Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2023 5:51 pm**

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:20 pm Tbh I don't think too many philosophers are that worried about Jane...

Well, that depends on the particular philosopher of course. Remember this one from above?

Man: How arrogant! How self-centered and feelingless!
Woman: I told you I didn't want a baby!
Man: What do you mean, "didn't want a baby"? It was partly mine!
Woman: Except it's my life that gets derailed. You go on doing what you want and I have to stop and bring it up.
Man: But we'd share the responsibility.
Woman: You know it would devolve down to me.
Man: I wanted this baby!
Woman: I told you, it was not part of my plan.
Man: But you [aborted it] it without consulting me.
Woman: Consulting you?! It's my baby! Do I have to consult you for every move I make? It's only your ego that's hurt.
Man: You said you wanted children.
Woma: I do, but not now.
Man: I don't have the future stretched out in front of me indefinitely.
Woman: It's easy for you to say. You've done your work. I'm just starting out, trying to make something of myself!
Man: But you could do it without asking me! Or giving me a chance to argue you out of it!
Woman: I didn't want to be argued out of it. We've talked this to death! lt was unwanted! Do you want to bring a child into this world? Really, you're the one that hates it so much, forever lecturing me on the pointlessness of existence.
Man: I hate you so! To be capable of such a lack of feeling! Knowing how I felt!

After all, even philosophers can find themselves [existentially] in situations that involve an unwanted pregnancy? I suspect however that you have not? No "Janes" in your life?

And almost all philosophers are interested in ethics. It's just that this thread revolves around whether that interest is necessarily compelled by their brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter, or whether "somehow" human brains did in fact acquire a will all their own.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:20 pmBut yes, of course he acknowledges the general ignorance about consciousness, nobody should expect anything else at this stage. It's called "the hard problem" for a reason.

Indeed, and is not my own point to differentiate between those like me who are "fractured and fragmented" regarding free will and others who insist it was a "hard problem" only until they themselves solved it? The objectivists among us. Still, it's the "free will determinists" and the compatibilists that most intrigue me.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:20 pmCarroll is, like the majority of academic philosophers, a compatibilist. He's also an expert in quantum mechanics and maintains the position that I do: that randomness isn't a satisfactory source of free will, so people looking for free will in quantum indeterminacy are barking up the wrong tree.

Back again to randomness. As though scientists can pin down whether or not it exists at all. As though 10 or a 100 or a 1,000 years from now scientists -- and philosophers? -- won't look back amazed at all the erroneous things we believed today about "quantum indeterminacy".

And, who knows, maybe IC's Christian God will have made His existence known. The Second Coming of Christ for example. Or, by then the Third or Fourth?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:20 pmAnyway, I quite liked the reason he gave for why and when consciousness might have arisen, that's gonna stick with me.

Like given your own and Sean Carroll's own ignorance of 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.

...you're not both aiming the dart at the bullseye here and hoping to at least hit the dartboard itself.

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:12 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:56 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:30 pm
I think you're mistaken to think randomness and Determinism are opposites, just as the video says.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:24 pm Last paragraph of the vid., where he sums up the problem he sees with the "randomness" idea.
Listened to that again. He didn't say that, or anything that I would reasonable paraphrase as that.
I disagree.

He points out that whether you believe in Materialistic Determinism of the traditional kind, or appeal to "random swerving in a vacuum" (his words), you end up with the same conclusion: no "place" as he says, for personhood, identity, consciousness, choice, and so on. That's what you'll hear in the video.

His objection is correct, because whether we say that physics forces all the rules to be 'fixed', so that there's only one possible outcome, or whether we say that "randomness" causes everything, the outcome for free will is the same -- that people cannot have any information from their environment that can allow them to make an intelligent choice.

In the former case, the information they assume will not change the decision anyway; but in the latter, in a "randomness" situation, there are no laws or rules anymore at all, because everything is reacting randomly, and the decider can't know what choice is even likely to result in any particular outcome. So in neither case can "will" contribute one thing to the situation...it doesn't function to lead to prediction in either case.

Of course, neither reflects the way things actually are experienced in the real world. Not a single person in history has ever been able to live as if things are just being totally Determined, and if he did, he'd live entirely without even trying to make one choice. And not a single person in history has lived as if his choices can't be guided toward successful outcomes by calclulating, predicting and expecting that things will tend to work out in a readable sort of cause-effect way.

That's why people "choose." They think that what they choose matters, and that by choosing something different they can get a different outcome than they would receive if they did not choose. See?

Meanwhile, they cannot do any of this if "randomness" pertained -- who can predict "randomness," by definition? And if they supposed they were choosing, under Causal Determinism, they'd only be fooling themselves -- there never was anything they could "choose." There was only one possible outcome, ever.

So "randomness" and Determinism are to ideologies that have never, even once, worked out in human experience. Thus, they cannot be taken for granted, but rather must be proved somehow, with a vast mountain of human experience stacked against them.

See? This is what I mean about IC. He can go on and on making "philosophical points" like this and not even mention the Christian God or religion. So, why don't those who engage him here not bring that up themselves? Ultimately, all the points he makes about determinism and randomness and free will come back to the Christian God. So, it really comes down to whether he can demonstrate that the Christian God Himself does exist. And that his own assessment of Christianity is in fact the most rational.

Especially given this: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/

And the fact IC's belief in the Christian God is not a "leap of faith"...Kierkegaardian or otherwise; or a wager...Pascalian or otherwise.

He insists that in fact the Christian God does exist. And thus human autonomy begins in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve and the Serpent and the Tree of Knowledge and the advent of Evil and then the Fall.

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:20 pm**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 5:51 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:20 pmCarroll is, like the majority of academic philosophers, a compatibilist. He's also an expert in quantum mechanics and maintains the position that I do: that randomness isn't a satisfactory source of free will, so people looking for free will in quantum indeterminacy are barking up the wrong tree.
Back again to randomness. As though scientists can pin down whether or not it exists at all. As though 10 or a 100 or a 1,000 years from now scientists -- and philosophers? -- won't look back amazed at all the erroneous things we believed today about "quantum indeterminacy".

If you think the relevance here is about pinning down if randomness exists, you're mistaken. You aren't reading the thoughts correctly.

The thoughts do not rely on the existence or non existence of randomness. The thoughts, explicitly, are saying that randomness doesn't affect the picture of free will at all.

I keep coming back to randomness, because your words about determinism imply you think randomness solves some sort of problem. As long as you think randomness solves any problem, you'll never jive with the compatibilist intuitions.

I've tried to probe into your thoughts in this direction, but you seem resistant.

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:51 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:26 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:05 am Take us through the Mary situation and tell us what differences you think it would make if you, personally, viewed determinism or free will as the case, or a compatiblist combination?

Again, of course: click.

Given the manner in which I and others construe the "for all practical purposes" existential reality of determinism, what unfolded back then at Essex Community College exactly overlaps with what is unfolding in this exchange today. Everything that did unfold then and is unfolding now unfolds in the only possible manner in which if ever could have unfolded. Why? Because human brains are still no less wholly embedded in the laws of matter. At least until a God, the God reveals how He created autonomous souls or until the No God scientists pin down how lifeless matter did become living matter did become conscious matter did become self-conscious matter.
I don't think that's answering my question.

But my point is this: that in however I answer your question, then, according to some determinists, it is the only answer I was ever able to give. Same with what you think. Then we're stuck.

Cue the ncompatibilists: "Incompatibilism is the thesis that free will is incompatible with the truth of determinism. Incompatibilists divide into libertarianians, who deny that determinism is true and hard determinists who deny that we have free will."

The thesis? Okay, but what about the actual "for all practical purposes" existential implications of that for Mary and Jane?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:26 pmMy question is
given that you asked...

What could possibly be more important than pinning down whether or not what we think, feel, say and do we think, feel, say and do of our own volition?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:26 pmMy question is: how so?

How on earth would I know? We either do have free will and can pin that down or we don't. But that still takes me back to the gap between what any of us think we know about 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.

...and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to pin the optimal or the only rational answer that there is. It's just that, again, some here really do seem to think that what they claim to know about the human brain is that which all others are obligated to know as well.

Just ask them.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:26 pmYou have often talked about philosophers being up in the clouds, keeping issues at abstract levels, and asking posters here to show the concrete effects of their positions. Great.

Since you think finding out which is true, determinism or free will, is extremely important, what concrete difference do you think it would make if you knew?

You can use the Mary situation.

A down to earth explanation of how this importance plays out.

But explain in concrete terms what finding out would do that is important.

In regard to my Mary, back again to this:

Given the manner in which I and others construe the "for all practical purposes" existential reality of determinism, what unfolded back then at Essex Community College exactly overlaps with what is unfolding in this exchange today. Everything that did unfold then and is unfolding now unfolds in the only possible manner in which if ever could have unfolded. Why? Because human brains are still no less wholly embedded in the laws of matter. At least until a God, the God reveals how He created autonomous souls or until the No God scientists pin down how lifeless matter did become living matter did become conscious matter did become self-conscious matter.

And this...

In regard to abortion, given free will, my frame of mind revolves around the OPs of these two threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Both sides are fully capable of offering up "concrete changes" in order to [legally, politically] "resolve" the abortion conflagration. They simply start with different assumptions about the "natural rights" of the unborn and the "political rights" of the pregnant woman.

Then what? The "right makes might" agenda of the moral objectivists...or the "moderation, negotiation and compromise" agenda of the moral nihilists?

iambiguous wrote:As though you are saying, "okay, we do have free will and you are not fractured and fragmented regarding conflicting goods such as this. What then?"

But I don't know if I have free will and, if I do, I'm still no less fractured and fragmented. What then?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:26 pmI don't know if your being fractured and fragmented has to do with this issue or moral issues or something else or a mixture. That's all beside the point. You've said that nothing could be more important than knowing this. How do you know that or what makes you think it is important to know? What practical difference would knowing which is the case make? What future difference would it make?

Yes, if it actually is possible to know beyond all doubt if free will does exist for us, what could be more important? Then the part where it comes from...God or No God?

But no where am I claiming that I know anything definitive about any of this. That's your me again.

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:35 pm**

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:42 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:59 am
Right. Tell that to Mary. And then when she asks you, "if, in a determined universe...one where I was never able not to abort Jane...am I still morally responsible for doing so?", what do you tell her?
Exactly as responsible as she'd be in a world with randomness.

What randomness? There are all of the factors in her life that led to her becoming pregnant. And then all the factors in her brain that led her to either choose of her own volition to abort Jane, or in being compelled by her brain to "choose" an abortion, or, after Jane is shredded, the compatibilists who either choose or "choose" to hold her morally responsible.

On the other hand -- click -- given the Benjamin Button Syndrome there are so many variables in our life that we have no knowledge of or control over it can certainly seem as though things happen "randomly" to us.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:59 am Here is my attempt above to explain to him how I make "sense" of it:

How can anyone not understand 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.

...profound mystery in the same way? First [they tell us] was the Big Bang. Then eventually stars. Then eventually stars big enough to produce supernovas. Then out of those supernovas came all the heavier elements that eventually became the planets. Then "somehow" these heavier elements eventually produced living matter "somehow" produced conscious matter "somehow" produced us. That's what the astronomers mean when they tell us we are all born of "star stuff".

With a God, the God thrown in there or not. God thrown in because -- presto! -- instant answer.

How preposterous can it be to actually assert definitively conclusions about human brains "here and now" without grasping how human brains themselves were able to evolve in the first place. Sure, we do it because we can. But why can we?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:42 amBut none of those words were explicitly about what I asked. I asked a question about why you think randomness makes words meaningful. You didn't make reference to randomness once in all of that.

Okay, cite some examples pertaining to your own behaviors of randomness making words meaningful. From my frame of mind in a free will world, the randomness that we think is there is derived from the Benjamin Button Syndrome. We are not omniscient and can never know all of the factors that come together in the world of human interactions to explain things definitively. But that's different from randomness as examined on the quantum level. Things seemingly just happening out of the blue, or conflicting things happening at the same time, or things occurring solely because we observe them. The mystery here is still connecting the dots between the very, very small and the very, very large.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:42 amYou ask all of these questions of determinism, but the problem with the questions you ask of determinism, to me, is that there's no reason you should not also be asking them of indeterminism. You've somehow let indeterminism off the hook for these questions, but you shouldn't.

Indeterminism is the idea that events are not caused, or are not caused deterministically. It is the opposite of determinism and related to chance. It is highly relevant to the philosophical problem of free will, particularly in the form of libertarianism. wiki

Compelled by my brain or not, here and now, I don't believe that any material events are "not caused", or that -- axiomatically? -- we have autonomy? It's just that the libertarians simply assume that their own ignorance of 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.

...aside, their brains "somehow" did acquire free will. Not only that but their brains have figured out that capitalism is inherently more rational than socialism.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:42 amSo any question Mary has for a determinist, she should also have for an indeterminist. Any question about the meaning of words in determinism, should also be a question about the meaning of words in indeterminism.

And what about Jane? If Mary was never able not to abort her, she's obliterated. But if Mary was able to choose as the libertarians insist and chose instead to give birth to Jane, then Jane is around to participate in this discussion herself. Ask Jane if determinism and indeterminism are ultimately the same thing?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:42 amIt would be like me asking, "well if Jesus is the saviour, why do we only have taco Tuesdays and not taco Thursdays?" Like, maybe that's a good question, but it has nothing to do with Jesus, so you shouldn't be directing that question specifically at Christians.

The questions you ask are questions for indeterminism too.

Huh?

Comparing Mary "somehow" in possession of free will in regard to Jane with Jesus and tacos?!!!

Note to others:

Again, what crucial point do I keep missing here?

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:40 pm**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:35 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:42 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:59 am
Right. Tell that to Mary. And then when she asks you, "if, in a determined universe...one where I was never able not to abort Jane...am I still morally responsible for doing so?", what do you tell her?
Exactly as responsible as she'd be in a world with randomness.
What randomness?

The randomness implied in the question.

"if, in a determined universe...one where I was never able not to abort Jane...am I still morally responsible for doing so?",

The randomness you're avoiding talking about by not asking this question:

"if, in a NONdetermined universe...am I still morally responsible for doing so?",

You're asking all these questions about determinism, but not non determinism. Why? Why do you think that same question is not worth asking in non determinism?

Why not just ask the question, "am I morally reprehensible period?" Right? Why is determinism a central part of this question to you? Determinism can be described as just a complete absence of randomness, so when you talk about determinism, randomness is implicitly part of the conversation too. When you say "morality is impossible in Determinism," theres this implicit idea that you think morality is only possible with randomness. Why?

Do you believe morality makes sense with randomness? If so, why?

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:52 pm**

larry wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:10 pm Ignorance is the argument.

No argument is valid because of our ignorance.

No conclusion is valid because of our ignorance.

No analysis is required because of our ignorance.

There is no right or wrong because of our ignorance.

Thus Spake ZaraStoogestra!

As though the objectivists among us here are not fiercely insistent that no argument, conclusion, analysis, or behavior is correct if others are in fact ignorant of their own dogmas.

The irony!

Larry is himself still a moral objectivist in his free will world. And, to the best of my knowledge, he still has some sort of mysterious connection to a God, the God in embracing it. Perhaps not as arrogantly as Immanuel Can with his Christian God, but at least IC is willing to name Him.

Me? I'm still largely "fractured and fragmented" here myself. Nothing could be more ridiculous than for me to insist that others ought to share my own argument, conclusion or analysis.

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:56 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:34 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:10 pm Ignorance is the argument.

No argument is valid because of our ignorance.

No conclusion is valid because of our ignorance.

No analysis is required because of our ignorance.

There is no right or wrong because of our ignorance.
Was this directed at someone in particular or the post it followed?
Can you word it differently. I couldn't understand it.

Yes, by all means, compelled or not, set him straight!

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:58 pm**

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:44 pm I was responding to BigMike's post. (The immediately preceding post.)

BM thinks that Biggus is not presenting an argument ... that the post "lacks a clear argument", that "the passage is not an explanation of anything".

In fact, Biggus is presenting his position:

We lack the knowledge to say/argue anything. Therefore, he does not argue anything.

Note to BigMike:

Don't be fooled. It's me down to the bone with him. 13 years now and counting.

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:07 pm**

larry wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:49 pmI think that Biggus really believes that our lack of knowledge invalidates our arguments and our conclusions.

He's looking for certainty. He needs certainty.

Indeed, I am looking for it. After all, if there is an objective morality embedded somewhere in the "human condition" -- God or No God -- who wouldn't be interested in being linked to it? And if there is immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave, well, few that I know would just shrug that off.

But what I need, however, is more than just an argument claiming to establish these things. I need some actual demonstrative evidence that someone's argument here is in fact the real deal.

Provide me with that and watch this moral nihilist/atheist jump right the fuck over to your side.

Go ahead, Larry, provide us with yours.

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:21 pm**

But what I need, however, is more than just an argument claiming to establish these things. I need some actual demonstrative evidence that someone's argument here is in fact the real deal.

Except that there is no "demonstrative evidence" that won't be brushed away by reference to a gap in human knowledge.

There you have the insurmountable obstacle.

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:26 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 5:27 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 5:24 pm Click.
What does click mean?

Well, the best I can explain it [even to myself], is it revolves around the paradox of me believing in determinism and yet still sustaining exchanges with others here as though I do have free will.

It's like me saying, "okay, I don't know whether my brain compels me to type these words and then post them but -- click -- I'll assume that I do have free will and 'somehow' opted to."

Again, the simply surreal reality of the human brain explaining itself. Given that this brain can't explain how brainless matter evolved into living biological matter around 3.7 billion years ago, evolved into conscious matter around 5 million years ago, evolved into self-conscious matter able to invent philosophy and science just a few millennia ago.

Then going all the way back to the staggering mystery of existence itself. The "why something instead of nothing?" and "why this something instead of something else?" kind of questions.

Posted: **Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:36 pm**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:26 pm It's like me saying, "okay, I don't know whether my brain compels me to type these words and then post them but -- click -- I'll assume that I do have free will and 'somehow' opted to."

First of all, you can feel all of that inside. You can feel yourself thinking about ideas, considering them, and apparently "choosing" to type the words that in some way correspond to your thoughts.

Science can not prove that, because at the moment science doesn't have direct access to your thoughts. But you don't need science to prove it, because you've just experienced it internally. You can prove it to yourself.

So, knowing that, ask yourself the question: so what if it's determined or not? What in the world could adding randomness to that whole process possibly do for me? Would randomness make my mind somehow BETTER at processing information and considering the ideas?

Posted: **Thu Feb 16, 2023 6:15 am**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:51 pm But my point is this: that in however I answer your question, then, according to some determinists, it is the only answer I was ever able to give. Same with what you think.

Did you really think I didn't understand how determinists would view this?

The thesis? Okay, but what about the actual "for all practical purposes" existential implications of that for Mary and Jane?

Great so tell me if you were with Mary how suddenly being sure of determinism or free will would make important changes in your behavior?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:26 pmMy question is
given that you asked...

What could possibly be more important than pinning down whether or not what we think, feel, say and do we think, feel, say and do of our own volition?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:26 pmMy question is: how so?

How on earth would I know?

Because you said it was important. Which means it is important to you. Why?

We either do have free will and can pin that down or we don't. But that still takes me back to the gap between what any of us think we know about this...

You know it's important? Why is it important to you?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:26 pmYou have often talked about philosophers being up in the clouds, keeping issues at abstract levels, and asking posters here to show the concrete effects of their positions. Great.

Since you think finding out which is true, determinism or free will, is extremely important, what concrete difference do you think it would make if you knew?

You can use the Mary situation.

A down to earth explanation of how this importance plays out.

But explain in concrete terms what finding out would do that is important.

In regard to my Mary, back again to this:

Given the manner in which I and others construe the "for all practical purposes" existential reality of determinism, what unfolded back then at Essex Community College exactly overlaps with what is unfolding in this exchange today. Everything that did unfold then and is unfolding now unfolds in the only possible manner in which if ever could have unfolded. Why? Because human brains are still no less wholly embedded in the laws of matter. At least until a God, the God reveals how He created autonomous souls or until the No God scientists pin down how lifeless matter did become living matter did become conscious matter did become self-conscious matter.

And this...

In regard to abortion, given free will, my frame of mind revolves around the OPs of these two threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Both sides are fully capable of offering up "concrete changes" in order to [legally, politically] "resolve" the abortion conflagration. They simply start with different assumptions about the "natural rights" of the unborn and the "political rights" of the pregnant woman.

Then what? The "right makes might" agenda of the moral objectivists...or the "moderation, negotiation and compromise" agenda of the moral nihilists?

Here you are not answering the question. I have read those passages before. I understand what determinism entails. You have said that nothing could be more important that finding out whethere there is determinism or free will.

Describing free will or determinism is not answering the question.

Why is knowing which is true important?

iambiguous wrote:As though you are saying, "okay, we do have free will and you are not fractured and fragmented regarding conflicting goods such as this. What then?"

But I don't know if I have free will and, if I do, I'm still no less fractured and fragmented. What then?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:26 pmI don't know if your being fractured and fragmented has to do with this issue or moral issues or something else or a mixture. That's all beside the point. You've said that nothing could be more important than knowing this. How do you know that or what makes you think it is important to know? What practical difference would knowing which is the case make? What future difference would it make?

Yes, if it actually is possible to know beyond all doubt if free will does exist for us, what could be more important? Then the part where it comes from...God or No God?

But no where am I claiming that I know anything definitive about any of this. That's your me again.

I have not said you know. I get that you don't know.

I am asking you why it's important. Show me in the mary situation why KNOWING would be important.

YOu said nothing could be more important than knowing.

How so?

I get that you don't know. But it is important for you to know why.

So, why?

Posted: **Thu Feb 16, 2023 6:18 am**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:26 pm Well, the best I can explain it [even to myself], is it revolves around the paradox of me believing in determinism and yet still sustaining exchanges with others here as though I do have free will.

OK, thanks for the answer. I am not sure I fully understand click. But let me see if a question or two more makes it clearer.

It's like me saying, "okay, I don't know whether my brain compels me to type these words and then post them but -- click -- I'll assume that I do have free will and 'somehow' opted to."

Who is the you your brain is compelling? Why does your model have this as two entities?

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