compatibilism

[iambiguous]

Yeah, you're right, there is no room for being convinced by anything or anyone.

Note to others:

What is particularly ironic here is that, over at ILP, it was moreno/iwanna who pointed out to me that while I posted there as a moral nihilist, in discussions with others pertaining to morality and politics I was anything but. He was right. So, I factored that into my future exchanges.

Also, over at ILP, I used to argue as a compatibilist myself. But then over time those like Volchok convinced me that determinism just makes more sense if the human brain is matter and all matter really is in sync with the laws of nature.

It is a common observation that people are held responsible even when there are circumstances beyond their control ... a mentally ill arsonist for example.

Again, as though just because society holds others responsible for their behaviors, that "somehow" proves compatibilism is right.

And this part:

And there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically and thus up to a point out of sync. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.

How about others here? How many times have you been persuaded by others to change your mind?

[phyllo]

Again, as though just because society holds others responsible for their behaviors, that "somehow" proves compatibilism is right.

It says something about responsibility.

It's something that scientists would observe. It would be a result in scientific experiments.

[iambiguous]

I'm not here to discuss gods and religion.

This is basically what I've been getting from him now for over ten years. And how on Earth can any discussion of free will, determinism and compatibilism not eventually get around to God? After all, for millions and millions around the globe, free will is synonymous with God and religion.

I suspect perhaps that some don't want to bring God in here because that allows those like me to speculate about human autonomy and an omniscient frame of mind.




Note to others:

He's not here to discuss God and religion. Does that mean he actually has connected these crucial dots elsewhere, on another thread?

If that rings a bell, please link me to it.

[phyllo]

This is basically what I've been getting from him now for over ten years. And how on Earth can any discussion of free will, determinism and compatibilism not eventually get around to God? After all, for millions and millions around the globe, free will is synonymous with God and religion.

Why don't you try to discuss free-will, determinism and compatibilism without introducing gods. Maybe reach some conclusions before moving on to gods.

There are gods and religions which are deterministic.But the only God and religion most people know about in these forums is American Evangelical Christianity. I expect the entire discussion would be about the AEC interpretation of the Bible.

Yawn.

I suspect perhaps that some don't want to bring God in here because that allows those like me to speculate about human autonomy and an omniscient frame of mind.

Introducing gods is just another way to lose focus and to get stonewalling both from the Christians and the atheists.

[iambiguous]

Again, as though just because society holds others responsible for their behaviors, that "somehow" proves compatibilism is right.

It says something about responsibility.

It's something that scientists would observe. It would be a result in scientific experiments.

Yes, it's an argument. Arguments say things.

Scientists observing what though, that society punishes people? They can conduct experiments in order to determine if this punishment is being inflicted autonomously?

[iambiguous]

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".

Over and again, I speculate that in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, how mere mortals define anything at all is but a reflection of the only possible reality.

And then of course the part where some here argue rather empathically that not only are they entirely free to define the words determinism, free will and compatibilism, but that, in fact, they have already succeeded in defining them as they really, really are.

Go ahead, ask them.

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...

Again, Nature mostly programs me, but I also program Nature a litte by making everyday choices.

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.

Again: "...in regard to this exchange itself where/when/how/why does Mother Nature give way to Atla in this everyday world."

You'll either attempt to explain this [even to yourself] or you won't.

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.

Who cares? How about the fetus [Jane we call her] that is aborted? Only it is incapable of caring in the womb so others in the anti-abortion movement care for them.

Look, if Mary had free will and her friend was able to talk her out of the abortion, then Jane is now among us. Run the part about Mom being wholly determined to abort her by her.

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?

Right, I love reminding myself of just how numbingly disturbing my philosophy of life is.

Funny thing is though that in no other way am I a masochist.

And I simply think some of your conclusions are wrong. Who cares about determinism when you can still make choices all the same.

Of course, there is absolutely no way that the choices we make in the waking world are not entirely different from the "choices" the brain makes for us in our dreams.

As for the rest, I already accepted grim conclusions that you are still trying to run away from.

Running away from? I'm just accepting that over the years I have come upon many very, very intelligent men and women who were able to think themselves into believing that my conclusions need not be so grim at all. Why on Earth -- click -- would I not at least make an attempt to hear them out?

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.

Major free will?

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. At all. And I'm right back to noting that I have no capacity to demonstrate my own arguments either.

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.

Look, existentially, I'm always coming back myself here to this: "whatever works".

If something works for you, sure, stick with it. Only in a philosophy forum, expect that others might attempt to explain why it doesn't work for them. And how sometimes when something works for you it only works that way because other people are being used and exploited.

[phyllo]

Scientists observing what though, that society punishes people? They can conduct experiments in order to determine if this punishment is being inflicted autonomously?

Notice what you did.

You changed "responsibility" to "punishment" and you introduced "autonomy" where I had said nothing about autonomy.

You do this all the time. You change the words and the meaning of what people wrote.

[iambiguous]

Scientists observing what though, that society punishes people? They can conduct experiments in order to determine if this punishment is being inflicted autonomously?

Notice what you did.

You changed "responsibility" to "punishment" and you introduced "autonomy" where I had said nothing about autonomy.

You do this all the time. You change the words and the meaning of what people wrote.

Let's back up...

I posted this:

Again, as though just because society holds others responsible for their behaviors, that "somehow" proves compatibilism is right.

You responded:

It says something about responsibility.
It's something that scientists would observe. It would be a result in scientific experiments.

I took that to mean that scientists can observe a society holding people responsible. And how do they accomplish this? Through either rewards or punishments.

What would be the result, and how would we go about determining if the experiments themselves are conducted autonomously.

[Atla]

Over and again, I speculate that in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, how mere mortals define anything at all is but a reflection of the only possible reality.

Why do you have to "speculate" that determinism implies determinism? Or do you have some weird idea about the "only possible reality" that isn't implied by determinism? Are you using some pre-scientific-era idea of determinism?

And then of course the part where some here argue rather empathically that not only are they entirely free to define the words determinism, free will and compatibilism, but that, in fact, they have already succeeded in defining them as they really, really are.

Go ahead, ask them.

What does that have to with what I wrote?

Again: "...in regard to this exchange itself where/when/how/why does Mother Nature give way to Atla in this everyday world."

You'll either attempt to explain this [even to yourself] or you won't.

Already did - the idea that Mother Nature gives way to me is insane, because it implies that I'm not part of Mother Nature. Are you supernatural, and do you think that you being supernatural, isn't using an extreme leap of faith?

Who cares? How about the fetus [Jane we call her] that is aborted? Only it is incapable of caring in the womb so others in the anti-abortion movement care for them.

Look, if Mary had free will and her friend was able to talk her out of the abortion, then Jane is now among us. Run the part about Mom being wholly determined to abort her by her.

If Mary didn't have free will and her friend was able to talk her out of the abortion, then Jane would be now among us too. So who cares about your up-in-the-clouds issue?

Right, I love reminding myself of just how numbingly disturbing my philosophy of life is.

Funny thing is though that in no other way am I a masochist.

Maybe you are forever preoccupied with these thoughts, instead of finding a way to deal with them, because you enjoy wallowing in misery.

Of course, there is absolutely no way that the choices we make in the waking world are not entirely different from the "choices" the brain makes for us in our dreams.

Once again obvious nonsense, of course we usually have much more conscious control over our choices in the waking world (assuming determinism).

Running away from? I'm just accepting that over the years I have come upon many very, very intelligent men and women who were able to think themselves into believing that my conclusions need not be so grim at all. Why on Earth -- click -- would I not at least make an attempt to hear them out?

Yes running away, you still chase objectivism and salvation etc.

Major free will?

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. At all. And I'm right back to noting that I have no capacity to demonstrate my own arguments either.

I haven't seen you write an actual well-thought-out argument so far. I have some vague idea what you could be arguing for, but I'm not sure.

Look, existentially, I'm always coming back myself here to this: "whatever works".

If something works for you, sure, stick with it. Only in a philosophy forum, expect that others might attempt to explain why it doesn't work for them. And how sometimes when something works for you it only works that way because other people are being used and exploited.

Well I could say that you use other people's attention while wallowing in your misery. I don't think I'm using anyone. Plus my attitude is also based on how I think the world most likely works.

[Iwannaplato]

What would be "beyond a philosophical argument"?

God coming down and explaining everything.

What else could it be?

He could be a brain in a vat, or having a psychotic break or determinied to interpret something other than God as God. It's fine if he thinks there is always a possibility we are mistaken, even fundamentally. I think most of us acknowledge that possibility. But the continued acting as if some could say something that fits his criteria or scientists coming here could ACTUALLY be convincing - with no explanation for how, suddenly, his brain cells are autonomous if a scientist comes here, that all doesn't make sense.

What we do isn't enough, but it's as if something could be done. Well, not according to his criteria and arguments. They leave no room for being convinced by anything or anyone doing anything, and not even the experience of God would do it. He just doesn't seem to notice this.

Yeah, you're right, there is no room for being convinced by anything or anyone.

It is a common observation that people are held responsible even when there are circumstances beyond their control ... a mentally ill arsonist for example.

Yet, this does not seem to qualify as a "demonstration beyond a philosophical argument".

In fact, no observation seems to count as evidence.

And it's not that the idea is wrong, in and of itself. Yes, even things that seem obviously correct might be wrong. That idea in and of itself and the various scenarios or possibilities are interesting to think about, at least for some people.

But if you are going to request explanations, concrete or theoretical or both, if you are going to also yourself put forward assertions about reality, especially as he often does with incredulity that something else could be the case, if you are going to say arguments of type X are not useful but if only we could get arguments or communication like Y, then they would be useful and proof, he's confused. He dismisses articles and the posts of other people without even working to understand them, and does this by repeating his own arguments or assertions for why they don't demonstrate anything. It's hypocrisy. He allows imply, mock the silliness of the beliefs of others, and assert things himself, but dismisses even vastly more carefully thought out responses and articles. He doesn't seem to notice the pass he gives himself.

In response to this being pointed out he will say that he is the first to admit he might be wrong. 1) this assumes that everyone he encounters doesn't know they might be wrong. He treats everyone as if they have asserted, when they haven't, that they cannot be wrong. 2) he doesn't seem to understand that he treats some positions himself as more likely, up to the point of incredulity that some other position could be correct. 3) he never seems to question why he would go ahead and mock others, imply their positions are wrong, state that their proofs mean nothing, label them, dismiss what they sayt, if he really believes we have no way to decide if one position is more likely than another.

The other option is to, yes, keep in the back of our minds that we might be wrong, even about obvious and fundamental things, but then to work together to see if some things seem much more likely.

Every post he creates includes reasoning, if gestural and often only slightly justified, if at all. Well, once you open the door, responding to everyone 'but you might be compelled to believe that' is farce. And he never considers it necessary to justify his responses,interpretations and assumptions in relation to other people's posts.

He could, for example, have a thread specifically focused on radical skepticism. But if we are discussing compatibilism or nihilism, etc., then using converssation killers from radical skepticism are out of place, especially when he keeps saying he would be really happy if someone came and convinced him of X or he would like to see a discussion of Y down from the theoretical clouds.

Now you quite understandibly said earlier that you would rather discuss compatibilism than discuss Iambiguous. And obviously you don't have to respond or even read my posts that are about the latter. Unfortunately, I have found the patterns in Iambiguous' posts interesting, if at times galling, because they reflect the same patterns I have in my own mind. It seems to me he doesn't want to notice what he is doing', both in the way he thinks out loud in his posts, but also interpersonally in relation to what others write. It's like a glaring version of certain types of avoidance I have in my own mind.

In any case, I chased him for a long time to respond to the posts where I presented my position. He simply attributed positions to me I did not have and did not interact with my ideas and concrete examples. He simply restated his positions.

Likely I'll find him less interesting again, since there really is nothing more I could possibly do in relation to him. So, if posts, like mine that I copy pasted to him, deal with compatibilism, I'll focus on those.

[Iwannaplato]

Over and again, I speculate that in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, how mere mortals define anything at all is but a reflection of the only possible reality.

Why do you have to "speculate" that determinism implies determinism? Or do you have some weird idea about the "only possible reality" that isn't implied by determinism? Are you using some pre-scientific-era idea of determinism?

It is rather amazing how many times he told me what determinism entails, when I presumed exactly what he tells me in my posts to him.

And then of course the part where some here argue rather empathically that not only are they entirely free to define the words determinism, free will and compatibilism, but that, in fact, they have already succeeded in defining them as they really, really are.

Go ahead, ask them.

What does that have to with what I wrote?

The perennial question for Iambiguous.

I don't think he realizes the assumptions and jumps he makes and thinks are obvious. You are saying X which I would not say or word like that so you must believe Y. If only he could actually write down the process, which he may not be aware of, so that we could point out to him the exact places he is assuming things. But her merely starts asserting things that don't related or don't contradict even though they are presented as contradicting what we wrote.

There's no: you said X which entails Y and Y is not correct because.......

So, the process is doomed to repeat ad infinitum. Perhaps it's an attempt at immortality. If the discussion never ends and I am in the discussion and it is a loop, I will live forever.

[Walker]

It's impossible that nature be both deterministic and open -ended.

Determinism does not imply knowing the determination, and the "open-endedness" is the not knowing.

Complete knowledge of every element that comprises a condition, and its interaction with every other element of the arbitrarily separated (from everything) condition, interactions singly and in combination, will result in knowing the determination. Such theoretical knowing is Godlike.

However humans lack that capacity because everything is the cause of something. Humans can only calculate based upon elements known to exist (such as time) and lack the capacity to track the Butterfly Effect from the first flap to a consequence on the other side of the globe, however God Emperor of Dune could do that (and also climatologists who have the confidence to bet the farm on a theory).

[Belinda]

It's impossible that nature be both deterministic and open -ended.

Determinism does not imply knowing the determination, and the "open-endedness" is the not knowing.

Complete knowledge of every element that comprises a condition, and its interaction with every other element of the arbitrarily separated (from everything) condition, interactions singly and in combination, will result in knowing the determination. Such theoretical knowing is Godlike.

However humans lack that capacity because everything is the cause of something. Humans can only calculate based upon elements known to exist (such as time) and lack the capacity to track the Butterfly Effect from the first flap to a consequence on the other side of the globe, however God Emperor of Dune could do that (and also climatologists who have the confidence to bet the farm on a theory).

I agree that determinism does not imply knowing the end point of history. But people do sometimes imply by 'determinism' that there be an end point in history. Please see "The End of History and the Last Man". by Francis Fukuyama , who argues that liberal democracy is the end point for all nations, and that the US will eventually look more like the European Union in its political structure. This somewhat dated particular futurology must in view of the rise of Trump, and Zionism, give way to arguments that the future is far too chaotic to be penetrated, and that the future is random , in the narrow sense of randomness.

[phyllo]

I took that to mean that scientists can observe a society holding people responsible. And how do they accomplish this? Through either rewards or punishments.

The mentally ill arsonist is not being rewarded and she is not being punished. She is being "cured" so she can go back into society and she is being controlled so she cannot start more fires.

This is how society views responsibility in such cases. There are very few people who would say that the mentally ill arsonist is "not morally responsible", nothing should happen to her and she can just go home. Practically everyone understands that doing nothing is not a reasonable way to deal with the situation. This is happening now. It's not in the clouds or just in someone's head.

And this is how responsibility can apply within determinism and compatibilism.

What would be the result, and how would we go about determining if the experiments themselves are conducted autonomously.

Forget about autonomy for now.

You want to know how responsibility can work within compatibilism. Settle that first.

[Atla]

So, the process is doomed to repeat ad infinitum. Perhaps it's an attempt at immortality. If the discussion never ends and I am in the discussion and it is a loop, I will live forever.

I find it a tad masochistic to waste our one life on trying to achieve immortality, when the chances are so slim. Maybe time could be better spent.