Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:22 am**

When the terms 'free will' AND determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST.

And, this could NEVER be REFUTED.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am**

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:22 am When the terms 'free will' AND determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST.

And, this could NEVER be REFUTED.

Stop gossiping about philosophy and do some. Prove the assertion....

When the terms 'free will' AND determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST.

There was no qualification that this is 'from your perspective'. So, given this is a philosophy forum and you think people should prove what they say, etc....

Go for it. And it's not that a disagree. I think it would be interesting to see you do something other than sniping.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:17 am**

Henry Quirk wrote:

bein' a free will means you get to be wrong (and a moron).

According to the above (Henry's) usage of 'a free will' what he says is true. We adults do have to look to the future and take responsibility for it, for better for worse.

Taking responsibility is the attitude and behaviour that stops us being what Henry calls "meat machines" but what I'd call instinctive.

That metaphor and image is unpleasant and disrespects other animals and the instinctive behaviour of very young children.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:42 am**

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:17 am Henry Quirk wrote:

bein' a free will means you get to be wrong (and a moron).
According to the above (Henry's) usage of 'a free will' what he says is true. We adults do have to look to the future and take responsibility for it, for better for worse.

Taking responsibility is the attitude and behaviour that stops us being what Henry calls "meat machines" but what I'd call instinctive.

That metaphor and image is unpleasant and disrespects other animals and the instinctive behaviour of very young children.

When he refers to a "meat machine," I think he means anything along the lines of "biological with a nervous system" or "non-botanical life form." In actuality, it's nothing more than an innocent, albeit foolish, attempt to upset those who disagree with him.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:16 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:22 am When the terms 'free will' AND determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST.

And, this could NEVER be REFUTED.
Stop gossiping about philosophy and do some.

What does the word 'philosophy' even MEAN, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY? In other words, how EXACTLY does one DO 'philosophy', to you?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am Prove the assertion....

When 'you' LEARN and UNDERSTAND how thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' is FOUND, OBTAINED, and thus becomes KNOWN, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND that it is NEVER up to just one person, nor even many people, to define terms. It is up to absolutely EVERY one to come to an AGREEMENT and an ACCEPTANCE of what the definitions of words ARE, and which would ACTUALLY WORK and would ACTUALLY FIT IN, PERFECTLY I will add, with 'that', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.

So, if you HAD ALREADY SOUGHT OUT CLARIFICATION, FIRST, then you would have ALREADY COME TO KNOW that WHEN the terms 'free will' AND 'determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, this HAPPENS WHEN EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE with those DEFINITIONS.

So, in other words, to PROVE the assertion can ONLY HAPPEN when EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE with the DEFINITIONS for the terms 'free will' AND 'determinism'. Until then the assertion REMAINS truly OPEN to being completely or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am
When the terms 'free will' AND determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST.
There was no qualification that this is 'from your perspective'.

There NEVER needs to be. This is BECAUSE WHEN EVERY one comes to an AGREEMENT and an ACCEPTANCE of the DEFINITIONS for those terms, then this WILL PROVE or DISPROVE the 'assertion', itself.

But, this is from my perspective, anyway.

Oh, and by the way, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing I WRITE and SAY here is, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

Would you like me to make that qualification IN EVERY sentence, or EVERY paragraph, or WITH EVERY thread, or something else?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am So, given this is a philosophy forum and you think people should prove what they say, etc....

But I do NOT 'think' this AT ALL. People are absolutely FREE to do whatever they think they 'should' do.

But I KNOW if people want to SAY and CLAIM 'things', then it would be better for ALL of 'us' if those people could PROVE what they SAY and CLAIM is true. Otherwise, there is NO REAL use in speaking and writing here, because what they SAY and CLAIM could be just False, or Wrong, or Incorrect anyway.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am Go for it. And it's not that a disagree. I think it would be interesting to see you do something other than sniping.

What do you MEAN by 'sniping' here?

As I just, partly, SAID and EXPLAINED, it takes EVERY one to be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE of the DEFINITIONS of the terms here in order for what I SAID and CLAIMED to be PROVED True, or False.

But if ANY one wants DEFINITIONS to START to FIND and SEE what EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, then I am more than willing to BEGIN. Otherwise, absolutely ANY one else COULD START this.

But, AGAIN, I will suggest that the DEFINITIONS, which are YET to be AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED are ones that could ACTUALLY be, AT LEAST, A POSSIBILITY to exist.

As I ALREADY EXPLAINED, to one above, PROVIDING DEFINITIONS that could NOT even be a possibility to exist, is just ABSURD, but then just DECLARING that my view, which is on the OPPOSING "side" of 'things', is therefore the TRUE ONE is even MORE ABSURD, and just plain ridiculous AND stupid, to say the least.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:28 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:42 am
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:17 am Henry Quirk wrote:

bein' a free will means you get to be wrong (and a moron).
According to the above (Henry's) usage of 'a free will' what he says is true. We adults do have to look to the future and take responsibility for it, for better for worse.

Taking responsibility is the attitude and behaviour that stops us being what Henry calls "meat machines" but what I'd call instinctive.

That metaphor and image is unpleasant and disrespects other animals and the instinctive behaviour of very young children.
When he refers to a "meat machine," I think he means anything along the lines of "biological with a nervous system" or "non-botanical life form." In actuality, it's nothing more than an innocent, albeit foolish, attempt to upset those who disagree with him.

BUT if there is ONLY 'determinism' and NO 'ability to choose', or in other words NO 'free will' AT ALL, then NO one HAS A CHOICE to DISAGREE, NOR AGREE, with "henry quirk". Just like "henry quirk" has NO possible way of NOT being able to choose ANY other words, AT ALL.

Just like that ABSOLUTE IDIOT and FOOL "bigmike" has absolutely NO choice AT ALL other than to just SAY and WRITE the MOST ABSURD and STUPID
things', which 'it' does here, continually. And, just like I had absolutely NO choice AT ALL other than to just SAY and WRITE what I DID just here, and now.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:31 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:28 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:42 am
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:17 am Henry Quirk wrote:

According to the above (Henry's) usage of 'a free will' what he says is true. We adults do have to look to the future and take responsibility for it, for better for worse.

Taking responsibility is the attitude and behaviour that stops us being what Henry calls "meat machines" but what I'd call instinctive.

That metaphor and image is unpleasant and disrespects other animals and the instinctive behaviour of very young children.
When he refers to a "meat machine," I think he means anything along the lines of "biological with a nervous system" or "non-botanical life form." In actuality, it's nothing more than an innocent, albeit foolish, attempt to upset those who disagree with him.
BUT if there is ONLY 'determinism' and NO 'ability to choose', or in other words NO 'free will' AT ALL, then NO one HAS A CHOICE to DISAGREE, NOR AGREE, with "henry quirk". Just like "henry quirk" has NO possible way of NOT being able to choose ANY other words, AT ALL.

Just like that ABSOLUTE IDIOT and FOOL "bigmike" has absolutely NO choice AT ALL other than to just SAY and WRITE the MOST ABSURD and STUPID
things', which 'it' does here, continually. And, just like I had absolutely NO choice AT ALL other than to just SAY and WRITE what I DID just here, and now.

This idea that in determinism there is "no ability to choose"" requires a complete change in what 'choice' and 'choosing' means.

Let's look at how it works in a game of chess. (Why chess? Because computers can play chess and they don't have free-will.)

If you know the rules of the game, then you know all the possible legal moves. You have the choice of all legal moves.

But a player does not consider all legal moves. Based on his experience, he will only considers moves which are useful for his goal ... checkmating the king or gaining material or securing a draw. So he gives himself a smaller set of choices.

Next he analyses those choices ... he considers what the opponent's replies could be and his own reply to the reply, etc.

Based on his experience, he evaluates the merit of each move and chooses what he thinks is the best move.

He may also be tired, he may be distracted, he may be short on time and these are all factors which influence his decision.

He has choices. He chooses. But he does not have a free choices and he does not choose freely. His choices and final decision are limited by the position on the board, his experience and his state of mind.

That's not forcing, compelling or lack of choice, unless you redefine all those words.

Next up : The idea that there is no learning in determinism.

You can learn to play chess better. Computers learn to play chess better.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:42 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:16 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:22 am When the terms 'free will' AND determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST.

And, this could NEVER be REFUTED.
Stop gossiping about philosophy and do some.
What does the word 'philosophy' even MEAN, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY? In other words, how EXACTLY does one DO 'philosophy', to you?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am Prove the assertion....
When 'you' LEARN and UNDERSTAND how thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' is FOUND, OBTAINED, and thus becomes KNOWN, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND that it is NEVER up to just one person, nor even many people, to define terms. It is up to absolutely EVERY one to come to an AGREEMENT and an ACCEPTANCE of what the definitions of words ARE, and which would ACTUALLY WORK and would ACTUALLY FIT IN, PERFECTLY I will add, with 'that', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.

So, if you HAD ALREADY SOUGHT OUT CLARIFICATION, FIRST, then you would have ALREADY COME TO KNOW that WHEN the terms 'free will' AND 'determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, this HAPPENS WHEN EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE with those DEFINITIONS.

So, in other words, to PROVE the assertion can ONLY HAPPEN when EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE with the DEFINITIONS for the terms 'free will' AND 'determinism'. Until then the assertion REMAINS truly OPEN to being completely or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am
When the terms 'free will' AND determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST.
There was no qualification that this is 'from your perspective'.
There NEVER needs to be. This is BECAUSE WHEN EVERY one comes to an AGREEMENT and an ACCEPTANCE of the DEFINITIONS for those terms, then this WILL PROVE or DISPROVE the 'assertion', itself.

But, this is from my perspective, anyway.

Oh, and by the way, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing I WRITE and SAY here is, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

Would you like me to make that qualification IN EVERY sentence, or EVERY paragraph, or WITH EVERY thread, or something else?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am So, given this is a philosophy forum and you think people should prove what they say, etc....
But I do NOT 'think' this AT ALL. People are absolutely FREE to do whatever they think they 'should' do.

But I KNOW if people want to SAY and CLAIM 'things', then it would be better for ALL of 'us' if those people could PROVE what they SAY and CLAIM is true. Otherwise, there is NO REAL use in speaking and writing here, because what they SAY and CLAIM could be just False, or Wrong, or Incorrect anyway.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:12 am Go for it. And it's not that a disagree. I think it would be interesting to see you do something other than sniping.
What do you MEAN by 'sniping' here?

As I just, partly, SAID and EXPLAINED, it takes EVERY one to be IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE of the DEFINITIONS of the terms here in order for what I SAID and CLAIMED to be PROVED True, or False.

But if ANY one wants DEFINITIONS to START to FIND and SEE what EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, then I am more than willing to BEGIN. Otherwise, absolutely ANY one else COULD START this.

But, AGAIN, I will suggest that the DEFINITIONS, which are YET to be AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED are ones that could ACTUALLY be, AT LEAST, A POSSIBILITY to exist.

As I ALREADY EXPLAINED, to one above, PROVIDING DEFINITIONS that could NOT even be a possibility to exist, is just ABSURD, but then just DECLARING that my view, which is on the OPPOSING "side" of 'things', is therefore the TRUE ONE is even MORE ABSURD, and just plain ridiculous AND stupid, to say the least.

You said....

When the terms 'free will' AND determinism' are BOTH defined in ways that are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE and could WORK in a way that FITS IN with EVERY thing else, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST.

And, this could NEVER be REFUTED.

So, define the terms in a way that does this. You can show us your definitions of the terms and then do the proof using those definitions.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:07 pm**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:56 am Rubbish: "being compelled by your brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, to not agree with something that Sculptor's brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compels him to assert must be true because as a deterministic agent he is compelled to post it here."

FFS.

You are sufferings from a serious case of disabling dualism.

Being compelled by your brain is meaningless garbage.
We are not apart from our brain.
I think you might want to review your idiotic Christian ideology.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 4:17 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 6:08 am So, it's a bit like.
I: But I'm not like other men. I don't hate women.
W: Sometimes it sure seems like you do.
I: Jeez, sometimes you can be such a fucking ****.
W: Well, there, for example. Right now, that seems sexist.
I: Oh, but I'm the first to admit I'm not sure if you're a fucking **** or not.

More like...

buggy: I'm drowning! Save me!
Anyone: here's a life preserver!
buggy: Bah! It's the wrong color! The wrong shape! You, picking such a device, have shown yourself to be a dupe, well-indoctrinated!
Anyone: hey , buddy, it's a life preserver! Grab it!
buggy: I will not. It may, in fact, save my life, but I reject it anyway!
Anyone: But, man, look! It floats! Grab it!
buggy: That it floats is not evidence I will accept of its life-preserving properties! Furthermore, I blame the manufacturer of that floatation device for my imminent demise!
Anyone: Hold up, how is it the manufacturer's fault you're drowning?
buggy: He, the manufacturer, obviously knows of the dangers of being out to sea, understands people can drown, but he's done nothing to prevent it.
Anyone: How the hell is the manufacturer supposed to stop you or anyone from going out to sea?
buggy: How am I, a mere sailor, supposed to know how? All I know, insofar as I'm situated in a particular place and a particular time, with only finite information, is the manufacturer is responsble, if, indeed, there is a manufacturer, and if, indeed, I'm capable to assessing my situation.
Anyone:

buggy: See here, all this, me drowning, you attempting to save me, me rejecting that attempt, and my reasoning for the rejection, these may all simply be the playing out of cause and effect. The manufacturer, should he actually exist, me in my predicament, you with your attempts, we're all like leaves being carried in a fast-moving stream. None of us have any say-so in these events. Unless, of course, I'm wrong and we do.
Anyone: Okay, so you're not really drowning. If you were you'd have taken the preserver. No, you've fabricated this whole circumstance so you can, I suppose, lob crap at other folks who go to sea.
buggy: Sir, your fulminations do not impress me. Try again.
Anyone: No.
buggy (to fishes swimming below him): See what I've reduced him to?

*

Edit: Interesting. It wouldn't print my word beginning with C, but kept 'fucking'.

Yeah, whoever set up the filter ought to update it.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 4:25 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 4:17 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 6:08 am So, it's a bit like.
I: But I'm not like other men. I don't hate women.
W: Sometimes it sure seems like you do.
I: Jeez, sometimes you can be such a fucking ****.
W: Well, there, for example. Right now, that seems sexist.
I: Oh, but I'm the first to admit I'm not sure if you're a fucking **** or not.
More like...

buggy: I'm drowning! Save me!
Anyone: here's a life preserver!
buggy: Bah! It's the wrong color! The wrong shape! You, picking such a device, have shown yourself to be a dupe, well-indoctrinated!
Anyone: hey , buddy, it's a life preserver! Grab it!
buggy: I will not. It may, in fact, save my life, but I reject it anyway!
Anyone: But, man, look! It floats! Grab it!
buggy: That it floats is not evidence I will accept of its life-preserving properties! Furthermore, I blame the manufacturer of that floatation device for my imminent demise!
Anyone: Hold up, how is it the manufacturer's fault you're drowning?
buggy: He, the manufacturer, obviously knows of the dangers of being out to sea, understands people can drown, but he's done nothing to prevent it.
Anyone: How the hell is the manufacturer supposed to stop you or anyone from going out to sea?
buggy: How am I, a mere sailor, supposed to know how? All I know, insofar as I'm situated in a particular place and a particular time, with only finite information, is the manufacturer is responsble, if, indeed, there is a manufacturer, and if, indeed, I'm capable to assessing my situation.
Anyone:
buggy: See here, all this, me drowning, you attempting to save me, me rejecting that attempt, and my reasoning for the rejection, these may all simply be the playing out of cause and effect. The manufacturer, should he actually exist, me in my predicament, you with your attempts, we're all like leaves being carried in a fast-moving stream. None of us have any say-so in these events. Unless, of course, I'm wrong and we do.
Anyone: Okay, so you're not really drowning. If you were you'd have taken the preserver. No, you've fabricated this whole circumstance so you can, I suppose, lob crap at other folks who go to sea.
buggy: Sir, your fulminations do not impress me. Try again.
Anyone: No.
buggy (to fishes swimming below him): See what I've reduced him to?

*

Edit: Interesting. It wouldn't print my word beginning with C, but kept 'fucking'.
Yeah, whoever set up the filter ought to update it.

LOL, I liked the victory celebration 'See what I've reduced him to.' Best.

That said, it seems like if we black box determinism/free will for a moment, we still can see organisms that are more versatile than others. Versatility if not the only virtue, of course. But it does seem like some posters have...hm....let's frame it neutrally....such a focus, that repetitive communicaation patterns happen so fast we can easily recognize the pattern when someone parodies it.

It's tempting to name some of the others who have very short pattern cycles and who repeat (or cut and paste to save time with repeating) these with great regularity.

But instead I will just jump to a Turing machine/bot tangent.

It seems like machines can be very simple, with a very limited range of possible responses, or complex, with more. A Turing device would need to be very, very complex, if people are unable to tell they are not dealing with another human.

Can all humans pass the Turing test?

That would seem to be a minimal criterion for being at least considered to possibly having free will.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 4:40 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:17 am Henry Quirk wrote:

bein' a free will means you get to be wrong (and a moron).
According to the above (Henry's) usage of 'a free will' what he says is true. We adults do have to look to the future and take responsibility for it, for better for worse.

Taking responsibility is the attitude and behaviour that stops us being what Henry calls "meat machines" but what I'd call instinctive.

That metaphor and image is unpleasant and disrespects other animals and the instinctive behaviour of very young children.

I like your post, B. But, when I say meat machine I'm talkin' about what men must be if causal determinism is true. The image is meant to be unpleasant becuz the notion is unpleasant and wholly unsupported by anyone's experience. Even the hard determinists, in-thread, as they deny free will, cannot help but express themselves as though they were free wills.

So: no, none of us are meat machines, and none of us are the partial meat machines envisioned by compatibilists.

We're full-blown, full bore, turbo-charged, right in your face, points of causal & creative power. We're

FREE WILLS

. In a clockwork Reality, we stand apart and above. We self-direct, self-rely, are self-responsible. We are not pushed from behind any more than we choose to be. We grab reality by the lapels and shake it down for lunch money then laugh at it when it cries for mommy. We're the badasses of the universe, toolin' around on our hogs, raisin' hell, and pissin' on causality's flowers.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 5:10 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 4:25 pm Can all humans pass the Turing test?

Assuming the T-test is worth spit: I'd say yes.

I wonder if there's any documentation of a human being flunkin' a T-test? Even among the obviously DAMAGED and the scripted (click), in-forum, there's a kind of spontaneity in response that machines can't duplicate or haven't duplicated.

I have to admit, though, I know little about T-tests. What's the base criteria for passing?

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 6:02 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:54 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 6:20 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:46 pm
Define conscious and self-conscious matter, please.
That's not the point, the determinists are compelled to say. The point is that until the "hard guys" in the scientific community are able to explain [one way or another] how lifeless matter evolved into living matter evolved into conscious matter evolved into self-conscious matter, then, in presuming determinism is true, any definitions we come up with are no less compelled by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter.
If I may, I'd like to say a few words about that. It's not a personal attack because that problem (or confusion, as I'd call it) seems to be a problem for both libertarians, indeterminists, and compatibilists.

If you may? Do you or do you not include your own posts -- your own arguments -- here in regard to your own understanding of determinism?

When we speak of "personal attacks" here, do or do not the libertarians among us assume that the attack was an option freely chosen? That's why we are able to be held responsible for it. But if our brains compel us to attack others personally in the only possible material reality then it is our brains that compel us in turn to react as we do to it. Nothing that is matter is excluded from its own immutable laws.

That's why the main point here is always 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.

The truly extra-ordinary matter that is the human brain.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:54 pmThe question is what it means to be forced, compelled, or coerced to do something in the context of determinism. When we say "force," we usually mean something much more nuanced and subtle than when someone grabs your hands and shoves a gun into your hand while pushing your finger to pull the trigger.

That's your question. My question is "how can anything that human beings think, feel, say and do not be entirely fated/destined if the human brain itself is not 'somehow' an exception to the rules...to the laws of matter"?

Why on earth do you suppose so many come back to God here? He gives us a soul and this soul encompasses free will. How does He do this? Well, He's omnipotent, right?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:54 pmNow, the brain has evolved from primitive life forms. Its only goal is to make sure people live and have kids. The "survival of the fittest" principle has made sure that it finds the best way to do things. We would have died out a long time ago if we didn't have that inner drive for excellence. It's in our genes, and as we live and learn, our brains are hardwired to do things that work better and better.

Again, back to what I construe to be your "free will determinism" embedded "somehow" in this "drive for excellence". It's in our genes, sure, but if, in striving for excellence, others don't think exactly like you do here about it, you feel justified in pointing that out.

The part that escapes me. Like compatibilists insisting that Mary was never able not to abort Jane but she is "somehow" still morally responsible for doing so.

Yeah, it may all revolve around my own inability to grasp their point. But how is my ability to do anything at all not entirely fated/destined in the only possible world? A world in which my brain is just along for the ride.

Instead, in my view [compelled or not], you stay up in the clouds of abstraction...in a world of words such that the truth there revolves around agreeing or disagreeing with the definitions that you give to the words put in a particular order to concoct deductions about all this.

To wit...

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:54 pmAnd here is the point: The optimal response to any situation is provided by our brains' logic. The best response isn't the best because we want it to be, but because our brains inform us it is. This is true even when we do something stupid; in those cases our brain simply didn't have the necessary experience or knowledge to give us better "advice". Our response is ultimately determined, forced upon us, not by physical force but by the force of logic.

Okay, how is this applicable to Mary aborting Jane? And, in particular, the part that revolves around abortion as a moral conflagration among us. How does an accumulation of experience and advice and logic play out in our brains in regard to conflicting goods...to "I" in the is/ought world?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:54 pmDoes this make the term "to be compelled to do something" seem better, more acceptable?

Better and more acceptable than what? In a world where some determinists insist that we are compelled to do everything.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2022 6:33 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:59 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 6:37 pm Only -- click -- from my frame of mind, henry possesses what might be called a meat-mind. Okay, we have free will. But if you don't think exactly as henry does about, for example, everything under the sun, you are a "moron". You are "simply wrong".
And if [you're] not split and torn up about conflicting goods or knowing for sure if there is determinism or free will or.....
then you don't think exactly like Iambiguous does then you are a fanatical objectivist.

In a free will world, we can go back and forth about all that given a particular context.

In a wholly determined world, on the other hand, this entire thread itself is "somehow" unfolding in the only possible reality.

In other words, encompassing our very own exchange "here and now" in regard to untangling 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.

Can you link us to someone able to untangle it?

As for the "fanatical objectivist" -- click -- that pertains only to the manner in which I encompass it existentially as "someone who believes that they are sync with the Real Me [core self, soul] in sync in turn with The Right Thing To Do."

But in order to explore that substantively, we'll need a context, right? And in presuming that we do possess free will in discussing it...when we don't really have access to definitive proof that we do possess it. The surreal quality of exchanges like this in that all we have is our brains themselves in order to examine our brains themselves given how the human condition itself fits into the existence of existence itself.

Rummy's Rule, remember?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:59 pmIt's just not clear to me what higher ground you think you have over henry.

Yeah, yeah. You're not sure. But, in the end, that doesn't stop you from labeling people.

Again: click.

All I can note here is that the labels I affix to others are recognized by me to be profoundly problematic personal opinions rooted existentially in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

"I" in the is/ought world at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. Given a particular set of circumstances.

Go ahead, choose one yourself.

Rather than making this all about just "stuff".

Philosophy Now Forum

compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism