compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

In any case, biggy has absolutely implied multiple times that info from scientists would be taken seriously by him where philosophical arguments would not

Now all he has to do is find a brain scientist who, step by step by step, can explain precisely how our material brains did acquire the capacity to experience things autonomously.

Now if a non scientist says "we experience things autonomously" his standard response is "you were compelled to think that, you couldn't ever not think that". But the text above implies that if a scientist told him, he wouldn't respond to that scientist with the same retort, you were compelled to science that science, you couldn't ever not have scienced that science. He's implying he would take it more seriously.

And that's not the only time he's posted like that about scientists weighing in on this topic, just the first one I found when I searched his contributions for the word "scientist". There's plenty more. He's not being entirely honest (or maybe he's just very forgetful, who knows?) when he says he's never placed scientists above anybody else.

And let me clarify that I'm not even saying he shouldn't place scientists above. Maybe he should. He should just be honest about it.

Exactly. My point has been that his specific argument or reaction really to what we post applies to scientists and anyone. IOW if we can throw up our hands and say well maybe you are just compelled to believe that if determinism is the case, this applies to scientists. But as we now both pointed out it is impilcit in his dismissiveness of people's responses while distinguishing this from what scientists might contribute, that he sees their arguments/evidence as not suffering the same problem.

It's also all very binary. Yes, if determinism is the case, perhaps we become convinced of something false. I think even free will people will believe that is possible.

Nevertheless I will be that if someone tells him he is a Nazi, he will make an argument why he is not or criticize their argument. Clearly to him there are degrees of demonstration. We can't be sure, but it sure seems like some explanations/interpretations are better than others. But when others respond to what he is saying...dismissal, could be compelled.

If we point this out, he will say, but I always say that my thoughts might be compelled.

But that's missing the point 1) in relation to his implication that scientific arguments evidence would really be convincing and we wouldn't have to worry about determinism there. 2) He himself finds some explanations/interpretations better than others. In fact he often tosses them out in appeals to incredulity.

[Iwannaplato]

I think you missed a quote/unquote somewhere buddy.

Yup, thanks.

I was going to add this, but I'll do it here.....

This is the experience of reading Iambiguous posts.

1- Specific point quoted by Iambiguous from an article or a poster here.
2- Iambiguous responds with at least one of his pet issues regardless of whether it has something to do with the quote and regardless of whether 3- 3- the response fits the belief system of the person talking.
4- Specific point 2 quoted by Iambiguous
5- Iambiguous responds with Benjamin buttons, whether this relates or not, or Iambiguous asserts something he has asserted a thousand times, even if it doesn't have anything to do with the quote.
6- Specific point 3 quoted by Iambiguous.
7- Iambiguous asks how this would help Mary. Even though this is a kind of category error in relation to the quote.

It is taboo in Iambiguous' morality to mention any of this. If one does, one is a Stooge.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you missed a quote/unquote somewhere buddy.

Yup, thanks.

I was going to add this, but I'll do it here.....

This is the experience of reading Iambiguous posts.

1- Specific point quoted by Iambiguous from an article or a poster here.
2- Iambiguous responds with at least one of his pet issues regardless of whether it has something to do with the quote and regardless of whether 3- 3- the response fits the belief system of the person talking.
4- Specific point 2 quoted by Iambiguous
5- Iambiguous responds with Benjamin buttons, whether this relates or not, or Iambiguous asserts something he has asserted a thousand times, even if it doesn't have anything to do with the quote.
6- Specific point 3 quoted by Iambiguous.
7- Iambiguous asks how this would help Mary. Even though this is a kind of category error in relation to the quote.

It is taboo in Iambiguous' morality to mention any of this. If one does, one is a Stooge.

Yeah but remy's rule, and around and around we go.

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah but remy's rule, and around and around we go.

This is the most ridiculous response along those lines in recent posts.

Me: Well, perhaps you should interact with Strawson's argument, then. Or with those posters here who have presented such arguments. Merely dismissing them and treating them as libertarian free will arguments, when they are not, will continue to lead to you missing the point.

Iambigious: This is just you asserting that the points you and others make here in regard to Strawson and compatibilism are not missing the point. Meanwhile, Mary is still compelled to abort Jane. And others are still compelled to react to that in the only possible reality. It's just that given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, no one really knows what that actually means. Neither ontologically nor teleologically.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yeah but remy's rule, and around and around we go.

This is the most ridiculous response along those lines in recent posts.

Me: Well, perhaps you should interact with Strawson's argument, then. Or with those posters here who have presented such arguments. Merely dismissing them and treating them as libertarian free will arguments, when they are not, will continue to lead to you missing the point.

Iambigious: This is just you asserting that the points you and others make here in regard to Strawson and compatibilism are not missing the point. Meanwhile, Mary is still compelled to abort Jane. And others are still compelled to react to that in the only possible reality. It's just that given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, no one really knows what that actually means. Neither ontologically nor teleologically.

"This is just you asserting that the points you and others make here in regard to Strawson and compatibilism are not missing the point." - well I'm sure you're open to a conversation where to do more than just assert it. You could use quotes from his text and provide evidence, given his text, that he means this thing and not that thing. Right? You're open to such a conversation, where rather than just asserting your understanding, you explain and evidence your understanding.

The problem is of course with iambiguous. Even if he is open to that conversation for long enough to get it started, as soon as you start explaining yourself no doubt "but how do I know you were not just compelled to say that?" He can shut down any conversation (and does shut down many conversations) with that. It's how I know he doesn't really want a conversation

[henry quirk]

And, as you also say, and claim, you will take another's life, liberty, and/or property when 'they' just do what you do not like.

If you mean I'll defend myself, then: yeah, of course.

-----

He said that so it must be true.

it's true becuz it's true. But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

That fiction, if it is fiction, is a damned sight better than living as though the world were empty and rudderless.

I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.

[Iwannaplato]

"This is just you asserting that the points you and others make here in regard to Strawson and compatibilism are not missing the point." - well I'm sure you're open to a conversation where to do more than just assert it. You could use quotes from his text and provide evidence, given his text, that he means this thing and not that thing. Right? You're open to such a conversation, where rather than just asserting your understanding, you explain and evidence your understanding.

Yes, a number of times I have given my interpretation, with quotes from his quoting the writers and argued for my interpretation. I have also told him a number of times that the general way people respond to such things is to a) present their own reasoning/justification/evidence or perhaps b) concede something. It's so common it's odd to even have to mention it, but ok, he didn't realize this, so then I have told him this is what I expect and am open to hearing. My assertions and justification are not at all to be seen as the final word.

The problem is of course with iambiguous. Even if he is open to that conversation for long enough to get it started, as soon as you start explaining yourself no doubt "but how do I know you were not just compelled to say that?" He can shut down any conversation (and does shut down many conversations) with that. It's how I know he doesn't really want a conversation

Yes. I doubt he has the thought: Oh, I don't like that, I will shut the conversation down. But he seems to think it doesn't matter, in any case, and he shuts the conversation down.

This is basic relation between humans stuff.

Hey, honey, you didn't do your dishes.
You're just asserting that your interpretation of the situation in the sink is not missing the point.

Rather than: that's your plate, I don't eat tomato sauce. Or, Jesus I forgot. Or, that's your brother's stuff, he came by after lunch and said you said he could just take from the fridge and I'm tired of cleaning up after an adult.

It's like this logical/practical/common sense step is missing. Not some fancy ass serious philosopher process, but what people do as they try to understand disagreements in everyday life, here with philosophy issues.

I mean, I think here a spouse is a really good remedy.

I don't like when you call me a bitch.
Perhaps you're just compelled to think I said that or compelled to think it's a negative term.
EXPLOSION.

[Flannel Jesus]

Do you think this strawson article is worth a read?

[Iwannaplato]

Do you think this strawson article is worth a read?

It's fine, not anything I'd specifically recommend. It's from 1962 if I remember right and I think it influenced a lot of later positions.

[Flannel Jesus]

Do you think this strawson article is worth a read?

It's fine, not anything I'd specifically recommend. It's from 1962 if I remember right and I think it influenced a lot of later positions.

Is there something you could link that you would specifically recommend? About this topic, of course.

[Iwannaplato]

Do you think this strawson article is worth a read?

It's fine, not anything I'd specifically recommend. It's from 1962 if I remember right and I think it influenced a lot of later positions.

Is there something you could link that you would specifically recommend? About this topic, of course.

Nope. I think you're better read on this than I am. I read the Strawson after getting rebuffed by the big guy regarding his quotes of the person arguing against Strawson. I have mulled the issue a lot, but have not read a lot about it. It's one of the thought puzzle areas of philosophy for me and I'm pretty content to be in practice agnostic. Determinism seems vastly more likely since I can't conceive of what Libertarian free will means and I'm not even sure it's appealing given that I can't see how that freedom in mine. I want to do what my wants lead me to do. Not something that is not caused by me. At the same I know that my inablility to conceive something does not rule it out.

[Age]

And, as you also say, and claim, you will take another's life, liberty, and/or property when 'they' just do what you do not like.

If you mean I'll defend myself, then: yeah, of course.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you said you would KILL another human being if they just 'tried to' take off with a toothpick (of all things).

Which can also be interpreted as you would SHOOT another human being DEAD to stop them taking off with what you claim is 'your toothpick', (or what you 'try to' claim is ' defending "yourself" '.

you, "henry quirk" would, literally, 'take away'' 'the right of another to their own life', which you make out every person has an 'absolute claim' and 'natural right to'. just of shreds of timber and stale bits of bread.

you say and claim others have a 'natural right' to 'their own life' while in the 'same breath' say and claim you would 'take away' 'their own natural rights' for what is, essentially, 'nothing at all', other than your own SELFISHNESS and GREED

LOL you say and claim every person as 'a natural right to their own life'. BUT, this will never ever override "henry quirk's" own personal wants, and desires. "henry quirk's" GREED and SELFISHNESS, literally, overrides 'the lives' of other human beings.

So, could one be more of a HYPOCRITE here?

-----

He said that so it must be true.

it's true becuz it's true. But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

That fiction, if it is fiction, is a damned sight better than living as though the world were empty and rudderless.

What "henry quirk" is saying and claiming, here, is ABSOLUTELY and OBJECTIVELY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct. As absolutely every one could agree with it, and accept. It therefore is an objective moral Fact, which no one could refute.

But, what I have 'taken issue' with is "henry quirk's", absolute, CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY here with what else it says and claims, here.

KILLING human beings, over toothpicks, is NOT 'defending oneself'.

What this ACTUALLY IS, is NOT respecting another people's own 'absolute claim' and 'natural right' to 'their own lives, liberty, nor property', OBVIOUSLY.

you saying you would do this is REVEALING just how GREEDY you Truly are.

[Age]

"This is just you asserting that the points you and others make here in regard to Strawson and compatibilism are not missing the point." - well I'm sure you're open to a conversation where to do more than just assert it. You could use quotes from his text and provide evidence, given his text, that he means this thing and not that thing. Right? You're open to such a conversation, where rather than just asserting your understanding, you explain and evidence your understanding.

Yes, a number of times I have given my interpretation, with quotes from his quoting the writers and argued for my interpretation. I have also told him a number of times that the general way people respond to such things is to a) present their own reasoning/justification/evidence or perhaps b) concede something. It's so common it's odd to even have to mention it, but ok, he didn't realize this, so then I have told him this is what I expect and am open to hearing. My assertions and justification are not at all to be seen as the final word.

The problem is of course with iambiguous. Even if he is open to that conversation for long enough to get it started, as soon as you start explaining yourself no doubt "but how do I know you were not just compelled to say that?" He can shut down any conversation (and does shut down many conversations) with that. It's how I know he doesn't really want a conversation

Yes. I doubt he has the thought: Oh, I don't like that, I will shut the conversation down. But he seems to think it doesn't matter, in any case, and he shuts the conversation down.

This is basic relation between humans stuff.

Hey, honey, you didn't do your dishes.
You're just asserting that your interpretation of the situation in the sink is not missing the point.

Rather than: that's your plate, I don't eat tomato sauce. Or, Jesus I forgot. Or, that's your brother's stuff, he came by after lunch and said you said he could just take from the fridge and I'm tired of cleaning up after an adult.

It's like this logical/practical/common sense step is missing. Not some fancy ass serious philosopher process, but what people do as they try to understand disagreements in everyday life, here with philosophy issues.

I mean, I think here a spouse is a really good remedy.

I don't like when you call me a bitch.
Perhaps you're just compelled to think I said that or compelled to think it's a negative term.
EXPLOSION.

ONCE MORE 'we' can, very clearly, see here just how much and how often some people just preferred to 'look at' and 'talk about' others, instead of having an 'actual philosophy' here.

Also what is very clearly noticed here is how these people would 'try to' argue, and would fight, over what 'another' has meant, while never ever knowing, for sure, what the other 'actually, and really, meant'.

[Age]

It's fine, not anything I'd specifically recommend. It's from 1962 if I remember right and I think it influenced a lot of later positions.

Is there something you could link that you would specifically recommend? About this topic, of course.

Nope. I think you're better read on this than I am. I read the Strawson after getting rebuffed by the big guy regarding his quotes of the person arguing against Strawson. I have mulled the issue a lot, but have not read a lot about it. It's one of the thought puzzle areas of philosophy for me and I'm pretty content to be in practice agnostic. Determinism seems vastly more likely since I can't conceive of what Libertarian free will means and I'm not even sure it's appealing given that I can't see how that freedom in mine. I want to do what my wants lead me to do. Not something that is not caused by me. At the same I know that my inablility to conceive something does not rule it out.

These people, back in those days when this was being written, would discuss, or argue and fight, what 'another's' views and/or what 'they meant', and these types of discussions could last thousands upon thousands of years. And, they would do this without really just contemplation over nor just discussing what the 'actual words', themselves, meant, nor 'could mean'.

These people would instead prefer to talk about and discuss what 'the other' meant or intended, and they would do so without there ever being any actual way of 'knowing', for sure nor either way. Which was, obviously, just a complete waste, which also explains WHY they took so, so long to, also, come-to-realize and 'know' what the actual Truth is, exactly.

[henry quirk]

you said you would KILL another human being if they just 'tried to' take off with a toothpick (of all things).

If you mean I'll defend my property, then: yeah, of course.

04EC41E3-7AC5-439B-A556-A0C362147FD0.jpeg