What's wasting time to an immortal?Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 5:28 pmI 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.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 6:04 am 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.
Click.Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 5:11 amWhy 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?iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 11:36 pm 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.
Over and over and over again in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, exchanges here are often full of reactions like this.
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.
Gasp! Another "failure to communicate". Really, in my view, from both our ends, over and again, it is like we are in two different exchanges.
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.
What, her friend isn't also determined to have that discussion with her? A discussion also wholly in sync with the laws of matter. What's crucial for me is in imagining hundreds of men and women trying to talk with her about the abortion. All, in turn, wholly determined to say only what their brain compels them too.
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.
That's it for me. We are just wasting each other's time.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.
And around and around and around we go.phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 3:53 pmThe 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.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.
Again, all you doing here, in my view, is noting what does unfold out in society regarding such things as crime and punishment. Criminals, policemen, lawyers, judges, juries etc., all intertwined in any number of complex interactions. And I would never rule out autonomy here unless and until hard determinism was in fact demonstrated to exist.phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 3:53 pmThis 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.
What would be the result, and how would we go about determining if the experiments themselves are conducted autonomously.
Okay, in recent exchange with Atla, he noted something that reminded of you:
I seem to recall you making a similar argument.What, her friend isn't also determined to have that discussion with her? A discussion also wholly in sync with the laws of matter. What's crucial for me is in imagining hundreds of men and women trying to talk with her about the abortion. All, in turn, wholly determined to say only what their brain compels them too.
But all in vain because the laws of nature left Mary with no other option. Jane is toast. But in a free will world, Jane might still be toast, but there is actually the possibility she wouldn't be.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 1:45 am Click.
No, what I am most interested in are finding those willing to acknowledge that given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, we are all likely to go to the grave merely believing only what we do about all of this "in our head".
Then those who are willing to bring their own theoretical assessments and their own definitions out into the world of actual human social political and economic conflicts.
Other than that, I'm not really sure what your point really has to do with mine.
On the other hand...
At this point I have no idea what you are referring to.God wrote:The Gap and Rummy's Rule are principles in poker, especially useful for players in Texas Hold'em and other competitive forms. Both of these rules help players make decisions on whether to enter a hand based on position and the current action on the table. Here’s a breakdown of each:
1. The Gap Concept
Definition: The Gap Concept states that a player needs a stronger hand to call a bet than to make a bet.
Reasoning: This is due to the psychology of poker: a player who raises often indicates strength, so to enter the hand against them, you need a stronger hand than the one they’re representing.
Practical Application: If an early position player raises, players in later positions should consider their hand carefully before calling, only proceeding with premium hands since they’re up against someone representing strength.
2. Rummy's Rule
Definition: Rummy's Rule advises that players should avoid playing hands with a large gap between the highest and lowest card. For example, a hand like 9-2 is less desirable than one like 9-8 or even 9-6.
Reasoning: The rule is based on the logic that hands with large gaps between cards are less likely to make straights and tend to have fewer opportunities to improve on the flop, turn, or river.
Practical Application: When evaluating starting hands, prefer hands that are closer in rank (e.g., suited connectors like 10♠-9♠ or close unsuited hands like 8♠-7♣) over hands with gaps like Q♠-6♣.
When to Apply These Rules
The Gap Concept is especially useful in late position, where players can more accurately judge the strength of the table.
Rummy's Rule is useful across positions, but particularly in early positions, where players should enter the pot only with hands that have strong potential for improvement.
Together, these rules provide a framework for making more disciplined decisions, helping players to fold weaker hands and only invest in hands with strategic advantages.
I haven't seen any here, don't know what you are talking about. Thinking that our definitions are absolutely correct would be some Age-level delusion. Nor would it have to do with me, do I look like other people to you?Over and over and over again in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, exchanges here are often full of reactions like this.
Then stop talking to yourself, an exchange would require that we attempt to agree on definitions and proceed from there, but you seem to use your own special definitions and also don't reveal what they are.Gasp! Another "failure to communicate". Really, in my view, from both our ends, over and again, it is like we are in two different exchanges.
That's what you get for using your own special definiton of determinism. Of course people would have talked her out of the abortion, if that's what would have been determined to happen. People are talked out of abortions all the time (given determinism), it just didn't happen with Mary. So who cares about your largely irrelevant up-in-the-clouds issue?What, her friend isn't also determined to have that discussion with her? A discussion also wholly in sync with the laws of matter. What's crucial for me is in imagining hundreds of men and women trying to talk with her about the abortion. All, in turn, wholly determined to say only what their brain compels them too.
But all in vain because the laws of nature left Mary with no other option. Jane is toast. But in a free will world, Jane might still be toast, but there is actually the possibility she wouldn't be.
But you created an incoherent frame of mind.That's what I'm doing here, of course. Looking for arguments that might persuade me to reconsider my frame of mind. In other words, such that I am able to believe that I can come up out of it. Instead, by and large I keep bumping into those who either insist I'm wrong because they're right or who make me the issue instead.
Well if you pretend that we don't have a special category of dreams called lucid dreams because of what I said, because there we can take wakefulness-like control, then you're wasting my time.That's it for me. We are just wasting each other's time.
What part of this...Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 5:13 amiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 1:45 am Click.
No, what I am most interested in are finding those willing to acknowledge that given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, we are all likely to go to the grave merely believing only what we do about all of this "in our head".
Then those who are willing to bring their own theoretical assessments and their own definitions out into the world of actual human social political and economic conflicts.
Other than that, I'm not really sure what your point really has to do with mine.
On the other hand...At this point I have no idea what you are referring to.God wrote:The Gap and Rummy's Rule are principles in poker, especially useful for players in Texas Hold'em and other competitive forms. Both of these rules help players make decisions on whether to enter a hand based on position and the current action on the table. Here’s a breakdown of each:
1. The Gap Concept
Definition: The Gap Concept states that a player needs a stronger hand to call a bet than to make a bet.
Reasoning: This is due to the psychology of poker: a player who raises often indicates strength, so to enter the hand against them, you need a stronger hand than the one they’re representing.
Practical Application: If an early position player raises, players in later positions should consider their hand carefully before calling, only proceeding with premium hands since they’re up against someone representing strength.
2. Rummy's Rule
Definition: Rummy's Rule advises that players should avoid playing hands with a large gap between the highest and lowest card. For example, a hand like 9-2 is less desirable than one like 9-8 or even 9-6.
Reasoning: The rule is based on the logic that hands with large gaps between cards are less likely to make straights and tend to have fewer opportunities to improve on the flop, turn, or river.
Practical Application: When evaluating starting hands, prefer hands that are closer in rank (e.g., suited connectors like 10♠-9♠ or close unsuited hands like 8♠-7♣) over hands with gaps like Q♠-6♣.
When to Apply These Rules
The Gap Concept is especially useful in late position, where players can more accurately judge the strength of the table.
Rummy's Rule is useful across positions, but particularly in early positions, where players should enter the pot only with hands that have strong potential for improvement.
Together, these rules provide a framework for making more disciplined decisions, helping players to fold weaker hands and only invest in hands with strategic advantages.
I haven't seen any here, don't know what you are talking about. Thinking that our definitions are absolutely correct would be some Age-level delusion. Nor would it have to do with me, do I look like other people to you?Over and over and over again in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, exchanges here are often full of reactions like this.
Then stop talking to yourself, an exchange would require that we attempt to agree on definitions and proceed from there, but you seem to use your own special definitions and also don't reveal what they are.Gasp! Another "failure to communicate". Really, in my view, from both our ends, over and again, it is like we are in two different exchanges.
That's what you get for using your own special definiton of determinism. Of course people would have talked her out of the abortion, if that's what would have been determined to happen. People are talked out of abortions all the time (given determinism), it just didn't happen with Mary. So who cares about your largely irrelevant up-in-the-clouds issue?What, her friend isn't also determined to have that discussion with her? A discussion also wholly in sync with the laws of matter. What's crucial for me is in imagining hundreds of men and women trying to talk with her about the abortion. All, in turn, wholly determined to say only what their brain compels them too.
But all in vain because the laws of nature left Mary with no other option. Jane is toast. But in a free will world, Jane might still be toast, but there is actually the possibility she wouldn't be.
And here your up-in-the-clouds issue often infinitely backfires: those women who decide not to abort Jane in a determinisitic world, only have the possibility to do abort Jane in a free will world. Do you want free will, so that many Janes who were determined to live, can be toast instead?
But you created an incoherent frame of mind.That's what I'm doing here, of course. Looking for arguments that might persuade me to reconsider my frame of mind. In other words, such that I am able to believe that I can come up out of it. Instead, by and large I keep bumping into those who either insist I'm wrong because they're right or who make me the issue instead.
Well if you pretend that we don't have a special category of dreams called lucid dreams because of what I said, because there we can take wakefulness-like control, then you're wasting my time.That's it for me. We are just wasting each other's time.
----------
Iambig says that his philosophy terrifies people, but I just see this as a somewhat cozy chat. Imo there are valid philosophical things at least three times more terrifying than determinisim and mortality in a godless world.
I know this will be difficult for you to understand but I'm not a part of you, I'm free to comment whenever I want.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 8:04 pmWhat part of this...Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 5:13 amiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 1:45 am Click.
No, what I am most interested in are finding those willing to acknowledge that given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, we are all likely to go to the grave merely believing only what we do about all of this "in our head".
Then those who are willing to bring their own theoretical assessments and their own definitions out into the world of actual human social political and economic conflicts.
Other than that, I'm not really sure what your point really has to do with mine.
On the other hand...At this point I have no idea what you are referring to.God wrote:The Gap and Rummy's Rule are principles in poker, especially useful for players in Texas Hold'em and other competitive forms. Both of these rules help players make decisions on whether to enter a hand based on position and the current action on the table. Here’s a breakdown of each:
1. The Gap Concept
Definition: The Gap Concept states that a player needs a stronger hand to call a bet than to make a bet.
Reasoning: This is due to the psychology of poker: a player who raises often indicates strength, so to enter the hand against them, you need a stronger hand than the one they’re representing.
Practical Application: If an early position player raises, players in later positions should consider their hand carefully before calling, only proceeding with premium hands since they’re up against someone representing strength.
2. Rummy's Rule
Definition: Rummy's Rule advises that players should avoid playing hands with a large gap between the highest and lowest card. For example, a hand like 9-2 is less desirable than one like 9-8 or even 9-6.
Reasoning: The rule is based on the logic that hands with large gaps between cards are less likely to make straights and tend to have fewer opportunities to improve on the flop, turn, or river.
Practical Application: When evaluating starting hands, prefer hands that are closer in rank (e.g., suited connectors like 10♠-9♠ or close unsuited hands like 8♠-7♣) over hands with gaps like Q♠-6♣.
When to Apply These Rules
The Gap Concept is especially useful in late position, where players can more accurately judge the strength of the table.
Rummy's Rule is useful across positions, but particularly in early positions, where players should enter the pot only with hands that have strong potential for improvement.
Together, these rules provide a framework for making more disciplined decisions, helping players to fold weaker hands and only invest in hands with strategic advantages.
I haven't seen any here, don't know what you are talking about. Thinking that our definitions are absolutely correct would be some Age-level delusion. Nor would it have to do with me, do I look like other people to you?Over and over and over again in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, exchanges here are often full of reactions like this.
Then stop talking to yourself, an exchange would require that we attempt to agree on definitions and proceed from there, but you seem to use your own special definitions and also don't reveal what they are.Gasp! Another "failure to communicate". Really, in my view, from both our ends, over and again, it is like we are in two different exchanges.
That's what you get for using your own special definiton of determinism. Of course people would have talked her out of the abortion, if that's what would have been determined to happen. People are talked out of abortions all the time (given determinism), it just didn't happen with Mary. So who cares about your largely irrelevant up-in-the-clouds issue?What, her friend isn't also determined to have that discussion with her? A discussion also wholly in sync with the laws of matter. What's crucial for me is in imagining hundreds of men and women trying to talk with her about the abortion. All, in turn, wholly determined to say only what their brain compels them too.
But all in vain because the laws of nature left Mary with no other option. Jane is toast. But in a free will world, Jane might still be toast, but there is actually the possibility she wouldn't be.
And here your up-in-the-clouds issue often infinitely backfires: those women who decide not to abort Jane in a determinisitic world, only have the possibility to do abort Jane in a free will world. Do you want free will, so that many Janes who were determined to live, can be toast instead?
But you created an incoherent frame of mind.That's what I'm doing here, of course. Looking for arguments that might persuade me to reconsider my frame of mind. In other words, such that I am able to believe that I can come up out of it. Instead, by and large I keep bumping into those who either insist I'm wrong because they're right or who make me the issue instead.
Well if you pretend that we don't have a special category of dreams called lucid dreams because of what I said, because there we can take wakefulness-like control, then you're wasting my time.That's it for me. We are just wasting each other's time.
----------
Iambig says that his philosophy terrifies people, but I just see this as a somewhat cozy chat. Imo there are valid philosophical things at least three times more terrifying than determinisim and mortality in a godless world.
That's it for me. We are just wasting each other's time.
...did you not understand?
Of course, we explain these reactions to ourselves as appropriate given that the movie depicts sets of circumstances that we can very well imagine unfolding "in reality". And the more we can imagine ourselves in sync with or not in sync with the characters on the screen the more intense the reactions can be.The Metaphysical Assumption of Free Agency
Now I’d like to turn to Strawson’s second point, where he dismisses the importance of the influence of metaphysical views on our ascription of moral responsibility.
Think of the experience of watching a movie with a strong emotional content, where some great tragedy or injustice unfolds. While watching this movie, sitting indifferently is not usually possible. Just like in real life, we feel emotions, and the emotions we feel towards these movie characters are similar to the emotional reactions we experience in our daily lives. We feel anger towards the bad guys, and sympathize with the good guys. We wish we could help them.
However ridiculous [or scary] it is for many, some determinists argue that we are no less "actors" responding to cues that nature "somehow" installed in our brains when conscious matter became us.However, there is an important factor that needs to be taken into consideration here. We feel strong emotions while watching the movie only when the actors play it so well that they almost make us forget the fact that their scenario is written by a screenwriter. Thus, while watching the movie, we implicitly view the characters as free agents and the direct cause of their own actions.
If that was it for you then why did you respond two more times?iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 8:45 pmWhat part of this...
That's it for me. We are just wasting each other's time.
...did you not understand?Just for the record...
Click.
Unless, of course, everything that is being suggested here is no less but one more inherent manifestations of the only possible reality.You probably shouldn’t steal. Common sense tells us that stealing is wrong. But sometimes stealing seems less wrong, or not wrong at all, after we discover the cause of the stealing behavior. For example, if the fact that your family is starving causes you to steal a loaf of bread, many would say that you are not as blameworthy as someone who steals out of greed or spite.
That depends I suppose on -- click -- how someone understands the meaning of control here. If she literally cannot control her behavior then why might it not be the same that we literally cannot control who we blame or do not blame?And imagine a kleptomaniac who cannot control her stealing behavior. We probably shouldn’t blame her for those actions (though we might encourage her to consult a therapist about her condition). But why shouldn’t we blame the kleptomaniac? That is to say, how are we justified in holding the kleptomaniac morally responsible?
This is the part where some will insist human psychology evolved in such a way that our desires, emotions, intuitions and other "internal components" of "I" just somehow acquired autonomy. It's only a matter of time before science confirms this. In the interim nature has created a human psychology that is able to delude us into thinking that we really do have free will.But why shouldn’t we blame the kleptomaniac? That is to say, how are we justified in holding the kleptomaniac morally responsible? One good reason not to blame the kleptomaniac is that she cannot help her behavior. She possesses a psychological problem that is out of her control. That’s why some defendants are acquitted on grounds of insanity. If you are not in control of your actions, you are not responsible for those actions.
Again, the assumption being that psychological problems themselves are just illusions.One good reason not to blame the kleptomaniac is that she cannot help her behavior. She possesses a psychological problem that is out of her control. That’s why some defendants are acquitted on grounds of insanity. If you are not in control of your actions, you are not responsible for those actions.
As usual the use of these disagreeing words - here 'unless' - doesn't fit. Even if it is the manifestation of the only possible reality, it is more likely the attitude towards you would be different - inevitable or not.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 12:09 am Free Will and Moral Responsibility
Chelsea Haramia
Unless, of course, everything that is being suggested here is no less but one more inherent manifestations of the only possible reality.You probably shouldn’t steal. Common sense tells us that stealing is wrong. But sometimes stealing seems less wrong, or not wrong at all, after we discover the cause of the stealing behavior. For example, if the fact that your family is starving causes you to steal a loaf of bread, many would say that you are not as blameworthy as someone who steals out of greed or spite.
And still most likely correct.In other words, someone noting we should not steal but only because they were never able not to note this.
And yet your knowledge that this might be the case does not affect how you would react to someone saying they could eat the Moon and so morals are objective differently from how you would react to someone who argues what you just argued. In other words, it is not clear you believe what you are saying. The knowledge does not affect you, since you, here mount an argument of sorts.Someone steals because she was never able not to. We react as we do [both as individuals and in society] because we were never able to react otherwise. Then Nature "somehow" kicked into gear all of the other players as the circumstances unfold only as they ever could have.
And imagine a kleptomaniac who cannot control her stealing behavior. We probably shouldn’t blame her for those actions (though we might encourage her to consult a therapist about her condition). But why shouldn’t we blame the kleptomaniac? That is to say, how are we justified in holding the kleptomaniac morally responsible?
Did the writer assert that the blamers are free? Or is the writer, in a determisitic system, trying to convince people of a certain position, inevitably, and driven by their desires for how we might think about something? and considering all parties doing what they were always going to do? You keep assuming people are asserting exceptiosn for brains or exceptions for people reacting - that these are not governed by determinism - despite their not saying this.That depends I suppose on -- click -- how someone understands the meaning of control here. If she literally cannot control her behavior then why might it not be the same that we literally cannot control who we blame or do not blame?
But why shouldn’t we blame the kleptomaniac? That is to say, how are we justified in holding the kleptomaniac morally responsible? One good reason not to blame the kleptomaniac is that she cannot help her behavior. She possesses a psychological problem that is out of her control. That’s why some defendants are acquitted on grounds of insanity. If you are not in control of your actions, you are not responsible for those actions.
Some might, but so far this person has not.This is the part where some will insist human psychology evolved in such a way that our desires, emotions, intuitions and other "internal components" of "I" just somehow acquired autonomy.
ItIt's only a matter of time before science confirms this. In the interim nature has created a human psychology that is able to delude us into thinking that we really do have free will.
One good reason not to blame the kleptomaniac is that she cannot help her behavior. She possesses a psychological problem that is out of her control. That’s why some defendants are acquitted on grounds of insanity. If you are not in control of your actions, you are not responsible for those actions.
Could you explain where your find that assumption. It seems clear that the person is driven to act in a certain way by their psychological problem in the passage your quoted. What aspect of something having affects on behavior means that it is unreal?Again, the assumption being that psychological problems themselves are just illusions.
There's something even more fundamentally odd here.Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 4:16 am Someone in their 50s? 60s?, who still has no idea what psychological control is and why some people are acquitted on grounds of insanity. If that's not autism (deficiency in the theory of mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind) then what is it?
Iambiguous:One good reason not to blame the kleptomaniac is that she cannot help her behavior. She possesses a psychological problem that is out of her control. That’s why some defendants are acquitted on grounds of insanity. If you are not in control of your actions, you are not responsible for those actions.
Read that passage from the article. Try to find a way to interpret it that entails the writer is assuming psychological problems are illusions.Again, the assumption being that psychological problems themselves are just illusions.
