compatibilism

[Immanuel Can]

I was talking to iambiguous about this, but it seems he has ceased to be responsive. It happened as soon as I raised this question, which says something about how important it is to this discussion of Compatibiliism.

So I'm going to put it out to everyone. Here it is:

"If free will is an illusion, and Determinism is true, then how is it possible that 100% of all people who have ever lived have lived on the basis of their belief that free will is true, and 100% of the Determinists have been unable to live, even for a short time, as if their Determinism were true?"

It's an interesting question, and I have been wondering if History of Ideas is the proper source for information.

No, it's not. On this question, it's really irrelevant.

You don't even need to consult anything "academic" to know that the question is justified.

All you have to do is to consult ordinary experience. You, right now, are acting as if Determinism isn't true. You have never, for even five minutes, been able to act on a different supposition.

So if Determinism were driving this thing, why would it be that Determinism itself is impossible to live out?

[Immanuel Can]

But you have been caused to know what you have not "made-to-happen".

That statement doesn't even make sense...on any terms.

That you have not made something to happen does not mean you necessarily know about it at all. I may not know about a monsoon in India...and I certainly didn't make it happen. But it still happened.

Seriously, B. -- you must have badly misspoken there somehow.

I have not managed to explain so you can understand.

Have another try, I guess.

[iambiguous]

Please answer the question if you can; and if you cannot, then just say so. Either way, I'm fine. Either is an honest answer.

Refuse to answer at all, evade and redirect, and I have to think I was wrong about the sincerity of your intention: there can be no other conclusion, I think.

The ball's in your court now.

My point is that your question, like my answer are both "at one" with the only possible reality. The ball is in nature's court. Has been, is now and always will be.

This is no answer at all. It is what we call "deflecting" or "redirecting," instead of answering.

In other words, given my own vast experience with objectivists, it's not the answer that you would give.

Okay, now your task is "to provide me with substantial/substantive proof of how mindless matter evolved into self-conscious living matter on planet Earth and along the way 'somehow' this matter acquired autonomy."

Enabling it to give an answer not deemed by you to be "deflecting" or "redirecting".

Just out of curiosity, given free will, how, playing the devil's advocate, would you imagine an answer that someone might give that was not one of these things. An answer you might respect even though not sharing it yourself.

Then, compelled by a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter, you repeat yourself...

I'm a little sad, and a lot disappointed. I had thought you intended to discuss the issue in good faith, and were interested in mutual advancement of the problem, based on all relevant data. I can only suppose that there are some data you simply refuse to consider.

My guess: the data that leads directly to thinking about the mind-boggling reality of mindless matter evolving into mindful brain matter here on planet Earth in exactly the same way that you do.

[Immanuel Can]

My point is that your question, like my answer are both "at one" with the only possible reality. The ball is in nature's court. Has been, is now and always will be.

This is no answer at all. It is what we call "deflecting" or "redirecting," instead of answering.

In other words, given my own vast experience with objectivists, it's not the answer that you would give.

No, it's not ANY kind of answer. Factually, it fails to correspond to the question.

Do you have an answer, or are you just not going to respond?

[iambiguous]

This is no answer at all. It is what we call "deflecting" or "redirecting," instead of answering.

In other words, given my own vast experience with objectivists, it's not the answer that you would give.

No, it's not ANY kind of answer. Factually, it fails to correspond to the question.

Do you have an answer, or are you just not going to respond?

Looks like we're "stuck" then. I do construe my points as an answer, you don't. Time perhaps to just move on to others.

[Immanuel Can]

In other words, given my own vast experience with objectivists, it's not the answer that you would give.

No, it's not ANY kind of answer. Factually, it fails to correspond to the question.

Do you have an answer, or are you just not going to respond?

Looks like we're "stuck" then. I do construe my points as an answer, you don't. Time perhaps to just move on to others.

It's not a case of "construal." There's no interpretation needed here. It's not difficult.

You answer lacked reference to the terms in the question.

So try again. This time, try to answer at least some part of the question that's actually being asked...or, if you prefer, you can be honest and admit you can't. I'll take either answer, so long as it's not an evasion.

[iambiguous]

No, it's not ANY kind of answer. Factually, it fails to correspond to the question.

Do you have an answer, or are you just not going to respond?

Looks like we're "stuck" then. I do construe my points as an answer, you don't. Time perhaps to just move on to others.

It's not a case of "construal." There's no interpretation needed here. It's not difficult.

You answer lacked reference to the terms in the question.

So try again. This time, try to answer at least some part of the question that's actually being asked...or, if you prefer, you can be honest and admit you can't. I'll take either answer, so long as it's not an evasion.

And around and around we go. As nature compels us, I surmise.

Though sure if -- click -- that answer is the wrong one you can declare yourself the winner here.

[Belinda]

That statement doesn't even make sense...on any terms.

That you have not made something to happen does not mean you necessarily know about it at all. I may not know about a monsoon in India...and I certainly didn't make it happen. But it still happened.

Seriously, B. -- you must have badly misspoken there somehow.

I have not managed to explain so you can understand.

Have another try, I guess.

Events are either caused or random. If you voluntarily decide to do or not do something your voluntariness is either caused by circumstances or it's random.

[Immanuel Can]

Looks like we're "stuck" then. I do construe my points as an answer, you don't. Time perhaps to just move on to others.

It's not a case of "construal." There's no interpretation needed here. It's not difficult.

You answer lacked reference to the terms in the question.

So try again. This time, try to answer at least some part of the question that's actually being asked...or, if you prefer, you can be honest and admit you can't. I'll take either answer, so long as it's not an evasion.

And around and around we go. As nature compels us, I surmise.

Though sure if -- click -- that answer is the wrong one you can declare yourself the winner here.

I'm not here to "declare a winner." That's far to petty a goal for me.

The purpose of my conversation with you was to advance our mutual knowledge of the subject of Compatibilism, by debating it carefully. Or maybe we should now call it something like "Sneaky Determinism," for that's what Compatibilism amounts to -- I think we agree about that much, at at least.
Determinism's the real problem: Compatibilism's just a form of Determinism for those who can't face Determinism's implications.

But now it would almost seem like one of those people who is unable to face Determinism's implications might be you. For I'm certain you know that you, yourself, never live as a Determinist; still, you refuse to explain how you manage the trick of still believing in something you can't practice at all. And for some reason, you don't want to add that fact to your thinking about Determinism...though what's at stake for you that would make you refuse to include this obvious fact in your analysis, I cannot imagine.

But perhaps you'll tell me.

[henry quirk]

I'm havin' the same kinda diversions, from him, in another thread.

He ain't gonna answer.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm havin' the same kinda diversions, from him, in another thread.

He ain't gonna answer.

I'm going to give him every chance, but I'm pretty sure you're right, now.

Too bad. He's quite intelligent and capable of a good conversation. But for some reason, he's just not going to risk his Deterministic "faith" taking a hit as serious as this one, it would seem.

[henry quirk]

He's quite intelligent and capable of a good conversation.

If you say so...

[Immanuel Can]

New proposition: Real life is incompatible with Determinism.

Take your best shot at explaining why I'm wrong, iambiguous...et al.

[Walker]

Mystery is compatible with unknown determination.

[Immanuel Can]

Mystery is compatible with unknown determination.

There's a very good reason for that: that how Determinism can possibly be true, in view of how we actually live, is actually a total mystery. But that fact does not help the case for Determinism.

Maybe somebody who believes in Determinism can help us solve that "mystery."