compatibilism

[bobmax]

OK. Perhaps you have not forgotten what I said. Maybe you just didn't understand it.
I said that I use the word "determinism" in its modern, revised meaning, which is to follow the laws of conservation. This fits with both Heisenberg's "principle of uncertainty" and Bobmax's "principle of indeterminism." I don't need the old version of determinism to prove my point. Only the six conservation laws and four fundamental forces (which really are interactions) are required. That alone strips away any "freedom" that people claim the will has.

Ok, but there is no need for these laws to find that free will does not exist.

In fact, this observation has already occurred in the mists of time.

The difficulty is to make it ours.

Because on the one hand, living accordingly is almost impossible.

But on the other hand, that's the way to the only true freedom.

[BigMike]

OK. Perhaps you have not forgotten what I said. Maybe you just didn't understand it.
I said that I use the word "determinism" in its modern, revised meaning, which is to follow the laws of conservation. This fits with both Heisenberg's "principle of uncertainty" and Bobmax's "principle of indeterminism." I don't need the old version of determinism to prove my point. Only the six conservation laws and four fundamental forces (which really are interactions) are required. That alone strips away any "freedom" that people claim the will has.

Ok, but there is no need for these laws to find that free will does not exist.

I never said conservation laws were necessary to disprove free will, only that they were sufficient.

[henry quirk]

Stuff that bears repeatin'...

If you're not a free will (or, as BM prefers, if you lack free will): then you have no choice at all. That is: you'll act as you're determined to by cause & effect. Your choice -- to be naughty or nice -- is fiction.

If none of us are free wills (or, as BM prefers, if none of us have free will), then any choices we seem to make about anything, includin' the structure and foundations of a moral or legal system, are fictional.

If none of us are free wills (or, as BM prefers, if none of us have free will), if each of us is bound up in cause & effect, then we're not free to do anything. Punishing, rewarding, bein' indifferent: all just dominoes fallin'. All this talk about reforming the legal system: meaningless. We'll reform nuthin'. The meaningless collision of particles, the mindless transfer of energy, undergirds our choices.

If we're not free wills (or, as BM prefers, if none of us have free will): we're meat machines, robots.

If Joe is not a free will (or, as BM prefers, Joe lacks free will), then any choice he makes -- to rape a woman, or to simply hold the door open for her -- is fiction. He does what he does as he is determined to by cause & effect, just as you guys are determined by cause and effect to wonder about social/legal/moral reformation, just as I'm determined by cause & effect to point out if we're not free wills we're meat machines who choose nuthin' becuz choice, for a meat machine, is fiction.

[iambiguous]

But again, to my question, Mike: How can you tell us to choose a social policy, when choice is impossible?

I am a strict determinist. I have absolutely no belief in free will. The question you asked is broad enough to write a book about it. I will not do so because I suspect that you possess some prior knowledge. Let me therefore probe your knowledge by asking what you know about how long-term memory and learning can impact comprehension and be transmitted to those in close proximity. I would also need to know how you believe you may be affected by those around you. Then, I would need to know the desired word count for my response.

Click.

So, what have we got here?

We have IC insisting that we have free will because the Christian God installs it in our soul at the moment of conception. And we have BM insisting that we don't have free will...but then going back and forth with IC in a manner that is indistinguishable from someone who believes that he does have free will.

Arguing points as though the points he argues were not wholly embedded in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

And then if you asked either one of them how they would go about demonstrating that what they claim to know and to believe "in their heads" is true given the gap between that and all that would need to be known about existence itself, they would tell you....what exactly?

As for this one...

Stuff that bears repeatin'...

If you're not a free will (or, as BM prefers, if you lack free will): then you have no choice at all. That is: you'll act as you're determined to by cause & effect. Your choice -- to be naughty or nice -- is fiction.

If none of us are free wills (or, as BM prefers, if none of us have free will), then any choices we seem to make about anything, includin' the structure and foundations of a moral or legal system, are fictional.

If none of us are free wills (or, as BM prefers, if none of us have free will), if each of us is bound up in cause & effect, then we're not free to do anything. Punishing, rewarding, bein' indifferent: all just dominoes fallin'. All this talk about reforming the legal system: meaningless. We'll reform nuthin'. The meaningless collision of particles, the mindless transfer of energy, undergirds our choices.

If we're not free wills (or, as BM prefers, if none of us have free will): we're meat machines, robots.

If Joe is not a free will (or, as BM prefers, Joe lacks free will), then any choice he makes -- to rape a woman, or to simply hold the door open for her -- is fiction. He does what he does as he is determined to by cause & effect, just as you guys are determined by cause and effect to wonder about social/legal/moral reformation, just as I'm determined by cause & effect to point out if we're not free wills we're meat machines who choose nuthin' becuz choice, for a meat machine, is fiction.

...he'll go on and on and on "following the dictates of Reason and Nature" bestowed on him by his God, making his own objectivist distinction between fact and fiction.

Well, as long as he completely avoids acknowledging that he himself has no definitive understanding of where "henry quirk" fits into 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.

[henry quirk]

he'll go on and on and on "following the dictates of Reason and Nature" bestowed on him by his God, making his own objectivist distinction between fact and fiction.

No, moron. I'm just pointin' out meat machines can't choose...that's it, that's all.

Moron.

[iambiguous]

he'll go on and on and on "following the dictates of Reason and Nature" bestowed on him by his God, making his own objectivist distinction between fact and fiction.

No, moron. I'm just pointin' out meat machines can't choose...that's it, that's all.

Moron.

Right, like you doing this has absolutely nothing to do with the gap between what you assert about free will and "meat machines" and all that you don't grasp regarding 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.

Look, I'm at least giving you the hope that what you post here you were never able not to post here. And, given what you post on this thread alone, you might consider holding on to that for dear life.

Besides, as you yourself acknowledged above or elsewhere, in regard to questions like this, you've been wrong in the past. Meaning you may well be wrong now or in the future.

Right?

As for the "moron" gibe, that's something you probably picked up from Satyr.

Or Mr. Chickenshit as I call him.

Why?

Because when I go over to Know Thyself, I am greeted with this:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum

The perfect set-up!

He can mock me, insult me, lambaste me to his heart's content. Knowing that I am unable to respond in turn.

Hell, they have a new thread there created by gib from ILP. It's all [or mostly] about me:

https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t300 ... s-and-maia

Go, ahead, revel in all the gibes he levels at me there. I'm "Iamretarded" there.

In fact, given that I stopped reading it after the first few posts, let me know if he levels anything of particular interest to you.

[henry quirk]

I'm sorry Satyr hurt your feelings, however: that ain't got diddly to do with what's on hand...

Some, in-thread, say a man without free will can choose. I'm pointin' out he can't cuz if he is not a, or lacks, free will he's just a meat machine.

That's it, that's all.
really, pro, this is the guy you think so highly of (or are you just goofin')?

[iambiguous]

I'm sorry Satyr hurt your feelings...

Thanks.

But, unlike you and Mr. Chickenshit in regard to me, I'm still stuck letting you both off the hook!

Which, of course, is why I can only hope that you do convince me that 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.

...is not applicable to you. And that you really can provide us with experiential and experimental proof that we possess free will.

Then I can really gloat about my exchanges with you!!

...however: that ain't got diddly to do with what's on hand...

Not sure about "diddly" but only a goddamn fool would fail to recognize just how much he does not grasp about the human condition going back to how much he does not grasp about existence itself.

And [click] there's still the part where you had to fall back on God to anchor your own Precious Self in. Not nearly as ridiculous as IC perhaps but certainly in the general vicinity.

Some, in-thread, say a man without free will can choose. I'm pointin' out he can't cuz if he is not a, or lacks, free will he's just a meat machine.

That's it, that's all.

Come on, even a hardcore determinist has to admit that we all choose things.

Think of it like this...

Imagine the universe being such that there is a free will part and a wholly determined part.

Those from the free will part are hovering above planet Earth in the wholly determined part. They note that over and over and over again you and I and everyone else down here are choosing things.

But then they remind themselves that what we in fact choose we are not in fact choosing freely.

We need but go down the chain of life here and note, say, a colony of ants. We watch them choosing their behaviors. But we think, "it's virtually all instinct, behaviors programmed almost entirely by their ant brains."

On the other hand, sure, human consciousness is matter of a whole other kind. But then back to what you think you know about it as an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence in the vastness of all there is. Hell, you won't -- can't? -- even admit to yourself what you don't know about it.

Right?

[henry quirk]

This...

If you're not a free will (or, as BM prefers, if you lack free will): then you have no choice at all. That is: you'll act as you're determined to by cause & effect. Your choice -- to be naughty or nice -- is fiction.

If none of us are free wills (or, as BM prefers, if none of us have free will), then any choices we seem to make about anything, includin' the structure and foundations of a moral or legal system, are fictional.

If none of us are free wills (or, as BM prefers, if none of us have free will), if each of us is bound up in cause & effect, then we're not free to do anything. Punishing, rewarding, bein' indifferent: all just dominoes fallin'. All this talk about reforming the legal system: meaningless. We'll reform nuthin'. The meaningless collision of particles, the mindless transfer of energy, undergirds our choices.

If we're not free wills (or, as BM prefers, if none of us have free will): we're meat machines, robots.

If Joe is not a free will (or, as BM prefers, Joe lacks free will), then any choice he makes -- to rape a woman, or to simply hold the door open for her -- is fiction. He does what he does as he is determined to by cause & effect, just as you guys are determined by cause and effect to wonder about social/legal/moral reformation, just as I'm determined by cause & effect to point out if we're not free wills we're meat machines who choose nuthin' becuz choice, for a meat machine, is fiction.

...is what's on the table...moron.

[BigMike]

This...

If you're not a free will (or, as BM prefers, if you lack free will): then you have no choice at all. That is: you'll act as you're determined to by cause & effect. Your choice -- to be naughty or nice -- is fiction.

If none of us are free wills (or, as BM prefers, if none of us have free will), then any choices we seem to make about anything, includin' the structure and foundations of a moral or legal system, are fictional.

If none of us are free wills (or, as BM prefers, if none of us have free will), if each of us is bound up in cause & effect, then we're not free to do anything. Punishing, rewarding, bein' indifferent: all just dominoes fallin'. All this talk about reforming the legal system: meaningless. We'll reform nuthin'. The meaningless collision of particles, the mindless transfer of energy, undergirds our choices.

If we're not free wills (or, as BM prefers, if none of us have free will): we're meat machines, robots.

If Joe is not a free will (or, as BM prefers, Joe lacks free will), then any choice he makes -- to rape a woman, or to simply hold the door open for her -- is fiction. He does what he does as he is determined to by cause & effect, just as you guys are determined by cause and effect to wonder about social/legal/moral reformation, just as I'm determined by cause & effect to point out if we're not free wills we're meat machines who choose nuthin' becuz choice, for a meat machine, is fiction.

...is what's on the table...moron.

Could you tell me what you think the difference is between "free will" and "will" and "free choice" and "choice"?

[henry quirk]

Could you tell me what you think the difference is between "free will" and "will" and "free choice" and "choice"?

No. That's not what I'm here for. My views on free will (bein' one) are on record, so to speak, all over the forum.

Right now, my interest is, again, pointin' out: if a man is not a, or lacks, free will, he chooses nuthin', which means all your talk of social/moral/legal reform is just sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

That's it, that's all.

[BigMike]

Could you tell me what you think the difference is between "free will" and "will" and "free choice" and "choice"?

No. That's not what I'm here for. My views on free will (bein' one) are on record, so to speak, all over the forum.

Right now, my interest is, again, pointin' out: if a man is not a, or lacks, free will, he chooses nuthin', which means all your talk of social/moral/legal reform is just sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

That's it, that's all.

But, do you at least differentiate between "free will" and "will" and "free choice" and "choice"?

[promethean75]

listen mike, you can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. Immanuel, henry, bahman and I will choose a path that's clear. We will choose freewill.

[BigMike]

listen mike, you can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. Immanuel, henry, bahman and I will choose a path that's clear. We will choose freewill.

I am unsure of what you mean by "choose a ready guide in some celestial voice". Can you elaborate, please? In the remainder of your response, what kind of choice are you discussing? Free choice, or the other kind?

[promethean75]

Mike that's lyrics to a Rush song. You're supposed to say something like 'thank you Neil Peart' or 'so now your plagiarizing Rush songs?'