compatibilism

[iambiguous]

How about, once again, we bring your own assumptions here back to Mary's abortion.

Fine. Mary chooses to abort. It's a choice, but under determinism, it's not a free choice, not compelled by an outside supernatural agent, but rather a choice actually made by Mary herself.

Right. She was wholly determined to "choose" the abortion, but it is still her "choice". And some are wholly determined, in turn, to "choose' to hold her responsible but it is still only their own "choice" to do so as well.

Everything unfolds only as it ever could have unfolded but we're all still responsible for how it does unfold anyway.

In other words, demonstrating to us how your own views on dualism -- on the human brain itself -- are the only correct ones.

My views are not of dualism. I mostly don't tell them (the dualists) what their belief must be except for the obvious problem of there needing to be a physical effect without a physical cause, a sore spot with them that they're reluctant to address. The external agent needs an interface with which to compel Mary to do its will.

And, of course, even though you were determined by a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to post this, it's still reasonable to insist that you are responsible for posting it. You could never have not posted it but what's that got to do with holding you responsible?

Though, again, I'm always willing to acknowledge that your point makes more sense. It's just that, like all the rest of us, your points are encompassed and then sustained in a world of words.

she is still morally responsible for doing so.

What do you mean by being morally responsible. There are many forms that responsibility can take, and not all of them apply to a naturalistic view.

I mean there are Libertarians among us who hold people morally responsible because they believe we do have free will and thus people deserve to be rewarded or punished for particular things they do. Again, however, as though in believing this that's what makes it true.

I choose to run with scissors. I am responsible for the bleeding that results. It isn't anybody else's fault.

And if in fact you yourself are but one more of Nature's own automatons, then you are responsible only in the sense it was you that were compelled to "choose" a behavior that you were never able to opt freely not to choose.

Some responsibilty.

That's one form of being responsible, but morals don't much come into play with that one. Mary is likewise responsible for the subsequent state of not being pregnant. The decision to be in that state was hers, not somebody else's.

No, the sequence of chemical and neurological interactions in her brain compelled her to "choose' an abortion. Just as the chemical and neurological interactions in the brains of others compel them to hold her morally responsible.

But what never changes the hard determinists argue is that reality itself is unfolds only as ever could. And that includes everything that we think, feel, intuit, say and do from the cradle to the grave. After that though is anybody's guess. Click of course.

Where are your views on abortion rooted, say, existentially?

My views don't matter. I am not likely to ever be pregnant.

Talk about the immutable laws of nature!

I use "click" to convey the assumption that "somehow" free will is the real deal "here and now" in our exchanges.

Well I don't assume that. I try hard not to assume anything, or when I inevitably do, to at least be aware of it.

Again, all you are doing here is making assumptions that you were never able not to make about a world unfolding in the only manner it ever could have.

[Noax]

John Shand explains why free will is basic to humanity.

Shand's example is inapplicable. A watch makes no obvious deliberate decisions, and lacking any social agreements with anything, lacks any responsibility for whatever it does. Yes, responsibility is a social relation, which, for example, is why when a German soldier (in WWII) surrendered under the white flat, it was immoral to attack him, whereas if a Japanese soldier did the exact same thing, no such moral protected him from attack.

For a reasonable example of something not human which can be held responsible for a mistake, use the example of a corporation.

There's [still] no getting around the profound mystery embedded in matter somehow becoming biological -- living matter.

Only a problem for you since only you seem to posit this.

[Mary] was wholly determined to "choose" the abortion, but it is still her "choice". And some are wholly determined, in turn, to "choose' to hold her responsible but it is still only their own "choice" to do so as well.

Not bad except for all the sarcastic scare quotes. Take those away and I accept the wording. I also noticed that you quietly accepted my framing of your view as an example of being compelled against one's will. You have two wills (only one of them at a time can be an agent), and they don't always want the same things.

Everything unfolds only as it ever could have unfolded but we're all still responsible for how it does unfold anyway.

Nope. Only for your choices, not the rest of it. Also, keep in mind that you've not mentioned in what way one is responsible. There are multiple ways, and some kinds of responsibility (say to something outside the universe) require more than just choice. That's what free choice is for. There's a difference. So yes, one is responsible to society for one's choices, an implied or explicit responsibility inherent in reaping the benefits of said society.

And, of course, even though you were determined by a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to post this, it's still reasonable to insist that you are responsible for posting it.

Quite right. If I consistently break forum rules, I can get banned, and justifiably so. In this case I have a moral responsibility to uphold the site rules to which I agreed when making my account. None of that is inconsistent with determinism.

I mean there are Libertarians among us who hold people morally responsible because they believe we do have free will

Relevance? I thought we were talking about determinism. Libertarians deny determinism, but they are not clear on what exactly replaces it. I don't know much about the view and I don't consider myself qualified to speak for them.

then you are responsible only in the sense it was you that were compelled to "choose" a behavior that you were never able to opt freely not to choose.

There's that word again. Same fallacy over and over. Flannel Jesus is right. You're not here to learn anything, because you clearly are not learning anything. You know all the answers, apparently including what is claimed by view with which you don't agree.

[iambiguous]

Why is Freedom So Important To Us?
John Shand explains why free will is basic to humanity.

Trees, rocks, watches, can neither ‘do things correctly’ nor ‘make mistakes’; they just do what they do.

On the other hand, trees and rocks are a part of the "mindless" natural world...a world we had no part in bringing into existence. Unless of course the watch is intertwined in a watch maker such that he or she could never have not either fixed the watch or not. In other words, watch makers [and those who repair them] are no less an inherent part of nature as well. Then it's either click or no click.

If what they do does not fit a putative law of nature saying what they ‘should’ do in a descriptive sense, then either we’ve misunderstood what happened or else we need to change our perception of the laws of nature, for it is one of these options which is mistaken or incorrect, not what happens.

Again, given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, who here can tell us what, relating to a particular set of circumstances, is either correctly understood or not? Then the part where some argue that nothing is either correct or incorrect. Essentially, in other words.

However, when we say of someone that putting ‘7’ after ‘2+3=’ is incorrect, we are suggesting, normatively, that they should have written 5 but chose to write 7, and that in so doing they did not correctly follow the rules of arithmetic.

Normatively: in a way that relates to rules, or making people obey rules, especially rules of behavior. cambridge dictionary.

Like there isn't a world of difference between rules embedded objectively in the either/ or world and rules pertaining to conflicting goods.

Generally, when a maths teacher sets a student a sum to solve, they are not just waiting to see what happens next, where one result is as good as any other, and no error can be made in what happens. Rather, in the normative case, they want to see if the student can give an answer that’s correct, or not.

Fortunately, in the world of mathematics, normative rules are in fact applicable to everyone. Thus, the either/or world -- nature -- unfolding from the Big Bang. "That is correct" or "that is incorrect" can actually be demonstrated here. Unless, in a wholly determined universe, they are entirely interchangeable given the only possible reality.

[iambiguous]

There's [still] no getting around the profound mystery embedded in matter somehow becoming biological -- living matter.

Only a problem for you since only you seem to posit this.

I'm sorry, but this is nothing short of ludicrous. If I do say so myself. How can the extent of our ignorance regarding how the human condition fits into the existence of existence itself not make any "philosophical assessment" here hopelssly problematic?

To me this is somewhat analogous to the folks here...

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

...all insisting that there is but One True Path and then insisting further that it is their own. That, in other words, all the other objectivists above are simply wrong. Period. Also, as though simply believing this is what makes it true.

[Mary] was wholly determined to "choose" the abortion, but it is still her "choice". And some are wholly determined, in turn, to "choose' to hold her responsible but it is still only their own "choice" to do so as well.

Not bad except for all the sarcastic scare quotes. Take those away and I accept the wording.

Scare quotes to some, sure, but not to others. I use them in order to actually convey my own inability to pin down whether we do in fact have a free choice or only the illusion of one.

I also noticed that you quietly accepted my framing of your view as an example of being compelled against one's will. You have two wills (only one of them at a time can be an agent), and they don't always want the same things.

Once again, in my view, you note things like this as though the fact that you believe them in and of itself reflects the most rational assessment of determinism.

As for two wills, if you are unable to will what you will what difference does it make what you do? The consequences of behaviors in a wholly determined world are as well only as they ever could have been.

Everything unfolds only as it ever could have unfolded but we're all still responsible for how it does unfold anyway.

Nope. Only for your choices, not the rest of it.

The rest of what? In a wholly determined universe as "I" have come to understansd it from time to time, all of our choices are entirely in sync with the laws of matter.

Also, keep in mind that you've not mentioned in what way one is responsible. There are multiple ways, and some kinds of responsibility (say to something outside the universe) require more than just choice. That's what free choice is for. There's a difference. So yes, one is responsible to society for one's choices, an implied or explicit responsibility inherent in reaping the benefits of said society.

Over and over and over: in however manner any of us "choose" to understand responsibility, it is the only possible way in which we ever could have understood it. Unless, of course, that's wrong. So, beyond a world of words in which, up in the theoretical clouds, we use some words to define and defend other words, how would you go about demonstrating what you assert above?

And, of course, even though you were determined by a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to post this, it's still reasonable to insist that you are responsible for posting it.

Quite right. If I consistently break forum rules, I can get banned, and justifiably so. In this case I have a moral responsibility to uphold the site rules to which I agreed when making my account. None of that is inconsistent with determinism.

From my frame of mind, you are just another of what I call "free-will determinists". You agree that you were determined to post what you do here. That, in other words, you could never have not posted what your brain compels you in turn to think about all of this. But that doesn't make you any less responsible to those who were themselves never able to but hold you responsible.

I mean there are Libertarians among us who hold people morally responsible because they believe we do have free will

Relevance? I thought we were talking about determinism. Libertarians deny determinism, but they are not clear on what exactly replaces it. I don't know much about the view and I don't consider myself qualified to speak for them.

How on Earth can that possibly make any difference in a world where Libertarians and determinists and compatibilists are themselves just so many dominoes toppling over onto each other given the assumption that the hard determinsists are correct.

then you are responsible only in the sense it was you that were compelled to "choose" a behavior that you were never able to opt freely not to choose.

There's that word again. Same fallacy over and over. Flannel Jesus is right. You're not here to learn anything, because you clearly are not learning anything. You know all the answers, apparently including what is claimed by view with which you don't agree.

Well, in that case -- click -- you are clearly wasting your time with me. In part because over and over again, I have come upon those just like you who insist that if others really want to learn something, they'll embrace their own frame of mind. In other words, up in the theoretical clouds, agreements can be arrived at regarding what worlds must mean...technically?

[anthony]

I see myself as a compatibilist in a cosmic matter. According to physics, virtual particles emerge and vanish randomly, and we have no way of knowing how they act. However, if we consider human actions, then I speculate that external factors shape how we communicate, act, and think, which makes free will absent to a degree. External ideas that shape our personalities have merely obstructed our way of freedom but in a way, it has also constructed pathways for us to follow that mimic the idea of freedom itself. So, the idea of free will is illusionary and it highly depends on the individual if they let external influence change their way of living.

[iambiguous]

Why is Freedom So Important To Us?
John Shand explains why free will is basic to humanity.

Of course, it’s not arithmetic to which the minds of people turn when they think about our being free or not, but morality; and aesthetics too, that is, questions of taste or sensibility.

In other words, parts of our lives we "just know" we chose of our own free will. And that's because we "just know" in turn that we have free will. And, for many, that's what makes it true...that they believe it is.

More generally, in thinking about freedom, we think in terms of a panoply of values, and closely connected to that, meaning. It is value and meaning that would seem to be eradicated from the universe if free will goes, for without it we appear to be left with a world in which objects exist and things merely happen or do not happen, without the happenings having value or meaning.

Of course, I am particularly drawn and quartered here. A part of me, like many others, sees hard determinism as simply preposterous. Then, however, back to how we "just know" we have some measure of autonomy. As though that's what makes it true.

[Noax]

Why is Freedom So Important To Us?
John Shand explains

Trees, rocks, watches, can neither ‘do things correctly’ nor ‘make mistakes’; they just do what they do.

False dichotomy.

Also, Shand perhaps suggests it is immoral to say that 2+3=7.

On the other hand, trees and rocks are a part of the "mindless" natural world..

A human and a tree share a common ancestor, meaning at some point one being that was doing things correctly of its own will begat something that abandoned this successful methodology in favor of submission to a magical entity to which its will was relinquished.
Or of course, since you're going with the whole magic story, you might as well go all the way and deny that a human being and the tree have a common ancestor.

Then it's either click or no click.

I've decided that these clicks make me think of you with a sort of Max Headroom sort of jitteriness. I've had no better suggestions.

all insisting that there is but One True Path and then insisting further that it is their own.

I've suggested no correct path at all. I'm just pointing out when you commit serious fallacies. There are lots of self-consistent views. You don't seem to understand most of them enough to argue against them, and you don't seem capable of defending weak points identified in what little I can make of your view.

That, in other words, all the other objectivists above are simply wrong.

If there is such a thing as 'the correct view', then everybody is probably wrong since I've never seen two people hold the exact same view. My guess is most certainly wrong, and that is presuming I have a registered guess.

Scare quotes to some, sure, but not to others. I use them in order to actually convey my own inability to pin down whether we do in fact have a free choice or only the illusion of one.

You not once mentioned free choice in the sentence with all the scare quotes, so I don't see how the sentence was in any way relevant to if free choice is had or not.

Everything unfolds only as it ever could have unfolded but we're all still responsible for how it does unfold anyway.

Nope. Only for your choices, not the rest of it.

The rest of what?

A tree falls on a house down the road. I didn't choose that. I'm not responsible for it. Your statement that we're all responsible for how everything unfolds is nonsense.
For the record, I actually took semi-responsibility for such an event. I condemned, by choice, a tree that I dearly loved because I felt it threatened a building (not a house) that wasn't my problem. It was removed within 2 weeks of me bringing it to their attention. So in some way, one can sometime be partially responsible even in the case of my example.

In a wholly determined universe as "I" have come to understansd it from time to time, all of our choices are entirely in sync with the laws of matter.

Now I wonder why "I" needs to be in scare quotes, as if you wouldn't agree with the statement if you had left that off. Anyway, once again, if the quotes are left off, I'd agree with that. It implies that you mean something weird by the word, some private definition which I'd not likely use.

Also, keep in mind that you've not mentioned in what way one is responsible. There are multiple ways, and some kinds of responsibility (say to something outside the universe) require more than just choice. That's what free choice is for. There's a difference. So yes, one is responsible to society for one's choices, an implied or explicit responsibility inherent in reaping the benefits of said society.

Over and over and over: in however manner any of us "choose" to understand responsibility, it is the only possible way in which we ever could have understood it.

Translation: you have no clue, since I assure you that I can think of many types of responsibility.

even though you were determined by a brain

Still presuming those two things to be separate things I see. That'
s fine, but the view you're trying to argue against does not, hence the fallacy.

[iambiguous]

On the other hand, trees and rocks are a part of the "mindless" natural world..

A human and a tree share a common ancestor, meaning at some point one being that was doing things correctly of its own will begat something that abandoned this successful methodology in favor of submission to a magical entity to which its will was relinquished.

A common ancestor? The first biological organism to ever exist on planet Earth, perhaps? Or how about Adam and Eve? As for submissions to a magical entity -- God and His secular equivalents -- that is only relevant [to me] given proof that a God, the God does in fact exist. Or a philosophical argument that deontologists are able to provide us with.

Click, of course.

Or of course, since you're going with the whole magic story, you might as well go all the way and deny that a human being and the tree have a common ancestor.

Note where I am going with the whole magic story. Also, note where I have agued that biological life on planet Earth doesn't have a common ancestor.

But: how on Earth does any of this pertain to compatibilism?

Then it's either click or no click.

I've decided that these clicks make me think of you with a sort of Max Headroom sort of jitteriness. I've had no better suggestions.

I've explained how I construe it. There's no jitteriness involved at all. It's just the clear recognition that neither philosophers nor scientists have been able to establish one way or the other if we actually do have autonomy. So "click" reflects an existential leap of faith to free will.

all insisting that there is but One True Path and then insisting further that it is their own.

I've suggested no correct path at all. I'm just pointing out when you commit serious fallacies.

The most serious fallacy, of course, being that I don't share your own set of assumptions regarding compatibilism.

Then the part where you acknowledge that your own arguments here are no less embedded in The Gap and in Rummy's Rule.

There are lots of self-consistent views. You don't seem to understand most of them enough to argue against them, and you don't seem capable of defending weak points identified in what little I can make of your view.

Of course, some views remain consistent only because up in the philosophical clouds "theoretical constructs" revolve almost entirely around words defining and defending other words. Instead, from my frame of mind, it's how those "intellectual contraptions" almost never get around to those like Mary grappling with an actual existential quandary.

Scare quotes to some, sure, but not to others. I use them in order to actually convey my own inability to pin down whether we do in fact have a free choice or only the illusion of one.

You not once mentioned free choice in the sentence with all the scare quotes, so I don't see how the sentence was in any way relevant to if free choice is had or not.

"Free will", "determinism", "compatibilism". At least until the day philosophers and/or scientists are able to take the quote marks away.

Everything unfolds only as it ever could have unfolded but we're all still responsible for how it does unfold anyway.

Nope. Only for your choices, not the rest of it.

The rest of what?

A tree falls on a house down the road. I didn't choose that. I'm not responsible for it. Your statement that we're all responsible for how everything unfolds is nonsense.

Note where I have ever argued that we're all responsible for how everything unfolds. In fact, the whole point of hard determinism is in suggesting that nothing we think, feel, intuit, say and do was ever within our capacity to control. A tree falling on a house reflects nature in a nutshell...it was old and rotten or a storm blew it over. The tree was never able to not to fall on the house. But what if we were never able, in turn, to react to it of our own volition?

For the record, I actually took semi-responsibility for such an event. I condemned, by choice, a tree that I dearly loved because I felt it threatened a building (not a house) that wasn't my problem. It was removed within 2 weeks of me bringing it to their attention. So in some way, one can sometime be partially responsible even in the case of my example.

Again, from my frame of mind, you are assuming that your part in all of this revolves around some measure of autonomy. And not, in other words, that your brain actually deludes you into believing this.

In a wholly determined universe as "I" have come to understansd it from time to time, all of our choices are entirely in sync with the laws of matter.

Now I wonder why "I" needs to be in scare quotes, as if you wouldn't agree with the statement if you had left that off. Anyway, once again, if the quotes are left off, I'd agree with that. It implies that you mean something weird by the word, some private definition which I'd not likely use.

I've explained why I use quotation marks given particular words in particular contexts. And when those contexts revolve around idenitity, "I" merely reflects the part whereby in being fractured and fragmented [in the is/ought world] "I" don't think of my identity as, say, the objectivists among us do.

Also, keep in mind that you've not mentioned in what way one is responsible. There are multiple ways, and some kinds of responsibility (say to something outside the universe) require more than just choice. That's what free choice is for. There's a difference. So yes, one is responsible to society for one's choices, an implied or explicit responsibility inherent in reaping the benefits of said society.

Over and over and over: in however manner any of us "choose" to understand responsibility, it is the only possible way in which we ever could have understood it.

Translation: you have no clue, since I assure you that I can think of many types of responsibility.

Translation: I don't think about this as you do...so I have no clue. And it's not a question of thinking up different types of responsibilities but of demonstrating empirically, experientially and experimentally that you did so of your own volition.

[Belinda]

Trees are living beings that don't ,as far as we can judge, conceptualise what they prefer to do. Trees also are uncaused by cultures of belief but are caused by rules of nature.

Mankind's problems concerning how to live a good life are caused by man's intentions to dominate nature. Free Will is not part of nature which is deterministic but is a remnant of the supernaturalistic worldview.

[iambiguous]

Why is Freedom So Important To Us?
John Shand explains why free will is basic to humanity.

First, consciousness is required for meaning and value.

As though in arguing this, the only conclusion to draw is that meaning and value are freely arrived at. Not that particular assessments of meaning and value are necessarily the correct ones, however, only that each of us as individuals is able to exercise some measure of autonomy in arriving at our own conclusions.

If you think that in the absence of conscious observers things and events in the universe could still have value and meaning, then you’re probably not thinking of our complete absence, but perhaps imagining that we’d still be looking on in some shadowy form.

On the other hand, how many objectivists among us defend their own God or No God dogmas in "some shadowy form"? On the contrary, most of them are right there in your face all but daring you to disagree with them.

Then the profound mystery embedded in contemplating the nature of reality in a universe where we are the only ones able to actually contemplate this.

But: if the legendary Big One does wipe us out of existence what would reality then mean in a universe where there were no conscious entities able to perceive it at all.

But suppose we’re not even there in that sense, and that no other creatures really value or ascribe meaning to anything. This would imply that nothing is more important, or significant, or valuable, or better, or worse, than anything else.

The part that most disturbs many who embrace free will. Only the hard determinists argue that even including conscious entities such as ourselves, nothing changes. And that is because we are no less inherent and necessary components of the only possible reality.

If there are no human valuers, then there are no values. (There may be aliens who are able to value, so perhaps the universe would still have values and meaning to someone. Yet as far as we yet know, there are no aliens, so hanging the persistence of values and meaning on the hook of that possibility would be a gossamer hope indeed.)

If only because, well, even if there are, in fact, millions upon millions of alien lifeforms "out there", the distances between stars and planetary systems are so staggering...

Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.

The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.

So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.

To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.

Or consider this:

"To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager's speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!"

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.

...what are the odds we will ever make contact?

[Noax]

note where I have agued that biological life on planet Earth doesn't have a common ancestor.

Allright. A pure faith position, not one based on evidence then.

In fact, the whole point of hard determinism is in suggesting that nothing we think, feel, intuit, say and do was ever within our capacity to control.

And there is your misunderstanding in a nutshell. Determinism, hard or not, says nothing of the sort. It does not preclude autonomy. Fatalism maybe, but determinism isn't that.

So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach [the nearest star]. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.

To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.

Not sure who is being quoted but I'm kind of curious about that last figure. What exactly would take 100,000 years to reach the galactic center? Not the voyager. It will reach it no faster than our planet. Light? That only would take 30,000 years. Given context, I think he means voyager, but that's only thrice the time he says it will take to get to the nearest star.

I'm also totally baffled as to the relevance of this talk about how far away things are.

[iambiguous]

Note where I am going with the whole magic story. Also, note where I have agued that biological life on planet Earth doesn't have a common ancestor.

But: how on Earth does any of this pertain to compatibilism?

Allright. A pure faith position, not one based on evidence then.

Right, like you have provided us with ample evidence to support your own flagrant assertions above.

Note where I have ever argued that we're all responsible for how everything unfolds. In fact, the whole point of hard determinism is in suggesting that nothing we think, feel, intuit, say and do was ever within our capacity to control. A tree falling on a house reflects nature in a nutshell...it was old and rotten or a storm blew it over. The tree was never able to not to fall on the house. But what if we were never able, in turn, to react to it of our own volition?.

And there is your misunderstanding in a nutshell. Determinism, hard or not, says nothing of the sort. It does not preclude autonomy. Fatalism maybe, but determinism isn't that.

Unless, of course, the problem here revolves far more around your own misunderstanding of my points. After all, I'm always willing to acknowledge this: that my own arguments here are little more than wild ass guesses. However sincerely -- introspectively -- I have pursued them. And determinism for some is "for all practical purposes" interchangeable with fatalism.

Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.

The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.

So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.

To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.

Or consider this:

"To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager's speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!"

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.

Then this part:

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.

Not sure who is being quoted but I'm kind of curious about that last figure. What exactly would take 100,000 years to reach the galactic center?

No, not 100,000 thousands years...100,000 light years. Now, one lightyear is equal to approximately 6 trillion miles. So, do the math. On the other hand, yes, there are other estimates that put the distance between us and that big black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy at closer to 26,000 light years. The 100,000 light years is instead used to describe the distance across our galaxy.

But, come on, when you are dealing with distances this vast, you can't help but be dumbfounded regarding all the rest of the universe. As for where "I" fits into all of this?

I'm also totally baffled as to the relevance of this talk about how far away things are.

The relevance of course revolves around those who, in regard to meaning and morality and metaphysics, actually do believe that how they think about the reality of the human brain here is...spot on?

"So how many times would we have to travel around the world before we could say we'd travelled a light year?

A light year measures around 9,500,000,000,000 km.

One trip around the world is about 41,000 km

Divide one by t'other and we'll find out how many times a trip around the world would fit into a light year:

9,500,000,000,000 / 41,000 = 2.31707 x 108

That's about 200,000,000 (two hundred million). So we'd have to book two hundred million round-the-world trips to be able to say that we'd travelled a light year." blogstronomy.

[Noax]

Right, like you have provided us with ample evidence to support your own flagrant assertions above.

What assertions would those be, especially the ones lacking support?
I ask because you tend to assign people's assertions to them rather than actually seek out their actual opinions.
What is my stance? What are my beliefs? I have actually provided some of this. What sort of XXXism label would I apply to myself? There's more than one of course. Clue: Compatibilism isn't one of them.
I ask because you don't seem to be the type to pay any attention to the actual views of others, however much you may agree or disagree with the views.

And determinism for some is "for all practical purposes" interchangeable with fatalism.

For some, probably so. To you for instance. Probably not to many that actually use the former label to describe themself (I am not one of them). Very likely not to a compatibilist, but again, I don't speak for them since I don't feel qualified to correctly express their typical view.

To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years...

Not sure who is being quoted but I'm kind of curious about that last figure. What exactly would take 100,000 years to reach the galactic center?

No, not 100,000 thousands years...100,000 light years.[/quote]Right (and wrong), Poorly worded since distances are not normally expressed as 'it would take'. The center of the galaxy is under a third that distance from here, hence the (and wrong). You say as much in your post. Again not sure where the quote is coming from or why it is relevant to a discussion of compatibilism.

But, come on, when you are dealing with distances this vast, you can't help but be dumbfounded regarding all the rest of the universe. As for where "I" fits into all of this?

Contemplating a place that is sufficiently close that I could reach it in my lifetime (given a powerful enough ship, which I unfortunately didn't get for Xmas again this year), doesn't really do it for me. But the universe is plenty bigger than what that quote conveys, and that tells me that it probably isn't about us. The lack of neighbors tells me that our time here is super limited.

The relevance of course revolves around those who, in regard to meaning and morality and metaphysics, actually do believe that how they think about the reality of the human brain here is...spot on?

Pointing out big distances is what makes you believe brains are real? All you have to do is crack open a skull or two. Looking in the sky seems to be the wrong direction.

"So how many times would we have to travel around the world before we could say we'd traveled a light year?

The question is frame dependent, but it can be done just by walking to the corner store and back. I suspect the author here is referencing 19th century Newtonian concepts in making these statements.

So we'd have to book two hundred million round-the-world trips to be able to say that we'd travelled a light year."

Well I just managed to say it (and not be wrong) without doing all that. But I wasn't referencing said 19th century physics. Even then, it can be done without leaving your home. Earth travels about the galaxy at somewhere around 200 km/sec (15 centuries to go a light year) and far faster in other frames of reference, so it takes little more than a year even using pre-relativistic physics.

[iambiguous]

Right, like you have provided us with ample evidence to support your own flagrant assertions above.

What assertions would those be, especially the ones lacking support?

I mean any and all points you raised about compatibilism that have no actual backing from the scientific community.

And by "support", in my view, you mean arguments defining and defending other arguments...philosophically. Up in the clouds of abstractions. Instead, as with myself and most others, all we do here is create arguments based on what we think we know about compatibilism "in our head".

What is my stance? What are my beliefs? I have actually provided some of this. What sort of XXXism label would I apply to myself? There's more than one of course. Clue: Compatibilism isn't one of them.

Given your stance and your belief about compatibilism...note all of the factors here that are not just philosophical assumptions made about the human brain that revolve entirely around stances and beliefs themselves.

I ask because you don't seem to be the type to pay any attention to the actual views of others, however much you may agree or disagree with the views.

Yeah, admittedly, I get this a lot. Only, by and large, it is from the objectivists among us. And, with them, unless you accept their own point of view, you are not paying attention to them.

And determinism for some is "for all practical purposes" interchangeable with fatalism.

For some, probably so. To you for instance.

Okay, but over and again I note that my own views pertaining to meaning, morality and metaphysics are fractured and fragmented. In other words, I argue it is one thing to post what you believe about compatibilism and another thing altogether being able to demonstrate empirically, experientially and/or experimentally that what you believe all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Go ahead, give it a shot.

But, come on, when you are dealing with distances this vast, you can't help but be dumbfounded regarding all the rest of the universe. As for where "I" fits into all of this?

Contemplating a place that is sufficiently close that I could reach it in my lifetime (given a powerful enough ship, which I unfortunately didn't get for Xmas again this year), doesn't really do it for me. But the universe is plenty bigger than what that quote conveys, and that tells me that it probably isn't about us. The lack of neighbors tells me that our time here is super limited.

Indeed. And all the more reason for objectivists to concoct one or another rendition of the One True Path. Their own, of course.

The relevance of course revolves around those who, in regard to meaning and morality and metaphysics, actually do believe that how they think about the reality of the human brain here is...spot on?

Pointing out big distances is what makes you believe brains are real? All you have to do is crack open a skull or two. Looking in the sky seems to be the wrong direction.

Note where I ever connected the dots between big distances and human brains.

"So how many times would we have to travel around the world before we could say we'd traveled a light year?

The question is frame dependent, but it can be done just by walking to the corner store and back. I suspect the author here is referencing 19th century Newtonian concepts in making these statements.

Note to others:

Do you understand the point he is making here? Because, in my view, walking to the corner store and back is a ridiculous comparison. So, sure, I might be misunderstanding what his point actually is.

So we'd have to book two hundred million round-the-world trips to be able to say that we'd travelled a light year."

Well I just managed to say it (and not be wrong) without doing all that. But I wasn't referencing said 19th century physics. Even then, it can be done without leaving your home. Earth travels about the galaxy at somewhere around 200 km/sec (15 centuries to go a light year) and far faster in other frames of reference, so it takes little more than a year even using pre-relativistic physics.

Note to others:

Same thing. How on Earth is his or her point pertinent to the point I raised above?

[Noax]

I ask because you don't seem to be the type to pay any attention to the actual views of others, however much you may agree or disagree with the views.

Yeah, admittedly, I get this a lot. Only, by and large, it is from the objectivists among us.

I don't see any objectivists replying to you, but plenty of others make this observation about you. Examples follow:

What assertions would those be?

I mean any and all points you raised about compatibilism

This is what I mean. You reference these 'points' that I've made, but no particular point is identified. This is just a generic utterance that you put out. What exact points do you think I have made? You don't know because you don't actually pay attention to the posts made by others.

Given your stance and your belief about compatibilism..

Here's yet another one. What stance and belief about compatibilism? You identify not one. You apparently have no clue about said stance and belief, because, again, you pay no attention to the posts. You didn't even bother to go back a couple posts and find one to quote.

I argue it is one thing to post what you believe about compatibilism.

...being able to demonstrate empirically, experientially and/or experimentally that what you believe...

Yet two more! What belief in particular? Again, no clue.

That's four judgements made on my beliefs, not one of which you can name. This is evidence of my claim that you continuously commit the straw man fallacy. You're arguing against fictions of your own making, not against say what I actually say or believe.

You did pony up one belief of mine, that apparently all rational men are obligated to hold beliefs similar to my own. That one was completely made up. I never stated any such thing. Your score is still zero in actually having comprehended what I actually posted. I'm not requiring you to change your personal views, but you apparently justify it by remaining utterly ignorant of any other view.

And all the more reason for objectivists

Another shot taken to these objectivists you seem to want to target. What have they done that so offends you? Why are you bringing them up in a reply to me? Can you say what they believe? I doubt it. I had to look it up myself.

to concoct one or another rendition of the One True Path. Their own, of course.

Sounds a lot like what you're doing, yes.


Pop quiz: What have you learned about my beliefs in this latest post? Did you pay attention? Do you have to re-read the post to get the answer, or will you just not get it?