Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:10 pm I was clear enough, it's like you can't or don't want to follow anything.

Let's just go back a little and take inventory.

You said compatibilists disagree with science.

I asked you to clarify in what way that's the case.

After much effort, you finally clarified that compatibilists disagree with science in that they think there are breaks in determinism.

I said compatibilists don't generally think that.

Everything since then has been completely confusing, so let's just keep it simple:

Do you still believe that compatibilists think there are breaks in determinism? If so, why?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:12 pmLet's just go back a little and take inventory.

You said compatibilists disagree with science.

No, not intentionally. And I mentioned two kinds of compatibilists, the first kind just ignores science, maybe knows little to nothing about it, so looks like they aren't talking about scientific determinism at all when they mention determinism. The second kind, the majority, are sophists who conflate the two unrelated "free will" issues I mentioned to you twice.

So either they don't care about science, or want to agree with science but also conflate the issue with an unrelated issue.

I asked you to clarify in what way that's the case.

After much effort, you finally clarified that compatibilists disagree with science in that they think there are breaks in determinism.

Again, nowhere did I say or imply that. I have no idea where you got that from.

I got it from here:

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:35 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:30 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:28 pm
I just did.

I don't see that. You've said that compatibilists are somehow contradicting science, but you have not made it explicit at all which thing compatibilists are saying, and which bit of science they are contradicting. My questions here are aimed at getting some clarity in regards to these ideas you're presenting. I'm curious about them and what thoughts are behind them.

You've said they're contradicting science, would you clarify which of their statements are contradicting which bits of science?

Really?
There is no known example of breaking determinism according to science. There is no known method for it even in principle.

You can test this yourself in seconds, want something that goes against the known deterministic laws of physics, and it won't happen.

So those who claim that we can do it, are either ignoring science or just sophists engaged in the above conflation fallacy.

If you don't think compatibilists believe there are breaks in determinism, then why are you talking here about breaking determinism?

This is an incredibly confusing conversation.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:16 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:06 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 4:46 pm
OK, so you admit that you don't know.

Yes, I do admit it; you should try it yourself some time.

Yes, I admit that I know everything!

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:06 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 4:46 pm What is the outcome of a gamble? You don't know. As simple as that. Yet, you can do it.

So where does that get us?

It means that the free decision exists.

Ah, you belong to the, if-I-stamp-my-foot-hard-enough-when-I-say-it-it-makes-it-true, school of philosophy. I've noticed that way of thinking is becoming quite popular on the forum, lately.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:24 pm I got it from here:

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:35 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:30 pm

I don't see that. You've said that compatibilists are somehow contradicting science, but you have not made it explicit at all which thing compatibilists are saying, and which bit of science they are contradicting. My questions here are aimed at getting some clarity in regards to these ideas you're presenting. I'm curious about them and what thoughts are behind them.

You've said they're contradicting science, would you clarify which of their statements are contradicting which bits of science?

Really?
There is no known example of breaking determinism according to science. There is no known method for it even in principle.

You can test this yourself in seconds, want something that goes against the known deterministic laws of physics, and it won't happen.

So those who claim that we can do it, are either ignoring science or just sophists engaged in the above conflation fallacy.

If you don't think compatibilists believe there are breaks in determinism, then why are you talking here about breaking determinism?

This is an incredibly confusing conversation.

Because you asked where they are contradicting science. According to science, free will and determinism aren't compatible.
This is what's actually the case, not what compatibilists believe.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:36 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:24 pm I got it from here:

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:35 pm
Really?
There is no known example of breaking determinism according to science. There is no known method for it even in principle.

You can test this yourself in seconds, want something that goes against the known deterministic laws of physics, and it won't happen.

So those who claim that we can do it, are either ignoring science or just sophists engaged in the above conflation fallacy.

If you don't think compatibilists believe there are breaks in determinism, then why are you talking here about breaking determinism?

This is an incredibly confusing conversation.

Because you asked where they are contradicting science. According to science, free will and determinism aren't compatible.
This is what's actually the case, not what compatibilists believe.

That doesn't answer my question:

Why are you talking about breaking determinism if you don't think compatibilists think that?

If compatibilists don't think it, how is it relevant at all?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:37 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:36 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:24 pm I got it from here:



If you don't think compatibilists believe there are breaks in determinism, then why are you talking here about breaking determinism?

This is an incredibly confusing conversation.

Because you asked where they are contradicting science. According to science, free will and determinism aren't compatible.
This is what's actually the case, not what compatibilists believe.

That doesn't answer my question:

Why are you talking about breaking determinism if you don't think compatibilists think that?

If compatibilists don't think it, how is it relevant at all?

Because that's what the topic is about, whether compatibilism is possible, whether it actually works in practice?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:40 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:37 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:36 pm
Because you asked where they are contradicting science. According to science, free will and determinism aren't compatible.
This is what's actually the case, not what compatibilists believe.

That doesn't answer my question:

Why are you talking about breaking determinism if you don't think compatibilists think that?

If compatibilists don't think it, how is it relevant at all?

Because that's what the topic is about, whether compatibilism is possible, whether it actually works in practice?

The topic is about what compatibilists don't think? I don't understand. None of this is making any sense.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:41 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:40 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:37 pm

That doesn't answer my question:

Why are you talking about breaking determinism if you don't think compatibilists think that?

If compatibilists don't think it, how is it relevant at all?

Because that's what the topic is about, whether compatibilism is possible, whether it actually works in practice?

The topic is about what compatibilists don't think? I don't understand. None of this is making any sense.

You don't understand that people have beliefs, and we can try to investigate whether or not those beliefs are true?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:44 pm
You don't understand that people have beliefs, and we can try to investigate whether or not those beliefs are true?

I don't understand why you are going back and forth, saying compatibilists believe that, then saying "I never said they believe that, where did you get that from?" And then saying they believe it again later.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:45 pm I don't understand why you are going back and forth

I wasn't

saying compatibilists believe that

I didn't

then saying "I never said they believe that, where did you get that from?"

correct

And then saying they believe it again later.

I didn't

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:16 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:06 pm
Yes, I do admit it; you should try it yourself some time.

Yes, I admit that I know everything!

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:06 pm
So where does that get us?

It means that the free decision exists.

Ah, you belong to the, if-I-stamp-my-foot-hard-enough-when-I-say-it-it-makes-it-true, school of philosophy. I've noticed that way of thinking is becoming quite popular on the forum, lately.

Quite oppositely I have a reason for everything I know it is true. For example, free will is real.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:48 pm

This must be some kind of bizarre social experiment

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:48 pm

Your objection to compatibilism is that compatibilists think something that they don't think. It seems like your objection has just dissolved into thin air.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:52 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:48 pm

Your objection to compatibilism is that compatibilists think something that they don't think. It seems like your objection has just dissolved into thin air.

I said or implied nothing of the sort.