ultimately, the beginning of the universe.

[phyllo]

The event is the impact. It's not the domino, the ball or the stick.

No. The event is one particle colliding with, transmitting force to, another.

No???

What are you disagreeing with here?

So how can a person be "an event"?

A person, a free will, is not an event. A meat machine, an aggregate of particles, is.

You think that an "event" is an object? An "aggregate of particles" is an "event" for you?

The experience of being beating with a bat would have no effect on you?

As a free will: it would have an immediate, profound effect. Very quickly I'd be making choices as to a response.

As a meat machine: the effect would amount to nuthin' more than particles slamming into particles slamming into particles. Events causing events causing events, causing... Just another neccessary line extending back to the beginning.

Forget about the pronoun "you" and substitute "dog".

Beating a dog with a bat has no effect on the dog?

If you had knowledge that a tiger was behind one closed door and a beautiful woman behind another closed door, it would not alter which door you open?

As a meat machine: the sequence -- my knowledge, my choice -- would play out as it necessarily has to.

So knowledge would change the outcome.

What caused the ball to move?

If I'm a meat machine: ultimately, the beginning of the universe.

You realize by saying that, you have mentally traced causes back to "the beginning of the universe".

The "last cause" is the person throwing the ball.

And that tends to be a very important cause.

Nobody goes back to the mechanic who states that your car's engine failure was caused by the beginning of the universe.

[henry quirk]

What are you disagreeing with here?

As I read it: you say the impact is the event. This seems to leave out the impacter and the impacted. I say the event is the impactor, the impacted, and what is transmitted.

You think that an "event" is an object?

In the language of agent-causality/event-causality, an event is, fundamentally, particles transmitting force to other particles. Doesn't matter how many particles are involved or their configuration.

An "aggregate of particles" is an "event" for you?

No. The event is particles transmitting force to other particles, aggregated or not.

Forget about the pronoun "you" and substitute "dog". Beating a dog with a bat has no effect on the dog?

Best I can tell: a dog is a meat machine, not a free will. Whacking a dog with a bat is, at heart, particles slamming into particles slamming into particles. Events causing events causing events, causing... Just another neccessary line extending back to the beginning.

So knowledge would change the outcome.

As a free will: knowledge gives me sumthin' to mull over. I may choose to open neither door.

As a meat machine: no. What happens is gonna happen, no matter what.

You realize by saying that, you have mentally traced causes back to "the beginning of the universe".

No. I've sourced the cause of innumerable events leading to events leading to events etc. as the beginning of the universe.

This is necessitarianism. It, of course, doesn't apply to libertarian free wills like you and me.

The "last cause" is the person throwing the ball.

No. A person, a free will, throwing a ball is a first cause. His throwing the ball is not necessarily rooted in what came before.

Nobody goes back to the mechanic who states that your car's engine failure was caused by the beginning of the universe

Exactly, becuz we're all free wills, not meat machines.

[phyllo]

What are you disagreeing with here?

As I read it: you say the impact is the event. This seems to leave out the impacter and the impacted. I say the event is the impactor, the impacted, and what is transmitted.

There wouldn't be an impact without the objects.

But two balls impacting is a different event than two balls sitting side by side although the objects are the same. The interaction is what 'makes' the event.

In the language of agent-causality/event-causality, an event is, fundamentally, particles transmitting force to other particles. Doesn't matter how many particles are involved or their configuration.

An event can be your mother telling you to take out the garbage. Or seeing a dog being beaten with a bat. It can be lots of things.

Nobody talks about particles except in exceptional situations. It's a useless level of abstraction. It says nothing valuable.

People talk about mothers, dogs, cars, houses, arms, trees ...

Forget about the pronoun "you" and substitute "dog". Beating a dog with a bat has no effect on the dog?

Best I can tell: a dog is a meat machine, not a free will. Whacking a dog with a bat is, at heart, particles slamming into particles slamming into particles. Events causing events causing events, causing... Just another neccessary line extending back to the beginning.

It seems that you have completely lost compassion for the dog by reducing it to particles.

So knowledge would change the outcome.

As a free will: knowledge gives me sumthin' to mull over. I may choose to open neither door.

As a meat machine: no. What happens is gonna happen, no matter what.

That's just a truism. It says nothing.

You realize by saying that, you have mentally traced causes back to "the beginning of the universe".

No. I've sourced the cause of innumerable events leading to events leading to events etc. as the beginning of the universe.

This is necessitarianism. It, of course, doesn't apply to libertarian free wills like you and me.

Sourcing it to "the beginning of the universe" doesn't tell you anything valuable. What does it have to do with the current state of universe?

I could trace my ancestry back to somebody thousands of years ago ... in a vague hand wavy way of course, since I have no information about it ... but it says nothing about what I do today.

BTW, I don't have libertarian free-will. I have will and certain freedoms. That doesn't make me merely meat.

The "last cause" is the person throwing the ball.

No. A person, a free will, throwing a ball is a first cause. His throwing the ball is not necessarily rooted in what came before.

Of course it's rooted in what came before : to be in that place, at that time, with that ball, is the result of uncountable interactions ... the formation of the universe, the planet, the evolution of life, the reproduction of your ancestors, the creation of a society, the manufacture of the ball, the motivation to throw the ball ...

You're at the end of a long chain of events.

Nobody goes back to the mechanic who states that your car's engine failure was caused by the beginning of the universe

Exactly, becuz we're all free wills, not meat machines.

No. It's because tracing it to "the beginning of the universe" doesn't get your car fixed.

[henry quirk]

There wouldn't be an impact without the objects.

Yes, right, we agree.

But two balls impacting is a different event than two balls sitting side by side although the objects are the same. The interaction is what 'makes' the event.

Yes, that's right.

It's a useless level of abstraction. It says nothing valuable.

Everything reduced to particles is exactly what necessitarianism is. The value is recognizing necessitarianism for what it is, and for what it claims we are.

People talk about mothers, dogs, cars, houses, arms, trees

Yes, we do cuz we're not just aggregates of particles.

It seems that you have completely lost compassion for the dog by reducing it to particles.

As a free will, a person, I have affection for my animals (5 cats right now) but they're not free wills. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that, by the way.

That's just a truism. It says nothing.

In context it sez if I'm a meat machine, just an aggregate of particles moved by other particles and forces moved by other particles and forces, etc., any choice I seem to have about door 1 or 2 is a fiction.

Sourcing it to "the beginning of the universe" doesn't tell you anything valuable. What does it have to do with the current state of universe?

The necessitarian view: the current state is a direct result of the prior state, no exceptions. Follow the line(s) of prior states back: you're at the beginning. A valuable statement to a necessitarian, I'm thinkin'.

I could trace my ancestry back to somebody thousands of years ago ... in a vague hand wavy way of course, since I have no information about it ... but it says nothing about what I do today.

I agree.

BTW, I don't have libertarian free-will.

If you say so.

I have will and certain freedoms.

You're a compatibilist, yeah?

Of course it's rooted in what came before

Does it truly seem to you that everything you think, say, do, feel, conclude is purely the result of what came before?

You're at the end of a long chain of events.

That's the necessitarian view, not mine.

No. It's because tracing it to "the beginning of the universe" doesn't get your car fixed.

If necessitarianism applies to us (I don't think it does, not fully). then you wanting your car fixed and haggling with the mechanic is nuthin' more than particles smacking particles. Your desires and thoughts, the way you voice them; the mechanic's concerns and agendas, the way he voices them: just a byproducts of particles and forces smacking up against each other.

[phyllo]

Everything reduced to particles is exactly what necessitarianism is. The value is recognizing necessitarianism for what it is, and for what it claims we are.

No it isn't. Free-willers talk about determinism in terms of particles in order to make it sound stupid.

It's a discussion tactic. And it gets tiresome very quickly.

People talk about mothers, dogs, cars, houses, arms, trees

Yes, we do cuz we're not just aggregates of particles.

You admit it.

So stop reducing it to particles.

It seems that you have completely lost compassion for the dog by reducing it to particles.

As a free will, a person, I have affection for my animals (5 cats right now) but they're not free wills. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that, by the way.

So compassion and affection has nothing to do with whether the animal has free-will or not.

In context it sez if I'm a meat machine, just an aggregate of particles moved by other particles and forces moved by other particles and forces, etc., any choice I seem to have about door 1 or 2 is a fiction.

It's only a fiction if the word "choice" (and its variations ) is completely redefined.

A chess playing computer still chooses moves although it doesn't have free-will. If it's not 'choosing', then what is it doing?

Sourcing it to "the beginning of the universe" doesn't tell you anything valuable. What does it have to do with the current state of universe?

The necessitarian view: the current state is a direct result of the prior state, no exceptions. Follow the line(s) of prior states back: you're at the beginning. A valuable statement to a necessitarian, I'm thinkin'.

Valuable in what way?

Does it truly seem to you that everything you think, say, do, feel, conclude is purely the result of what came before?

Yes.

Where else would it come from?

[Flannel Jesus]

Does it truly seem to you that everything you think, say, do, feel, conclude is purely the result of what came before?

Yes.

Where else would it come from?

I also recall that last time I talked to him about free will, he pretty much explicitly said that what comes before guarantees a particular choice - he literally used that word, guarantee.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes.

Where else would it come from?

And then, there's the whole, if it doesn't come from your desires, priorities and wants, what good would that freedom be?
You could choose to do something that isn't what you want to do most/this is best in the situation. You would be free to not have you actions caused by your desires and sense of what's best.

What use is that freedom?