compatibilism

[iambiguous]

When I first began exchanging philosophy online, I knew to expect all manner of ridiculous posters. Why? Because any forum that is open to the general public...

Right?

Though, sure, I don't doubt that some here are thinking the same thing about me.

Right?

"Conditions" I call them.

Almost forgot: click.

[Ben JS]

The future is an illusion because the future does not exist.

Eternalism or the B-Theory of time.

"Eternalism" and "B-theory" change nothing.

When I spoke as if the future were real,
it was by informed intent.

Your correction of my description,
was unfounded - you made an assumption.

If you cannot recognize how Eternalism / B-Theory relate to the future being described as existent,
then there's very little for me to say to you.

You're a lackey, with blocked senses.
But you'd need to block your common sense,
to follow in the steps of a resenting fool.

-

Again, because you're a bit slow:

For your education:

Eternalism:
1. Under standard eternalism, temporal locations are somewhat akin to spatial locations.
[...] When someone says that they stand ‘here’, it is clear that the term ‘here’ refers to their position.
‘Back’ and ‘front’ exist as well. Eternalists stress that ‘now’ is indexical in a similar way.
[...] Events are classified as past, present, or future from some perspective.
-
2. Some forms of eternalism give time a similar ontology to that of space, as a dimension, with different times being as real as different places,
and future events are "already there" in the same sense other places are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time. [...]
It is sometimes referred to as the “block time” or “block universe” theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional “block”.
-
3.
Let us distinguish between two senses of “x exists now”.
In one sense, which we can call the temporal location sense, this expression is synonymous with “x is present”.
The non-presentist will admit that, in the temporal location sense of “x exists now”, it is true that no non-present objects exist now.
But in the other sense of “x exists now”, which we can call the ontological sense, to say that “x exists now” is just to say that x is now in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers.
Using the ontological sense of “exists”, we can talk about something existing in a perfectly general sense, without presupposing anything about its temporal location.


B-Theory of Time:
B-theorists think all change can be described in before-after terms.
They typically portray spacetime as a spread-out manifold with events occurring at different locations in the manifold (often assuming a substantivalist picture).
Living in a world of change means living in a world with variation in this manifold.
To say that a certain autumn leaf changed color is just to say that the leaf is green in an earlier location of the manifold and red in a later location.
The locations, in these cases, are specific times in the manifold.

--

And Satyr,

Back to character assassination because he lacks the capacity to present any persuasive criticism of the deterministic position - simply that he has a terrible evaluation of all who hold the position, which is completely irrelevant. Feel welcome to ask for a concise criticism, instead of raving ad hom.

[Pistolero]

As long as modern cowards contradict their state beliefs with their every action, - mind/body dissonance - I can only snicker.
What does it matter if they need to deny free-will to pretend they are innocent victims of god or cosmic determinism?
What does it matter if they deny that they have a choice, to protect their ego from the realization that their mind isn't as good as they want to believe?

This is their choice.
They could have chosen otherwise, but their lack of integrity, compels them to adopt definitions that satisfy their goals.

[Pistolero]

These poor self-deceiving saps, use double standards to evade the paradoxes that arise when their actions contradict their beliefs.

Anatomy is Fate

They easily accept collectivized fate of species and subspecies, but refuse to apply it to one species, their own.
There they believe the cosmos takes personal care of every individual to determine his or her fate.
A position in line with Abrahamic narratives, and sparks and souls only existing in humans.

Their approach is more protestant.

"Judge a man by the content of his character"... but why judge a man at all if he had no part in determining his character?
Why judge a man harshly if he kills?
Why punish him if 'choice is an illusion'?
Is not a kind man and a cruel man equally lacking free-will?
Does a killer have the ability to choose not to kill? If he does then he has free-will, because 'free' simply means that he has more than one option that can be selected, willed.

If I could have pressed the breaks but CHOSE to press the gas, and I killed a man.....I am responsible for my choice, because it was free - within my range of power. I intentionally pressed the gas - willfully.
If it were not, it would be an accident... or fate. Inevitable.

But, according to these cowards, there is no free-will and choice is an illusion...so no matter what Is willed, the wrongdoer had no choice.
No man can be held accountable for anything.
God willed it....or cosmic forces, beyond his control, willed him, compelled him, to do what he did.

Are they punishing the cosmos for determining him to act as he did?
Is this not what the God of the bible do to Adam?
He, supposedly, created Adam to be and act as he did, and then punished him for it.....in essence he punished himself for creating Adam to do what he did.
Masochistic?


Every day these buffoons live a life of internal dissonance.
Their mind is convinced that they're fate is determined, but their bodies act as if they willfully participate in what was being determined....and so have agency.
Every day they take care not to make a bad choice, as if they have a choice to make a bad one.

Schizophrenics...mind/body dissonance, in accordance with the Abrahamic traditions, and postmodernism.
Divine sparks "trapped" in imperfect bodies.
Immortal souls "trapped" in mortal bodies.

Males trapped in female bodies.

A mind's convictions usurping its body's actions.
Body has no free will, and the mind is trapped in it.
Mind can contradict the body, and the body's actions can contradict the mind's ideals.

Does a pious saint feel ashamed when he gets an erection at the site of a teenage female?
He feels betrayed by his own body. He feels he has no will to prevent it from occurring. No choice, he tells himself.
Ha!

[Ben JS]

As long as modern cowards contradict their state beliefs with their every action, - mind/body dissonance - I can only snicker.
What does it matter if they need to deny free-will to pretend they are innocent victims of god or cosmic determinism?
What does it matter if they deny that they have a choice, to protect their ego from the realization that their mind isn't as good as they want to believe?

This is their choice.
They could have chosen otherwise, but their lack of integrity, compels them to adopt definitions that satisfy their goals.

Yeah, yeah.
No substance then.

On that note, it's good cue to block the endless noise.
Constructive discussion is more conducive without someone shouting in background.

[Pistolero]

Plenty of substance there, hypocrite.
Your intellectual cowardice is noted.

You want to believe in the absolute, totalitarian, god, but without the anthropomorphism.

I'm afraid you'll never get over your slavishness.

[Pistolero]

D I have a choice to do other than what I do?
If yes, then I have free-will.
If not, then why are these hypocrites bitching?
Why are they accusing Nazis of anything?
Why are they blaming exploitive capitalism?
Why are they punishing rapists and murders?
Why do they carefully consider their options before they CHOOSE?
Why do they look both ways, before they cross the street?
Why do they measure twice before they make a cut?

Take it up with cosmic order, the perfect scapegoat.
Existence designed to trick them.

What a worldview. To absolve themselves of the implications, they are willing to live schizophrenic self-deceiving lives.
Is choice an illusion or is they denial of choice the true illusion?

[Pistolero]

An illusion can only cause an illusory effect.
If choice is an illusion, then you have it backward.

I say choice is not an illusion but an act of will that participates in determining events - a cause with effects.
My options need not be infinite for me to have a choice. They need to be more than one.
If I have more than one choice and I can choose either, then I have agency - my will has freedom.
The degree will be determined by my power, or the number of options I can access.

Those who CHOOSE to define words in ways that make them impossible to exist, expose their motives through their choice.
I begin my definitions with what is falsifiable by all....the act.
For me, freedom is not a metaphysical cocnept, defined in ways no mrotal being can ever attain, it is measurable, perceptible - a qualifiers of will, as is the term 'power.'
I do not define power as omnipotence to excuse my own feebleness, but define it as a product of actions. Another qualifier, measured by degrees, not absolutes.

The fact that moderns/post-moderns CHOOSE to adopt a definition of 'free' that would render it impossible for a mrotal man to attain, speaks to the malaise of out times. Its nihilism.

[phyllo]

D I have a choice to do other than what I do?
If yes, then I have free-will.
If not, then why are these hypocrites bitching?
Why are they accusing Nazis of anything?
Why are they blaming exploitive capitalism?
Why are they punishing rapists and murders?
Why do they carefully consider their options before they CHOOSE?
Why do they look both ways, before they cross the street?
Why do they measure twice before they make a cut?

Well, you have Biggus' standard answer :
They have no choice but to accuse, blame, punish, ...

[Pistolero]

The irony being that these deniers of free-will, contradict themselves continuously....especially those who consider themselves "hard determinist, like Mary." Miss Land is a particular "hard case" of schizophrenia....she calls it "fractured and fragmented."
They use this delusion to excuse themselves from whatever they did, and continue to do to themselves.

[iambiguous]

Well, you have Biggus' standard answer :
They have no choice but to accuse, blame, punish, ...

No, Biggus is no less drawn and quartered here, as well. "Here and now" I've taken an existential leap to determinism. But in no way, shape or form, am I arguing for determinism as the "my way or you're a fucking idiot" objectivists here do. Of course we may have free will.

Instead, I come back to this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Here we basically get philosophical arguments. In other words, the arguments are said to be true if and only if technically there is an agreement as to what the words must mean.

As though that is anywhere near the same as grappling with all this as actual brain scientists do.

[phyllo]

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 7:46 am
Well, you have Biggus' standard answer :
They have no choice but to accuse, blame, punish, ...

No, Biggus is no less drawn and quartered here, as well. "Here and now" I've taken an existential leap to determinism. But in no way, shape or form, am I arguing for determinism as the "my way or you're a fucking idiot" objectivists here do. Of course we may have free will.

You're given that same answer ... "they could never have not written/done that" ... hundreds of times on this site and at ILP.

Grow some balls and own what you write.

[Flannel Jesus]

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 7:46 am
Well, you have Biggus' standard answer :
They have no choice but to accuse, blame, punish, ...

No, Biggus is no less drawn and quartered here, as well. "Here and now" I've taken an existential leap to determinism. But in no way, shape or form, am I arguing for determinism as the "my way or you're a fucking idiot" objectivists here do. Of course we may have free will.

You're given that same answer ... "they could never have not written/done that" ... hundreds of times on this site and at ILP.

Grow some balls and own what you write.

I don't even think I've ever seen a determinist on this forum say anything remotely like "if you don't agree with determinism you're a fucking idiot". I haven't read every post though so maybe one did say that, idk.

[phyllo]

He has an "us versus them" mentality that he projects on to everyone.

He thinks like that, so everyone must think like that as well.

IWP showed that it's not generally true. Without success.

Did IWP have a heart attack or accident? Igottasay that I miss him.

[Flannel Jesus]

He has an "us versus them" mentality that he projects on to everyone.

He thinks like that, so everyone must think like that as well.

So... he was the "objectivist" all along?

Iwp has not replied to my pms for maybe a couple months now, not sure what he's up to. Hope he's good.