compatibilism

[phyllo]

Folks generally pay for what they want and need. Joe needs those roads (well, he did till he was told he couldn't open a bookstore). He'll pay his share.

People tend to underpay or not pay at all for shared resources.

That's the free-rider problem.

What he objects to, mebbe, is being taxed for roads that never see repair or maintenance. He was told that money would go to the streets and it obviously hasn't.

And he will find a rationalization for not paying.

Which only exasperates the problem.

Joe is not a moron. Why would he buy a building in a place where a bookstore would be unwelcome? He'd be out of business in a month. No, if he's done his leg work, he knows his neighbors would welcome a bookstore, for themselves and their kids. But the zoning commission sez nope, not gonna happen simply becuz of a reg, written 25 years earlier at the behest of a fat cat who could buy commissioner votes. Had to keep down town historically pristine, don't you know. The fat cat's wife liked it that way.

Maybe not a moron but Joe doesn't become a genius or saint when he starts a business. He can be ignorant of the impact of what he is doing or indifferent to the impact.

Why can't a person start a bookstore or other business in a residential area? Because in the past, it has often had a negative impact on the neighbors ... typically traffic and parking issues, but it could also be noise and garbage issues for example, from bars and restaurants.

There appears to be no way address this in your 'life, liberty and property' philosophy. Their lives are not threatened, they have the liberty to do their own thing and they still have their own property.
What recourse do the neighbors have?

[Belinda]

And, LOL what has this one so-called 'philosophical debate', which has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, actually resolved, and solved?

In fact, what progress has actually been made in 'this philosophical debate'.

How was it for you, Age?

How was 'what', exactly, for me?

Until I wait for 'your clarification' here I do not see any 'debate' here at all, as both 'free will' and 'determinism' are concialliated. There was and is absolutely nothing at all to even reconcile here, let alone to debate. Well to me anyway.

Sorry I meant to ask does doing philosophy help you to confirm or progress ideas or are you mentally immobile with the same ideas.

[Flannel Jesus]

Unrelated to your conversations with Age, I'm curious what your thoughts are on free will and compatibilism.

[Age]

How was it for you, Age?

How was 'what', exactly, for me?

Until I wait for 'your clarification' here I do not see any 'debate' here at all, as both 'free will' and 'determinism' are concialliated. There was and is absolutely nothing at all to even reconcile here, let alone to debate. Well to me anyway.

Sorry I meant to ask does doing philosophy help you to confirm or progress ideas or are you mentally immobile with the same ideas.

1. 'I' do NOT 'do philosophy'. 'Philosophy', to me, is some one has, or does not have, and/or is some thing one is showing, or is not showing.

2. I do not present ideas, here, which I am unable to back up with IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

3. When 'i' am CLOSED, then 'i' am mentally immobile with some idea/s.

4. Are there any 'same ideas' that you think or believe 'I' have, here?

5. If yes, then what are they, exactly?

[henry quirk]

People tend to underpay or not pay at all for shared resources.

That's the nature of shared resources. No one uses those resources equally, so -- rightfully -- people resent paying for them equally. As I say people generally don't mind paying for what they need or want.

That's the free-rider problem.

Like folks on the dole?

And he will find a rationalization for not paying.

That's one way to look at it. Another way: he'll look to pay what he owes for what he actually uses.

Which only exasperates the problem.

The problem is shared resources or enforced sharing of resources when it's unnecessary.

Maybe not a moron but Joe doesn't become a genius or saint when he starts a business. He can be ignorant of the impact of what he is doing or indifferent to the impact.

And he doesn't have to be. He only, in context, needs to know if there's a need or want for that bookstore. And that's easy to figure out. He'll only be ignorant, in context, if he doesn't do his legwork: his business is doomed.

Why can't a person start a bookstore or other business in a residential area? Because in the past, it has often had a negative impact on the neighbors

As I say: Joe did his legwork. His neighbors welcome a bookstore, for themselves and their kids. Unless you wanna argue the neighbors are morons with no sense of what will or won't work in the area (traffic, parking, noise, garbage, etc), you'd have to agree those folks are a better measure than those in city hall.

There appears to be no way address this in your 'life, liberty and property' philosophy.

It doesn't have to, nor should it. This isn't a moral issue between Joe and his neighbors. The moral issue is between Joe & his neighbors (on one side) and The State (on the other).

Now, change the scenario up a bit. Joe wants to open a bookstore and the neighbors don't want it. They won't shop there. Local suppliers of sundries won't transact with him. Folks shun him in the streets. He won't stay in business long. Problem solved without The Hand of The State.

[Atla]

And, LOL
...

Why do you keep replying to my comments Age? I don't read them.

Why would one ask another why they keep replying to their comments, and then claim that it does not even read the comments.

Obviously, if the question was answered, then it would not be read by the former one.

What is also OBVIOUS is that if this one was really not reading my comments, then it would, already, know that I am absolutely not replying to its comments.

Is this some kind of grudge, are you pissed that I was right about your character all along?

Once more, this one asks questions to those that it claims that it will not even read the answers of. The IDIOCY here could not get MORE IDIOTIC, nor MORE RIDICULOUS.

Also, this one has never even said absolutely any thing about about some so-called 'my character'. So, how could it even be 'right' here?

Furthermore, the less this one reads, and responds, then the BETTER this is, for me. Therefore, I am certainly NOT so-called 'pissed' at all here. In fact, what is happening occuring now is PLEASING me, PROFUSELY.

FYI, not only do we not read your comments now, but people won't read them in the future either.

Here is another example of one who believes ABSOLUTELY its own already pre-existing beliefs, but which were, laughingly and obviously, absolutely False, and Wrong.

But, this was EXACTLY how absolutely BLIND and STUPID ones like this one REALLY WERE, back then.

You're not showing anything to anyone here,

LOL This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of just how absolutely Truly STUPID this one REALLY IS

nor in the future, you're just wasting your time.

Yet, through your very own STUPIDITY, I just SHOWED and PROVED what I have just SAID, and CLAIMED, here.

(Not that you could do anything more useful with it.)

Again, this one believes ABSOLUTELY things that it actually has absolutely NO idea NOR clue about AT ALL.

As it WILL, laughingly, PROVE ABSOLUTELY True, for me, here, again.

You seem to be so pissed that even your all caps habit is returning. Oh joy



Check this out, ChatGPT can make graphs too. I asked it to count the all-caps words in your comment, so we can visualize the growing obsession using a simple graph.

[iambiguous]

I've encountered a new conscious state that is particularly perplexing.

1] I ingest THC gummies just before going to sleep
2] after about an hour or so, I begin to "see" all manner of things...shapes, colors, geometric patterns, people, things. The people and things however are always very indistinct.
3] last night something really strange happened
4] my brain created these accounting sheets, and they were set in motion, sheet after sheet top to bottom...numbers letters symbols.
5] this has often happened
6] only out of the blue last night I did something I had never done...I tried to slow down the sheets so I could see what was being recorded on them
7] Amazingly enough [to me] I was able to actually do so. I could even "stop" a sheet and more clearly see what was in each block...only to discover it was largely gibberish to me

Here's the thing...

My brain is creating these images as though I were dreaming. But I am able to manipulate them in a way that never, ever happens in dreams. It's as though I had "somehow" made contact with my brain. On the other hand, over and over and over again, my brain will "jerk" me to another set of images. Letting me know perhaps that it is still in charge?

This was a very interesting post. It's here in the compatibilism thread. I can see ways to connect this to issues around compatiblism. But what did this experience make you think of in relation to the thread/compatiblism?

It just muddied the waters all the more.

And, in turn, illustrating [for me] just how fundamentally remarkable -- mind-boggling? -- the human brain is. When compared to all other matter. Even to all other biological matter.

Still, some determinists argue that my entire experience here [including posting this] was never able to be otherwise.

And to the best of my current knowledge, there are neither philosophical nor scientific assessments that settle it all once and for all.

[Age]

Why do you keep replying to my comments Age? I don't read them.

Why would one ask another why they keep replying to their comments, and then claim that it does not even read the comments.

Obviously, if the question was answered, then it would not be read by the former one.

What is also OBVIOUS is that if this one was really not reading my comments, then it would, already, know that I am absolutely not replying to its comments.

Is this some kind of grudge, are you pissed that I was right about your character all along?

Once more, this one asks questions to those that it claims that it will not even read the answers of. The IDIOCY here could not get MORE IDIOTIC, nor MORE RIDICULOUS.

Also, this one has never even said absolutely any thing about about some so-called 'my character'. So, how could it even be 'right' here?

Furthermore, the less this one reads, and responds, then the BETTER this is, for me. Therefore, I am certainly NOT so-called 'pissed' at all here. In fact, what is happening occuring now is PLEASING me, PROFUSELY.

FYI, not only do we not read your comments now, but people won't read them in the future either.

Here is another example of one who believes ABSOLUTELY its own already pre-existing beliefs, but which were, laughingly and obviously, absolutely False, and Wrong.

But, this was EXACTLY how absolutely BLIND and STUPID ones like this one REALLY WERE, back then.

You're not showing anything to anyone here,

LOL This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of just how absolutely Truly STUPID this one REALLY IS

nor in the future, you're just wasting your time.

Yet, through your very own STUPIDITY, I just SHOWED and PROVED what I have just SAID, and CLAIMED, here.

(Not that you could do anything more useful with it.)

Again, this one believes ABSOLUTELY things that it actually has absolutely NO idea NOR clue about AT ALL.

As it WILL, laughingly, PROVE ABSOLUTELY True, for me, here, again.

You seem to be so pissed that even your all caps habit is returning. Oh joy

HAHAHA AGAIN, this one ends up SEEING the VERY THINGS that it claims it does NOT LOOK AT and READ.

Check this out, ChatGPT can make graphs too. I asked it to count the all-caps words in your comment, so we can visualize the growing obsession using a simple graph.

SO, ONCE AGAIN, THIS one MAKES Up ASSUMPTIONS and STORIES THAT ARE IRREFUTABLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate AND Incorrect. AND, THE FUNNIEST PART HERE IS THAT it SO BLIND THAT it CANNOT EVEN SEE AND RECOGNIZE THIS FACT.

[Age]

I've encountered a new conscious state that is particularly perplexing.

1] I ingest THC gummies just before going to sleep
2] after about an hour or so, I begin to "see" all manner of things...shapes, colors, geometric patterns, people, things. The people and things however are always very indistinct.
3] last night something really strange happened
4] my brain created these accounting sheets, and they were set in motion, sheet after sheet top to bottom...numbers letters symbols.
5] this has often happened
6] only out of the blue last night I did something I had never done...I tried to slow down the sheets so I could see what was being recorded on them
7] Amazingly enough [to me] I was able to actually do so. I could even "stop" a sheet and more clearly see what was in each block...only to discover it was largely gibberish to me

Here's the thing...

My brain is creating these images as though I were dreaming. But I am able to manipulate them in a way that never, ever happens in dreams. It's as though I had "somehow" made contact with my brain. On the other hand, over and over and over again, my brain will "jerk" me to another set of images. Letting me know perhaps that it is still in charge?

This was a very interesting post. It's here in the compatibilism thread. I can see ways to connect this to issues around compatiblism. But what did this experience make you think of in relation to the thread/compatiblism?

It just muddied the waters all the more.

And, in turn, illustrating [for me] just how fundamentally remarkable -- mind-boggling? -- the human brain is. When compared to all other matter. Even to all other biological matter.

Still, some determinists argue that my entire experience here [including posting this] was never able to be otherwise.

And to the best of my current knowledge, there are neither philosophical nor scientific assessments that settle it all once and for all.

What this one's 'current knowledge' of, most likely, has all ALREADY been SETTLED once and for all.

And, to PROVE this, this one just needs to inform you readers of what 'it is, exactly, which, according to its 'current knowledge', there are neither philosophical nor scientific assessments that settle 'it', once and for all.

[iambiguous]

A psychological perspective? Okay, note for us how human psychology is somehow exempt from the laws of matter.

What, there's a homunculus inside our brains able to make that distinction for us: "do this and it's free will, do that and it's not?"

Then all those "choices" we make in our dreams. We wake up time and again and remind ourselves "whew, it was only a dream!" Yet while in the dream itself, it's actually like we aren't dreaming at all. Were convinced "in the dream" that we really are choosing our behaviors autonomously because, as in the waking world, this is -- psychologically? -- what we think and feel.

Instead, it's a "reality" manufactured by the brain. Based on the cues we give it in the course of actually living our lives. And in such a way that some convince themselves the waking brain is just "somehow" different from the sleeping brain.

And, sure, maybe it is. Though maybe it's not.

Or are my dreams the only ones that unfold like that.

Then this thing about choices. If we witness someone making a choice, what, that makes free will the real deal?

Yes, again, that may well be the objective truth. So, by all means, link me to the best arguments out there from the philosophical and scientific communities that most effectively demonstrate this. It's just that, by and large, from my frame of mind -- click -- philosophers are far more likely to "demonstrate" it in a world of words.

No, human psychology is NOT exempt from the laws of matter. Why can't you just respond to what was actually said?

Click.

Over and over and over again, lots of us get this from others here. We are told we didn't respond to what they said...as though there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell that what they really mean is this: that what they said reflects either the optimal or the only rational assessment of, well, everything, right?

And, of course, the farther out on the metaphysical limb we go, the more surreal and mysterious existence itself can seem. But that will almost never stop the Atlas among us from speaking of things like compatibilism as though he really, really was describing it in the most rational manner.

As for the rest of it, once again, I'll leave it up to others here to --click -- decide for themselves if Atla actually addresses the points I raised.

And as I predicted, now he questions my stance of compatibilism.

Next up: Atla moves beyond his/her "world of words" argument and actually attempts to demonstrate empirically, experientially, experimentally, existentially, etc., how I either could or could not have freely opted to question anything he/she posts about compatibilism.

How does he/she understand the meaning of a "stance" here? Webster's defines it as "an intellectual or emotional attitude". So -- click -- between being utterly ignorant regarding the meaning of compatibilism and grasping it's essential meaning going all the way back to the existence of existence itself, how much weight should we give to a stance here? And, no, not excluding my own stances either.

Well considering that every single post of mine was trashing compatibilism, my claim is that compatibilism is so incoherent that one can't even be a compatibilist without completely redefining free will, and I'm a fucking DETERMINIST not a compatibilist...

He/she notes that we are living in an "ultimately determined" world but that this is "basically irrelevant at the everyday human world level."

Okay, chemically and neurologically, how exactly does this all unfold in your brain...such that your own everyday interactions with others in a No God world [merely another assumption of course] are understood by you such that, further, you can pin point when you are acting autonomously and when you are not.

Given the context of your -- click -- choice.

Note to iwannaplato:

What do you make of this...

I'm sorry but this level of inability to pay attention to and comprehend stuff, looks more like a medical issue that needs to be improved with medication, when possible. But indeed, you simply can't have discussions with others like this. Maybe don't do drugs huh.

Stooge stuff, sure, but...but what if he/she is right?!!?

[Atla]

Why would one ask another why they keep replying to their comments, and then claim that it does not even read the comments.

Obviously, if the question was answered, then it would not be read by the former one.

What is also OBVIOUS is that if this one was really not reading my comments, then it would, already, know that I am absolutely not replying to its comments.



Once more, this one asks questions to those that it claims that it will not even read the answers of. The IDIOCY here could not get MORE IDIOTIC, nor MORE RIDICULOUS.

Also, this one has never even said absolutely any thing about about some so-called 'my character'. So, how could it even be 'right' here?

Furthermore, the less this one reads, and responds, then the BETTER this is, for me. Therefore, I am certainly NOT so-called 'pissed' at all here. In fact, what is happening occuring now is PLEASING me, PROFUSELY.



Here is another example of one who believes ABSOLUTELY its own already pre-existing beliefs, but which were, laughingly and obviously, absolutely False, and Wrong.

But, this was EXACTLY how absolutely BLIND and STUPID ones like this one REALLY WERE, back then.



LOL This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of just how absolutely Truly STUPID this one REALLY IS



Yet, through your very own STUPIDITY, I just SHOWED and PROVED what I have just SAID, and CLAIMED, here.


Again, this one believes ABSOLUTELY things that it actually has absolutely NO idea NOR clue about AT ALL.

As it WILL, laughingly, PROVE ABSOLUTELY True, for me, here, again.

You seem to be so pissed that even your all caps habit is returning. Oh joy

HAHAHA AGAIN, this one ends up SEEING the VERY THINGS that it claims it does NOT LOOK AT and READ.

Check this out, ChatGPT can make graphs too. I asked it to count the all-caps words in your comment, so we can visualize the growing obsession using a simple graph.

SO, ONCE AGAIN, THIS one MAKES Up ASSUMPTIONS and STORIES THAT ARE IRREFUTABLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate AND Incorrect. AND, THE FUNNIEST PART HERE IS THAT it SO BLIND THAT it CANNOT EVEN SEE AND RECOGNIZE THIS FACT.

I read these two because I asked you something. Looks like the all-caps ratio is rapidly approaching 100% lol.

[Atla]

Next up: Atla moves beyond his/her "world of words" argument and actually attempts to demonstrate empirically, experientially, experimentally, existentially, etc., how I either could or could not have freely opted to question anything he/she posts about compatibilism.

How does he/she understand the meaning of a "stance" here? Webster's defines it as "an intellectual or emotional attitude". So -- click -- between being utterly ignorant regarding the meaning of compatibilism and grasping it's essential meaning going all the way back to the existence of existence itself, how much weight should we give to a stance here? And, no, not excluding my own stances either.

Again, I'm not a compatibilist. And I explained my take on compatibilism. It's impossible to tell what you're responding to, if it's a response to anything I wrote at all. Stance was short for philosophical stance obviously (I assumed), in the free will debate it has nothing to do with emotions for me.

He/she notes that we are living in an "ultimately determined" world but that this is "basically irrelevant at the everyday human world level."

Okay, chemically and neurologically, how exactly does this all unfold in your brain...such that your own everyday interactions with others in a No God world [merely another assumption of course] are understood by you such that, further, you can pin point when you are acting autonomously and when you are not.

Given the context of your -- click -- choice.

Looks like you didn't read what I wrote about the two layers of philosophy that become necessary after a point, or at least didn't get the gist of it. Let's see what happens if I unpack things more.

Ultimately we are never acting autonomously, say on the 'chemical level' we see that all our chemicals follow the laws of matter. But your brain is made of some 10^25-10^26 molecules, and parts of it are specifically arranged for everyday-scale decision-making, that's what the prefrontal cortex does.

It's just highly nonsensical to treat the behaviour of the human brain the same way we treat the behaviour of a single molecule or atom, due to the high-level, complex emergent behaviours that the brain has evolved for. While in the absolute sense we never have free will, this is largely irrelevant in everyday life. Most people can make everyday choices just fine, and whatever choice they make is the determined outcome. And that still follows the laws of matter.

Now it's possible that this baffles you because you could have some prefrontal cortex dysfunction or some other issue, and can't really make decisions. But the average human can, so let's just assume that Mary can too. Moral responsibility is also an everyday world issue, we can make everyday life choices and we have moral responsibility.

[Iwannaplato]

Looks like you didn't read what I wrote about the two layers of philosophy that become necessary after a point, or at least didn't get the gist of it. Let's see what happens if I unpack things more.

Ultimately we are never acting autonomously, say on the 'chemical level' we see that all our chemicals follow the laws of matter. But your brain is made of some 10^25-10^26 molecules, and parts of it are specifically arranged for everyday-scale decision-making, that's what the prefrontal cortex does.

It's just highly nonsensical to treat the behaviour of the human brain the same way we treat the behaviour of a single molecule or atom, due to the high-level, complex emergent behaviours that the brain has evolved for. While in the absolute sense we never have free will, this is largely irrelevant in everyday life. Most people can make everyday choices just fine, and whatever choice they make is the determined outcome. And that still follows the laws of matter.

Now it's possible that this baffles you because you could have some prefrontal cortex dysfunction or some other issue, and can't really make decisions. But the average human can, so let's just assume that Mary can too. Moral responsibility is also an everyday world issue, we can make everyday life choices and we have moral responsibility.

All I can say is he is going to read this and again assume you are saying something like the complexity of the brain makes it free from the laws of matter. I am not saying that is what you are saying. In fact near the beginning you make this clear. Just predicting, given the history where even more obviously non-free will positions are interpreted as saying that brain cells are autonomous and not controlled by the laws of the universe.

In parallel, in many posts he will write what are essentially arguments of incredulity. Or perhaps assertions of incredulity. How could one possibly give someone responsiblity for their inevitable acts/choices? Two things that never seem to happen:
1) When someone does do this with a specific act - does explain how this can be non-contradictory, he does not interact with those posts and/or repeats his incredulity.
2) He never justifies his incredulity. I do have sympathy for the incredulity, but I think if he actually tried to argue it, he might find that it is a problematic default. It also need justification and at present is nowhere an argument from him.

So, what we get is every compatibilist or other person arguing the determinism and moral responsiblity are compatible is told they are saying brain cells or brains do not follow the laws of the universe, and he continues to tell them this even when they explain they are not and why.

Further I never see any argument for how libertarian free will actually fits with moral responsibilty. If one doesn't go into this issue, it may seem, from common sense, to be a fit. But if these free acts are not caused by either external or internal causes (or a combination) what do they have to do with the person who 'performed them'. The acts were not caused by the person or their interests, goals, motivations, desires, values, in the context of their knowledge and external restraints. No explanation how this wouldn't be random?

So, the thread will go on for years without him directl engaging with positions that do not fit his binary schema - libertarian free will of a specific type or hard determinism, with the former having brains that are exceptions to the laws of matter. Every single position he faces will be treated as the former, if it isn't a hard determinist. Every time any other position will face incredulity that brain cells are not controlled by the laws of matter. This position and assumption will never be justified. His incredulity will never be justified - it's common sense/obvious/apriori. If people tell him they don't actually believe brain cells or phsychology or whatever if free from the laws of matter, if they challenge his strange interpretation of their positions, they will be told in a variety of ways that they are dogmatic, authoritarian types. If third parties point out he hasn't correctly interpreted them or an article, he will never go back to the article and quote from it and justify his position, he will accuse the person of being authoritarian and assuming they are infallible.

The only interesting patches of this thread are where other people start interacting with each other and ignore him.

[Flannel Jesus]

So, the thread will go on for years without him directl engaging with positions that do not fit his binary schema - libertarian free will of a specific type or hard determinism, with the former having brains that are exceptions to the laws of matter. Every single position he faces will be treated as the former, if it isn't a hard determinist.

I'm still amazed that he's read so much about compatibilism - literally probably more than every person on this forum combined - and still doesn't get what it's saying.

I'm not amazed if someone disagrees with it. Plenty of people get what compatibilists are saying and disagree, that's normal - what's not normal is to be the forum record holder for most words read and written about compatibilism, and still not even understand the base claim. Disagree with it all you want, but if you hold the record, you shouldn't be saying things like "compatibilists think that somehow brains gained autonomy from the laws of physics". That's not what compatibilsits think. No text he's reading says compatibilists think that. Multiple compatibilists he speaks with explain that compatibilists don't think that. He has no excuse to still say shit like that.

There's only one explanation, but it's not very flattering for Biguous.

[Belinda]

Unrelated to your conversations with Age, I'm curious what your thoughts are on free will and compatibilism.

Thank you FJ. Absolute free will does not exist, neither anatomically nor supernaturally, so absolute free will can't be compatible with anything.