compatibilism

[Martin Peter Clarke]

How fragile we are.

[phyllo]

What could possibly be more crucial in regard to human interactions than pinning down whether the interactions themselves are of our own free will or, instead, merely reflect nature's automatons embodying only that which they [we] could never have not embodied.

What would "pinning it down" change?

Nothing.

Everyone would go about making decisions exactly the same way that they had before it was "pinned down".

It's not like you have an option to do something about it. It's not like finding out something that you have control over, maybe that "smoking causes cancer" so you can decide to cut down to reduce your risk.

What are you going to do if you find out that determinism is absolutely certainly true? Sit around depressed that you have no control over your life?

[Atla]

And that's assuming that it can be pinned down in only 4-dimensional thinking, which people use in like 99.999% of their interactions. I don't think it can be.

[iambiguous]

As far as I can tell, no one here other than you has a fractured and fragmented philosophy. Or rather philosophies, fractured and fragmented implies plural I guess. Why would they be sinking in?

No, not a fractured and fragmented philosophy. I am not an epistemic nihilist. The fractured and fragmented/drawn and quartered components revolve instead around conflicting goods. I am a moral nihilist.

And for those here who are not, I ask them to note how their own moral philosophy manages to avoid that. In other words, given the points I note here in the OP -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989 -- how are their own moral convictions derived differently?

Autists can be really bad at handling ambiguity. Just look at Kant. When an autist does go (i) ambiguous, he might think that the world is ending. But actually a lot of non-autistic people have always been fairly good at handling some uncertainty, no big deal for them.

Of course, in reality any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

..."handle some uncertainty" by insisting that they and they alone have either invented or discovered the One True Path to Enlightenment.

Just ask them.

It's still totally unclear what you mean. Are you broken because you can't find a stable, good moral philosophy for yourself, or are you broken because finding a stable, good moral philosophy for yourself is still not enough as the world goes to hell anyway?

Why I think of myself as fractured and fragmented/drawn and quartered in regard to conflicting value judgments revolves around the points I raise in the OPs here:


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

Then I ask the moral objectivists among us to note how and why their own moral philosophy was/is derived from an entirely different set of assumptions.

Then I ask them to provide us with solid evidence that the assumptions they've accumulated are reflections of their own real deal autonomy.

[phyllo]

The AI overlords say :

In philosophy, autonomy generally refers to the capacity for self-governance or self-determination. It signifies the ability to make one's own decisions and act on them without undue external influence. This concept is central to moral, political, and bioethical discussions, often involving the capacity to form one's own beliefs and act according to them.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Self-Governance:
Autonomy implies a state of being directed by one's own reasons, values, and desires, rather than external pressures or dictates.

Rationality:
Autonomous individuals are often seen as capable of making informed and rational decisions.
Moral Autonomy:
In moral philosophy, autonomy relates to the capacity to give oneself moral laws and act according to them, rather than simply following external rules or authorities.
Political Autonomy:
In a political context, autonomy can refer to a state's sovereignty or the independence of a government or organization.
Respect for Autonomy:
A core principle in ethics and bioethics, respect for autonomy emphasizes the importance of individuals making their own choices about their lives and bodies.
Not Absolute Freedom:
Autonomy doesn't mean the right to do absolutely anything. It's often understood within the context of moral and legal frameworks.

Sounds like compatibilism meets the 'autonomy' requirements.

Check mark.

[iambiguous]

Everything. What you posted above is your justification for continuing to read more and more and more (but actually pay attention to what you're reading less and less and less) about an idea you already know you've rejected. There's no words that are going to shift you on compatibilism. Do you understand that? So why are you still endlessly reading about it?

Besides, what you said above is full of your usual meaningless tripe. I'd have to dissect every sentence to try to find just a little bit of meaning and I just ... don't want to haha. Like even the first sentence is poop:

What could possibly be more crucial in regard to human interactions than pinning down whether the interactions themselves are of our own free will or, instead, merely reflect nature's automatons embodying only that which they [we] could never have not embodied.

What the fuck is all this shit? Why do you write so many words to say so little? The whole second half of the sentence, after 'pinning down', can just be shortened to: "pinning down whether humans have free will". You just write and write and write, so goofy. And you don't even explain why it's "crucial in regard to human interactions". You just say it like it's obvious. What's crucial about it? And if it is crucial, why does that justify your endless quest to understand compatilbism?

If it's crucial to pin down that shit... well, then you should look somewhere else, because you haven't pinned it down in your reading about compatibilism. So... go read something else. Go read something that has a chance of helping you pin it down, right? If it's crucial, put some REAL effort in.

You're stuck with that and I'm stuck with this:

What could possibly be more crucial in regard to human interactions than pinning down whether the interactions themselves are of our own free will or, instead, merely reflect nature's automatons embodying only that which they [we] could never have not embodied.

And, yeah, a lot of men and women will reject the points I raise because they don't find them appealing. The "how can you think like that!" folks who assume, what, that if an idea makes them feel too uncomfortable or disturbs them greatly, it can't possibly reflect the sort of Wisdom that philosophy is supposed to provide us?

Come on -- click -- why on earth do philosophers choose to go out to the very end of the metaphysical limb? Because those of our ilk are ever and always fascinated with The Big Questions:

* Why does something exist instead of nothing?
* Why this something and not something else?
* Where does the human condition fit into the whole understanding of this particular something itself?
* What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
* What of determinism?
* What of the multiverse?
* What of God?

And yet after thousands of years, what have philosophers concluded regarding them?

Again, it's not whether I reject it, get over it and move on. It's how philosophers, in using the tools at their disposal, would go about demonstrating definitively whether this was done either autonomously of my own volition or autonomically for whatever reason nature itself compels matter to behave.

In a No God universe, does nature possess a teleological component? Or does the "brute facticity" of an essentially meaningless existence best describe things?

You know, for now.

Also, please explain to me once again why you continue to read that which you construe to be meaningless tripe. Perhaps you are compelled to.

[iambiguous]

And, yeah, a lot of men and women will reject the points I raise because they don't find them appealing. The "how can you think like that!" folks who assume, what, that if an idea makes them feel too uncomfortable or disturbs them greatly, it can't possibly reflect the sort of Wisdom that philosophy is supposed to provide us?

This is funny iambiguous. You know why it's funny? BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK ANYTHING YOU MORON.

You don't ever say what you think is true. Nobody even knows what you think. You're such a waffley little weasel that you don't even have thoughts. You weasel around your words so much, and most of your words are just various ways of saying "we aren't sure of things, we all have unique reasons for our beliefs", right? Dasein, Rummy's Rule - you've invented a whole vocabulary to talk about ignorance.

You think that makes people feel uncomfortable? Your ignorance disturbs people?

Maybe it does. Maybe your ignorance really does disturb people.

Nature to Flannel Jesus:

Absolutely shameless!!!

Well, unless, of course, it's wrong.

[iambiguous]

What could possibly be more crucial in regard to human interactions than pinning down whether the interactions themselves are of our own free will or, instead, merely reflect nature's automatons embodying only that which they [we] could never have not embodied.

What would "pinning it down" change?

Nothing.

Everyone would go about making decisions exactly the same way that they had before it was "pinned down".

It's not like you have an option to do something about it. It's not like finding out something that you have control over, maybe that "smoking causes cancer" so you can decide to cut down to reduce your risk.

What are you going to do if you find out that determinism is absolutely certainly true? Sit around depressed that you have no control over your life?

Back to Mary and Jane.

In a No God and wholly determined universe, Mary aborts Jane. Period. Jane is shredded. She could never have not been.

On the other hand, in a world where "somehow" human brains did acquire autonomy -- God or No God -- Mary's friend convinces her not to abort Jane. And, of her own free will, she gives birth to her.

So, in a wholly determined universe, Jane is toast. And in a world with free will, Jane is now among us. Ask her if nothing changes.

Though, admittedly, I may well be thinking this through incorrectly. And by and large I'm not the one here calling others morons because they don't think as I do about compatibilism. On the contrary, as I point out over and again, the odds that my own assessment here is correct is numbingly remote. Just like yours is, I suspect.

On the other hand: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+sci ... e&ie=UTF-8

"We are all made of atoms, the same atoms as the rest of the universe. Our bodies are primarily made up of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Calcium and Phosphorus. But these are the exact same atoms as the rest of the universe! They’re the same atoms that make up planets, and galaxies, and the sun, and everything else. Every one of those atoms is made up of still more fundamental entities, namely electrons, protons and neutrons. And, protons and neutrons are made up of still more fundamental entities called quarks and gluons. So, at bottom our bodies are made up of electrons, quarks and gluons. But here’s the thing: every one of those fundamental particles is obeying precise mathematical laws, which we have discovered over the last 100 years.

So if every single entity that makes up our body is following precise mathematical laws, then in what sense do we have free will?

That is what my book is about."


I'll try again:

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?

[Atla]

No, not a fractured and fragmented philosophy. I am not an epistemic nihilist. The fractured and fragmented/drawn and quartered components revolve instead around conflicting goods. I am a moral nihilist.

And for those here who are not, I ask them to note how their own moral philosophy manages to avoid that. In other words, given the points I note here in the OP -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989 -- how are their own moral convictions derived differently?



Of course, in reality any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

..."handle some uncertainty" by insisting that they and they alone have either invented or discovered the One True Path to Enlightenment.

Just ask them.

It's still totally unclear what you mean. Are you broken because you can't find a stable, good moral philosophy for yourself, or are you broken because finding a stable, good moral philosophy for yourself is still not enough as the world goes to hell anyway?

Why I think of myself as fractured and fragmented/drawn and quartered in regard to conflicting value judgments revolves around the points I raise in the OPs here:


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

Then I ask the moral objectivists among us to note how and why their own moral philosophy was/is derived from an entirely different set of assumptions.

Then I ask them to provide us with solid evidence that the assumptions they've accumulated are reflections of their own real deal autonomy.

I see nothing in your three OPs explaining why/how you're fractured and fragmented. Do you mean that as an autist you feel fractured and fragmented when you realize that there are multiple conflicting views on anything? Because that doesn't make us fractured and fragmented.

Also, why do you ask objectivists to provide evidence for their real autonomy, when objectivists can also be determinists?

[Atla]

Back to Mary and Jane.

In a No God and wholly determined universe, Mary aborts Jane. Period. Jane is shredded. She could never have not been.

Unless it was determined that she doesn't abort Jane. Jane lives because of determinism.

On the other hand, in a world where "somehow" human brains did acquire autonomy -- God or No God -- Mary's friend convinces her not to abort Jane. And, of her own free will, she gives birth to her.

Unless she aborts Jane out of her free will. Jane is shredded because of free will.

Though, admittedly, I may well be thinking this through incorrectly. And by and large I'm not the one here calling others morons because they don't think as I do about compatibilism.

Except you are a moron, because "human brains did acquire autonomy" typically isn't called compatibilism. So you aren't thinking about compatibilism, but about something else.

It's like pointing at the Sun and screaming: "EVERYONE MAKES FUN OF ME BECAUSE OF HOW I CONSTRUE THE MEANING OF THAT ROUND YELLOW DOG UP IN THE SKY! WELL THEY COULD BE WRONG ON THAT DOG TOO!"

[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.

Mmm, your list is entirely unreasonable..

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

Comprehende?

[iambiguous]

It's still totally unclear what you mean. Are you broken because you can't find a stable, good moral philosophy for yourself, or are you broken because finding a stable, good moral philosophy for yourself is still not enough as the world goes to hell anyway?

Why I think of myself as fractured and fragmented/drawn and quartered in regard to conflicting value judgments revolves around the points I raise in the OPs here:


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

Then I ask the moral objectivists among us to note how and why their own moral philosophy was/is derived from an entirely different set of assumptions.

Then I ask them to provide us with solid evidence that the assumptions they've accumulated are reflections of their own real deal autonomy.

I see nothing in your three OPs explaining why/how you're fractured and fragmented. Do you mean that as an autist you feel fractured and fragmented when you realize that there are multiple conflicting views on anything? Because that doesn't make us fractured and fragmented.

Really? Nothing at all? How about we focus then on this one: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639 

How was/is your own moral philosophy here derived from an entirely different trajectory...God, ideology, deontology, biological imperatives, otherwise?

Also, my aim here focuses on moral, political and spiritual objectivists. Ask them if they are drawn and quartered in regard to their own One True Path.  

As for my being an autist [often considered offensive by those who are not autistic] is that necessarily true simply because you believe that it is? Or is that just more Stooge Stuff?

Also, why do you ask objectivists to provide evidence for their real autonomy, when objectivists can also be determinists?

No, what I do by and large is to note that until scientists accumulate considerably more knowledge regarding the human brain here, philosophers are generally reduced down to exploring compatibilism in a "world of words". 

And in a world construed by hardcore determinists to be the only possible reality, we are all in the same boat. Whether we endorse determinism, free will or compatibilism what difference does it make if we were never able to opt freely otherwise?

[Atla]

Really? Nothing at all? How about we focus then on this one: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639 

How was/is your own moral philosophy here derived from an entirely different trajectory...God, ideology, deontology, biological imperatives, otherwise?

Also, my aim here focuses on moral, political and spiritual objectivists. Ask them if they are drawn and quartered in regard to their own One True Path.  

As for my being an autist [often considered offensive by those who are not autistic] is that necessarily true simply because you believe that it is? Or is that just more Stooge Stuff?

It remains a mistery what is fractured and fragmented here.

It's also a mistery why you think that I have an entirely different trajectory. For example I've encountered pure evil ("reptilian" psychopath) that was also innocent. I think that shit even goes infinitely beyond your abortion issue.

No, what I do by and large is to note that until scientists accumulate considerably more knowledge regarding the human brain here, philosophers are generally reduced down to exploring compatibilism in a "world of words". 

And in a world construed by hardcore determinists to be the only possible reality, we are all in the same boat. Whether we endorse determinism, free will or compatibilism what difference does it make if we were never able to opt freely otherwise?

Don't be naive, even a perfect mapping of the brain may never fully decide the issue. But it's a mistery how this was a response to the mistery of why you ask objectivists to provide evidence for their real autonomy, which now you misteriously deny doing.

[iambiguous]

Back to Mary and Jane.

In a No God and wholly determined universe, Mary aborts Jane. Period. Jane is shredded. She could never have not been.

Unless it was determined that she doesn't abort Jane. Jane lives because of determinism.

Well, obviously, if we live in a determined universe where she is compelled to give birth, she gives birth. But if we lived in a free will world, a friend could have persuaded her instead not to give birth. 

On the other hand, in a world where "somehow" human brains did acquire autonomy -- God or No God -- Mary's friend convinces her not to abort Jane. And, of her own free will, she gives birth to her.

Unless she aborts Jane out of her free will. Jane is shredded because of free will.

Yes, that's true. But what's crucial [for me] is that with free will, Mary could either be talked into aborting or giving birth.
The thing that puzzles me is how, in a determined world where Mary can never not abort Jane, she is still said to be morally responsible for it. After all, how many here would agree to being held morally responsible for something they were never able not to do?

Then the part where those who do argue that she is morally responsible, argue that only because they themselves were never able not to argue it.

Though, admittedly, I may well be thinking this through incorrectly. And by and large I'm not the one here calling others morons because they don't think as I do about compatibilism.

Except you are a moron, because "human brains did acquire autonomy" typically isn't called compatibilism. So you aren't thinking about compatibilism, but about something else.

"Compatibilists argue that moral responsibility arises from our ability to act according to our desires and reasons, regardless of whether those desires and reasons are themselves determined." AI

Suppose John Doe rapes a child. If his desires and reasons for doing so are themselves determined...? 

It's like pointing at the Sun and screaming: "EVERYONE MAKES FUN OF ME BECAUSE OF HOW I CONSTRUE THE MEANING OF THAT ROUND YELLOW DOG UP IN THE SKY! WELL THEY COULD BE WRONG ON THAT DOG TOO!"

Note to others:

How -- click -- does this make sense to you? Comparing abortion to a "round yellow dog up in the sky?" After all, if that's actually what you make of the Sun, how many people would insist it's immoral? As opposed to say...completely irrational?

[Flannel Jesus]

The thing that puzzles me is how, in a determined world where Mary can never not abort Jane, she is still said to be morally responsible for it. After all, how many here would agree to being held morally responsible for something they were never able not to do?

She's being held responsible for *wanting* to abort Jane enough to act on that want.

If we're in a deterministic world, you can think of humans as decision-making-machines. Now, if a machine is regularly making mistakes, what do you do? You either change it or throw it away. That's... kinda what holding something responsible *means*. Changing it is equivalent to rehabilitating a person, throwing it away is equivalent to locking it up in prison - or of course some mixture of the two options is viable.

You guy why you'd want to change or throw away a malfunctioning machine, right? Does that make sense?