compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

But determinism has never meant "with a goal", so treating them like they're opposites is silly.

https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=2339&q ... A1&PC=ACTS

If something is inevitable, it is determined. That which is indeterminate is not inevitable is not determined,

I thought you said indeterminate means without a goal.

[popeye1945]

https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=2339&q ... A1&PC=ACTS

If something is inevitable, it is determined. That which is indeterminate is not inevitable, is not determined,

I thought you said indeterminate means without a goal.

As an indeterminate process, each stage depends upon the last. It is indeterminate throughout its entire process; it is indeterminate without an ultimate goal. There is neither free will nor determinism. Reality is indeterminate, there is no need for compatibilism.

[Flannel Jesus]

If something is inevitable, it is determined. That which is indeterminate is not inevitable, is not determined,

I thought you said indeterminate means without a goal.

As an indeterminate process, each stage depends upon the last. It is indeterminate throughout its entire process; thus, it is indeterminate, without an ultimate goal.

You've flip flopped in meaning so many times my head is spinning.

[popeye1945]

I thought you said indeterminate means without a goal.

As an indeterminate process, each stage depends upon the last. It is indeterminate throughout its entire process; thus, it is indeterminate, without an ultimate goal.

You've flip flopped in meaning so many times my head is spinning.

Couldn't be your comprehension?

[Flannel Jesus]

As an indeterminate process, each stage depends upon the last. It is indeterminate throughout its entire process; thus, it is indeterminate, without an ultimate goal.

You've flip flopped in meaning so many times my head is spinning.

Couldn't be your comprehension?

Don't think so.

Sometimes you say things like this:
"That which is indeterminate is not inevitable, is not determined,"

Other times you say indeterminate means without a goal.

[popeye1945]

You've flip flopped in meaning so many times my head is spinning.

Couldn't be your comprehension?

Don't think so.

Sometimes you say things like this:
"That which is indeterminate is not inevitable, is not determined,"

Other times you say indeterminate means without a goal.

[popeye1945]

Couldn't be your comprehension?

Don't think so.

Sometimes you say things like this:
"That which is indeterminate is not inevitable, is not determined,"

Other times you say indeterminate means without a goal.

Both are correct. You're just not grasping the concept. That which is determined has a goal, that which does not is indeterminate---- read no goal.

[Flannel Jesus]

Don't think so.

Sometimes you say things like this:
"That which is indeterminate is not inevitable, is not determined,"

Other times you say indeterminate means without a goal.

Both are correct. You're just not grasping the concept. That which is determined has a goal, that which does not is indeterminate---- read no goal.

just sounds like nonsense to me.

[popeye1945]

Don't think so.

Sometimes you say things like this:
"That which is indeterminate is not inevitable, is not determined,"

Other times you say indeterminate means without a goal.

Both are correct. You're just not grasping the concept. That which is determined has a goal, that which does not is indeterminate---- read no goal.
From the indeterminate processes of the cosmos patterns arise, and these, though perhaps temporal, are more predictable within the time frame of human experience. Nonsense, perhaps. Determinism and indeterminism are direct opposites----Google it.

[Flannel Jesus]

That which is determined has a goal, that which does not is indeterminate---- read no goal.

prove it

[popeye1945]

That which is determined has a goal, that which does not is indeterminate---- read no goal.

prove it

LOL!!! C
Can you prove free will and/or determinism? Think! Do you believe night and day aren't opposite concepts?

[Flannel Jesus]

That which is determined has a goal, that which does not is indeterminate---- read no goal.

prove it

LOL!!! C
Can you prove free will and/or determinism? Think! Do you believe night and day aren't opposite concepts?

That's not an answer. I'm not asking you to prove free will. I'm not asking you to prove determinism. I'm asking you to prove "That which is determined has a goal".

[popeye1945]

prove it

LOL!!! C
Can you prove free will and/or determinism? Think! Do you believe night and day aren't opposite concepts?

That's not an answer. I'm not asking you to prove free will. I'm not asking you to prove determinism. I'm asking you to prove "That which is determined has a goal".

Have a nice day!

[iambiguous]

If determinism is true, then can we hold people morally responsible for their actions?
Bryer Sophia-Gardener (William Johnson)
at quora

The mechanism [above] will need 3 parts:

1] The animal will need one or more mechanisms for acquiring information about its own current situation which may include both information about its environment and information about itself.

2] The animal will need to be able to use that information to compute a plan for response to its situation that will function to improve the likelihood the animal will survive and or reproduce. (The plan may be a conscious plan, but does not have to be).

3] The animal will need a mechanism by which it causes itself to preform that response.

Again, however, the enormous gap between how we go about embodying these mechanisms ourselves -- re the modern industrial world -- and how most other animals on planet Earth still basically embody biological imperatives. In other words, they behave instintively. And up to a point, we do as well. But other animals are way, way, way, way, way behind us in regard to, among other things, the invention of science and philosophy.

Click, of course.

If an animal’s body includes these three types of mechanisms, it has some ability to respond appropriately to its situation. Since it has some ability to respond appropriately to its situation, it has some degree of “response-ability”, or in other words, responsibility.

Of course, the same thing could be said about us. Only nature has provided homo sapiens with a brain "somehow" able to delude us into believing that what we do we do of our own autonomy. And that certainly may well be the case. It's just that as of now [to the best of my current knowledge] there appears to be no overarching consensus among scientists and philosophers regarding the extent to which, even given our own brains, hard determinism prevails.

And while mere mortals are clearly being held responsible and/or are holding others responsible all the time, how do we establish that this is not in turn just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

[iambiguous]

If determinism is true, then can we hold people morally responsible for their actions?
Bryer Sophia-Gardener (William Johnson)
at quora

Degrees of responsibility vary across the animal kingdom. An earthworm’s degree of responsibility is much less than a human’s.

Really, how can it be argued that earthworms have any degree of responsibility at all? And certainly, no moral responsibility. After all, what does it mean to hold an earthworm responsible for behaviors it pursues autonomically given a brain that is little more than the embodiment of biological imperatives?

Degrees of responsibility also vary among humans. Some humans have a greater degree of responsibility (i.e., ability to respond appropriately to their situation) than others.

Okay, let's focus in on Trump 2.0. There's what the Constitution itself says are the responsibilities of the executive branch back then and there's what Donald Musk say instead here and now.

As for responding appropriately, what might that be "for all practical purposes", given a particular context? Then the parts embedded in conflicting goods and dasein. Though, instead, they may well be no less the embodiment of psychological illusions.

The mechanisms on which human responsibility rest are among the most complex mechanisms in the animal world. At least some vertebrates have mechanisms for computing alternative plans and mechanisms for selecting among those alternative plans.

Then the part where the objectivists among us dismiss this complexity. It's simple: you choose their way or it's the highway. And, thus, however far more complex human interactions are it doesn't necessarily demonstrate autonomy.

Humans excel in the ability to formulate alternative plans that extend well into the future. We also have the ability to select our preference from among those plans. Those abilities are based upon mechanisms in our brain. When we are consciously aware that such a selection between plans has taken place, we call it a “choice”.

Right, a "choice". Along with the assumption, however, for many that it is really a choice. In other words, free will is merely taken for granted. Either that or God given.