compatibilism

[Belinda]

A sophisticated English speaker or writer is not bound to utterances that are sentences with subject and predicate.

Iambiguous hasn't even mastered the basics of English, nevermind "sophisticated". You have to learn the rules first to know when to bend and break them.

There's nothing sophisticated about his use of "then the part where". It's a phrase he overuses, that doesn't add anything to what he communicates, and only makes him look silly. He should unlearn those 4 words. He must have latched onto it many years ago and for some reason his brain got addicted to those 4 words.

I'd say Iambiguous has learned the rules of English as his native tongue. He is not a poet or approaching that degree of wordsmithing. But most people aren't poets. If an overused phrase is his only fault, it's not enough to disdain his use of English

[iambiguous]

Because it's trivial, banal, obvious. The Rumsfeld Matrix is just not profound in general. Click motherfucker.

Click motherfucker?

And, from my own rooted existentially in dasein point of view, anyone naive enough to actually believe the things we don't even know that we don't even know yet about the human brain here is "trivial, banal, obvious"...?!

Yawn. From my, essentially sitting on a chair looking at a laptop point of view, it seems that some things are so boringly obvious and known to all parties in all conversations, that we don't make a big song and dance about them because the information that everybody already has is not informative, or deep.

Click click, motherfucker. Click click.

Okay, let me remind you then that philosophers and scientists have been grappling with this conundrum now for thousands of years: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... -free-will

On the other hand, if you or anyone else here can link me to the least boring and the least obvious assessment of and/or concensus regarding the human brain here, I'd appreciate it.

Go ahead, give it a shot.

Then the part where you connect the dots between what you now believe about compatibilism philosophically in regard to a context in which a woman burdened with an unwanted pregnancy is determined -- fated? destined? -- to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells yet is still said to be morally responsible.

[FlashDangerpants]

Click motherfucker?

And, from my own rooted existentially in dasein point of view, anyone naive enough to actually believe the things we don't even know that we don't even know yet about the human brain here is "trivial, banal, obvious"...?!

Yawn. From my, essentially sitting on a chair looking at a laptop point of view, it seems that some things are so boringly obvious and known to all parties in all conversations, that we don't make a big song and dance about them because the information that everybody already has is not informative, or deep.

Click click, motherfucker. Click click.

Okay, let me remind you then that philosophers and scientists have been grappling with this conundrum now for thousands of years: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... -free-will

On the other hand, if you or anyone else here can link me to the least boring and the least obvious assessment of and/or concensus regarding the human brain here, I'd appreciate it.

Go ahead, give it a shot.

Then the part where you connect the dots between what you now believe about compatibilism philosophically in regard to a context in which a woman burdened with an unwanted pregnancy is determined -- fated? destined? -- to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells yet is still said to be morally responsible.

Wachuonnabout biggie? I was saying this Rumsfeld Matrix thing is banal and unimportant. Try to follow the conversation bud.


One of the major issues, not just with you Biggie but frankly with all of the most disastrous nutters here, is that you guys persistently forget what the other person is writing about so quickly that there is room for doubt that you even attempted to read. You are far too vain to care what other people write, that vanity presents as failures of comprehension.

[Flannel Jesus]

A sophisticated English speaker or writer is not bound to utterances that are sentences with subject and predicate.

Iambiguous hasn't even mastered the basics of English, nevermind "sophisticated". You have to learn the rules first to know when to bend and break them.

There's nothing sophisticated about his use of "then the part where". It's a phrase he overuses, that doesn't add anything to what he communicates, and only makes him look silly. He should unlearn those 4 words. He must have latched onto it many years ago and for some reason his brain got addicted to those 4 words.

I'd say Iambiguous has learned the rules of English as his native tongue. He is not a poet or approaching that degree of wordsmithing. But most people aren't poets. If an overused phrase is his only fault, it's not enough to disdain his use of English

It's definitely not his only fault lol. It obviously makes his sentences look like the grammatically incorrect half-baked thoughts of a third grader, but he has more communication faults than that.

He consistently communicates in terms that only he understands, that's truly his biggest fault. Imagine if I just made up words, and casually expected you to know what they mean. Don't you think that would be a bit plumfurctory?

And then to make matters worse, if you ask him what they mean, he doesn't just say "this word means this", he kinda rambles nonsense about what the words "revolve around". So like if you asked him what plumfurctorymeans, a normal person would say "plumfurctory means needlessly obnoxious", but Iambiguous would say "plumfurctory revolves around the dasein of Plumy's Rule". Right? Like instead of just saying some normal shit about what it means, he drags the mystery further with more bullshit.

And even THAT'S not the end of it.

[Atla]

He consistently communicates in

But if there aren't really other individuals in his mind, there is also no such thing as communication in his mind. It could be that he never once communicated in his life. Bit of a mind-bending concept, isn't it.

[Flannel Jesus]

He consistently communicates in

But if there aren't really other individuals in his mind...

Is that something he's hinted at before? That he's a solipsist or something?

[Atla]

He consistently communicates in

But if there aren't really other individuals in his mind...

Is that something he's hinted at before? That he's a solipsist or something?

He's not a philosophical solipsist. According to my current theory, he has two different kinds of theory of mind / empathy deficiency: an autistic deficiency and the Pisces glass wall deficiency.

[Flannel Jesus]

the Pisces glass wall deficiency.

What does this mean? I Google pisces glass wall and I just get a bunch of astrology wall art.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yawn. From my, essentially sitting on a chair looking at a laptop point of view, it seems that some things are so boringly obvious and known to all parties in all conversations, that we don't make a big song and dance about them because the information that everybody already has is not informative, or deep.

Click click, motherfucker. Click click.

Okay, let me remind you then that philosophers and scientists have been grappling with this conundrum now for thousands of years: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... -free-will

On the other hand, if you or anyone else here can link me to the least boring and the least obvious assessment of and/or concensus regarding the human brain here, I'd appreciate it.

Go ahead, give it a shot.

Then the part where you connect the dots between what you now believe about compatibilism philosophically in regard to a context in which a woman burdened with an unwanted pregnancy is determined -- fated? destined? -- to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells yet is still said to be morally responsible.

Wachuonnabout biggie? I was saying this Rumsfeld Matrix thing is banal and unimportant. Try to follow the conversation bud.


One of the major issues, not just with you Biggie but frankly with all of the most disastrous nutters here, is that you guys persistently forget what the other person is writing about so quickly that there is room for doubt that you even attempted to read. You are far too vain to care what other people write, that vanity presents as failures of comprehension.

yes! He does this not only when talking to real live human beings, but also when responding to texts he reads. He'll read a text, quote it, then reply with stuff that just has nothing to do with what he read. He doesn't care about the words he's reading, it just gives him an excuse to listen to himself more. What a dingus.

[iambiguous]

Wachuonnabout biggie? I was saying this Rumsfeld Matrix thing is banal and unimportant. Try to follow the conversation bud.

Oh, now I get it! You said it's banal and unimportant and since I didn't pat you on the back [virtually] and thank you for setting me straight, that "proves" I'm not following the conversation.

And to paraphrase the high plains drifter, "I'm not your bud". 
 

One of the major issues, not just with you Biggie but frankly with all of the most disastrous nutters here, is that you guys persistently forget what the other person is writing about so quickly that there is room for doubt that you even attempted to read. You are far too vain to care what other people write, that vanity presents as failures of comprehension.

Note to others:

Just out of curiosity, is this all being scripted by iwannaplato? And, if so, how would you go about demonstrating that it is scripted autonomously or autonomically?

And correct me if I'm wrong but given free will, are you and others here actually required to read the posts of all the "nutters"? 

In other words, I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if I were required to read everything that the Stooges here post about me!

You're not one of them, are you?  

[iambiguous]

But if there aren't really other individuals in his mind...

Is that something he's hinted at before? That he's a solipsist or something?

He's not a philosophical solipsist. According to my current theory, he has two different kinds of theory of mind / empathy deficiency: an autistic deficiency and the Pisces glass wall deficiency.

Click, of course.

Note to others:

I challenge anyone here to actually explain what on Earth this might mean pertaining to the part where compatibilists among us explain to Mary that even though she was never able to choose of her own volition to have the abortion, she is still morally responsible for doing so.

[iambiguous]

yes! He does this not only when talking to real live human beings, but also when responding to texts he reads. He'll read a text, quote it, then reply with stuff that just has nothing to do with what he read. He doesn't care about the words he's reading, it just gives him an excuse to listen to himself more. What a dingus.

The irony here being that the folks who created Philosophy Now magazine encourage members of the forum to focus their contributions on articles printed in the magazine. And over the past few years I have done precisely that...dozens and dozens of articles, in fact.

And, yes, I have acknowledged that PN describes itself as a magazine of ideas. On the other hand, my own interest in philosophical ideas, theories, concepts, notions, definitions, deductions, etc., pertaining to morality and meaning revolves around connecting the dots between them and actual social, political and economic interactions. Then the part where given free will I make that critical distinction between human interaction in the either/or world and human interactions in the is/ought world

And while the Stooges here insist my reactions to the articles demonstrate I don't know what the authors themselves are talking about, they never actually deconstruct my posts in order to note examples of this. 

So, given my most recent post above, by all means, correct me. Note what I misconstrued about the author's argument and provide us with that which all true philosophers would recognize as the correct interpretation.

[Atla]

the Pisces glass wall deficiency.

What does this mean? I Google pisces glass wall and I just get a bunch of astrology wall art.

Google won't find that, I gave it that name. Maybe you've read my topic, I went ahead and imo solved what actually is behind Astrology (it's seasonal biology).

And many people born at the time of the year when Iambig was born, have a mild and rather specific form of empathy retardation that I've named the Pisces glass wall. They can't truly connect with others, have no true empathy, no true interpersonal emotions, it's as if they are cut off socially from others by a barely perceptible mental glass wall, and they exist perpetually behind that wall. It's like a biologically induced, milder form of quasi-solipsism or rather mental solitude. (Unfortunately my father has this too, which screwed up my life big time when I was growing up.)

Plus Iambig also seems to be autistic, which can come with a deficiency in the theory of mind, ascribing mental states to others, being able to comprehend that others have full-fledged minds of their own. I think you don't want to hear about this because you think you're also autistic, which I still disagree with, I continue to think that autism and Aspiehood are actually distinct, they just overlap.

Long story short, when we combine these two different kinds of shortcomings in the theory of mind / empathy, maybe that could explain how it's possible that Iambig has always been talking to himself ever since he was born.

[Atla]

Is that something he's hinted at before? That he's a solipsist or something?

He's not a philosophical solipsist. According to my current theory, he has two different kinds of theory of mind / empathy deficiency: an autistic deficiency and the Pisces glass wall deficiency.

Click, of course.

Note to others:

I challenge anyone here to actually explain what on Earth this might mean pertaining to the part where compatibilists among us explain to Mary that even though she was never able to choose of her own volition to have the abortion, she is still morally responsible for doing so.

As I understand it, you are dishonest (maybe not deliberately), that's not what compatibilism says. In compatibilism volition is redefined as psychological volition, it's not libertarian free will volition. So Mary WAS able to choose of her own volition. Then again, compatibilists are also dishonest when they pretend that they didn't completely redefine key concepts.

The relevance is that you seem to be more or less psychologically blind, you don't really understand what psychology, psychological volition could mean. Compatibilism is about people's psychology, which more or less looks like gibberish to you.

[Flannel Jesus]

yes! He does this not only when talking to real live human beings, but also when responding to texts he reads. He'll read a text, quote it, then reply with stuff that just has nothing to do with what he read. He doesn't care about the words he's reading, it just gives him an excuse to listen to himself more. What a dingus.

The irony here being that the folks who created Philosophy Now magazine encourage members of the forum to focus their contributions on articles printed in the magazine. And over the past few years I have done precisely that...dozens and dozens of articles, in fact.

And, yes, I have acknowledged that PN describes itself as a magazine of ideas. On the other hand, my own interest in philosophical ideas, theories, concepts, notions, definitions, deductions, etc., pertaining to morality and meaning revolves around connecting the dots between them and actual social, political and economic interactions. Then the part where given free will I make that critical distinction between human interaction in the either/or world and human interactions in the is/ought world

And while the Stooges here insist my reactions to the articles demonstrate I don't know what the authors themselves are talking about, they never actually deconstruct my posts in order to note examples of this. 

So, given my most recent post above, by all means, correct me. Note what I misconstrued about the author's argument and provide us with that which all true philosophers would recognize as the correct interpretation.

You didn't misconstrue anything, you didn't respond to it at all.

If someone writes a bunch of stuff about, say, dinosaur bones, and I quote it and reply "I'm coocoo for coco puffs", I didn't misconstrue the argument, I just didn't reply to it. I said things completely unrelated. That's what you do.

There's nothing to note, you're just talking about other things entirely. I've already pointed that out to you. Maybe start actually replying to the text you quote.

The irony here being that the folks who created Philosophy Now magazine encourage members of the forum to focus their contributions on articles printed in the magazine. And over the past few years I have done precisely that...dozens and dozens of articles, in fact.

What's ironic about that?