compatibilism

[Immanuel Can]

I never said anything about a motive. "Why do you believe this?" doesn't have to be answered with a "motive", it's bizarre that you'd jump there without asking me.

You asked “why they believe,” but also insisted that by “why,” you don’t intend to offer any rational defence for the truth of that belief.

I insisted that, did I?

More than once. Every time I’ve asked you, in fact. Go back and look. The transcript speaks for itself.

[Immanuel Can]

You’ve advanced one, Compatibilism.

Believe it or not, in this conversation that we're having here, that actually *didn't* happen.

You don’t believe Compatibilism is true, now?

[Flannel Jesus]

You asked “why they believe,” but also insisted that by “why,” you don’t intend to offer any rational defence for the truth of that belief.

I insisted that, did I?

More than once. Every time I’ve asked you, in fact. Go back and look. The transcript speaks for itself.

That has literally never happened once.

[Flannel Jesus]

You’ve advanced one, Compatibilism.

Believe it or not, in this conversation that we're having here, that actually *didn't* happen.

You don’t believe Compatibilism is true, now?

"FJ believes compatibilism is true" and "FJ has advanced Compatibilism as a proposition in this conversation" are distinct statements. Don't confuse them.

[Flannel Jesus]

This started with him clarifying what the terms mean, and you treating that as an assertion he had or could demonstrate it (to you).

Look back: that’s not at all how it happened. This started with me asking if there could be any rationale for Compatibilism that didn’t amount to a collapse into Determinism. And that’s a very reasonable question, surely.

He refused,

This is such a bizarre narrative. That literally didn't happen XD you've just been coming up with one fiction after another in this thread.

[Immanuel Can]

Believe it or not, in this conversation that we're having here, that actually *didn't* happen.

You don’t believe Compatibilism is true, now?

"FJ believes compatibilism is true" and "FJ has advanced Compatibilism as a proposition in this conversation" are distinct statements. Don't confuse them.

Okay.

Well, what I hoped to find, at long last, was somebody who believed Compatibilism, but who also could explain how it could be rational. I never met any such Compatibilist; and so far as I can know now, I never have.

Maybe I never will. But that should speak volumes.

[Flannel Jesus]

It speaks volumes that you had a person in front of you saying "I'm willing to talk about why I think what I think" and instead of engaging in a normal ass conversation, you were just like "no, proof, now"

[Immanuel Can]

It speaks volumes that you had a person in front of you saying "I'm willing to talk about why I think what I think" and instead of engaging in a normal ass conversation, you were just like "no, proof, now"

Yes. It says I prefer people who believe rational things, over people who can’t defend anything they claim to believe.

Very true. I do.

[Flannel Jesus]

So you only believe things you can prove. Fascinating.

I don't think that's true of you.

[Immanuel Can]

So you only believe things you can prove. Fascinating.

I don't think that's true of you.

You’re free to think it. You’re wrong, but since you don’t care to rationalize your beliefs — at least, not your belief in Compatibilism — it’s not a terribly concerning indictment anyway.

[Iwannaplato]

So you only believe things you can prove. Fascinating.

I don't think that's true of you.

It's not true of anyone. It would be a very poor way to live. It would be a survival threat as a criterion.
and obviously we experience many things that we believe happened, most of these trivial events, but some important, that we cannot prove to others happened.

[Flannel Jesus]

So you only believe things you can prove. Fascinating.

I don't think that's true of you.

It's not true of anyone. It would be a very poor way to live. It would be a survival threat as a criterion.
and obviously we experience many things that we believe happened, most of these trivial events, but some important, that we cannot prove to others happened.

It's honestly insane of him to suggest that everything he believes he can prove. What a wild thing to say.

[phyllo]

Technically, one does not have to prove whether determinism, libertarian free-will or compatibilism is true.

One is living it(whichever one it is), no matter what one believes about it.

Would your behavior change if you knew for sure? How?

Just saying,

[Flannel Jesus]

Technically, one does not have to prove whether determinism, libertarian free-will or compatibilism is true.

I would hope not, everybody would be damned

One is living it(whichever one it is), no matter what one believes about it.

Would your behavior change if you knew for sure? How?

Just saying,

Yeah I agree, though I think some people might find certain things psychologically troubling.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/s/tYF4sF2ZgD

[henry quirk]

Would your behavior change if you knew for sure? How?

If necessitarianism is true: then I'm nuthin' but an *aggregate of particles. Any response I seem to have would be nuthin' but a product of particles smackin' up against particles smackin' up against particles smackin' up against...

If libertarian free will is true: My only response would be to say told ya so.




*automation doing exactly as it must, i.e., a meat machine