compatibilism

[phyllo]

iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:06 am
You could also use the hammer incident example? There’s free will and you know it OR there’s determinism and you know it. What practical differences would you want there to be in relation to the hammer wielder? Would you hold him responsible in one universe where you know it is determined and another where you know there is free will? And if the answer is different - for example, you would hold him resonsible in the free will world but not in the other, what actual differences would this thought lead to?

This seems [to me] to be where phyllo goes with this. That in regard to human interactions, determinism and free will seem to be interchangeable. Whatever happens happens. As though a man compelled by his brain to hit you with a hammer isn't really any different at all from a man who, for his own personal [and autonomous] reasons, hates your guts and hits you with a hammer. As though the common denominator here is only being hit with the hammer itself.

The "common denominator" is the necessity of dealing with a man who hits people with hammers.

It's not the "hammer" because you could substitute "hammer" with "rock" and you would still have a similar problem. It's not "hitting" because you could substitute "strangling" and you would have a similar problem.

[Iwannaplato]

This even though you "don't think that brain cells are autonomous"? Where then does the autonomy originate? Not with God right?

I told you that I don't think brains cells are autonomous and outside determinism. In the post you are responding to. I wrote it specifically to prevent this.

And you've said lots of things. Now please accumulate actual hard evidence that might perhaps demonstrate to others why they should say the same things too.

Please interact with what I wrote.

I see no reason to not react to, including taking measures, iindividuals doing things we consider dangerous to others, for example.

I've been over this. People do dangerous things. Other people react to the dangerous things they do. The acts are determined but the reactions are not?

I haven't said that. Please quote where I said that.

The rapists are unable not to rape but society is still "somehow" able to punish them as though they were able to choose not to?

I never said that. Please quote where I said that.

What, just because you are able to see no reason not to react to something, that makes the reaction...what...the real deal?

I never said that.

Sometimes in this and other of his threads he hsa made the distinction between intellectual contraptions and, in my words, down to earth, practical applications of ideas. Well, I see it as perfectly reasonable to isolate a rapist from society. I don't hold a table responsible for his raping. I don't hold non-rapists responsibile. I might hold, for example, his parents or someone who sexually abused him parly responsible and take measures in relation to them also. There might also be societal causes: systemic sexism, for example - and these I might also want to hold responsible and take measures in relation to. The up in the clouds idea that his actions could not have been otherwise going back to the Big Bang might lead to greater sympathy for the rapist on my part. But I would still consider him a person who may rape again and it is more likely he will than someone who has not raped and we need to do something about that.

The only way to understand the relationship between I and the brain and consciousness and moral responsibility is to think about them as he does.

Please actually interact with my ideas. I never said the only way to think about them is as I do.

Well, the "up in the clouds philosophical relationships" perhaps.

Please interact with my ideas.

The person we punish is not empty of traits, even in determinism. He, in this case, is someone who has the desire to rape and lived it out. While the causes go back to the Big Bang and perhaps beyond, and even though they are inevitable, this does not mean that his nature has nothing to do with his acts. He is the one who rapes. He has qualities that lead to rape.

Again, it still boggles my mind how people can make arguments like this. But since some of them have struck me as very intelligent men and woman, I have to assume it's me here not getting what is actually the case.

Please interact with the ideas of ask clarifying questions. Nebulous responses do not give me any way to respond

Both the rapist desire to rape and the fact that he did rape were inevitable. Going all the way back to whatever set into motion matter/existence/human biology/human sexuality in the first place?

That's what determinism entails. Determinism entails that. I don't know for sure if determinism is the case. But if it is the case, I am arguing that it is compatible with holding people responsible. It seems like you believe they are not compatible. If I have misunderstood you and you consider holding someone responsible for their actions compatible with determinism, let me know.

If causation had nothing to do with essence, it would be different. I'm not sure how. But if anyone regardless of attitudes toward women, tendencies to aggressive acts and all that had NOTHING to do with rape, that might be a different situation.

Again, from the perspective of the hard determinists, everything pertaining to the rape and reactions to it are inherent components of the only possible reality.

Yes, exatly. I am assuming that in my argument.

Of course, all he seems to be doing here is pasting his older posts about this anew. Posts [points] I have already responded to.

You asked me to copy and paste them and you did not respond to one AT ALL and the other you did not interact with.

In fact you still seem to think 1) I don't understand that determinism means all actions are inevitable. 2) that rape is determined by not our reactions to it 3) that brains are autonmous and are an exception to determinism.

You have not responded to my posts since you hallucinate positions I do not have.

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

I think the answers are yes to all of those.

Again, as though simply noting this is the equivalent of demonstrating that they are true.

No, you fucking little asshole. That was an opening assertion of my belief. Are you senile?

Try starting again, actually read what I wrote. Note that I opened with saying I did not believe things that you then attributed to me and then actually interact with what I write. Or is it too scary to actually interact with what people write so you need to hallucinate things?

[phyllo]

Let me think some more about what I want to say, if anything.

Edit:

I think I will say nothing.

I would prefer to discuss compatibilism rather than Iambiguous.

And all the discussions with him are about what he thinks that other people think, do and assume. Some unidentified determinists think this ..., some unidentified people assume that ...

I'm not going to chase some shadows.

[Immanuel Can]

I may be ignorant about which country is the worst, but I do care. I feel pessimistic about climate change...

Well, somebody who actually cares should at least inform herself about what the size and nature of the problem is, don't you think? How much can one actually "care" when one doesn't even bother to understand?

Religion has always had a role in shaping people's ideas and a role in introducing these ideas to ruling regimes.

I don't defend "religion."
But the truth is that "religions," of any kind, have actually had little role in the evils that have been perpetrated on mankind...regimes or otherwise. All these things, statistically, have had a much greater impact: territory, resources, geography, language, culture, genotype, food, money, prestige...and the biggest source of human misery in history has been Atheistic regimes, which killed well over 140 million in the last century alone. So if "religion" is considered a problem, just imagine how much more of a problem NOT being "religious" has turned out to be!

As for China and India, I understand they are major polluters, and the fact that are lately developed as industrial nations does not excuse them from the ecological imperative.

"The ecological imperative"? If you don't believe in God, there are no "imperatives," ecological or otherwise, B. There's only options, not imperatives. And we should ask ourselves whether what we are imposing on China and India are reasonable demands, too. Here's a very brief Oxford debate presentation on that subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo

[Belinda]

I may be ignorant about which country is the worst, but I do care. I feel pessimistic about climate change...

Well, somebody who actually cares should at least inform herself about what the size and nature of the problem is, don't you think? How much can one actually "care" when one doesn't even bother to understand?

Religion has always had a role in shaping people's ideas and a role in introducing these ideas to ruling regimes.

I don't defend "religion."
But the truth is that "religions," of any kind, have actually had little role in the evils that have been perpetrated on mankind...regimes or otherwise. All these things, statistically, have had a much greater impact: territory, resources, geography, language, culture, genotype, food, money, prestige...and the biggest source of human misery in history has been Atheistic regimes, which killed well over 140 million in the last century alone. So if "religion" is considered a problem, just imagine how much more of a problem NOT being "religious" has turned out to be!

As for China and India, I understand they are major polluters, and the fact that are lately developed as industrial nations does not excuse them from the ecological imperative.

"The ecological imperative"? If you don't believe in God, there are no "imperatives," ecological or otherwise, B. There's only options, not imperatives. And we should ask ourselves whether what we are imposing on China and India are reasonable demands, too. Here's a very brief Oxford debate presentation on that subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo

I deserve to be scolded about being lazy.

I will continue to disagree with you about God's existence as a Person who is Pancreator and a punitive pancreator too. I will also interpret The Bible as I prefer and according to The Bible as occasional historical source, as I have been taught to deal with primary and secondary sources, and also as a compendium of stories and poems that illustrate man's moral dilemmas.
In particular I don't agree with your moral interpretation of Job's story .( Maybe you have not explained your idea very well.)
In view of these profound disagreements you may want to discontinue this conversation as neither of us wants to preach.

[Atla]

Exactly! The problem remains that in regard to the relationship between "I" and the brain and the laws of matter, it's certainly not the fact that we do make choices. Instead, the problem revolves more around the extent to which mere mortals are making these choices of their own free will. And beyond the arguments and "worlds of words" posted here, how exactly is that demonstrated?

Totally not what I meant, the problem was with your bad understanding of definitions. You are lost that you reduce everything to the above "issue".

This is just another intellectual, philosophical "leap of faith" to me. And, again, in regard to this exchange itself where/when/how/why does Mother Nature give way to Atla in this everyday world.

In other words, you assert that...

Either a strawman or backwards nonsense. The philosophical (and highly irrational) "leap of faith" is in the idea that we are not part of Mother Nature.

Now, if Mary were to ask you about her abortion because she just wasn't sure if she was in fact wholly determined to kill her unborn baby/clump of cells and you assured her that Mother Nature was a part of that but not the whole part, what, for all practical purposes, going back to the sex that precipitated the pregnancy that precipitated the abortion that precipitated philosophical discussions about it, is she to make of that?

Who cares if she was ultimately fully determined or not, Mary certainly doesn't. Unless she had major brain damage, she could make everyday choices, and that's what matters.

Well, click or not, that's the advantage you have over me. You can get my truly grim conclusions out of your head simply by moving on the others and not reading my posts. Me, I'm in my head 24/7. And then 365 days a year. All I can hope for is that one day Mother Nature compels me to embrace a far more optimistic frame of mind. Or someone here [or there or there] is able to persuade me that, not only do I have free will, but if I am able to come around to their own One True Path, I can have objective morality, immortality and salvation too!

Or maybe you could have come out of your hole long ago, but you want to remain there out of masochism? And I simply think some of your conclusions are wrong. Who cares about determinism when you can still make choices all the same. As for the rest, I already accepted grim conclusions that you are still trying to run away from.

And have you ever considered what would happen if major free will would indeed be the case? You would be dead, you would never have been born, that's what. Because in the past, millions of people would have wanted the destruction of the world, and so the world would have been destroyed millions of times over (and just once would suffice). Free will goes both ways, it can be used for destruction.

Now the part where anyone here is actually able to demonstrate why their own "attitude" is the real deal. And going all the way back to...to what exactly?

My attitude works for me, but imo it certainly isn't the "real deal" for masochists.

[Immanuel Can]

I deserve to be scolded about being lazy.

I'm not scolding. Scolding implies moral disapprobation. I'm just questioning you claim to "caring" about climate change, and then pointing out what "caring" requires.

We live in an age in which there's far too much virtue signaling, and not enough being done about real problems. I think we can agree on that. If man-made climate change is an important thing, then the biggest topic in it, beyond question, is China. And interestingly, people who hand-wring about climate change never want to talk about it. They do want to excoriate all the Western places, but China, India, South America and Africa, all the up-and-coming places that are racing to industrialize right now, are not a subject they care to broach.

Why is that? Because Western powers are easy to make feel guilty, and most of the rest of the world is in the hands of Communists and other totalitarian governments. Western climate change advocates lack influence there. So instead of tackling the real problem, they just beat up on the West as much as they can.

But that won't solve climate change. So it shows that they care more about virtue signaling than they do about actually dealing with climate change.

I will continue to disagree with you about God's existence as a Person who is Pancreator and a punitive pancreator too. I will also interpret The Bible as I prefer and according to The Bible as occasional historical source, as I have been taught to deal with primary and secondary sources, and also as a compendium of stories and poems that illustrate man's moral dilemmas.

That's a minority strategy and antiquated. That sort of "criticism" has been out of fashion since the middle of the last century. But sure, you can persist with it. Who can stop you?

In view of these profound disagreements you may want to discontinue this conversation as neither of us wants to preach.

Why should I wish to discontinue? I'm not in any discomfort. I know the Book of Job very well, and have spent a great deal of time thinking about it. And, since it was you who brought up Job, I can hardly be accused of "preaching" merely because I point out conflicts between what the text actually says and what you hope to make of the text. That's just normal procedure in debating any text. It could be Shakespeare, or Dylan Thomas, or J.K. Rowling, and we'd be doing exactly the same procedure, with no "preaching" being implicated at all.

[Belinda]

I deserve to be scolded about being lazy.

I'm not scolding. Scolding implies moral disapprobation. I'm just questioning you claim to "caring" about climate change, and then pointing out what "caring" requires.

We live in an age in which there's far too much virtue signaling, and not enough being done about real problems. I think we can agree on that. If man-made climate change is an important thing, then the biggest topic in it, beyond question, is China. And interestingly, people who hand-wring about climate change never want to talk about it. They do want to excoriate all the Western places, but China, India, South America and Africa, all the up-and-coming places that are racing to industrialize right now, are not a subject they care to broach.

Why is that? Because Western powers are easy to make feel guilty, and most of the rest of the world is in the hands of Communists and other totalitarian governments. Western climate change advocates lack influence there. So instead of tackling the real problem, they just beat up on the West as much as they can.

But that won't solve climate change. So it shows that they care more about virtue signaling than they do about actually dealing with climate change.

I will continue to disagree with you about God's existence as a Person who is Pancreator and a punitive pancreator too. I will also interpret The Bible as I prefer and according to The Bible as occasional historical source, as I have been taught to deal with primary and secondary sources, and also as a compendium of stories and poems that illustrate man's moral dilemmas.

That's a minority strategy and antiquated. That sort of "criticism" has been out of fashion since the middle of the last century. But sure, you can persist with it. Who can stop you?

In view of these profound disagreements you may want to discontinue this conversation as neither of us wants to preach.

Why should I wish to discontinue? I'm not in any discomfort. I know the Book of Job very well, and have spent a great deal of time thinking about it. And, since it was you who brought up Job, I can hardly be accused of "preaching" merely because I point out conflicts between what the text actually says and what you hope to make of the text. That's just normal procedure in debating any text. It could be Shakespeare, or Dylan Thomas, or J.K. Rowling, and we'd be doing exactly the same procedure, with no "preaching" being implicated at all.

Your language stops short of preaching , you are clever that way, but the substance of your arguments is extreme right wing. I am confirmed in this belief by the YouTube video which you recommended and supported for its content last Monday 28 October. This video of a speaker at the Oxford Union is one of several that have been the subject of a separate debate at the Oxford Union as to whether extreme Right Wing polemics should or should not be barred.
I myself am permissive about free speech , not only from principle , but also because students at Oxford University are pretty well equipped to look after their own souls against liars and moral thieves.

[Immanuel Can]

In view of these profound disagreements you may want to discontinue this conversation as neither of us wants to preach.

Why should I wish to discontinue? I'm not in any discomfort. I know the Book of Job very well, and have spent a great deal of time thinking about it. And, since it was you who brought up Job, I can hardly be accused of "preaching" merely because I point out conflicts between what the text actually says and what you hope to make of the text. That's just normal procedure in debating any text. It could be Shakespeare, or Dylan Thomas, or J.K. Rowling, and we'd be doing exactly the same procedure, with no "preaching" being implicated at all.

Your language stops short of preaching , you are clever that way, but the substance of your arguments is extreme right wing.

Show that. What's "extreme right wing" in anything I've said?

I myself am permissive about free speech ,

Really? Except that you call your interloctuors "extreme right wing." It's your hope, clearly, that by so doing, you will successfully deplatform them by relegating them to the ranks of those who cannot be listened to.

Is your kind of "permissiveness of free speech" perhaps on the same level as your "concern for climate change": all show, no substance, then?

[Belinda]

Why should I wish to discontinue? I'm not in any discomfort. I know the Book of Job very well, and have spent a great deal of time thinking about it. And, since it was you who brought up Job, I can hardly be accused of "preaching" merely because I point out conflicts between what the text actually says and what you hope to make of the text. That's just normal procedure in debating any text. It could be Shakespeare, or Dylan Thomas, or J.K. Rowling, and we'd be doing exactly the same procedure, with no "preaching" being implicated at all.

Your language stops short of preaching , you are clever that way, but the substance of your arguments is extreme right wing.

Show that. What's "extreme right wing" in anything I've said?

I myself am permissive about free speech ,

Really? Except that you call your interloctuors "extreme right wing." It's your hope, clearly, that by so doing, you will successfully deplatform them by relegating them to the ranks of those who cannot be listened to.

Is your kind of "permissiveness of free speech" perhaps on the same level as your "concern for climate change": all show, no substance, then?

Permissive about freedom of speech means permitting extreme Right Wing preachers at an Oxford Union debate.

Your ad hominems aimed at me don't intimidate me but make me more resistant to lies.

[Immanuel Can]

Your language stops short of preaching , you are clever that way, but the substance of your arguments is extreme right wing.

Show that. What's "extreme right wing" in anything I've said?

I myself am permissive about free speech ,

Really? Except that you call your interloctuors "extreme right wing." It's your hope, clearly, that by so doing, you will successfully deplatform them by relegating them to the ranks of those who cannot be listened to.

Is your kind of "permissiveness of free speech" perhaps on the same level as your "concern for climate change": all show, no substance, then?

Permissive about freedom of speech means permitting extreme Right Wing preachers at an Oxford Union debate

He's not "extreme right wing." (He's a Russian-Jewish immigrant) You just claim he is, so that you can dismiss him without considering the truthfulness of his statements. That's an attempt to make his speech unreceivable, even if he gets to say the words. You expect his audience to dismiss him offhandedly, as a moral reprobate, rather than weighing his claims.

That's censorship by insult. That's not freedom of speech.

[iambiguous]

No, you fucking little asshole. That was an opening assertion of my belief. Are you senile?

Try starting again, actually read what I wrote. Note that I opened with saying I did not believe things that you then attributed to me and then actually interact with what I write. Or is it too scary to actually interact with what people write so you need to hallucinate things?

Note to others:

Click.

Make of this what you will.

[Iwannaplato]

No, you fucking little asshole. That was an opening assertion of my belief. Are you senile?

Try starting again, actually read what I wrote. Note that I opened with saying I did not believe things that you then attributed to me and then actually interact with what I write. Or is it too scary to actually interact with what people write so you need to hallucinate things?

Note to others:

Click.

Make of this what you will.

Avoid, avoid, avoid. You ask people for what I said. I present you with links to here and ILP. You can't follow links for some reason and keep asking me to copy paste. So, I do this. They you 'accuse' me of copy pasting.
I start the post explaining a number of things I do not believe. Yet, you for some reason tell me I believe these things.
You tell me you have responded before, but you did not interact with what I wrote or you would know that I don't believe brains are autonomous or that rape is determined but reactions to rape are not.
You may be sincere in thinking that I must believe these things I have not said, but you don't quote where I said them. You don't show how what I wrote entailed them.
In two forums I did as requested by you. You refused to respond in one, because it wasn't the abortion issue, while saying elsewhere you would discuss other issues that addressed the reponsibility being compatible with determinism.

And here you decide yet again not to interact with what I wrote, yet again.
I don't know if you are a coward or a troll or both.

[Flannel Jesus]

No, you fucking little asshole. That was an opening assertion of my belief. Are you senile?

Try starting again, actually read what I wrote. Note that I opened with saying I did not believe things that you then attributed to me and then actually interact with what I write. Or is it too scary to actually interact with what people write so you need to hallucinate things?

Note to others:

Click.

Make of this what you will.

Didn't read the exchange but you asked me to make of it what I will, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that most likely you were a little ass hole who did precisely what he said.

Click.

[Iwannaplato]

Note to others:

Please advise how you see the man hitting someone with a hammer as different from him raping someone. Where does the autonomy come in, aside from mere mortals insisting that it's in there "somehow". It's just got to be or else the horror of living in a world where the brute facticity of material laws -- rapes, abortions, final solutions etc. -- is just too much to bear.

And again, he says that I say the man with the hammar has autonomy. I didn't say it was there. I didn't say it was there somehow. It's not part of my position.

Every response is a strawman response. It's exactly what he did with the articles he quotes and then atributes beliefs to the writers they do not respect using language they did not use.

And then he ad homs. He makes up a psychological reason I have a belief which I do not have. And he does this with a few beliefs.

To try to prevent him doing this I specifically denied, before I pasted in my previous posts, that I have these beliefs. This did even give him pause. He simply attributes the beliefs to me, then does some mind reading based on his hallacinated attributions of beliefs to me that I 1) deny 2) do not assert.

It's a wonderful defense of what I wonder.