compatibilism

[iambiguous]

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".

Unless, of course, in reminding others [of anything] one is never able not to.

[iambiguous]

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?

I missed that.

Besides, which is more pathetic, posting tripe or reading it?

[iambiguous]

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.

I'm insane, and you keep reading what I post. How preposterous is that? And it's not being a polymath, it's whether or not one becomes one of their own volition.

[iambiguous]

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.

Just for the record: https://youtu.be/Y1CBftRW0F8?si=MO7_2eTmF53Mypz5

[Flannel Jesus]

Okay, so you are precisely as retarded as everyone else already thinks you are. Got it.

I keep on trying to give you a chance to do better, that's obviously very silly of me.

[iambiguous]

Okay, so you are precisely as retarded as everyone else already thinks you are. Got it.

I keep on trying to give you a chance to do better, that's obviously very silly of me.

And don't think I'm not compelled to appreciate it.

[iambiguous]

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

Hard Compatibilism

If you claim, as the modern compatibilist does, that the world is governed by the laws of physical cause and effect and, yet at the same time, that I am responsible for my actions, then you need to find to find some crack in the armour of hard determinism for responsibility to emerge through.

Not really. Here all that seems required is that you sustain an assessment of the human brain up in the philosophical clouds. 

Unless, perhaps, there is a philosopher among us able to demonstrate chemically and neurologically how the human brain functions to give us free will. Step by step as it were. 

As Sapolsky demonstrates, that’s not an easy thing to do. For him, life is essentially about luck, in that who and what we are is the outcome of factors utterly outside of our control. Genetic factors may predispose us to psychopathy, depression, creativity, or compassion, but they do not do so in a vacuum, and environmental factors play a huge role in deciding which of our genetic predispositions are realised in the structure of our brain and the behaviours which follow.

Or utterly beyond our control because our brains do in fact compel us to think, feel, say and do only that which must unfold autonomically given the only possible reality. Then the part where philosophers explain step by step how matter came to exist and how it managed to evolve into biological matter evolving into mindful matter evolving into self-conscious mindful matter.
 
And then how it all fits into a universe -- a multiverse? -- of simply staggering proportions. 

The part the preponderance of men and women around the globe still attribute to God. 

To be specific, if I am well-nurtured, well-nourished, live a life in which others are not a constant source of threat, and don’t imbibe too many neurotoxins, I am likely to end up with good impulse control, because my prefrontal cortex is well-developed and well integrated with my limbic system (these are the areas of the brain which, respectively, think about our responses to the world, and which feel things emotionally). By contrast, poverty, pollution, racism, and other destructive conditions will make my genetic hand much harder to play (even this metaphor grants too much, with the idea that we might ‘choose’ how to play our hand).

As though there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that this could preclude free will. And what does it really mean for all practical purposes to demonstrate it one way or the other? 

In a brilliant passage, Sapolsky asks us to consider the difference between a Harvard Graduate and the guy at the back of the Harvard graduation hall charged with picking up the litter. He argues that in every respect, chance, and nothing but chance, makes the difference between those lives.

Then back to the part whereby, given a wholly determined universe as some necessarily encompass it, no passages can be any more or any less brilliant. Why? Because they are both written and read only as they ever could have been. Thus when compatibilists argue that moral responsibility is in sync with determinism that is only because they were never able to argue otherwise themselves.

It's just that I'm the first to acknowledge this could well be entirely wrong. In other words, I'm the first to acknowledge that I have no way in which to demonstrate that my own frame of mind "here and now" reflects what is really true. I merely suggest in turn that philosophers and scientists have been grappling with it now for thousands of years and have themselves failed to pin it down.

Well, to the best of my knowledge, anyway.

[Atla]

Okay, so you are precisely as retarded as everyone else already thinks you are. Got it.

I keep on trying to give you a chance to do better, that's obviously very silly of me.

The guy has been obsessing for decades over the issue of moral responsibility, yet he can never even comprehend what people mean by moral responsibility, due to his psychological blindness. It's hard to tell what it is that he's actually obsessing about.

[Flannel Jesus]

Okay, so you are precisely as retarded as everyone else already thinks you are. Got it.

I keep on trying to give you a chance to do better, that's obviously very silly of me.

The guy has been obsessing for decades over the issue of moral responsibility, yet he can never even comprehend what people mean by moral responsibility, due to his psychological blindness. It's hard to tell what it is that he's actually obsessing about.

He obsesses over that but he's doesn't actually want to talk about that. Every time he has the opportunity to talk about moral responsibility, instead of talking about it he will bring up click or dasein or Rummys Rule, which I have just recently figured out are all just different ways for him to talk about uncertainty.

You have an idea about compatibilism or moral responsibility? Well instead of talking about that, let's spend the next thousand words talking in the most ambiguous terms about uncertainty.

That's what he really wants to talk about. Idk why he even has a thread about compatibilism when what he really wants to walk about is uncertainty.

Oh yeah, actually I do know why: because he's categorically incapable of communicating clearly. The hint is in his name.

[Belinda]

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

Hard Compatibilism

If you claim, as the modern compatibilist does, that the world is governed by the laws of physical cause and effect and, yet at the same time, that I am responsible for my actions, then you need to find to find some crack in the armour of hard determinism for responsibility to emerge through.

Not really. Here all that seems required is that you sustain an assessment of the human brain up in the philosophical clouds. 

Unless, perhaps, there is a philosopher among us able to demonstrate chemically and neurologically how the human brain functions to give us free will. Step by step as it were. 

As Sapolsky demonstrates, that’s not an easy thing to do. For him, life is essentially about luck, in that who and what we are is the outcome of factors utterly outside of our control. Genetic factors may predispose us to psychopathy, depression, creativity, or compassion, but they do not do so in a vacuum, and environmental factors play a huge role in deciding which of our genetic predispositions are realised in the structure of our brain and the behaviours which follow.

Or utterly beyond our control because our brains do in fact compel us to think, feel, say and do only that which must unfold autonomically given the only possible reality. Then the part where philosophers explain step by step how matter came to exist and how it managed to evolve into biological matter evolving into mindful matter evolving into self-conscious mindful matter.
 
And then how it all fits into a universe -- a multiverse? -- of simply staggering proportions. 

The part the preponderance of men and women around the globe still attribute to God. 

To be specific, if I am well-nurtured, well-nourished, live a life in which others are not a constant source of threat, and don’t imbibe too many neurotoxins, I am likely to end up with good impulse control, because my prefrontal cortex is well-developed and well integrated with my limbic system (these are the areas of the brain which, respectively, think about our responses to the world, and which feel things emotionally). By contrast, poverty, pollution, racism, and other destructive conditions will make my genetic hand much harder to play (even this metaphor grants too much, with the idea that we might ‘choose’ how to play our hand).

As though there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that this could preclude free will. And what does it really mean for all practical purposes to demonstrate it one way or the other? 

In a brilliant passage, Sapolsky asks us to consider the difference between a Harvard Graduate and the guy at the back of the Harvard graduation hall charged with picking up the litter. He argues that in every respect, chance, and nothing but chance, makes the difference between those lives.

Then back to the part whereby, given a wholly determined universe as some necessarily encompass it, no passages can be any more or any less brilliant. Why? Because they are both written and read only as they ever could have been. Thus when compatibilists argue that moral responsibility is in sync with determinism that is only because they were never able to argue otherwise themselves.

It's just that I'm the first to acknowledge this could well be entirely wrong. In other words, I'm the first to acknowledge that I have no way in which to demonstrate that my own frame of mind "here and now" reflects what is really true. I merely suggest in turn that philosophers and scientists have been grappling with it now for thousands of years and have themselves failed to pin it down.

Well, to the best of my knowledge, anyway.

I am a hard determinist who is responsible for her actions because I have been taught since infancy, by significant others and peers, that I must be responsible for my actions.

Humans who have not been taught to be responsible for their actions are sociopaths.
As a hard determinist I also believe that the more I know the more I can understand and forgive myself and others. Freedom is compatible with determinism relative to knowledge and capability to judge.

[Flannel Jesus]

I am a hard determinist who is responsible for her actions because I have been taught since infancy, by significant others and peers, that I must be responsible for my actions.

Humans who have not been taught to be responsible for their actions are sociopaths.
As a hard determinist I also believe that the more I know the more I can understand and forgive myself and others. Freedom is compatible with determinism relative to knowledge and capability to judge.

What makes you a HARD determinist? You say you believe you gave moral responsibility, you also have some kind of freedom - are you sure you're not a compatibilist?

[Belinda]

I am a hard determinist who is responsible for her actions because I have been taught since infancy, by significant others and peers, that I must be responsible for my actions.

Humans who have not been taught to be responsible for their actions are sociopaths.
As a hard determinist I also believe that the more I know the more I can understand and forgive myself and others. Freedom is compatible with determinism relative to knowledge and capability to judge.

What makes you a HARD determinist? You say you believe you gave moral responsibility, you also have some kind of freedom - are you sure you're not a compatibilist?

F Jesus, please read my edited version, above.Our messages crossed in the post. My last sentence that I highlighted in black answers your question.

On second thoughts maybe I should say I am a soft determinist I not sure about that.

[Flannel Jesus]

I am a hard determinist who is responsible for her actions because I have been taught since infancy, by significant others and peers, that I must be responsible for my actions.

Humans who have not been taught to be responsible for their actions are sociopaths.
As a hard determinist I also believe that the more I know the more I can understand and forgive myself and others. Freedom is compatible with determinism relative to knowledge and capability to judge.

What makes you a HARD determinist? You say you believe you gave moral responsibility, you also have some kind of freedom - are you sure you're not a compatibilist?

F Jesus, please read my edited version, above.Our messages crossed in the post. My last sentence that I highlighted in black answers your question.

On second thoughts maybe I should say I am a soft determinist I not sure about that.

Hard determinist, to my understanding, means "determinism and no free will". That's why I was curious how your determinism works with your idea of freedom there.

Hard determinism - Wikipedia https://share.google/UesJd3wRDfeOusNre

But maybe when you say freedom you aren't talking about free will. That's up to you.

This is actually a complex conversation with a lot of nuance. There's quite a lot of views here. It's not just "free will or no free will".

[Belinda]

What makes you a HARD determinist? You say you believe you gave moral responsibility, you also have some kind of freedom - are you sure you're not a compatibilist?

F Jesus, please read my edited version, above.Our messages crossed in the post. My last sentence that I highlighted in black answers your question.

On second thoughts maybe I should say I am a soft determinist I not sure about that.

Hard determinist, to my understanding, means "determinism and no free will". That's why I was curious how your determinism works with your idea of freedom there.

Hard determinism - Wikipedia https://share.google/UesJd3wRDfeOusNre

But maybe when you say freedom you aren't talking about free will. That's up to you.

This is actually a complex conversation with a lot of nuance. There's quite a lot of views here. It's not just "free will or no free will".

If and when I say freedom, I am not talking about so-called "Free Will", which is a religious superstition that serves instead of random guessing . When I say freedom I am talking about free relative to physical, mental, and social constraints. Freedom to think, speak, roam. assemble, believe, worship, disdain, and feel is good and is what education should be aimed at, and is absolutely apart from that version of "Free Will" which holds that there is something non- physical , and ineffable and which is not caused by anything under the sun.

[Flannel Jesus]

If and when I say freedom, I am not talking about so-called "Free Will", which is a religious superstition that serves instead of random guessing . When I say freedom I am talking about free relative to physical, mental, and social constraints. Freedom to think, speak, roam. assemble, believe, worship, disdain, and feel is good and is what education should be aimed at, and is absolutely apart from that version of "Free Will" which holds that there is something non- physical , and ineffable and which is not caused by anything under the sun.

Ah okay, interesting.

And so then the question from many will be, how do you imagine moral responsibility works in a world with no free will? Some people frame free will as "the ability to have done differently", and so no free will means no ability to have done differently and therefore moral responsibility kind of falls apart. If you can't have done differently, how can you be deemed immoral for what you did?