compatibilism

[Atla]

Are you actually able to convince yourself that going back to whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself...God? the Big Bang?...how you grasp what determinism and compatibilism mean together "here and now" is likely to be the most rational assessment?

In other words, as an argument? Words defining and defending yet more words still?

I don't think anything started existence, I don't think existence started, why would I?
'Existence of existence' I see as redundant.
'Compatibilism' I see as incoherent, just like I did 2 days ago, it's not a valid position.
I don't 'convince' myself that anything I think is likely the most rational assessment, but I'm quite confident that it beats what you guys have. Still, I'm less confident when it comes to the topic of free will vs determinism, the topic is indeed murky.

Ah, a 'serious philosopher"?

You're not tugged ambivalently in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics? And you have already developed a set of core moral values? And you no doubt embody all that is normal and healthy? So how on Earth, after noting this, can anyone here possibly still be confused about, well, any of this?

I'm no philosopher in any academic sense, and I didn't have to do a lot do develop a set of core moral values, since they largely developed automatically, just like it happens in most people.
So most people aren't tugged ambivalently in every direction. That's not healthy. You'd save a lot of time and energy if you were only tugged in one direction, maybe 2-3 at most. And well, gain some peace of mind. Imo that is, but if tugged ambivalently in every direction is better for you, then do that.

That's basically what I am trying to determine here: are you a "meaning, morality and metaphysical" objectivist? Do you believe that in regard to them, you have the capacity to articulate that crucial "deep down inside you" Intrinsic Self? A True Self able to discover or to invent an objective meaning, an objective morality, an objective metaphysics?

Other than in an argument aimed at "settling" it all...theoretically?

I believe in objective reality, the objective existence of the universe, so my metaphysics is also informed by something objective, it has objective and subjective parts.

But when it comes to meaning and morality, of course I'm not an objectivist, I'm a subjectivist. I just practice the best kind of subjectivism: quasi-objectivism. We try to subjectively establish (since there is no other way) the arguably most optimal views, and then we sort of treat them as they were sort of objective. Because that's better for the everyday human psychology.
But they're not objective, they are deep down subjectively established, and when the need arises, can be changed.

But that's okay? Okay because as long as those like you are around able to sort these things out, uh, analytically, we can just stay up there until we finally "get it?".

If you can demonstrate superior views then I will accept them. That's what we are here for.

Not to worry. There's always the possibility that you were never able to understand it in a wholly determined world. Just as there's always the possibility that how I think I understand it in a free will world is...ridiculous?

And I've lost count of how many philosophers I have come into contact with [virtually] who insist not only that conflicting moral and metaphysical quandaries/conundrums/antinomies can be reconciled or resolved, but that this must be true because they have already succeeded in conflating them "in their head" in order to embrace the One True Path.

"Anything" is possible, but first I'll think that if I wasn't able to undestand something, then that wasn't because of determinism or free will itself, but because of my insufficient intellectual abilities.

But -- click -- that's the beauty of discussing and debating issues like this. In a No God world. All that is necessary is that, one way or another, you do believe it.

More to the point [mine] is the assumption [yours] that the human brain actually can concoct an explanation for this such that all the dots mesh seamlessly into what you now believe in your head.

What I call the psychology of objectivism.

Again, I'm not an objectivist on meaning and morals.

[iambiguous]

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.

No, once again I am stuck -- necessarily? -- noting "click" here because all I can do given The Gap and Rummy's Rule is to take my own existential leap of faith to determinism. Determinism as "I" have come to understand it "here and now".

But: even then only given my own set of assumptions about the human condition...premises [philosophical or otherwise] which in all likelihood will in no way, shape or form be even close to nailing my own brain down here. Ontologically or otherwise.

It's in suggesting, however, that those like you and Atla and phyllo and others are in the same boat that tends to rile some here. This part in other words:

What does 'It's in suggesting' mean? Who are the some getting riled? Are you saying you know the motivations of this group of some people?

Well, it means that I was once myself an FFO -- God and then No God -- so I know what is at stake when [as I did] you come to believe "in your head" that 1] human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless 2] that human morality is rooted existentially in dasein and 3] that death = oblivion.

So, sure, maybe -- subconsciously? unconsciously? -- I have come to accept determinism because that let's me off the hook. And maybe Mother Nature "down the road" will compel me "out of the blue" to believe again. Maybe She will compel me to embrace Christianity again.

Or maybe Jesus Christ will finally return. He asks me what I am willing to do so as not to be "left behind". "Anything", I'll tell Him.

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Is this what is riling that group of some people. This doesn't rile me, but I don't know if I'm in the group of some, given how that sentences was worded about the 'some'.

All I can do here is to extrapolate from over 20 years of experiences in philosophy forums. You say it doesn't rile you but from my frame of mind your reaction to me suggests otherwise. Again, with you, however, I just don't see any commitment to bringing meaning, morality and metaphysics down out of the philosophical clouds. And "down here" is the only place that is of interest to me in regard to these particular components of human interaction. As I noted above, though Philosophy Now magazine describes itself as a "magazine of ideas" my own focus revolves instead around bringing any and all moral philosophies out into the world of actual flesh and blood human interactions.

So, convinced this is not applicable to you? Okay, in regard to one of your own value judgments note how it is not. Note how you have never felt "fractured and fragmented" in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics.

I'm not sure what this has to do with compatibilism meaning that brain cells are free from the laws of matter.

Unless, of course, science and philosophy combined actually do succeed in confirming that you either were or were not compelled by the laws of nature to be uncertain here?

On the other hand, what if a few years later, science and philosophy combine to confirm that, on the contrary, that confirmation was itself inherently embedded in the only possible reality.

Note how the Benjamin Button Syndrome is simply not applicable to your own interactions with others day in and day out.

Have I said this? I have to say I have forgotten what you mean by this Syndrome. I once knew and searched by way to the original post, but I am still unsure.

That makes 2 of us then. Another example, perhaps?

Some years ago I was at a public library with a woman I was seeing. We were out the door when I realized I left my library card on the counter inside. So, I retrieve it and we're driving back home when out of the blue another car hit mine. Just a fender bender. I remember saying, "...and it's all because I left my library card inside."

And that's when my friend said, "well what if you hadn't forgotten it? And as a result of that you left 5 minutes earlier and were involved in a far, far more serious accident?"

And that's applicable in the either/or world as well. When the part about conflicting goods comes in, however, things can get far, far more problematic. And that takes me back to Vietnam. I was a 72B20 at the Lam Son MACV. But I rubbed the Sergeant there the wrong way and he sent me packing to the Song Be MACV. A considerably more dangerous place. But it was there that I met Danny, Mac, John and Steve. And between them [Danny and Mac in particular] my whole philosophy of life -- conservative, religious -- was turned upside down.

You just never really know for certain what is around the next corner. But in the either/or world, you can at least be certain of those things that are applicable to everyone. With morality however there are literally hundreds of One True Paths out there.

Uh, including yours?

As for what to make of the "complexity of the brain" here...?

Just more of the same from the objectivists, in my view. They speak of things like meaning and morality and metaphysics as though they really were able to connect the dots between them and the objective reality of human social, political and economic interactions.

Sure, objectivists often do these things. But this still doesn't seem related to what I wrote.

Again, in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, nothing is not related to everything else. Everything sustains everything else from the cradle to the grave.

I know! Let's continue to explore this over and over and over again up in the theoretical clouds! After all, once that's nailed down philosophically, we might actually accumulate the definitions that no one is exempt from. Maybe someone will even be able to reconfigure these definitions into the most rational of all human behaviors. The Republic 2.0.

This entire post is up in the clouds.

Now -- click -- that's bullshit. That you believe it though? Actually, it really wouldn't surprise me that much at all.

I have in two forums presented concrete situations related to moral responsibility in a deterministic universe. The situations were specific with specific, concrete details.

You keep saying that and I keep missing your point. What specific, concrete details were they again?

You do realize that every time you express incredulity about how moral responsibility could be compatible with determinism, you are up in the clouds? It's just that you don't make an argument about why this much be the case. It's just an implicit assertion, without any concrete explanation.

Please. If you want arguments about compatibilism there are any number of posters here eager to accomodate you. All I ask though is that you bring the theoretical assessments around to those like Mary who are dealing with the actual convoluted complexities of any number of conflicting goods.

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.

Maybe those like Veritas Aequitas can pursue this with him so that at least the two of them have all the technical knowledge necessary for, well, whatever it is necessary for given the time when they confront those like Mary who have been told that they were never able to opt not to "choose" an abortion, but are still held morally responsible for doing so.

Except I have specifically explained this using concrete situations. And more than once. And I know you read at least one of them because you responded to simply dismiss it.

Note to others:

Again, he claims to have met my conditions regarding this. Please peruse the example above and explian why in your view he's right: I did dismiss it.

Though, sure, even if Mary notes how that makes no sense at all, what does she know about the rigors of analytic philosophy when confronting conflicting goods.

See, you're mixing issues. You are mixing the conflicting goods issue with responsibility and determinism compatibility, as I explained in the other forum.

Translation: "that's not how I understand the relationship between them..."

More recently you claimed that we could use any moral situation to show how responsibility is compatible with determinism.

Here and now, I would never make such a claim unless in making it, I was never able not to.

How many times do I have to keep noting that I am no less [ultimately] fractured and fragmented in regard to compatibilism? What I am after here instead revolves more around this:

"Okay, click, in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not."

So, this is all just huffing and puffing.

Now, in my own rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion, you are just embarrassing yourself. I may as well respond to those like Flannel Jesus if I want that sort of thing.

[iambiguous]

Nothing is 'determined' until it has happened, but many people post as if future events have already happened. Note Iambiguous' "Mary could never not have had an abortion" ... mixing up past and future.

Mother Nature to iambiguous: Try this: "Huh?"

The past, the present and the future are always going to be "mixed up" existentially in our heads. We do what we do now based in part on what we once did and what we will do in the future is almost certainly going to factor in the past and the present.

Mary would never have had the abortion if she had never become pregnant. And she would never have become pregnant if the contraceptive hadn't failed. But if she was never able to freely choose [or control] any of these behaviors?

All I do is to suggest that, in turn, our own reactions here may well be intertwined in the only past, present and future we could/can/will ever have.

[phyllo]

Iambiguous wrote :

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 7:35 am
Except I have specifically explained this using concrete situations. And more than once. And I know you read at least one of them because you responded to simply dismiss it.

Note to others:

Again, he claims to have met my conditions regarding this. Please peruse the example above and explian why in your view he's right: I did dismiss it.

Did you discuss IWP's hammer attack example with him?

No.

You wrote this at ILP:

Greenfuse:

We can go on later and see how this works out in relation to abortion, once the less controversial issue is dealt with. The focus is responsibility if determinism is the case. My example, allows us to look at that.

I put some time and effort into my response showing that if determinism is the case, people can still be held responsible. Could you please respond to that argument?

Okay.

Greenfuse:

There are two issues here. Can we hold someone responsible for their actions in a determinist universe and then what do we do in relation to conflicting goods. I am happy to tackle the second issue one we look at the first one regarding a less contentious example.

Okay.

And then this :

greenfuse

Of course one could look at the abortion issue, but since I do not judge abortion morally wrong, I don’t know who to respond to that issue. Why isn’t another moral issue where I do feel like what someone did was wrong - the getting hit by a stranger in the street with a hammer - a good one for the issue.

Maybe I missed that post, that example, but from my frame of mind “here and now”, any example you provide about any human interactions is no less but one more inherent component of the only reality there could ever possibly have been.

So, I’m not sure – can never be sure? – how we can ever resolve any of this other than in arguments.

And I will always respond to actual attempts to connect the dots between “in my head” and everything that anyone would have to know about the existence of existence itself in order to provide a comprehensive assessment of the human condition.

[Immanuel Can]

h. Thank you. So...personal stuff. Will. Desires. Wants....etc.

If any of that is allowed to be the cause of a decision or an action, then Determinism is false. Determinism cannot add any such personal stuff to its account of causality without undermining its own basic thesis.

This is false. You do not understand determinism.

Oh no. This is true. And if anybody doesn't understand determinism, it might be the person who hasn't read the four definitions from significant sources I provided to expound that view.

Determinism includes internal causes as part of the set of causes.

Actually, it denies that what you call "internal causes," such as will, choice, desire, and so forth, can authentically exist at all. It interprets them as "epiphenomena" (their word) of physical, chemical and electrical "phenomena," which are then misunderstood by the actor in question as if they were coming from him/her. But, insists Determinism, they are not authetic causes of anything, nor are they even a link in the causal chain.

If you read Philosophy of Mind at all, you'll find the "epiphenomenal" distinction to be one of the primary terms of current debate, along with "emergentism," which is about different issues, but which also impinges on the question of how consciousness relates to action.

And if you think about it: why would a determinist, any kind, say that internal causes are not causes.

You need to read what they say, I guess. The whole point of Determinism is to eliminate the responsibility of the agent, the causal contribution of the self, and to reinterpret it in terms of impersonal prior causes. It's to render everything, including human cognition, subject to Materialist science, and thus to extend scientfic absolutism to the total explanatory power over psychology, sociology and other human activities.

Ironically, the only way the Determinists can achieve this is by appealing to that very faculty the authenticity of which they deny: the cognizing and choosing self. They try to persuade those whom they have to believe cannot control their own cognitions that they should believe that their cognitions are beyond any ability of theirs to believe them. And if you can sort out the self-contradiction in their actions, then you're better than I am.

Obviously internal causes are causes.

I agree with you. Determinists do not.

But determinism is just say that the sum of causes internal and external leads to an inevitable outcome.

No. They say that only the "external ones," to use your terms, do that. There are none of your "internal causes," they insist. Those are "epiphenomena," not realities.

And this is made clear in descriptiosn of compatibilism, in fact that's precisely where they think moral responsibility and determinism are compatible: because of internal causes.

No, that's a mental error on their part, a failure to understand Determinism or to take Determinism seriously. Determinism requires that no such "internal causes" actually can cause anything. Remember that the whole point of Determinism is to put the blame for actions on prior causes -- usually material or physical inducements of some kind -- and to eliminate the personal from the equation. Only then can all human behaviour be reduced to the study of preconditions (which might be Materialistically doable), and taken out of the realm of human cognition, which is inevitably non-Materialist and immeasurably more difficult to subject to scientific scrutiny.

Determinism is really an attempt to supplant things like psychology and sociology with physics, chemistry and (some aspects of) biology. It's an attempt to make a "hard science" out of the "soft sciences" of human behaviour.

...a rapist is the person who wanted to rape.

Not according to Determinism. The Deterministic account would be something like this: the person who rapes was induced to rape by his physical constitution, his biological urges, his chemical activity in the brain, the physical circumstances in which he was found, his earlier socialization, etc. His feeling that he wanted to was produced by all these, but is a delusion: it was not "him wanting to" that made him rape. It was purely the product of these earlier pre-inducements. And he was their pawn, though he did not know it, and thus imagined he was acting on "what he wanted."

By the way, this is also the rationale for the "correctional" view of punishment: the assumption is that the perp did not actually choose or want to be a perp, but he was compelled to it by his external circumstances, socialization, chemical imbalances, etc., so that proper rectification of the situation only need placing him in a "corrective" atmosphere, and he'll become as good as anyone else -- if we can just figure out the proper corrective environment to counterbalance the earlier causes. But in the "correctional" view, he's not really at fault, and once we "correct" him, we can throw him back out in to society. So we don't punish him, we don't restore justice to an unjust situation, we don't compel any restitution, we don't provide any satisfaction for the victim's sense of justice, or for that of her grieving relatives...we just "fix" the perp, and send him out free. It wasn't really his fault. He raped because he was predetermined to rape by prior forces.

Yeah, that's absurd. But it's also what the Deterministic view has to insist is true.

A religious version, since God knows the entire future and therefore we know it is determined.

Non-sequitur: it does not follow. Again, to "know" is not the same verb as to "cause." And yes, the perp is responsible. No, God's foreknowledge would not "make" him do it.

You continue to present a false view of determinism and react as if determinists have positions they do not.

Au contraire: I think you could benefit by some reading in the subject. I think you may be trying to exposit Determinism by way of what you, yourself may believe. But they don't believe what you believe.

Determinists include internal or person-centered causes in the sum of causes.

They most certainly do not, you will find. If your "internal or person-centered causes" are included, then they're free will proponents.

[Flannel Jesus]

h. Thank you. So...personal stuff. Will. Desires. Wants....etc.

If any of that is allowed to be the cause of a decision or an action, then Determinism is false. Determinism cannot add any such personal stuff to its account of causality without undermining its own basic thesis.

This is false. You do not understand determinism. Determinism includes internal causes as part of the set of causes. It is not just external causes.
And if you think about it: why would a determinist, any kind, say that internal causes are not causes. Obviously internal causes are causes.

You've been fighting a strawman and your position is a form of compatibilism.

And you position is compatible with people being responsible for their actions.

Too right.

[iambiguous]

Are you actually able to convince yourself that going back to whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself...God? the Big Bang?...how you grasp what determinism and compatibilism mean together "here and now" is likely to be the most rational assessment?

In other words, as an argument? Words defining and defending yet more words still?

I don't think anything started existence, I don't think existence started, why would I?

Well, that's the difference [one of them] between you and I. I assume there is no way in hell that any of us can possibly know this definitively one way or the other. Sure, we think about these things or we wouldn't be philosophers. And we often come to believe certain things. Different things, however, because we've lived different lives, read different books, had different relationships, accumlated different experiences, clicked on different web sites, etc. etc.

So, it's not what you or I think about these things but what we can actually demonstrate.

Now, how would you attempt to demonstrate that existence never...started?

'Existence of existence' I see as redundant.

That's because you think it never started. But what if it did? God, perhaps? The Big Bang?

'Compatibilism' I see as incoherent, just like I did 2 days ago, it's not a valid position.

Okay, perhaps you are making an important point here that -- click -- I keep missing. On the other hand, the hard determinists argue this: that how either one of us "see" compatibilism -- 2 days ago or 2 decades ago -- can never be invalid if we were never able to "see" it any other way.

I don't 'convince' myself that anything I think is likely the most rational assessment, but I'm quite confident that it beats what you guys have. Still, I'm less confident when it comes to the topic of free will vs determinism, the topic is indeed murky.

What makes all this murky is, in my view, embedded existentially in The Gap and in Rummy's Rule. There are just far too many variables going back to the Big Bang [in a No God world] that even science has scarcely scratched the surface of here. Or do you imagine that a hundred years from now scientists and philosophers won't be looking back and marveling that we could actually believe what we do "here and now".

Ah, a 'serious philosopher"?

You're not tugged ambivalently in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics? And you have already developed a set of core moral values? And you no doubt embody all that is normal and healthy? So how on Earth, after noting this, can anyone here possibly still be confused about, well, any of this?

I'm no philosopher in any academic sense, and I didn't have to do a lot do develop a set of core moral values, since they largely developed automatically, just like it happens in most people.

We are so far apart here, I don't know where to begin...

How about this...

Click.

Read the points I raised in the OPs here:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989

Now, in regard to your own core moral values pertaining to a particular moral conflagration, please note how my points are not applicable to you.

Or, in fact, as with most of those here who are moral objectivists [as I understand it], are they far, far more interested in sustaining the peace of mind that comes with really, truly believing that what they do believe is all that actually matters.

That's basically what I am trying to determine here: are you a "meaning, morality and metaphysical" objectivist? Do you believe that in regard to them, you have the capacity to articulate that crucial "deep down inside you" Intrinsic Self? A True Self able to discover or to invent an objective meaning, an objective morality, an objective metaphysics?

Other than in an argument aimed at "settling" it all...theoretically?

I believe in objective reality, the objective existence of the universe, so my metaphysics is also informed by something objective, it has objective and subjective parts.

On the other hand, most of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...basically believe the same thing. Only it's their own assessment of reality that is deemed the One True path.

But when it comes to meaning and morality, of course I'm not an objectivist, I'm a subjectivist. I just practice the best kind of subjectivism: quasi-objectivism. We try to subjectively establish (since there is no other way) the arguably most optimal views, and then we sort of treat them as they were sort of objective. Because that's better for the everyday human psychology.

"For all practical purposes", I would agree. But for any number of moral objectivists here, human psychology is anchored into far firmer ground: the One True Path.

Ask them what that might be.

So, your main point seems to be that, in regard to meaning and morality and metaphysics, free will is a reality that is embodied in our "everyday lives"? And I certainly agree that may well be the case. On the other hand, the determinists have their own set of assumptions that may well be the case.

But that's okay? Okay because as long as those like you are around able to sort these things out, uh, analytically, we can just stay up there until we finally "get it?".

If you can demonstrate superior views then I will accept them. That's what we are here for.

Well, my point suggests that superior and inferior are entirely interchangeable in a world where people are compelled to behave as they do. And then all the rest of us are then compelled to react to what they do only as we ever could have reacted ourselves.

Okay, let's pin that down?

Not to worry. There's always the possibility that you were never able to understand it in a wholly determined world. Just as there's always the possibility that how I think I understand it in a free will world is...ridiculous?

And I've lost count of how many philosophers I have come into contact with [virtually] who insist not only that conflicting moral and metaphysical quandaries/conundrums/antinomies can be reconciled or resolved, but that this must be true because they have already succeeded in conflating them "in their head" in order to embrace the One True Path.

"Anything" is possible, but first I'll think that if I wasn't able to undestand something, then that wasn't because of determinism or free will itself, but because of my insufficient intellectual abilities.

Maybe, but what if the human brain itself is insufficient in understanding these things? What if some of the most brilliant minds over the centuries have grappled with this [as they have] only to basically come back around to all of the different assessments going back to the pre-Socratics. Is compatibilism any less the quandary, conundrum and antinomy today? And that's after the extraordinary achievements of science since then.

But -- click -- that's the beauty of discussing and debating issues like this. In a No God world. All that is necessary is that, one way or another, you do believe it.

More to the point [mine] is the assumption [yours] that the human brain actually can concoct an explanation for this such that all the dots mesh seamlessly into what you now believe in your head.

What I call the psychology of objectivism.

Again, I'm not an objectivist on meaning and morals.

I hear that.

[Atla]

Well, that's the difference [one of them] between you and I. I assume there is no way in hell that any of us can possibly know this definitively one way or the other. Sure, we think about these things or we wouldn't be philosophers. And we often come to believe certain things. Different things, however, because we've lived different lives, read different books, had different relationships, accumlated different experiences, clicked on different web sites, etc. etc.

So, it's not what you or I think about these things but what we can actually demonstrate.

Now, how would you attempt to demonstrate that existence never...started?

The "difference" huh?

And I've just about had it with your false accusation ad homs, it says a lot that you automatically assume the worst and keep insulting my intelligence. Where did I say that I know things definitely? Absolute certainty is for idiots.

That's because you think it never started. But what if it did? God, perhaps? The Big Bang?

Then it did start ffs, it's a possibility. We can't know either way. And imo then the universe isn't logical according to human logic, which is a really big problem for philosophy.

Okay, perhaps you are making an important point here that -- click -- I keep missing. On the other hand, the hard determinists argue this: that how either one of us "see" compatibilism -- 2 days ago or 2 decades ago -- can never be invalid if we were never able to "see" it any other way.

Hard determinists claim that moral responsibility isn't compatible with determinism, so they are about as confused as compatibilists.

What makes all this murky is, in my view, embedded existentially in The Gap and in Rummy's Rule. There are just far too many variables going back to the Big Bang [in a No God world] that even science has scarcely scratched the surface of here. Or do you imagine that a hundred years from now scientists and philosophers won't be looking back and marveling that we could actually believe what we do "here and now".

What makes it even murkier is that the free will vs determinism debate could very well be a 5-dimensional problem. But now I'm just talking about 4-dimensional philosophy.

"For all practical purposes", I would agree. But for any number of moral objectivists here, human psychology is anchored into far firmer ground: the One True Path.

Ask them what that might be.

So, your main point seems to be that, in regard to meaning and morality and metaphysics, free will is a reality that is embodied in our "everyday lives"? And I certainly agree that may well be the case. On the other hand, the determinists have their own set of assumptions that may well be the case.

One True Path is for objectivists, idiots. I use Occam's razor for philosophy, but it's not the One True Path, I just judge that there is nothing better than Occam's razor.

I am a determinist, so again what do you mean by 'on the other hand'? What do you mean by embodied in our "everyday lives"? Did you understand what I explained earlier?

Maybe, but what if the human brain itself is insufficient in understanding these things? What if some of the most brilliant minds over the centuries have grappled with this [as they have] only to basically come back around to all of the different assessments going back to the pre-Socratics. Is compatibilism any less the quandary, conundrum and antinomy today? And that's after the extraordinary achievements of science since then.

Of course the universe is far more or infinitely more complex than human cognition, that's a general problem, not just in the free will vs determinism debate. Stay on topic.

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous wrote :

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 7:35 am
Except I have specifically explained this using concrete situations. And more than once. And I know you read at least one of them because you responded to simply dismiss it.

Note to others:

Again, he claims to have met my conditions regarding this. Please peruse the example above and explian why in your view he's right: I did dismiss it.

Did you discuss IWP's hammer attack example with him?

No.

Yes, that does sound familiar. Thanks.

Did I discuss this example with him? To be honest, I think I did, but maybe not. Please note the gist of his argument.

Oh, yeah, almost forgot: click.

[Iwannaplato]

Did I discuss this example with him? To be honest, I think I did, but maybe not. Please note the gist of his argument.

I mean, Jusus, Now Phyllo is your secretary.
In recent times I have presented arguments here - two posts in a row.....
viewtopic.php?p=732442#p732442
and at ILP here
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse
Here's where you chose not to respond to my issue and exactly as I predicted shifted the issue from determinism and responsibility to conflicting goods.
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse

Here was my response to your refusal to interact with my post
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse

Here you did not interact with my example of holding someone responsible in a determistic universe, yet again
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse

Here, I pointed this out
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse

And here, amazingly, your response is that you don't remember what I brought up, but you make a couple of assertions as if they apply, without even bother to find the example and argument I gave
THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST.
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse

Here, I react to that vague, I haven't really read you post counterargument or perhaps assertoin
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse

And then I gave up trying to get you to respond to my example and argument in that forum.

And here I find you asking PHyllo to give the gist of my argument, like you'e a CEO or Baron, who can't really be bothered to read something he asked someone to write.

It gets to the point where I'm actually afraid to read a response, not because of the scariness of your questions, but because it is so damn irritating to deal with someone who continues to blather on about how everyone is up in theoretically clouds, when they are not. I am not the only person who has made arguments dealing with on the ground examples, but your assessment of the situation is so impervious that it seems like you actually do not perceive when people do things and whatever you do notice is not transfered from short term memory.

And these were not the first time I answered that request, and I am not alone in having done it. But, please, go on babbling about how everyone is up in theoretical clouds, while posting in the theoretical clouds yourself. Don't let anyone take away from your repetition and certainty.

[iambiguous]

Well, that's the difference [one of them] between you and I. I assume there is no way in hell that any of us can possibly know this definitively one way or the other. Sure, we think about these things or we wouldn't be philosophers. And we often come to believe certain things. Different things, however, because we've lived different lives, read different books, had different relationships, accumulated different experiences, clicked on different web sites, etc. etc.

So, it's not what you or I think about these things but what we can actually demonstrate.

Now, how would you attempt to demonstrate that existence never...started?

The "difference" huh?

And I've just about had it with your false accusation ad homs, it says a lot that you automatically assume the worst and keep insulting my intelligence. Where did I say that I know things definitely? Absolute certainty is for idiots.

Click.

Yes, I do get that a lot. And, sure, it may well be because the points others raise about me here are largely true. No way in hell I would ever deny that even if I was bursting at the seams with autonomy.

On the other hand, it might instead be this: that the arguments I make in regard to meaning and morality and metaphysics...that human existence is essentially meaningless, that human morality is rooted existentially in dasein, that death is "the end" period, that free will is a psychological illusion...disturbs those here who [to me] seem hell bent on routing philosophy in the general direction of their very own One True Path.

Though, sure, if I had access to Anton Chigurh, I'd bring him here with a fist full of quarters.

That's because you think it never started. But what if it did? God, perhaps? The Big Bang?

Then it did start ffs, it's a possibility. We can't know either way. And imo then the universe isn't logical according to human logic, which is a really big problem for philosophy.

That's often my point as well. Human logic exists because we exist. We invented language in order to connect particular words to particular worlds...in order to sustain what might be deemed "the least dysfunctional" communities. Some things are said to be logical but different people have different renditions of where to draw the line here between being logical and being rational and being moral.

Okay, perhaps you are making an important point here that -- click -- I keep missing. On the other hand, the hard determinists argue this: that how either one of us "see" compatibilism -- 2 days ago or 2 decades ago -- can never be invalid if we were never able to "see" it any other way.

Hard determinists claim that moral responsibility isn't compatible with determinism, so they are about as confused as compatibilists.

What difference does it make what any of us claim to believe "in our heads" about these things? If, in other words, we can't back the claims up with truly substantive and substantial and sustained evidence. My own main focus revolves more around those who [to me] discuss meaning, morality and metaphysics as though they were discussing things that [to them] clearly do seem to be applicalbe to all of us in the either/or world.

What makes all this murky is, in my view, embedded existentially in The Gap and in Rummy's Rule. There are just far too many variables going back to the Big Bang [in a No God world] that even science has scarcely scratched the surface of here. Or do you imagine that a hundred years from now scientists and philosophers won't be looking back and marveling that we could actually believe what we do "here and now".

What makes it even murkier is that the free will vs determinism debate could very well be a 5-dimensional problem. But now I'm just talking about 4-dimensional philosophy.

Welcome to Flatland 2.0? Or will someone here insist that, 4 dimensions or 5 dimensions or 10 dimensions, it's all the same. In other words, stuff like that has little or nothing to do with the fact that "here and now" they embody their very own definition of free will.

Unless, of course, they were never able not to define it that way.

"For all practical purposes", I would agree. But for any number of moral objectivists here, human psychology is anchored into far firmer ground: the One True Path.

Ask them what that might be.

So, your main point seems to be that, in regard to meaning and morality and metaphysics, free will is a reality that is embodied in our "everyday lives"? And I certainly agree that may well be the case. On the other hand, the determinists have their own set of assumptions that may well be the case.

One True Path is for objectivists, idiots. I use Occam's razor for philosophy, but it's not the One True Path, I just judge that there is nothing better than Occam's razor.

"In philosophy, Occam's razor...is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae). Attributed to William of Ockham, a 14th-century English philosopher and theologian, it is frequently cited as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity", although Occam never used these exact words. Popularly, the principle is sometimes paraphrased as "The simplest explanation is usually the best one." wiki

Again -- click -- this is one of those expressions posters here will sometimes use in order to encompass what they deem to be the next best thing to objectivism. Or, perhaps, the next best thing to God?

In other words, what do you know, their own understanding of determinism and compatibilism reflect the simplest explanation!

On the other hand, if we start with the assumption that the human brain itself is just more matter, and that all matter obeys particular "immutable laws", why not conclude that the simplest explanation is determinism.

I am a determinist, so again what do you mean by 'on the other hand'? What do you mean by embodied in our "everyday lives"? Did you understand what I explained earlier?

Okay, but are you hard enough a determinist?

Do you or do you not believe that everything you think, feel, say and do [in your day to day interactions with others] is a reflection of the only possible reality?

Maybe, but what if the human brain itself is insufficient in understanding these things? What if some of the most brilliant minds over the centuries have grappled with this [as they have] only to basically come back around to all of the different assessments going back to the pre-Socratics. Is compatibilism any less the quandary, conundrum and antinomy today? And that's after the extraordinary achievements of science since then.

Of course the universe is far more or infinitely more complex than human cognition, that's a general problem, not just in the free will vs determinism debate. Stay on topic.

Okay, in regard to the above, were you able to post anything here other than what your brain compelled you to post?

[iambiguous]

Did I discuss this example with him? To be honest, I think I did, but maybe not. Please note the gist of his argument.

I mean, Jusus, Now Phyllo is your secretary.
In recent times I have presented arguments here - two posts in a row.....
viewtopic.php?p=732442#p732442
and at ILP here
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse
Here's where you chose not to respond to my issue and exactly as I predicted shifted the issue from determinism and responsibility to conflicting goods.
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse

Here was my response to your refusal to interact with my post
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse

Here you did not interact with my example of holding someone responsible in a determistic universe, yet again
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse

Here, I pointed this out
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse

And here, amazingly, your response is that you don't remember what I brought up, but you make a couple of assertions as if they apply, without even bother to find the example and argument I gave
THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST.
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse

Here, I react to that vague, I haven't really read you post counterargument or perhaps assertoin
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/thoug ... =greenfuse

And then I gave up trying to get you to respond to my example and argument in that forum.

And here I find you asking PHyllo to give the gist of my argument, like you'e a CEO or Baron, who can't really be bothered to read something he asked someone to write.

Posting in three different philosophy forums now, there's no way I'm going to wade through all that. At least not until my brain compels me to.

So, let's cut to the chase. This guy with the hammer...?

[Immanuel Can]

h. Thank you. So...personal stuff. Will. Desires. Wants....etc.

If any of that is allowed to be the cause of a decision or an action, then Determinism is false. Determinism cannot add any such personal stuff to its account of causality without undermining its own basic thesis.

This is false. You do not understand determinism. Determinism includes internal causes as part of the set of causes. It is not just external causes.
And if you think about it: why would a determinist, any kind, say that internal causes are not causes. Obviously internal causes are causes.

You've been fighting a strawman and your position is a form of compatibilism.

And you position is compatible with people being responsible for their actions.

Too right.

Wrong, actually. You need to do some reading.

[Flannel Jesus]

This is false. You do not understand determinism. Determinism includes internal causes as part of the set of causes. It is not just external causes.
And if you think about it: why would a determinist, any kind, say that internal causes are not causes. Obviously internal causes are causes.

You've been fighting a strawman and your position is a form of compatibilism.

And you position is compatible with people being responsible for their actions.

Too right.

Wrong, actually. You need to do some reading.

Wrong actually. You need to do some reading.

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Stylianos Smyrnaios

Morality also guards the coherence of societies, outside of which we cannot live. Selfish motives are not always predominant: very often there are positive feelings of compassion, sympathy and love towards others. This comes from a mental need for communication and solidarity amid the hard trials we face in life. This is the most essential answer to the question of why one should be moral.

Then Marx and Engels came along and suggested that human motivation revolves as well around the nature of political economy...as it too evolves over the centuries sustaining one or another means of production.

In other words, as though the means of communication and solidarity have little or nothing to do with either political or economic power.

Now back up into the clouds...

The above that I highlighted is already in the clouds. The clouds were never abandoned.

Well, sure, if some insist that Marx and Engels assessment of capitalism is far, far, far too abstract -- abstruse? -- to have any relevancy regarding human interactions, well, I won't attempt to dissuade them.

Since we accept that we must maintain a moral attitude to life, we must consider the following principles. Any moral judgment has a practical character. In essence, it guides us on how we should act in our lives.

Cue the pragmatists?

Meaning?

Well -- click -- given my own rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion, this does revolve around democracy and the rule of law. Around moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Moral judgments are universal by nature. The same principles apply in similar circumstances, and to people with similar characteristics. In making and acting on moral judgments we must consider the rights and interests of other people, as our behavior always affects them too. We must understand certain values as essential components of justice; for example, the common good, impartiality, equal treatment, and respect for basic individual rights and freedoms. Finally, we must cultivate the virtues which will allow us to act correctly in situations of moral dilemmas.

See what I mean? All up and down the moral and political and spiritual and philosophical spectrum there are those who will embrace this frame of mind. Only to tack on a proviso:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Chances are your own frame of mind is among them.

Is it different from suggesting that compromise, negotiation and moderation were the values that seemed best to you.

What choice do I have here: Huh?

The difference can hardly be greater in that in regard to meaning and morality and metaphysics, I'm not here arguing "my way or the highway". On the contrary, given all of the many different assessments of compatibilism I have encountered over the years, I'm really not any less fractured and fragmented at all.

Though, sure, if there are members here who do believe that cohesion can be attained, maintained and then sustained short of objectivism let's note a context and explore that.

Yeah, sure you admitted this came from dasein, your own. But you pressed for these values for years while judging other values. There are many objectivists who consider their positions potentially fallible.

Yet again...

The chances that my own understanding of compatibilism "here and now" is correct going back to [you tell me] almost certainly remains just a more or less wild ass guess.

Not unlike your own, right?

You didn't really address whether a common morals might lead to societal cohesion, might not be so different from suggesting for example that we be moderate, compromising and negotiate, at least for many people. Do you think he was wrong in his assertion that morals can lead to societal cohesion?

Yet the gist of this thread revolves instead around my attempt to understand how someone who does argue for or against moderation, negotiation and compromise, can be held responsible for doing so in a world where they were never, ever able to argue otherwise.