compatibilism

[Atla]

Click.

What subjects? Please.

Your imagined followers, who are generating a million views.

How many men and women do you know who have managed to think themselves into believing...

1] that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that human morality in a No God world revolves largely around a fractured and fragmented assessment of right and wrong rooted existentially in dasein
3] that oblivion is awaiting all of us when we die

Trust me, it's a truly grim, glum, grueling assessment. And I've been trying for years now to bump into someone able to actually convince me that it is entirely unreasonable.

1 and 3 are common, 2 I've only seen expressed from you. But what did you write this in response to? You don't know of course.

Again, I'm not asking for "corrections" regarding all 10 to 15 mistakes you claim I've made. Just, say, the top three?

You can start with the top 1: your compatibilism thread has been going on for 400+ pages, and yet you still don't know what compatibilism means. You confuse it with libertarian compatibilism / agent-causal libertarianism or something like that, you've been strawmanning everything for years now. You are unable to learn even this much.

You probably even misunderstand what "you still don't know what compatibilism means" means.

Same thing. High hopes pertaining to what? That I would come around to their own conclusions regarding meaning, morality and metaphysics?

No, I didn't say that in any way. Are you ok?

Then those here who actually do believe that, pertaining to autonomy, how they grasp the brain right now is, in fact, what all rational men and women will believe even ten thousand years from now. In fact, some will even insist that they'll be following all of this from...Heaven? Nirvana? Vahalla? Paradise? the happy hunting grounds?

Name "those here" who believe this, I'm listening. I don't remember anyone claiming this ten thousand years nonsense. I certainly don't, so why are you even telling me this?

Click.

Over and again, it's not what we conceive or fail to conceive here, but, in my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind, the extent to which philosophical arguments about either human perception or conception can stand alone without the scientific method or can, in fact, outshine it?

Wtf are you replying to, where did I say that our philosophical arguments should stand alone without the scientific method? I said no such thing in any way shape or form.

Also, one way for sure to embody this...

"...bound to forever misunderstand what people are talking about, bound to make mistakes like the above."

...is in a world that unfolds given the only possible reality.

If, perhaps, everything is bound together naturally, inherently, necessarily such that we really are but nature's own automatons.

What are you replying to? That's not the relevant context. Most people don't have your deficiencies in the theory of mind/empathy, and in understanding context, even when there is only one possible reality. (Also, determinism doesn't even necessarily mean that there is only one possible reality, it means that there is only one possible reality from our perspective.)

Now let's get back to this...

To get "back" there, we would need to have been there once already, after having agreed to go there and do that. Another thing you don't understand or pretend not to understand.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here, of course, I can only come back to this...





Otherwise, if it doesn't embarrass them to post Stooge Stuff like the above, it doesn't embarrass me to suggest that they ought to be.

Unless, of course, in regard to the human brain, one of them is able to link their own philosophical assessment of compatibilism to that which brain scientists are in fact able to confirm.

Speculum to biggiboy: What the hell is this mess?

Well, click, if I do say so myself, after you stop wiggling, you'll choose a conflicting good of particular importance to you, and we can explore [existentially] just how messy these exchanges can really become.

WTF is "click" supposed to mean today?

The other day you wrote that

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.

Homosexual leopard to iambigboypants: click click motherfucker, click click.

[Atla]

Everyone knows that moral debates can get messy, why do we have to rediscover this fact under the inept guidance of iambig?

[attofishpi]

How many men and women do you know who have managed to think themselves into believing...

1] that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that human morality in a No God world revolves largely around a fractured and fragmented assessment of right and wrong rooted existentially in dasein
3] that oblivion is awaiting all of us when we die

Trust me, it's a truly grim, glum, grueling assessment. And I've been trying for years now to bump into someone able to actually convince me that it is entirely unreasonable.

1 and 3 are common, 2 I've only seen expressed from you. But what did you write this in response to? You don't know of course.

Surely, 1 and 3 are only common from the POV of sad gits?

Here's a sage stance:

1) human existence is essentially meaningful and has purpose when you focus on what is essential to being human, happiness.
2) human morality were GOD not to exist is reflected upon what is the greater good within social bonds, especially concerns of family and children.
3) eternal peace MAY be waiting for all of us when we die

[iambiguous]

Click.

What subjects? Please.

Your imagined followers, who are generating a million views.

Followers?! Who would want to follow someone who has convinced himself...

1] that my own existence [and human existence itself] is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that human morality in a No God world revolves largely around a fractured and fragmented assessment of right and wrong rooted existentially in dasein.
3] that oblivion is awaiting all of us when we die

On the contrary, I will be ever indebted to anyone able to nudge me up out of this ghastly fucking hole I'm in.

As for views, no one takes them seriously anymore. Why? Because PN was inundated  with bots for weeks on end.  One week a while back, for example, this thread had over 34,000 views. In just one week!

As for your own take on them...

1 and 3 are common, 2 I've only seen expressed from you. But what did you write this in response to? You don't know of course.

No, 1 and 3 are not common at all. On the contrary, any number of these folks... 

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

...will dispute them vigorously.

As for 2, even given free will, my own moral philosophy often disturbs the moral objectivists among us. In fact, I suspect that their reaction to me revolves less around my being wrong and more around the fact that bit by bit they are becoming concerned that I may well be right. And that my own conclusions above may well be applicable to them as well.

Extrapolated from nearly 25 years of posting in philosophy venues online.

Again, I'm not asking for "corrections" regarding all 10 to 15 mistakes you claim I've made. Just, say, the top three?

You can start with the top 1: your compatibilism thread has been going on for 400+ pages, and yet you still don't know what compatibilism means. You confuse it with libertarian compatibilism / agent-causal libertarianism or something like that, you've been strawmanning everything for years now. You are unable to learn even this much.

No, no, no. I was accused of misunderstanding points raised by the author Philip Badger above. What were the most egregious blunders on my part here? And what would be the correct  interpretations?

Anyway, here we go again. There is apparently one and only one correct way in which to define the meaning of compatibilism. Philosophically, for example. On the other hand, one merely needs to assume that the act of defining something in and of itself is done of one's own volition. 

Also, given your own definition of compatibilism, note how it impacts the behaviours you choose. Like posting here. 

Then those here who actually do believe that, pertaining to autonomy, how they grasp the brain right now is, in fact, what all rational men and women will believe even ten thousand years from now. In fact, some will even insist that they'll be following all of this from...Heaven? Nirvana? Vahalla? Paradise? the happy hunting grounds?

Name "those here" who believe this, I'm listening. I don't remember anyone claiming this ten thousand years nonsense. I certainly don't, so why are you even telling me this?

Look, you post here claiming that I'm wrong in regard to compatibilism. Which seems to suggest that there is in fact a right definition and a right meaning.

But here's the thing: over and over again I note the odds my own assessment of compatibilism being correct is remote. Unimaginably remote going all the way back to the explanation for the existence of existence. The parts, in other words, that we don't even know that we don't even know. But the meaning, morality and metaphysical objectivists among us --  God and No God --  need to believe that how they understand the world philosophically is absolutely correct. 

Click.

Over and again, it's not what we conceive or fail to conceive here, but, in my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind, the extent to which philosophical arguments about either human perception or conception can stand alone without the scientific method or can, in fact, outshine it?

Wtf are you replying to, where did I say that our philosophical arguments should stand alone without the scientific method? I said no such thing in any way shape or form.

Someone above made this point. If it wasn't you though, you're right. 
Well, click, of course.

Also, one way for sure to embody this...

"...bound to forever misunderstand what people are talking about, bound to make mistakes like the above."

...is in a world that unfolds given the only possible reality.

If, perhaps, everything is bound together naturally, inherently, necessarily such that we really are but nature's own automatons.

What are you replying to? That's not the relevant context.

 

For some, it's the only context. Either the human brain evolved such that God or No God we acquired autonomy or we didn't. Then back to the part where philosophers and scientists have been grappling with pinning it down for thousands of years. 

Though, sure, if anyone here has come across a source that convinces them a consensus has been found establishing the whole truth about the human brain here, please link me to it.

[Atla]

Followers?! Who would want to follow someone who has convinced himself...

1] that my own existence [and human existence itself] is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that human morality in a No God world revolves largely around a fractured and fragmented assessment of right and wrong rooted existentially in dasein.
3] that oblivion is awaiting all of us when we die

On the contrary, I will be ever indebted to anyone able to nudge me up out of this ghastly fucking hole I'm in.

As for views, no one takes them seriously anymore. Why? Because PN was inundated with bots for weeks on end. One week a while back, for example, this thread had over 34,000 views. In just one week!

As for your own take on them...

No, 1 and 3 are not common at all. On the contrary, any number of these folks...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

...will dispute them vigorously.

As for 2, even given free will, my own moral philosophy often disturbs the moral objectivists among us. In fact, I suspect that their reaction to me revolves less around my being wrong and more around the fact that bit by bit they are becoming concerned that I may well be right. And that my own conclusions above may well be applicable to them as well.

Extrapolated from nearly 25 years of posting in philosophy venues online.

Ah you actually realized that those are just bot hits, not your followers? And again, most people aren't fractured and fragmented, that's not common. I don't care about the hole you're in, nor about your gripe with objectivists.

No, no, no. I was accused of misunderstanding points raised by the author Philip Badger above. What were the most egregious blunders on my part here? And what would be the correct interpretations?

Anyway, here we go again. There is apparently one and only one correct way in which to define the meaning of compatibilism. Philosophically, for example. On the other hand, one merely needs to assume that the act of defining something in and of itself is done of one's own volition.

Also, given your own definition of compatibilism, note how it impacts the behaviours you choose. Like posting here.

Look, you post here claiming that I'm wrong in regard to compatibilism. Which seems to suggest that there is in fact a right definition and a right meaning.

But here's the thing: over and over again I note the odds my own assessment of compatibilism being correct is remote. Unimaginably remote going all the way back to the explanation for the existence of existence. The parts, in other words, that we don't even know that we don't even know. But the meaning, morality and metaphysical objectivists among us -- God and No God -- need to believe that how they understand the world philosophically is absolutely correct.

No, I didn't accuse you of misunderstanding Philip Badger, I've no idea who that is.

You seem to be autistic and self-absorbed enough to not understand that words like sun, water, compatibilism etc. have common meanings that people agree on, so they can communicate. That's how "language" works. Since you've been talking to yourself all your life, you don't know what communication is.

The last 400 pages weren't about people trying to convince you what the correct, true, proven version of compatibilism is, but trying to make you comprehend what the word, category "compatibilism" means.

I don't have "my own" definition. You also don't understand that this isn't about volition or lack thereof.

[iambiguous]

Of course, we'll have to run this by the Libertarians first, won't we? Then the Objectivists? They can come in here and argue for Libertarian free will [and even "metaphysical morality"] and those of your ilk can go about accumulating their mistakes?

First off start with the scientists since you have already brought it up, is it or is it not the consensus of science that there is no libertarian free-will?

Anyone here -- click -- actually know what the breakdown is? Besides, even if there is a consensus one way or another, how would it be demonstrated that this too is not but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality? 

You, Atla and FJ explore what each other gets right or wrong regarding compatibilism. Or do all of you believe exactly the same thing about it? No mistakes at all between you?

You don't think it's possible to come up with a set of basic facts about compatibilism? Based on what has been written about compatibilism over the centuries?

Okay, let that be the subject. The three of you can note what this set of basic facts is. Then, given a particular set of circumstances, you can note how your own assessments are applicable existentially. See if there are any significant disagreements. That way, perhaps, we can note how philosophers are supposed to handle such things.

Who says that different people can't disagree on some aspects of compatibilism? Who says that everyone's beliefs have to be identical?

That's true, of course. But the accusations leveled at me by some here are particularly caustic. Go ahead, check out the posts on this thread over the past few days: 

"How about this, you fuck off until you've replied to the earlier comments. Show that you have any business commenting on a philosophy forum."

"Let it be known that here, before the thousands of imagined followers of iambig, he was incapable of fixing the 10-15 mistakes he made, he proved again that he has no business commenting on a philosophy forum. He tried to go ahead and asked us things instead, hoping to bury this little problem and tried and failed to make us look bad, but he has already shown that he has no idea what he's actually asking us and would have no ability to make sense of our responses. How thoroughly embarrassing.   But some people are just shameless, well, what can we do?"

"I don't know where you're getting this tripe from. You're just inventing absolute garbage out of thin air."

"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."

"You seem to be dedicating your existence to the pursuit of banality now."

"Click click, motherfucker. Click click".

"How about this, you fuck off until you've replied to the earlier comments. Show that you have any business commenting on a philosophy forum."

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

"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."

"Compatibilism is about people's psychology, which more or less looks like gibberish to you."

"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."

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

"What does all this have to do with my joke about your idiotic, self-important paranoia and inferiority complex?"

"Homosexual leopard to iambigboypants: click click motherfucker, click click."

I mean, heck, I don't call them Stooges for nothing.

As for historians -- click -- they might actually agree regarding historical facts, but where is the consensus regarding what those facts convey in regard to rational or irrational value judgments?

That's moving the goal posts from knowledge to value judgements.

That's my point though. In the either/or world, facts are facts are facts for everyone. In the is/ought world, however, what is in fact true for all of us in regard to conflicting goods?

How are your own value judgments not derived existentially from dasein?

Who said they are not?

Well, are they? And, of course, that just brings me back around to this:  

I still have no understanding of how God and religion function for you here in this regard. Do you believe that you have a God-given soul? Is God the font you fall back on in regard to autonomy?

So, using the tools at their disposal, what has the philosophical community definitively concluded regarding those who claim that compatibilism and determinism are, well, compatible.

Compatibilism is a version of determinism. IOW, compatibilism is determinism with a specific concept of will.

Okay, note how that is applicable for all practical purposes given the behaviors you choose.

Again, from my frame of mind "here and now", that is nothing short of...ridiculous? preposterous? harebrained? risible? On the other hand, I have no capacity -- scientific, philosophical, theological -- to actually demonstrate it. So, sure, it might well be smack dab in the bullseye philosophically. And, if it is, congratulations. Maybe at the next APA convention, this will be confirmed as, indeed, the One True Path to grasping compatibilism.

Are you saying that there is no consensus that human knowledge is limited and not complete?

Some individuals, groups and organizations are claiming omniscience?

Tell that to the objectivists here. God or No God. 

[iambiguous]

Followers?! Who would want to follow someone who has convinced himself...

1] that my own existence [and human existence itself] is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that human morality in a No God world revolves largely around a fractured and fragmented assessment of right and wrong rooted existentially in dasein.
3] that oblivion is awaiting all of us when we die

On the contrary, I will be ever indebted to anyone able to nudge me up out of this ghastly fucking hole I'm in.

As for views, no one takes them seriously anymore. Why? Because PN was inundated  with bots for weeks on end.  One week a while back, for example, this thread had over 34,000 views. In just one week!

As for your own take on them...

No, 1 and 3 are not common at all. On the contrary, any number of these folks...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

...will dispute them vigorously.

As for 2, even given free will, my own moral philosophy often disturbs the moral objectivists among us. In fact, I suspect that their reaction to me revolves less around my being wrong and more around the fact that bit by bit they are becoming concerned that I may well be right. And that my own conclusions above may well be applicable to them as well.

Extrapolated from nearly 25 years of posting in philosophy venues online.

Ah, you actually realized that those are just bot hits, not your followers? And again, most people aren't fractured and fragmented, that's not common. I don't care about the hole you're in, nor about your gripe with objectivists.

Wow.

I posted all of the above and this is how you respond to it?! 

Note to others:

Just out of curiosity, though, let me know if you are following me here. Also, to the extent that you are not at all in the hole I am in, please, by all means, note the points I raise in my signature threads which, given a particular context, are not at all applicable to you.

No, no, no. I was accused of misunderstanding points raised by the author Philip Badger above. What were the most egregious blunders on my part here? And what would be the correct  interpretations?

Anyway, here we go again. There is apparently one and only one correct way in which to define the meaning of compatibilism. Philosophically, for example. On the other hand, one merely needs to assume that the act of defining something in and of itself is done of one's own volition.

Also, given your own definition of compatibilism, note how it impacts the behaviours you choose. Like posting here.

Look, you post here claiming that I'm wrong in regard to compatibilism. Which seems to suggest that there is in fact a right definition and a right meaning.

But here's the thing: over and over again I note the odds my own assessment of compatibilism being correct is remote. Unimaginably remote going all the way back to the explanation for the existence of existence. The parts, in other words, that we don't even know that we don't even know. But the meaning, morality and metaphysical objectivists among us --  God and No God --  need to believe that how they understand the world philosophically is absolutely correct.

No, I didn't accuse you of misunderstanding Philip Badger, I've no idea who that is.

Okay. 

How about this then: 

From now on, given additional posts from me on this thread, whenever you come upon another one of my mistakes, please bring it to our attention and then correct it. 

But then straight back around to the Stooge Stuff. In other words, making this all about me personally.

You seem to be autistic and self-absorbed enough to not understand that words like sun, water, compatibilism etc. have common meanings that people agree on, so they can communicate. That's how "language" works. Since you've been talking to yourself all your life, you don't know what communication is.

Click, of course.

The last 400 pages weren't about people trying to convince you what the correct, true, proven version of compatibilism is, but trying to make you comprehend what the word, category "compatibilism" means.

Note to anyone:

If you subscribe to the above, how would you go about explaining to others how it is applicable to your own day to day social, political and economic interactions with others.

I don't have "my own" definition. You also don't understand that this isn't about volition or lack thereof

Okay, but is there a definition that virtually all philosophers subscribe to? Then the the part where the definition itself is taken down out of the didactic clouds and intertwined in actual human interactions that revolve around conflicting goods.

[Atla]

Okay, but is there a definition that virtually all philosophers subscribe to?

Human communication doesn't require that virtually everyone / every philopher subscribe to a definition. There will always be some who won't, for whatever reason. Those people will suck at communication. Those people usually get ignored. There, you learned something new again.

Then the the part where the definition itself is taken down out of the didactic clouds and intertwined in actual human interactions that revolve around conflicting goods.

Actually, non-autistic people don't perceive definitions to be up there in the didactic clouds, instead, they automatically use them all the time as part of everyday communication.

[phyllo]

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 2:29 am

Of course, we'll have to run this by the Libertarians first, won't we? Then the Objectivists? They can come in here and argue for Libertarian free will [and even "metaphysical morality"] and those of your ilk can go about accumulating their mistakes?

First off start with the scientists since you have already brought it up, is it or is it not the consensus of science that there is no libertarian free-will?

Anyone here -- click -- actually know what the breakdown is? Besides, even if there is a consensus one way or another, how would it be demonstrated that this too is not but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

So the first question suggests that you are interested in the scientific consensus. ("what the breakdown is?")

And the second question suggests that you don't care or that you will dismiss the answer. ("Besides, even if there is a consensus one way or another, how would it be demonstrated that this too is not but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?")

Typical.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 28, 2025 9:29 pm
You don't think it's possible to come up with a set of basic facts about compatibilism? Based on what has been written about compatibilism over the centuries?

Okay, let that be the subject. The three of you can note what this set of basic facts is. Then, given a particular set of circumstances, you can note how your own assessments are applicable existentially. See if there are any significant disagreements. That way, perhaps, we can note how philosophers are supposed to handle such things.

IOW, you're not interested in knowing the basic facts. You're interested in how individuals' "assessments are applicable existentially".

The actual facts are irrelevant?

But the accusations leveled at me by some here are particularly caustic. Go ahead, check out the posts on this thread over the past few days:

Two reasons for this come to mind.

This place, PN, is full of personal attacks.

You have a number of annoying personal posting habits.

I know, nobody needs to read or respond to your stuff. But that just lets you spread your misinformation freely. Some impressionable person might believe that your nonsense is true. And then catastrophe

As for historians -- click -- they might actually agree regarding historical facts, but where is the consensus regarding what those facts convey in regard to rational or irrational value judgments?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 28, 2025 9:29 pm
That's moving the goal posts from knowledge to value judgements.

That's my point though. In the either/or world, facts are facts are facts for everyone. In the is/ought world, however, what is in fact true for all of us in regard to conflicting goods?

That can't be your point because the conversation was about philosophy and science and The Gap and Rummy's Rules ... nothing was said about value judgements until you arbitrarily stuck it in. IOW, you just changed the subject from The Gap and Rummy's Rules to facts and value judgements.
Intentionally or you are not even aware of doing these things?

Who knows.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 28, 2025 9:29 pm
Compatibilism is a version of determinism. IOW, compatibilism is determinism with a specific concept of will.

Okay, note how that is applicable for all practical purposes given the behaviors you choose.

Am I right or am I wrong?

You can't admit that compatibilism is a version of determinism?

You don't know? You don't care?

Instead I'm supposed to jabber about how this fact is applicable to my behaviors?

Are you saying that there is no consensus that human knowledge is limited and not complete?

Some individuals, groups and organizations are claiming omniscience?

Tell that to the objectivists here. God or No God.

There are objectivists who are claiming to be omniscient? Who? Where?

[iambiguous]

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

Lots of people aren’t going to like that conclusion [above], but it’s the same one that the political philosopher John Rawls came to: that the rich and powerful owe their position to luck rather than merit.

Of course: luck and merit here are interchangeable. Or so say the hardcore determinists. If everything we think, feel, intuit, say and do is a necessary part of the only possible reality, what does it really matter if the ruling class says it's merit, while many others insist it's luck.

On the other hand, "if" here revolves around one of the most fascinating -- exasperating? -- of all the philosophical antinomies. Once we venture far enough out onto the Big Questions metaphysical branch, for instance. In other words, all the things we do not even know that we do not even know yet regarding the interaction of the very, very small QM world and the very, very large multiverse?

Fitting the human brain in here...somewhere, somehow, some day?

Yet even some hard-headed materialists such as Daniel C. Dennett find this idea so unpalatable that they resort to feeble attempts to rescue the idea of merit – for instance, in terms of the ‘grit’ necessary to overcome adversity; as if ‘grit’ is itself not a product of the same genetic and environmental factors.

Uh, true grit, Pilgrim?

On the other hand, how feeble?

Though this basically encompasses much of my own frame of mind here. Still, many will insist that genes must prevail here. Memes, they sniff, are for sissies.

Then the part where, given some measure of free will [and particular contexts], "grit" is understood in conflicting ways. Morally and politically, for example. Thus, "courage and resolve" given what particular situation?

Even less impressive are arguments which attempt to recover a space for free will by claims about ‘complexity’ (the fact that we can’t understand what the causes of a particular event are is no argument for it not being caused), or about quantum indeterminism (if quantum effects are occurring in the brain, this suggests randomness rather than responsibility). As Sapolsky suggests, even if we decide, as so-called ‘property dualists’ do, that consciousness is ‘simply’ an emergent property of brain activity, this is no argument that it is not an entirely determined result of it.."

Then the part where existence itself emerged? Out of nothing at all? Then stars and planets emerged. Then biological matter emerged. Then the evolution of biological life into conscious matter, evolving eventually into self-conscious matter...us.

I mean, what's not already understood entirely about all that?

[iambiguous]

Okay, but is there a definition that virtually all philosophers subscribe to?

Human communication doesn't require that virtually everyone / every philospher subscribe to a definition. There will always be some who won't, for whatever reason. Those people will suck at communication. Those people usually get ignored. There, you learned something new again.

All I know is that down through the years, I have encountered any number of philosophers who insisted that before we can discuss things like meaning, morality and metaphysics, we must first agree on the meaning of the words used in the argument itself. Define this and define that, in other words.
 
Me, I'm considerably more interested in intertwining words and worlds here. In other words, taking the definition and the meaning we give to words like determinism, free will and compatibilism, and noting how for all practical purposes they have become embedded in the behaviors that we choose.

And it's one thing to suck at communication regarding things that are true for all of us, but pertaining to meaning, morality and metaphysics, communication breakdowns often become the rule. Especially in a day and age bursting at the seams with all manner of turbulence and turmoil. 

The world we live in today obviously. Thus...

Then the the part where the definition itself is taken down out of the didactic clouds and intertwined in actual human interactions that revolve around conflicting goods.

Actually, non-autistic people don't perceive definitions to be up there in the didactic clouds, instead, they automatically use them all the time as part of everyday communication.

Click?

More to the point, what evidence is there that allows us to know definitively the extent to which human interactions are either autonomous or autonomic. And then either more or less or one or the other.

[Atla]

All I know is that down through the years, I have encountered any number of philosophers who insisted that before we can discuss things like meaning, morality and metaphysics, we must first agree on the meaning of the words used in the argument itself. Define this and define that, in other words.

Me, I'm considerably more interested in intertwining words and worlds here. In other words, taking the definition and the meaning we give to words like determinism, free will and compatibilism, and noting how for all practical purposes they have become embedded in the behaviors that we choose.

And it's one thing to suck at communication regarding things that are true for all of us, but pertaining to meaning, morality and metaphysics, communication breakdowns often become the rule. Especially in a day and age bursting at the seams with all manner of turbulence and turmoil.

The world we live in today obviously. Thus...

You've never communicated with anyone in your life and never will, so you don't understand that people agree on definitions first so that they can then effectively communicate with each other.

You also don't seem to understand that definitions rather describe our behaviours than drive them, and your "intertwining words and worlds" is either something people are already doing or gibberish, it's moot. Whatever it is you're considerable more interested in here, is a rather moot point to most people.

Click?

More to the point, what evidence is there that allows us to know definitively the extent to which human interactions are either autonomous or autonomic. And then either more or less or one or the other.

I made no such point. To me, all your threads are like 1/3 philosophy (and you can say nothing new on free will vs determinism) and 2/3 about autism combined with a strange kind of self-absorption, I was talking about the latter.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Can anyone point to an instance of free will here?

[Flannel Jesus]

Can anyone point to an instance of free will here?

If there's free will at all, then an instance would be you choosing to write and submit that post.