compatibilism

[Age]

Further it seems very up in the clouds to not consider the person responsible.

LOL This one actually believes what it does here.

Further it seems very 'up in the clouds' to not consider this person very irresponsible, here.

Iambiguous has talked about compatibilists changing the meaning of the word. Some may, but to me that is a focus on intellectural contraptions.

Yet, "iwannplato" does this very thing.

In a deterministic universe...
Is anger in reaction to a rape justified?
Is taking measures in relation to a rapist justified?
Is thinking of that person as presenting a problem justified?

1. OBVIOUSLY, absolutely every thing that happens in a so-called 'deterministic universe' is justified. It could not be any other way, again OBVIOUSLY.

2. In a so-called 'deterministic universe' the one named "iwannapato" could not help "itself" from Falsely and Wrongly naming 'things' here.

3. In a so-called 'deterministic universe' the one named "iwannaplato" here could not help presenting the absolutely Wrong words in the sentences that it does here. it also could not help making the exact same mistakes over and over, again and again, even when the True and Right usage has been presented to it, previously.

I think the answers are yes to all of those.

BECAUSE, and OBVIOUSLY, 'you' could not think in any other way. And, it does not matter how Wrong nor Incorrect 'that thinking' is, exactly, 'you' have absolutely no other choice, in a 'deterministic universe', of thinking 'that way', right?

Will these reactions be experienced by the rapist as holding him responsible - and not some guy in the apartment next door to him, for example - for the rape?
Does it leave room to look at other causes and factors if I hold this person responsible and take measures that he does not want?

But, who, exactly, is going to 'take measures' for 'this one's' Wrong doing/s, here?

I think the answers to those questions are yes.

So, 'I' can 'take measures' and hold "iwannaplato" responsible that it does not want, as well.

We can try to make some intellectual contraption happy and use some other word than responsible, but it won't change anything at all about my general reaction to the situation. He did it. We need to deal with him first. We can deal with other causes and prevention strategies after, despite holding him responsible.

And, it is, exactly, 'this way of thinking' WHY 'the world' was in the absolute mess that it was in, back in the days when this was being written.

In fact, it was this type of 'judgmental', 'superiority', and 'punishing' views, which is "iwannaplato's" trait and tendency, which was far worse than any thing that it is talking about here, and which was what caused and created all of the 'doing' that it was so quick to 'judge' as being wrong, and what 'another' should be punished for.

The hypocrisy here is at the highest.

If I considered abortion immoral, sure I could hold someone responsible for having done that.

How else could of it happened if it was not from someone?

And in a practical sense, I would hold someone responsible for doing that, even without moral judgment.

Again, well how else could of it happened, if not from someone?

Again, these people, really, did not know how to use words, and their definitions, properly, Accurate, nor Correctly nearly as much as they could have.

If she or they came to my clinic, asked for an abortion, I performed it and she started saying she was not going to pay for my services because the Big Bang was responsible for her getting the abortion, I would not suddenly buckly in my claim for payment.

Once again, the 'greed' of adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, 'raises its ugly head', as some might say here.

This one, for example, is, still, thinking, and worrying, about 'money', and it 'getting money'. And, even under the circumstances of what is in discussion here.

These adult human beings, back then, could not, really, have become any more greedier. Or, if they could, then it would not have made much of a difference anyway.

That word, responsible, is how we frame reacting to actions we like and abhor.

And, it was 'definitions', or claims, like this one here WHY they were so very, very slow of learning, understanding, and 'catching up'.

It is part of the process of deciding on what measures we take: giving someone a reward, expressing gratitude, calling someone a Stooge, putting them in prison, firing them, giving them a bonus.

Notice how 'this one' talks from the perspective of it is 'in charge', or of one who others 'must' follow and/or abide by.

This 'superiority complex', and ' i am the judge, jury, and decider view of "oneself" ', although common among the adult population, was more advanced in some more than others. And, having a so-called "teachers" role, in Life, was clearly helping 'this one' believe that it was 'in charge' 'over others.

People take idiotic measures, yes. People have all sorts of moral postions, including obviously contradictory ones and ones I abhor, but should it turn out to be the case that we are determined utterly and this is finally laid to rest and proven, I see no reason to change the basic process here involved in holding indviduals responsible for acts.

Notice and see how it believes that it has some sort of right to hold 'others' responsible for so-called 'acts'?

And, it, obviously, is not holding "itself" at all responsible here for absolutely any thing at all.

Also, 'actions', and 'reactions', are absolutely deterministic, or pre-determined, and/or absolutely unavoidable, and uncontrollable. Mis/behavior, however, is absolutely controllable, and/or avoidable. But, only to, and for, the Truly 'matured', 'grown up', and 'responsible' ones, only.

But, learning the definitions of words, and how to use them, Accurate, and Correctly, is needed here first, before any of this is, really, fully comprehended and understood.

And, it takes True 'discipline' to be able to learn, comprehend, and understand, HERE.

There can certainly be an incredible amount of needed discussion about the measures taken and what other now existent things, people and processes might or might not also be responsible. And this doesn't eliminate issues like 'is there an objective morality' for me.

Yes, a LOT of so-called 'needed discussion' is 'needed' here. But, you posters here are proving that you do not want it.

As "iwannaplato" is showing and proving here, these people, back when this was being written, much preferred to be HEARD and LISTEN TO, then to DISCUSS, and HEAR.

And any rapist arguing that they should nto be held responsible because it was inevitable that they would rape due to determinism would be using an intellectual contraption that has very little to do with life on the ground, here in day to day life.

LOL Talking about using and 'intellectual disability', here, to 'try to' argue for what one believes. "iwannaplato" is using a so-called "intellectual contraption', "itself", which is only going against what it is 'trying to' say, and claim, here.

Any "deceiver" arguing that they should not be held responsible because it was inevitable that they would deceive due to determinism would be using an intellectual contraption that has very little to do with life, 'on the ground', here, in day to day life.

"iwannaplato" is just 'trying to' deceive others here, mostly unknowingly, because it has been deceived, absolutely.

That would be an up in the clouds response and assessment and not one he would use in relation to infections, someone stealing his car, someone hitting him with a hammer in the street, someone who did him a favor and so on. In those instances he would hold people and things responsible. He'd be being a hypocrite. And of course his argument would mean he has nothing to complain about in relation to the people considering him responsible and taking measures, given that they would not be responsible for their reactions in his schema.

All of this absolutely 'unnecessarily convoluted' words to just convey what has been over and over again for many, many years, 'now'.

Again, these people would just ignore words, and definitions, that actually work, and that are actually irrefutable, and keep using words, and definitions, that, obviously, did not work, and could be refuted.

For how many more years, centuries, or millennia will 'these human beings' keep doing this for?

[Atla]

Never mind then. You don't know what a contradiction is. (law of noncontradiction) You don't follow the same basic laws of thought which I follow.

You yourself implied that there are conceptions of free will that are compatible with determinism. I agree, but when I say it you say I'm contradicting myself. I definitely think you could do more to clarify your thoughts.

I already excessively clarified it, plus it's the most common objection to compatibilism anyway, plus it's obvious. Come back when you understood why compatibilism shouldn't even exist as an option in the philosophical free will vs determinism debate.

[Age]

You gave some pretty fulfilling answers, so I'm struggling to come up with follow up questions. Hmmmm.

Wish I could put myself in the shoes of someone like biggy so I could try to draw out from you the clarity they think they're missing. Obviously we can't trust him to do that, he's probably just going to call you a stooge or tell you to tell that to Mary, or whatever other unproductive things...

Another example of the BLIND, DEAF, and STUPID, leading the BLIND, DEAF, and STUPID.

[Flannel Jesus]

You gave some pretty fulfilling answers, so I'm struggling to come up with follow up questions. Hmmmm.

Wish I could put myself in the shoes of someone like biggy so I could try to draw out from you the clarity they think they're missing. Obviously we can't trust him to do that, he's probably just going to call you a stooge or tell you to tell that to Mary, or whatever other unproductive things...

Another example of the BLIND, DEAF, and STUPID, leading the BLIND, DEAF, and STUPID.

Was I the target audience of this post?

[Age]

You gave some pretty fulfilling answers, so I'm struggling to come up with follow up questions. Hmmmm.

Wish I could put myself in the shoes of someone like biggy so I could try to draw out from you the clarity they think they're missing. Obviously we can't trust him to do that, he's probably just going to call you a stooge or tell you to tell that to Mary, or whatever other unproductive things...

Well, let me add on something that might even be controversial to compatiblists:
I think Libertarian Free Will is not compatible with responsibility.

LOL they still persist in just keeping to use words that they cannot back up nor support in absolutely any Real nor True way, at all.

And, they will not even discuss this, because they know, although only unconsciously, because if they even just 'tried to' they will CRUMBLE and FALTER, absolutely.

Here's why:

1) let's be clear that some Libertarian free will people actually mean that we are not determined by external causes. In other words, even if someone puts a gun to my head, I can still refuse to give them my bank card code. To me that still leaves room for and actually assumes deteminism. The causes are internal. Why did you do X? Because I like to do X? Desires, motivations, values, dislikes etc. led to that person doing X. Internal state A led to State B with the action

This one keeps talking 'about', and claiming, what 'imaginary people' 'would do'. But, will not just inform any one of what it believes is actually true. And, this is because it has an ABSOLUTE FEAR of being wrong, and proved wrong.

2) I am talking about full on free will where many possible futures could happen, nothing determines what is done.

See here, it once again uses words 'in ways' that are Truly impossible.

It is like claiming that the word 'Universe' is defined as; all there is, which began around 13.8 billion years ago. Therefore, the Universe is not eternal.

The absolute absurdity and ridiculousness[ of this speaks for itself.

3) IN this scenario my personality, my desires, my values (both moral and preference) do not inevitably lead to what I. I could do anything, unaffected by who I am and what I want and like. This entails that my actions are not connected to what I do. That, it seems to me, entails actions and choices are random. Anyone could do anything and all actions are not caused by the state of the person just before the action.

Instead of talking about 'what ifs' or introducing imaginary scenarios or a hypothetical, why not just express and say what is actually True and Right, only.

This one, continually, 'looks at' and talks about what it assumes 'others' are saying, and meaning. It is like this one just cannot help "itself" from 'looking at' and 'judging' 'others'.


4) Anyone could at anyone moment rape or seek to rape, because his (focusing on male rapists) choice is not determined by who he is.[/quote]

Again, what is with the 'non True' scenarios?

5) Now someone could argue

Once more, absolutely any one here could 'argue' absolutely any thing, but, only, what is a sound and valid argument is worth repeating.

that their desires, wants, motivations, tastes etc. lead to tendencies, but there is some swing room. Well, what are those causes that lead to one possible choice and not another that fits with his or her personality.

And, on and on this one goes.

Well, they really love butterscoth ice cream. They sort of like chocolate, but love butterscotch. Welll, that intensity is a part of their make-up. Yeah, but sometimes they choose chocolate. Sure, but they also have a desire for variety.
5) This was fast and slopply but either your desires, etc. lead to decisions and these will be inevitable (though from our perspective on option amongst a set that fits us) OR there is no connection to us at all. Which would mean that anyone is as likely to rape as anyone else. We can't hold people responsible for acts that are random and anyone will randomly commit. Adn there is no practical reason to since the act has nothing to do with the person committing it. There is no more chance they would commit it again than someone who hasn't.

Again, this one expresses and shows its own 'black and white thinking', very clearly.

Note: I said that this would be controversial even for compatibilits. Not because it criticizes their position, which it doesn't, but because it's counterintuitive, so like anyone else they may think it sounds nuts.

What this sounds like is this one has just bamboozled and confused "itself", once again.

[Age]

What if someone had a little bit of libertarian free will, but also were a little bit subject to determining factors, external (and internal) causes?

Once more, these ones use words in a way that is absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

And, worse still, they would continue on responding.

There was no wonder why these people, back then, were 'discussing' the same things for millennia, and not getting absolutely anywhere.

[Flannel Jesus]

What if someone had a little bit of libertarian free will, but also were a little bit subject to determining factors, external (and internal) causes?

Once more, these ones use words in a way that is absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

And, worse still, they would continue on responding.

There was no wonder why these people, back then, were 'discussing' the same things for millennia, and not getting absolutely anywhere.

Don't quote me anymore please

[Age]

What if someone had a little bit of libertarian free will, but also were a little bit subject to determining factors, external (and internal) causes?

Right that's the trickiest area to look at for my position.

If there is any thing so-called 'tricky' in 'your position', it is because 'your position' does not even 'stand up'.

LOL 'your position' crumbles and falls while it is actually being written and presented here.

It seems to me however that whatever that freedom is, it has nothing to do with the person.

Again, this one does not even know what 'a word' means. But, feels that it is able to talk about 'it' and discuss 'it', laughingly.

Inform the readers here of 'that freedom' is, exactly. And, who and what 'the person' is, exactly.

If, and when, you can do this, then 'your position' will be 'seen' for what it Truly is.

The decision, in this scenario would have partial relation to that person, but which of the possible choices is chosen would not. So, first off, the freedom is not theirs. It's lopped on on top. Not unlike interpretations of qm where we have indeterminism, but liklihoods.

So, for the libertarian free willer, I think, we have the unpleasant conclusion that the particular choice is random and the range of choices has to do with them. That's not really free will, that's a random lack of determinism. That swing room is not willed, it simply is. If it was willed than it would be determined by the self, its desires, etc.

But I think most libertarians (in this sense) would be unwilling disconnect the freedom part from their own natures. Their own specific natures.

If they are will to accept that certain choices are off the table, given external and internal causes, then it makes sense to retain responsbility. Since their range of options, for example, rules out rape. But they are not really given themselves free will.

If they want to hand onto something that is not merely non-determinism, then I think they have a problem.

And these people who have to admit that, in a sense, they could not order and eat something they hate. They could only do that if there was some reason to override their nature.

Internal causes would rule out all sorts of actions. They are off the table. External causes eliminate others.

This would entail that many things that other people can do we cannot, given our natures - which certainly seems to be the case.

If one can really do anything - with or without Atla's freedom from physical laws freedom included - then it's random. It has nothing to do with who we are. It's like dice are rolled period.

If there are limits placed by internal and external causes. Then the dice control the choosing within the possible range. And what makes us decide between going bowling and playing ping pong is not our decision, it's random.

Rape, for most of us, cannot be dice rolled to.

In any case, I would consider it a confused name to call that free will. It's a mix of determinism and indeterminism, much like some interpretations of, say, radioactive decay.

And, on and on this one goes.

Showing and proving nothing at all, other than, of course, it does not know what it is 'trying to' talk about.

[Age]

People who think that determinism isn't compatible with (psychological, legal, everyday) responsibility, simply don't understand determinism.

LOL This one says this as though it understands 'determinism', and even understands 'determinism' fully, which is even more funny.

And, to prove absolutely, and once and for all, all any one has to do is just ask it to explain what 'determinism' is, exactly?

And, see if its definition fits in, perfectly, with the other definition that it has, and/or uses, for other words.

We don't have free will in the philosophical sense, but most people have more than enough free will in the psychological, legal, everyday sense.

And, if absolutely any one asked this one to explain, and clarify, what the difference of 'free will' is in some so-called 'philosophical sense', from some so-called psychological, legal, and everyday sense, then it will also not do so.

And, why it will not is because it could not.

And, this is because it, literally, does not even know what it is on about here.

What's the big mistery here?

One mystery could be why you spelt 'that word' 'that way'?

[Age]

People who think that determinism isn't compatible with (psychological, legal, everyday) responsibility, simply don't understand determinism. We don't have free will in the philosophical sense, but most people have more than enough free will in the psychological, legal, everyday sense.

What's the big mistery here?

I thought you looked down on the compatibilist definition of free will.

Yes because it's pure sophistry. In the philosophical sense of free will, we have free will and determinism and there is no third logical option.

So;

1. Who and what is 'we', exactly?

2. How do 'we', exactly, have 'free will' AND 'determinism'? And,

3. What is 'free will', and, 'determinism', exactly?

Also, do not use the 'philosophical' word, nor 'psychological' word if you are never going to explain what they, actually, mean in relation to 'free will', exactly?

Not that you will answer and clarify any of these, because you are completely INCAPABLE of doing so, but, if you ever did, then you can show and prove to the readers here that you do actually know what you are talking about and claiming here.

[Age]

I thought you looked down on the compatibilist definition of free will.

Yes because it's pure sophistry. In the philosophical sense of free will, we have free will and determinism and there is no third logical option.

So there's the big mystery. You're saying we have free will in a sense, and then you call that sense "pure sophistry". You talk like it's simple, "what's the big mystery", but your very own take is far from simple. You call your own take sophistry. Obviously something needs unpacking.

What needs 'unpacking' here is absolutely EVERY claim that it is 'trying to' make here.

But, unfortunately, it is not able to do this. Well not successfully anyway.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes because it's pure sophistry. In the philosophical sense of free will, we have free will and determinism and there is no third logical option.

So there's the big mystery. You're saying we have free will in a sense, and then you call that sense "pure sophistry". You talk like it's simple, "what's the big mystery", but your very own take is far from simple. You call your own take sophistry. Obviously something needs unpacking.

What needs 'unpacking' here is absolutely EVERY claim that it is 'trying to' make here.

But, unfortunately, it is not able to do this. Well not successfully anyway.

Don't quote me ever again please.

[Age]

Yes because it's pure sophistry. In the philosophical sense of free will, we have free will and determinism and there is no third logical option.

So there's the big mystery. You're saying we have free will in a sense, and then you call that sense "pure sophistry". You talk like it's simple, "what's the big mystery", but your very own take is far from simple. You call your own take sophistry. Obviously something needs unpacking.

Maybe what you and iam have in common is that you don't understand context.

LOL Here 'we' have another one, like "iwannaplato", who just adds in the 'context' word, as though 'the context' is 'there', and that every one should see it, or is seeing it but the one being responded to cannot.

Also, never as either of them for clarification about what the, supposed, 'context' is, exactly, because they will not provide it. And, the reason they will not is because they cannot present one that would actually 'fit in with' what has been previously talked about.

If "flannel jesus" or anyone else, supposedly, does not understand 'context', then just spell out 'the context'.

"atla" has obviously contradicted "itself" above here, and this is clear to the readers here. So, if the readers are not understanding 'context' as you say and claim the readers are not, then help them out here. That is; if you even could.

Claiming to others that they do not understand 'context' on most occasions is about the weakest excuse for one not being able to present its beliefs and/or claims in a way that actually make sense, are irrefutable, and are provable.

[Age]

Maybe what you and iam have in common is that you don't understand context.

Or maybe it's just genuinely weird that in one breath you say it's sophistry to talk about alternative conceptions if free will (while compatibilists do it), but then fully accept alternative conceptions of free will at other times.

You're hasty to dismiss.

Is compatibilism a position in the philosophical free will debate?

See how these people would use words, which do not actually work in with each other, but they would just pick and choose words that they would just hope would back up and support their 'current' belief in just some way?

[Age]

Or maybe it's just genuinely weird that in one breath you say it's sophistry to talk about alternative conceptions if free will (while compatibilists do it), but then fully accept alternative conceptions of free will at other times.

You're hasty to dismiss.

Is compatibilism a position in the philosophical free will debate?

The way you, personally, are choosing to use the word "philosophical" is probably not how many other people would use that word.

Just one look throughout this forum one can very clearly see the 'philosophical' word used many, many times over, and placed and used next to other words, to 'sound like' they knew what they were talking about, and to 'try to' cover up what they obviously could not argue for successfully.

These posters here actually thought and believed that if they just used and put the 'philosophical' word in front of another word, then what they were saying and writing would come across more accurate and/or more correct.

Which is, and was, absolutely laughable when looked at when they would do it. Just like in 'this case' here.

It seems on the surface like when you say "philosophical free will" you literally just mean "libertarian free will". That's obviously not what compatibilists mean, and many compatibilist conceptions of free will are actually going to be a lot closer to what you mean when you say "legal free will". (If you read iwannaplatos recent posts, I think there's clear signs of this there)

Once again, here is another example of these people saying and writing things are completely non existent, and/or completely impossible to exist, but yet they, still, would choose and say and write some words, in the hope that they will somehow back up and support their 'current' beliefs.

But most compatibilists don't think that conception is not "philosophical", that's just how you personally choose to word it.

For these people to talk about what 'others' and/or so-called, "compatibilists" and/or "libertarians" would say, or mean, and more hilarious, what 'they' would, literally, mean would be like 'these people' trying to claim they 'know' what "aliens" would say, and mean, and literally mean as well.

These people were, continually, telling 'us' here what 'others' mean, when, laughingly, they did not even know what 'they', "themselves", meant.

The more how 'these people' spoke, and wrote, is 'looked at', and contemplated over, the funnier all of this becomes, and gets. And, the 'deeper' 'we' delve here, the absolute hilariousness of all of this becomes absolute CLEARER.