compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

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

He must think God erred in giving him an intuition.

People are often confused by beliefs.
First there are all the things that happen when you are alone and leave no particular trace. These are impossible to prove to others. Now he may not consider those beliefs and one could argue that we could reasonably accept many of them are true, though likely not all. Then there are internal things he believes he experience, such as dreams. Good luck proving that he had the dreams he thinks he hand. Then there are memories. Some can be demonstrated with some degree of strength, though most will be outside the range of proof.

Then there are all the beliefs we have about other people: that they are trustworthy or not, as one example of thousands of possible traits. Some instrances may provide some evidence, perhaps even strong evidence, but proof...rarely.

One can put forward evidence for various historical events: but proof, this gets tricky, and certainly if we go back before modern media.

Any belief system will have some axioms, ontological, for example, and analogous to Gödel's theorum some of this stuff we can't prove.

I would guess he think that he can prove that his particular version of the Christian deity is the correct version, but this is also unlikely.

Can he prove he is not in a simulation or is merely a brain in a vat?

Can he prove his belief that the reason you were not proving Compatibilism was the reason he believed was obvious? Only if he can show us his psychic certificate.

Or maybe he would plan Age's tactic: he doesn't have any beliefs, or he has one. He simply knows all these things. So, he doesn't believe, but knows and only beliefs require proof.

It also implies that his beliefs are formed primarily through deduction rather than induction, which is, well nearly impossible.

He may well feel he can prove the following

Belief in the resurrection is the grounds of salvation.

[phyllo]

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

It seems that you need to keep believing that you are a "free-will", since so much of your identify and self-worth depends on it.

That's unfortunate.

Let's hope that you don't destroy too many "meat-machines" as a result.

[henry quirk]

It seems that you need to keep believing that you are a "free-will", since so much of your identify and self-worth depends on it.

That's unfortunate.

Oh, I think I'm very fortunate to recognize myself as I am: a free will (in the libertarian sense), an embodied soul.

In a world that purposefully deludes, to see and understand is a good thing.

Let's hope that you don't destroy too many "meat-machines" as a result.

Outside of self-defense, or defense of another, I have no just cause to injure another person (a libertarian free will), so you're safe. Animals, most who are meat machines? I've killed my share.

[iambiguous]

Unlike iambiguous and "some determinists" who attribute all decisions and actions to the laws of nature and forget entirely about the person thinking, choosing and acting.

Right, just as many forget that, in their dreams, they are no less convinced "in the dream" that they are "thinking, choosing and acting" entirely of their own volition.

Then those who wake up and think, "oh, It was just a dream". In other words, being awake they assure themselves is just, well, different for the brain.

And it may well be. So, if some here believe this, please make an attempt to demonstrate how you yourself go about stacking up the physical evidence to confirm it. Or link us to neuroscientists who accomplish this.

[Iwannaplato]

Unlike iambiguous and "some determinists" who attribute all decisions and actions to the laws of nature and forget entirely about the person thinking, choosing and acting.

Right, just as many forget that, in their dreams, they are no less convinced "in the dream" that they are "thinking, choosing and acting" entirely of their own volition.

I don't know what 'entirely of their own volition entails' but what makes you think you aren't making decisions in the dream? Why could it not be like waking life where things happen that we do not control, but we make decisions in reaction to it. It seems just as clear in the dream to me that I am making decisions as when I make decisions in waking life.

Note: this is not me arguing that we have free will in dreams. This is me arguing that within the parameters of the options in the dream and my dream attitudes, I see no reason to say my waking life decisions are more free willish than my dream decisions. Of course, sometimes I make decisions in dreaming I wouldn't make in everyday life - and vice versa - but then I am in an altered state of consciousness. I make some really poor decisions when drunk - well, back in the days when I drank more than a glass of wine, generally on New Years. Oh, boy. Or the decisions I made when very tired and stressed with my blood full of adrenalin and cortisol.

Yes, it was a dream, but I have even mulled over decisions in dreams and then, in the dreaming, acted on the decisions.

What makes you think that dreams are more clearly determined than waking life?

[iambiguous]

Criticising Strawson’s Compatibilism
Nurana Rajabova is wary of an attempt to dismiss determinism to keep free will.

Strawson speaks of these emotions ["resentment, contempt, sympathy and gratitude, among many others"] as a natural part of human psychology.

Okay, then what? Human psychology is but another phenomenological manifestation of matter having evolved from the Big Bang into us. At least -- click -- in a No God universe. But we are still grappling to discover just how different the human brain really is from other matter. And just because atheists are convinced there is no Supreme Being "out there", doesn't mean that settles it.

In other words, what isn't natural regarding human psychology if human psychology itself is an inherent part of nature? Thus, the more some of us think about all of this the spookier it gets. "It's all God", many then conclude. That's the only explanation, they argue, that intertwines everything into that crucial teleological component of "I".

For instance, if somebody does me wrong, it is only natural for me to feel resentment towards them. Or if I am assisted in one way or another, I will naturally develop gratitude towards the person who did me the favor.

Why does any of this require free will, however? Instead, might it not all come back to establishing just how the human species does fit into the natural world going back to, to...uh, oh...we don't know what it all comes back to. We just know that "somehow" the human brain acquired it.

Strawson further notes that such emotional responses are not only applicable in our relationships with others, but also in our responses to ourselves. The feeling of guilt we have when we recognize our own wrong action is a prime example of this.

One suspects that, perhaps, it is this psycho-somatic mystery that most intrigues us. We know that when we choose a behavior, our brain is capable of grasping certain things rationally, objectively. Then our emotional and psychological reactions to what we think is reasonable. Then the part where both become entangled in our sub-conscious and unconscious reactions. All of which must then be intertwined as well with the "reptilian" components of "I": id, instinct, libido, drives.

"I" myself merely complicates it all the more by suggesting that, even given free will, dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome confront us over and again with all the variables in our lives that were beyond our full understanding of or control over.

By drawing attention to this common human psychology, Strawson argues that we all possess these reactive attitudes as a human disposition and as a “fact of human society.” He then argues that this is indeed an indication that ascribing moral responsibility is a justified practice, since doing so is simply one of our natural reactive attitudes. It’s not only justified, it’s inevitable, we might say.

Okay, let's bring this set of "philosophical" assumptions down to Earth and explore the actual existential implications of them given Mary and her abortion. How do you imagine Strawson would go about explaining to her that she is still morally responsible for doing something she was never able not to do. How would he explain how his own explanation is not as well an inherent component of the only possible reality?

[Iwannaplato]

By drawing attention to this common human psychology, Strawson argues that we all possess these reactive attitudes as a human disposition and as a “fact of human society.” He then argues that this is indeed an indication that ascribing moral responsibility is a justified practice, since doing so is simply one of our natural reactive attitudes. It’s not only justified, it’s inevitable, we might say.

Okay, let's bring this set of "philosophical" assumptions down to Earth and explore the actual existential implications of them given Mary and her abortion. How do you imagine Strawson would go about explaining to her that she is still morally responsible for doing something she was never able not to do. How would he explain how his own explanation is not as well an inherent component of the only possible reality?

Strawson might well be proabortion. But if you read the paragraph you quoted, he's not focused on the potential Mary on the receiving end of the reaction/judgment, he's focused on the person reacting negatively to the person performing the act (including potentially himself ((for Strawson))).

On what grounds would you argue that the reaction holding her responsible is wrong given determinism. He's arguing it's a natural reaction to react that way to the acts of others.

I'm not sure he's making this point, but it is in the offing: if one cannot judge people for their inevitable acts, how can one judge people for their inevitable assigning of responsibility?

I suspect that's not his main point, but I'll throw it out since he seems close to it.

[Flannel Jesus]

Imagine reading the text and trying to understand it on its own terms... Crazy times man, and you're a crazy man

[Iwannaplato]

Imagine reading the text and trying to understand it on its own terms... Crazy times man, and you're a crazy man

Good point. Sometimes I go too far.

[Age]

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.

But, you, still, do not yet know which one is true, right?

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

So, to this one, it, still, believes that metallic machines are made up of meat.

And, the fact that you "henry quirk" are obviously not yet doing what you were intended for proves that you have the ability to choose, correct?

[Age]

But, you, still, do not yet know which one is true, right?

Yeah...

Oh, I think I'm very fortunate to recognize myself as I am: a free will (in the libertarian sense), an embodied soul.

...I do.

So, to this one, it, still, believes that metallic machines are made up of meat.

No, of course not. When I refer to meat machines I'm not talkin' about man-made contraptions.

And, the fact that you "henry quirk" are obviously not yet doing what you were intended for proves that you have the ability to choose, correct?

As I'm the one who sets my course: I'm doing exactly as I intend.

[Age]

But, you, still, do not yet know which one is true, right?

Yeah...

Oh, I think I'm very fortunate to recognize myself as I am: a free will (in the libertarian sense), an embodied soul.

...I do.

'you' are responding to 'you' here.

And, thank you for clarifying that you do not yet know which one you are.

Not that you might have noticed that you did.

So, to this one, it, still, believes that metallic machines are made up of meat.

No, of course not. When I refer to meat machines I'm not talkin' about man-made contraptions.

So, when this one talks about 'automated machines' it must be talking about the non human made contraptions.

And, the fact that you "henry quirk" are obviously not yet doing what you were intended for proves that you have the ability to choose, correct?

As I'm the one who sets my course: I'm doing exactly as I intend.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Do you, really, believe that absolutely no one or no thing is setting a course for you?

And do you, really, believe that absolutely no one or no thing has set, nor is setting, a course for, while, still, believing that 'a person' created the whole of the Universe?

Also, why did you and why do you, purposely, intend to make False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect claims, and have and hold onto False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect beliefs and presumptions?

And, why, exactly, did you intend to follow and abide by the laws of the state that have control over and which govern you?

[Age]

Let's try this again...

You asked: But, you, still, do not yet know which one is true, right?

My answer is: Yeah, I do know which is true becuz I recognize myself as I am: a free will (in the libertarian sense), an embodied soul.

LOL So, what the one known as "henry quirk" 'recognizes' "itself" to be, is what it 'knows' is 'the truth' for absolutely every one. And, just like a so-called "deterministic atheist" 'recognizes' itself to be 'that', this is what 'that one' 'knows' is 'the truth' for absolutely every one, as well.

"henry quirk", supposedly, 'knows' that it is, absolutely, true that, absolutely, every one is a so-called "libertarian free will" because "henry quirk" 'recognizes' that 'it' is a "libertarian free will".

In order words whatever "henry quirk 'recognizes', 'sees', 'assumes', and/or 'beliefs' is true, then 'this' must be true for absolutely everyone else as well.

Once again, 'we' are back to having another absolute prime example of just how much holding onto 'belief', itself, effects the ability of one to be able to 'see' clearly, and fully. 'The effect can reduce 'the ability' to absolutely zero.

Now, it makes me wonder how "henry quirk" would reply to one who also said and claimed, 'I do know 'necessitarianism' is true because I recognize "myself" as I am: a "necessitarian".

Would "henry quirk" accept the 'exact same logic' if and when it was used by another with an opposing belief?

Also, what about,
'I do know that evolution and creation, free will and determinism, nature and nurture are true because I recognize, thy and thee, Self as 'I am', exactly: an evolving free-willed deterministic naturally nurtured created Being'.

So, does this make everyone else also, as well, "henry quirk"?

What you are trying to say and claim here is that if and when one 'recognizes' some thing, then this means that 'that thing' is true for absolutely every one. Which therefore means that if, and when, one 'recognizes' "them" 'self' as an "atheist", then "atheism" is true.

Which, every by 'your own logic' is not even true, right, accurate, and correct, correct "henry quirk"?

So, when this one talks about 'automated machines' it must be talking about the non human made contraptions.

When I say meat machines I'm talking about living things that are not free wills.

Are there absolutely any 'living things', to you, that are not so-called 'free wills'?

Also, are you yet aware that what are so-called 'living things' to you are not necessarily so to others, and vice versa?

Also, are you yet aware that your own personal definition/s of and for the words 'free will' are not the same for everyone else, either?

Do you, really, believe that absolutely no one or no thing is setting a course for you?

Yes, I really believe I set my course.

So, when you do Wrong, you have purposely set 'this course', 'for you', right?

And do you, really, believe that absolutely no one or no thing has set, nor is setting, a course for, while, still, believing that 'a person' created the whole of the Universe?

Do you know what a deist is? Do you know what a deist believes?

Are you asking 'me' do I know what 'a deist' is and what a so-called "deist" believes, to you, to some, or to every one?

Also, are you yet aware that how you define the "deist" word is different than how I do?

Also, why did you and why do you, purposely, intend to make False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect claims, and have and hold onto False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect beliefs and presumptions?

I don't.

So, either this one:

Does not 'intend' to make and do these things here, and so just makes or does them 'unintentionally' Or,

Does not make nor do any of these things here, at all.

So, which ones of these two here are true "henry quirk"?

Or, are you lying here "henry quirk"?

If yes, then did you do this 'intentionally', or 'unintentionally'.

Or, could you just be believing some thing is true here but which is actually false?

Or, is this not a possibility in 'your world'?

And, why, exactly, did you intend to follow and abide by the laws of the state that have control over and which govern you?

Heinlein said it best...

I am free, no matter what rules surround me.

This sounds contradictory, but there is Truth in this. So, this can be explained away, completely, absolutely, or fully.

If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.

And/or, if i find them restrictive, then they restrict me, and/or if i find them too hard and/or too complex to repel/squash, then i just accept them.

And, further to this, there are some who do not even 'recognize', nor thus 'see', that they have been controlled so much hitherto that they do not even 'know' that they have been and are being 'controlled'.

This phenomena can be 'seen' and is observed throughout the 'human world'.

I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

Yet, here you are, a so-called adult human being, continually doing what is morally Wrong, in Life. And, by not doing what is actually morally Right, in Life, is not being morally responsible every thing you do, at all.

[Age]

So, what the one known as "henry quirk" 'recognizes' "itself" to be, is what it 'knows' is 'the truth' for absolutely every one.

Yes.

LOL Now here is irrefutable proof of just how closed some human beings really were, back in those very 'olden days' when this was being written.

just like a so-called "deterministic atheist" 'recognizes' itself to be 'that', this is what 'that one' 'knows' is 'the truth' for absolutely every one, as well.

Difference is: he's wrong.

LOL
LOL
LOL

But, 'you', the one individual human being here known as "henry quirk" are 'right', and are absolutely always 'right', right?

LOL

Even when it changes it views and beliefs it, still, believes that it is always 'right'?

"henry quirk", supposedly, 'knows' that it is, absolutely, true that, absolutely, every one is a so-called "libertarian free will"

Yes.

because "henry quirk" 'recognizes' that 'it' is a "libertarian free will".

No. It's becuz it's true.

LOL
LOL
LOL

But, since 'you' 'recognize' that 'you are right', here, while other, supposed and alleged, 'libertarian free willed' human beings, which 'you' believe and claim are also 'libertarian free wills', but who believe and claim the exact opposite of what you do, yet also claim that what they claim is true, because it is true, then which one/s of you human beings have and hold the absolute and irrefutable 'truthfulness' here?

And, why is it that one or those ones, exactly?

In order words whatever "henry quirk 'recognizes', 'sees', 'assumes', and/or 'beliefs' is true, then 'this' must be true for absolutely everyone else as well.

No.

Do you, or do not, see the contradiction and hypocrisy here?

Now, it makes me wonder how "henry quirk" would reply to one who also said and claimed, 'I do know 'necessitarianism' is true because I recognize "myself" as I am: a "necessitarian".

You don't have to wonder.

So, going by your own so-called 'logic' here what this one is saying is true, is because it is, simply, true.

Would "henry quirk" accept the 'exact same logic' if and when it was used by another with an opposing belief?

No.

But yet here you are expecting others to 'accept your belief and claim', here, correct?

'I do know that evolution and creation, free will and determinism, nature and nurture are true because I recognize, thy and thee, Self as 'I am', exactly: an evolving free-willed deterministic naturally nurtured created Being'.

Whoever sez such a thing is wrong.

This is the absolute 'immaturity' some had to go through, and deal with, back in those very 'olden days' when this was being written.

At the very bottom of this one's claim is, 'it is true', because, 'I say it is'. And, 'you are wrong' because, 'I say you are'.

One could think that there would have been some sort of 'education system' that would have changed 'the way' that some 'argued' as children by the time they had reached 'adulthood', and/or entered 'philosophy forums'.

But, here is "henry quirk", still, at the age that 'it' is presenting 'its arguments' that 'it is so, because, i believe and say it is so'.

What you are trying to say and claim here is that if and when one 'recognizes' some thing, then this means that 'that thing' is true for absolutely every one. Which therefore means that if, and when, one 'recognizes' "them" 'self' as an "atheist", then "atheism" is true.

No.

But, you said and claimed that because 'you' 'recognized 'you' as some 'thing', then this means that everyone else is 'that thing' as well.

However, contradictory and hypocritically when 'another' with a different view or belief says or claims 'things' in the 'same way' you do, then 'they' are wrong.

Are there absolutely any 'living things', to you, that are not so-called 'free wills'?

Yes.

Like 'what', exactly, for example?

Also, are you yet aware that what are so-called 'living things' to you are not necessarily so to others, and vice versa?

Please, give me an example.

I would have to first find out what are 'living things' and what are 'not living things', to you, for me to provide you with examples.

Also, are you yet aware that your own personal definition/s of and for the words 'free will' are not the same for everyone else, either?

Yes, I'm aware some folks have cockeye'd definitions.

LOL

This one, once again, is showing and proving that it actually believes that it has superior and the right and true knowledge, which everyone should be agreeing with, and accepting, as well.

This one is, continually, proving just how absolutely closed it is, here.

So, when you do Wrong, you have purposely set 'this course', 'for you', right?

If I do wrong: I'm responsible becuz I chose to do wrong.

Which is what I was alluding to somewhat before, but which you wanted to reject.

Also, you choosing to do the Wrong that you, obviously, do do is not being responsible, at all.

But, you will not be able to 'see' this because you are closed to just consider this, and thus too blind to just 'see', and 'recognize', this Fact.

Are you asking 'me' do I know what 'a deist' is and what a so-called "deist" believes(?)

Yes.

Also, are you yet aware that how you define the "deist" word is different than how I do?

How do you define deist?

So, which ones of these two here are true "henry quirk"?

Neither.

Or, are you lying here "henry quirk"?

No.

Or, could you just be believing some thing is true here but which is actually false?

It's possible.

here you are...continually doing what is morally Wrong

Please, give me an example.

When you just quote only a part of a question I ask you, and then respond, and so are not answering the actual question/s I am asking you, for clarification, thus you are not being Truly open and honest here, then all you are doing is just trying to deceive and fool you, and the readers, here.

Also, by picking and choosing to just answer some questions, while ignoring others completely and completely ignoring parts of some is all just to deceptive and misleading for me to want to continue this here with you.

So, until you become Truly open and honest here, and stop trying to be deceitful, I will leave you here, for 'now', in your own lies, and Wrong doing.

And, if you want to believe that 'you' and absolutely everyone else are 'free willed persons' only, and all of are created by just 'one person' alone, solely based upon nothing else but your own assumption that 'it is true', then so be it. For let 'us' not forget that it was 'you', and 'you' alone who 'set this course' here, 'for you', correct?

[iambiguous]

Unlike iambiguous and "some determinists" who attribute all decisions and actions to the laws of nature and forget entirely about the person thinking, choosing and acting.

Right, just as many forget that, in their dreams, they are no less convinced "in the dream" that they are "thinking, choosing and acting" entirely of their own volition.

I don't know what 'entirely of their own volition entails' but what makes you think you aren't making decisions in the dream?

But that's the quandary. In my dreams I am making decisions. Last night, for example, another "work dream". I was back at work. I was interacting with Will and Mary and Susan and Mr. Taylor and the warehouse crew. And not at all unlike I did in the waking world some years ago.

It seems just as clear in the dream to me that I am making decisions as when I make decisions in waking life.

Really? You actually believe that in the dream itself you are freely choosing what to think and feel and say and do? If so -- click -- run that by those who explore dreams. I'd certainly be interested in what they have to say about that.

Suppose some day it were actually possible to record our dreams. Yes, we watch the dream unfold and note that we are choosing things over and over again. Now, how many here would conclude that this is not all that different at all from choosing in the waking world?

Or, sure, I am myself the exception here in suggesting that it is the brain itself creates these "interactions".

On the other hand: whatever that means?

Why could it not be like waking life where things happen that we do not control, but we make decisions in reaction to it. It seems just as clear in the dream to me that I am making decisions as when I make decisions in waking life.

Yes, this may actually be a more accurate account of dream interactions. But what seems clear to you here is, from my own frame of mind "here and now", as just another wild ass guess.

Though not unlike mine of course.

As for this...

Note: this is not me arguing that we have free will in dreams. This is me arguing that within the parameters of the options in the dream and my dream attitudes, I see no reason to say my waking life decisions are more free willish than my dream decisions.

Dreams as, what, a manifestation of compatibilism? Mary aborts Jane in her dream when in fact she is not even pregnant.
Is that something the brain is trying to broach with her. Why? Because Mary is reckless sexually and needs to be warned? Maybe on a sub-conscious or unconscious level Mary herself is nudging the brain to go there.

Then the part where many bring God in here? Or those Pantheists who believe that "somehow" the Universe itself set it all in motion?

Note to others:

How about your own dreams? Are you convinced as well that choosing in dreams is not all that far removed from choosing while wide-awake? Care to explore that here?

Yet, no doubt about it, what we choose in dreams is often a reflection of the choices we made in the waking world. Especially my own dreams. Rarely do I have a dream that involves a context I am unfamiliar with.