compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

Click, of course.

Meaning what? In simple, normal English terms, what should the reader understand when they read what you wrote here? What should they understand about Atla's post, or what should they understand about your thoughts about Atla's post? Plain English please. No "Rummy's Rule". And please don't tell me what it "Revolves around", just say what it means, what you want the reader to understand.

On the other hand -- click -- when I come across reactions like this, I'm just further convinced that their point really revolves around the assumption that if I truly did understand what others are saying in "normal English terms", I would be saying the same thing.

I don't know where you're getting this tripe from. You're just inventing absolute garbage out of thin air. Who said it "revolves around" that assumption?

That seems like an assumption from you, because it's certainly not mine. I have no idea why you're making that absurd assumption

[Flannel Jesus]

Please read the post above.

Given that you think Iambiguous has a great, or at least adequate, understanding of English, perhaps you can tell me what you think it means. "Click, of course". What is he trying to say here?

And yet above in a post reacting to him, I noted this:

I use "click" because I'm the first to admit that given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, what are the odds that my own assessment of the human brain "here and now" is the correct one?

Or, for that matter, yours or anyone else's here.

From my frame of mind, It's the equivalent of taking an existential leap of faith to God. In other words, given that scientists, philosophers and theologians have yet to reach a consensus regarding the existence of free will [going back thousands of years now], a click on my part here is only me acknowledging this.

Maybe we are posting autonomously here and maybe we're not. So, by all means, if anyone here is convinced they've found an argument that establishes this one way or the other, please link me to it.

I use "click, of course," only to remind myself and others that there is still no consensus within the scientific and philosophical communities regarding whether we do or do not have autonomy.

But click DOESN'T remind others of that. Nobody knows what click means. The last time you tried to describe what click means, it didn't mean "reminding others that there's no consensus", it meant something else entirely.

You know what's an actually good way to remind others that there's no consensus? Saying "there's no consensus in science about if we have autonomy". Those words are immensely more useful to that goal than "click".

[Flannel Jesus]

Okay, please note examples of this and offer us a reaction and an assessment that someone who did understand him would post.

I did. I quoted you and asked you how what you wrote relates to the quote you gave. You didn't have a clear answer - because you can't, because it didn't. You quoted something and then started rambling about magic therapy chairs. That's "coocoo for Coco puffs". It had nothing to do with anything. Who gives a shit about magic therapy chairs?

[Flannel Jesus]

You keep asking for examples of you quoting but not replying:

Determined by Robert Sapolsky
Philip Badger questions Robert Sapolsky’s determinism.

Robert Sapolsky is that rare thing in modern academia, a true polymath. This is evidenced by his multiple and simultaneously held professorships, which range from Anthropology to Neurology, as well as his willingness to stick his nose into what philosophers often consider to be their business.

Click.

And from my own perspective, the business of philosophers is to take what they construe theoretically...in a world of words by and large...to be logical and epistemologically sound and note how for all practical purposes their assessment is applicable given their own moral, political and spiritual interactions with others.

And again, in particular, those interactions that revolve around conflicting goods.

So click, you say, is a reminder that science and philosophy have no consensus on human autonomy aka free will. What the fuck does that click have to do with the text you quoted?

The text you quoted is about sapolsky being a "polymath", a wide range of expertise. Why do you want to remind people about the lack of consensus after reading a quote about sapolsky being a polymath? Those two things are entirely unrelated. Stupid thing to remind us of in that context.

And then the next paragraph... again, apparently nothing to do with sapolsky being a polymath with a wide range of expertise. What does what you think is the business of philosophers have to do with whether or not sapolsky is a polymath? Nothing. Nothing of course.

You're quoting text and then saying absolutely nothing about it. You're insane.

[Flannel Jesus]

And another example here:

Determined by Robert Sapolsky
Philip Badger questions Robert Sapolsky’s determinism.

For Hume, free will is compatible with determinism as long as our actions are not compelled by forces outside of us. In other words, if I hit you in the face then I am responsible for the act if the impetus for the action came from within me.

Years ago, I read a science fiction novel describing how, in the more or less distant future, a person went to a doctor or to a psychiatrist in which there were pods in his or her office. The doctor/shrink sat in one, the patient in the other. In other words, the doctor/shrink could actually feel the same somatic symptoms as the patient did and/or the same mental and emotional states.

How many less "failures to communicate" might there be?

What do magic therapy chairs have to do with Hume being a compatibilist? Biggy you fucking doofus, you might as well just say you're coocoo for Coco puffs. It would be as on topic as that tripe you did say.

[FlashDangerpants]

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".

I said what was banal - the Rumsfeld Matrix. You failed to make a case against thay, which is hardly surprising, it is banal. I didn't offer an opinion on any other issue, and when I am in conversation with people like you I stick largely to the point I was making at the start of that engagement otherwise you guys just ramble forever.

Yes, you said the Rumsfeld Matrix was banal. What, because you said it, that makes it true? And Rumsfeld's observations are a matrix only to the extent he was talking about a world where mere mortals existed along these lines: https://youtu.be/O5b0ZxUWNf0?si=UijwZveeZtymNjwh

You seem to be dedicating your existence to the pursuit of banality now. I entered this whole conversation only because your nonsense about the RM was causing a communications problem which I was possibly in a position to fix. I can't really fix any of your other defects, sorry.

And, okay, if you have managed to convince yourself that Rumsfeld's observations in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics are banal, fine. Whatever works, I always say. As for "you guys rambling on", I would imagine some here find that applicable to you as well.

Or perhaps we should run it by the Oracle.

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?

What is this paranoid rubbish about IWP supposed to be? Presumably he criticised you for your obvious reading problems too? Others are going to do that too, it's a you thing: You don't address the content of other people's case, you just shrill at us.

Let's run this...

I posted my reaction to an article in PN:

Determined by Robert Sapolsky
Philip Badger questions Robert Sapolsky’s determinism.

Okay, please note examples of this and offer us a reaction and an assessment that someone who did understand him would post.

Sure, I don't doubt that I may well have either misconstrued his point or failed to respond to it as others would. But then, after all, in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, failures to communicate have been the norm going all the way back to the Pre-Socratics here in the West.

...by you as well.

What specifically do I need to be corrected about in regard to the article?

I don't know where you posted either a link to the article or your reaction. Why are you asking me these questions without offering such obviously necessary information? What has any of it got to do with IWP?

[FlashDangerpants]

This is all really weird.

[Flannel Jesus]

Please read the post above.

Given that you think Iambiguous has a great, or at least adequate, understanding of English, perhaps you can tell me what you think it means. "Click, of course". What is he trying to say here?

And yet above in a post reacting to him, I noted this:

I use "click" because I'm the first to admit that given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, what are the odds that my own assessment of the human brain "here and now" is the correct one?

Or, for that matter, yours or anyone else's here.

From my frame of mind, It's the equivalent of taking an existential leap of faith to God. In other words, given that scientists, philosophers and theologians have yet to reach a consensus regarding the existence of free will [going back thousands of years now], a click on my part here is only me acknowledging this.

Maybe we are posting autonomously here and maybe we're not. So, by all means, if anyone here is convinced they've found an argument that establishes this one way or the other, please link me to it.

I use "click, of course," only to remind myself and others that there is still no consensus within the scientific and philosophical communities regarding whether we do or do not have autonomy.

I'm really proud of you for posting this btw. This is the first time you've ever written anything close to a clear explanation of what click is supposed to mean, at least as far as I have read.

It's obviously a stupid thing to mean, given that it fails in communicating that to other people. But at least you've finally said what it means.

[Atla]

On the other hand, some hardcore determinists, compelled by their brains, will point out that your own brain compelled you to post that. Word for word.

If by "hardcore" determinists you mean hard determinists, then who cares, I'm not a hard determinist. So on what other hand? Also, wtf does "compelling" have to do with determinism? You say they are compelled by their brains, so you already go with a particularly weird hard determinist take here?

If by "hardcore" determinist you just mean someone who takes determinism seriously, like me, then again wtf does "compelled" mean?

And please link me to brain scientists able to confirm that what you think about what I think about all this is of your own volition.

Which volition, psychological or libertarian free will? You just skipped the heart of the issue like I knew you would.

I won't even reply to the rest of your comment because this is already too nonsensical. Please try to pull your head out of your backside and make more sense.

[Atla]

Oh noo he's onto us, naturally we have IWP and Satyr on a daily videoconference where we discuss our next moves.

Click.

You forgot that. Or are you convinced as well that what you think, feel, intuit, say and do is entirely of your own volition? And it may well be. Only, as with most of us here, you have no capacity to actually demonstrate that beyond a "world of words".

Click what?
I forgot what?
Why would I be convinced that what I think, feel, intuit, say and do is entirely of my volition?
Again, which volition?
Who is convinced of that already?
What does all this have to do with my joke about your idiotic, self-important paranoia and inferiority complex?
Where did I say I believed in libertarian free will? Where did I say that I could demonstrate it? Why did you feel the need to point out the obvious that I can't demonstrate it? Who are these people who don't fall into your "most of us here", are there people here who can demonstrate free will, even though that's not possible?

LOL!!!

[Atla]

Please read the post above.

Given that you think Iambiguous has a great, or at least adequate, understanding of English, perhaps you can tell me what you think it means. "Click, of course". What is he trying to say here?

And yet above in a post reacting to him, I noted this:

I use "click" because I'm the first to admit that given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, what are the odds that my own assessment of the human brain "here and now" is the correct one?

Or, for that matter, yours or anyone else's here.

From my frame of mind, It's the equivalent of taking an existential leap of faith to God. In other words, given that scientists, philosophers and theologians have yet to reach a consensus regarding the existence of free will [going back thousands of years now], a click on my part here is only me acknowledging this.

Maybe we are posting autonomously here and maybe we're not. So, by all means, if anyone here is convinced they've found an argument that establishes this one way or the other, please link me to it.

I use "click, of course," only to remind myself and others that there is still no consensus within the scientific and philosophical communities regarding whether we do or do not have autonomy.

I'm really proud of you for posting this btw. This is the first time you've ever written anything close to a clear explanation of what click is supposed to mean, at least as far as I have read.

It's obviously a stupid thing to mean, given that it fails in communicating that to other people. But at least you've finally said what it means.

Everyone knows that there is no consensus about that in the scientific community, and there is hardly any consensus about anything in the philosophical community. Why does he need to remind himself and others of that?

I say click. Just so you guys remember that water is wet and cows go moo. Because I don't think you guys can remember stuff like that.

[Flannel Jesus]

Everyone knows that there is no consensus about that in the scientific community, and there is hardly any consensus about anything in the philosophical community. Why does he need to remind himself and others of that?

I say click. Just so you guys remember that water is wet and cows go moo. Because I don't think you guys can remember stuff like that.

At first I misread your name, and I was going to say, wow age, very astute of you!

But it's just you Atla, I know you know how to follow a normal conversation haha. For age that would be an accomplishment.

You're obviously right. He spends a lot of time saying awfully little. To understand iambiguous requires you read about a thousand words just for them all to mean, in the end, "there are some things we don't quite know and aren't sure about".

Or he says one single word that means that, but then you have to get through a thousand words to find out that his one single word means that.

[Atla]

Everyone knows that there is no consensus about that in the scientific community, and there is hardly any consensus about anything in the philosophical community. Why does he need to remind himself and others of that?

I say click. Just so you guys remember that water is wet and cows go moo. Because I don't think you guys can remember stuff like that.

At first I misread your name, and I was going to say, wow age, very astute of you!

But it's just you Atla, I know you know how to follow a normal conversation haha. For age that would be an accomplishment.

You're obviously right. He spends a lot of time saying awfully little. To understand iambiguous requires you read about a thousand words just for them all to mean, in the end, "there are some things we don't quite know and aren't sure about".

Or he says one single word that means that, but then you have to get through a thousand words to find out that his one single word means that.

Also, age would have gently reminded you of the fact that she is GOD and you are nothing.

[Flannel Jesus]

Everyone knows that there is no consensus about that in the scientific community, and there is hardly any consensus about anything in the philosophical community. Why does he need to remind himself and others of that?

I say click. Just so you guys remember that water is wet and cows go moo. Because I don't think you guys can remember stuff like that.

At first I misread your name, and I was going to say, wow age, very astute of you!

But it's just you Atla, I know you know how to follow a normal conversation haha. For age that would be an accomplishment.

You're obviously right. He spends a lot of time saying awfully little. To understand iambiguous requires you read about a thousand words just for them all to mean, in the end, "there are some things we don't quite know and aren't sure about".

Or he says one single word that means that, but then you have to get through a thousand words to find out that his one single word means that.

Also, age would have gently reminded you of the fact that she is GOD and you are nothing.

Look at the shit they used to say about me, back in the days when this was written.

[iambiguous]

Meaning what? In simple, normal English terms, what should the reader understand when they read what you wrote here? What should they understand about Atla's post, or what should they understand about your thoughts about Atla's post? Plain English please. No "Rummy's Rule". And please don't tell me what it "Revolves around", just say what it means, what you want the reader to understand.

On the other hand -- click -- when I come across reactions like this, I'm just further convinced that their point really revolves around the assumption that if I truly did understand what others are saying in "normal English terms", I would be saying the same thing.

I don't know where you're getting this tripe from. You're just inventing absolute garbage out of thin air. Who said it "revolves around" that assumption?

That seems like an assumption from you, because it's certainly not mine. I have no idea why you're making that absurd assumption

Unless, of course, he's wrong.