For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
No, moron. We're talkin' about what bein' a meat machine (not bein' a free will, or, lacking free will) means.
phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 12:32 pm Let me offer this example :
As a kid , you were bitten by a snake.
Now as an adult, you make choices so that you avoid coming into contact with snakes.
There isn't some power in the universe that compels you to avoid snakes. Your brain thinks it's a good idea to avoid snakes.
And you may have a future experience which will change your ideas about snakes.
All of this fits in perfectly well with determinism. It is determinism.
Jim is terrified of snakes. Joe hates Jim and locks him in a room filled with deadly vipers.
HIM:iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 4:59 pmNote to others:henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 9:29 pmA wordy way of sayin' Mary, Spittin' Guy, and me had no choice in abortin', spittin', or fulminatin'.But I'm not saying that Mary makes no choices in a wholly determined universe. I'm broaching the surreal assumption that any choices that she or any of us make [including buying and selling bazookas and typing and reading these words] were "somehow" inherently/necessarily embedded in the laws of matter "somehow" evolving into conscious human brains. To even speak of it is fraught with all manner of equally surreal explanations.
You can't have it both ways, moron: if we're not free wills, then we're meat machines.
With this fulminating fanatic objectivist -- "my" take on him -- I always come back to two points that -- click -- he ever and always avoids responding to:
And...All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?
Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.
Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.
Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.
The rest is just him becoming Mr. Snippet. And that's just another way of becoming Mr. Wiggle, Wiggle, Wiggle.On the other hand, he does admit that in the past he has been wrong about things like this. So, sure, by his own admission, he may well be wrong about this too.
If, of course, you are in possession of the autonomy needed to agree or disagree "on your own" with me here.
Though even that is but an existential manifestation of dasein.
Click.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 5:26 pmNo, moron. We're talkin' about what bein' a meat machine (not bein' a free will, or, lacking free will) means.
No one cares about my fulminations or your assessment of my fulminations.
Proving yet again that Nature, like God, works in mysterious ways.
Or, how does human volition itself fit into this:
Here we are as mere mortals reacting to things like abortion as a moral issue. All the conflicting assessments of what is reasonable or logical or epistemologically sound or ethical.All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?
Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.
Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.
Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.
On the contrary, the truly hardcore determinists insist, there is absolutely nothing that we think, feel, say and do that is not wholly subsumed in a wholly determined universe.Sculptor wrote:Easy.iambiguous wrote:Compatibilism
David Agler
There you go. If you are determined by the laws of matter to read these words then you lacked the capacity to opt not to read them. And if that is the case and another lacked the capacity to not insist that not reading them is immoral how could you be held morally responsible for not reading them other than because whoever holds you morally responsible was never able not to..Critics of compatibilism will immediately reject the theory because:
• Freedom implies the capacity to act otherwise
• Determinism seems to exclude the capacity to act otherwise
• Therefore, compatibilism cannot be true.
Let's call this the Argument from the ability to do otherwise
Determinism does not matter for assessing culpability.
...too is but one more inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world.Sculptor wrote: When a person determinedly breaks a law with the full knowledge of breaking the law, he is judged for the person he is not the choice he has made, since he was determined to make that choice he is to be punished for being the sort of person who commits crimes.
This is why we have "correctional" facilities, so that the hardships of imprisonment or the advice of rehabilitating advice might change the nature of the person and so cause a beneficial change.
If determinism is not true then change is not possible and we ought to throw away the key or kill prisoners if they have free will to chose to commit as many crimes as the will.
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?
Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.
Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.
Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.
I believe that the commonly accepted definition of what it means for the will to be free differs from yours (that free will is unbiased will). How can I be sure that we are discussing the same thing if you define it differently?
That is neither true nor relevant. If a person is determined to do wrong then he is culpable. And as change is always possible with determinism, then the penal system can make that change for the better.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 6:41 pm From ILP:
On the contrary, the truly hardcore determinists insist, there is absolutely nothing that we think, feel, say and do that is not wholly subsumed in a wholly determined universe.Sculptor wrote:Easy.iambiguous wrote:Compatibilism
David Agler
There you go. If you are determined by the laws of matter to read these words then you lacked the capacity to opt not to read them. And if that is the case and another lacked the capacity to not insist that not reading them is immoral how could you be held morally responsible for not reading them other than because whoever holds you morally responsible was never able not to..
Determinism does not matter for assessing culpability.
What, assessing culpability is the one exception?
How the hell do you get there.
Thus from their point of view this...
...too is but one more inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world.Sculptor wrote: When a person determinedly breaks a law with the full knowledge of breaking the law, he is judged for the person he is not the choice he has made, since he was determined to make that choice he is to be punished for being the sort of person who commits crimes.
This is why we have "correctional" facilities, so that the hardships of imprisonment or the advice of rehabilitating advice might change the nature of the person and so cause a beneficial change.
If determinism is not true then change is not possible and we ought to throw away the key or kill prisoners if they have free will to chose to commit as many crimes as the will.
Or, sure, in regard to prisoners and our reaction to them, that too is an exception to the immutable laws of matter rule. One of the dominoes that get away.
As though when someone breaks the law in a determined universe their knowledge of what they do is, as well, "somehow" beyond the reach of material laws.
You are just thrashing about here.And, yeah, it might be.
But then this:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?
Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.
Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.
Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.
A decision is either free or determined. There is no other option. This is the definition from Wikipedia: Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
Does unimpeded mean the same as unbiased in your book?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 10:12 pmA decision is either free or determined. There is no other option. This is the definition from Wikipedia: Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.