Page 175 of 422

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2023 2:16 pm
by Iwannaplato
BigMike wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 12:40 pm Although I credit you
Well, as you say below, you shouldn't credit me. :D
for pointing out my failures here and for having shed light on a subtopic worthy of much more debate, I still think it is a slight distraction from what I was trying to say
Therefore, I will try to restate my message as short and simple as possible: “Because there is no free will, it is wrong to blame or credit anyone for their actions. The reason for any wrongdoings (or welldoings) must be found elsewhere. We should therefore go looking for it.”
I added emphasis.
Meaning of disapproval in English
disapproval | AMERICAN DICTIONARY
disapproval
noun [ U ]
US /ˌdɪs·əˈpru·vəl/

the expression or feeling that something done or said is wrong
I'm happy to drop it if it seems like a distraction. It just seems to me that we can use whatever words we want, but I think a murderer put in jail will understand that we disapprove of his actions. And even in a world where we all agree that determinism is the case, some people will need to be separated out to protect others. If those who commit crimes are not to be seen as having done something wrong, then people who disapprove should not either.

This is not just me being a stickler. I think there's a real problem if people are given the strong impression that society disapproves of their disapproving of the actions of others. It's putting what I think is an unnecessary pressure on people, whereas one can disapprove of actions AND realize there are causes running in all directions AND try to improve problems at a wide level AND treat the person with compassion. Rather than one ruling the others out.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2023 3:27 pm
by BigMike
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 2:16 pm
Well, well, well, my dear friend, let me tell you about the difference between blaming and punishing someone!

You see, blaming is like when you fart in an elevator, and then you try to pin the blame on someone else, like the innocent-looking old lady in the corner. It's like, "Whoever smelt it, dealt it," but you don't want to deal with the consequences, so you try to blame someone else.

Listen up, my friend, I gotta tell you something that's oh so true. It's not just you, it's the whole damn society that's obsessed with finding someone to blame!

I mean, seriously, have you ever seen a group of people trying to play the blame game? It's like a bunch of blindfolded toddlers playing pin the tail on the donkey - they have no idea what they're doing, but they're still determined to stick something somewhere and hope it sticks.

And it's not just individuals, it's the whole damn society! From politicians to pundits to your nosy neighbor down the street, everyone's got an opinion on who's to blame for everything from climate change to the shortage of toilet paper.

But let me tell you something, my friend, blaming someone is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline - it might make you feel better for a minute, but it's only going to make things worse in the long run. Instead of looking for someone to blame, we should be looking for solutions to the problems we face.

So, next time someone tries to blame you for something, just laugh it off and tell them they're barking up the wrong tree. And if they insist on playing the blame game, well, you can always grab a bag of popcorn and watch the chaos unfold. After all, sometimes the best way to deal with a ridiculous situation is to just sit back and enjoy the show!

On the other hand, punishing is like when you get caught stealing candy from a baby, and then the baby's mom comes along and gives you a good smack on the bum with a wooden spoon. It's like, "You did a bad thing, and now you're gonna pay for it, buddy!"

So, in short, blaming is trying to weasel your way out of trouble, while punishing is getting what you deserve for your misdeeds. Just remember, folks, don't blame others for your farts, and don't steal candy from babies, or you might just get punished in a not-so-funny way!

Well, let me tell you a story about why I don't like to blame people but I don't mind correcting or even punishing them to teach them a lesson.
You see, blaming people is like trying to catch a greased-up pig - it's slippery, messy, and you're probably going to end up with a handful of mud instead of the pig. Plus, who wants to spend all day chasing pigs when you could be lounging on the couch with a bag of chips?

However, correcting or punishing people is like training a misbehaving dog - it takes time and effort, but it's worth it in the end. You can't just let the dog pee on the carpet or chew up your shoes, but you also don't want to kick it to the curb. You have to show it who's boss, teach it some tricks, and give it a good belly rub every now and then.

So, if someone messes up, I don't blame them - I just calmly explain what they did wrong, give them a stern look, and maybe throw in a light spanking for good measure. It's not about being mean or vindictive, it's about teaching them a lesson so they don't make the same mistake again. And if they do, well, I have a whole arsenal of training tools at my disposal - from water sprays to electric collars to the ultimate punishment: taking away their Wi-Fi privileges.

I'll admit that I may not be a pig wrangler or a dog trainer, but I know that blaming people is pointless and punishing them can be effective (and hilarious, if you do it right). Just remember, folks, be firm but fair, and always keep a stash of treats handy in case you need to bribe someone into good behavior!

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2023 3:43 pm
by Iwannaplato
BigMike wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 3:27 pm So, if someone messes up, I don't blame them - I just calmly explain what they did wrong, give them a stern look, and maybe throw in a light spanking for good measure.
Why didn't you spank society?
Why didn't you give a stern look to their teachers, peers, the people who make tv programs?

I actually live in a country where spanking is illegal. But you can blame people here.

You use minimizing adjectives 'light' spanking, 'stern' look. Adverbs 'calmly'. So, it's soft blaming. It seems like a matter of degree.

I would experience that as blame, certainly if another adult spanked me. But even whatever the equivalent of spanking is between adults.

I recently did something insensitive to a friend. She confronted me. She saw me as the source of the problem. Yes, she would agree that factors in my past led to this. She very clear about expressing her anger and very compassionate. She blamed me for what I did and listened to my response. I'm glad she did. My actions were part of the causes of what she experienced as unpleasant. It was clear in her tone that it upset her. This gave me motivation to really look at what I did.

You mention blame games and groups. Well, sure. Anything can abused. I'm not saying blame is always good, I am arguing that I see not good reason, even one based on determinism, to say it's wrong.
It's not about being mean or vindictive
I don't think Phyllo said anything about being vindictive or mean.
, it's about teaching them a lesson so they don't make the same mistake again. And if they do, well, I have a whole arsenal of training tools at my disposal - from water sprays to electric collars to the ultimate punishment: taking away their Wi-Fi privileges.
I'm actually not sure if you're pulling my leg. Now you're talking about punishment.
I'll admit that I may not be a pig wrangler or a dog trainer, but I know that blaming people is pointless and punishing them can be effective (and hilarious, if you do it right). Just remember, folks, be firm but fair, and always keep a stash of treats handy in case you need to bribe someone into good behavior!
I'll leave it here. We use words quite differently. I think you projected a lot of worst case scenarios on what Phyllo said. Now you seem to agree about aiming the corrections (I hope that word is not controversial) at a particular individual who did something and at that act.

Somebody uses a shock from an electric shock collar on me, well, I think I'd take that as at the very least disapproval. The only other option is sadism.

But maybe this was all tongue in cheek and you think blame entails doing this type of thing to someone. I don't know.

But we see these words in quite different ways and frankly now it seems you are more vindictive than I am. Though I am sure you wouldn't use that word. Appropriate lesson giving.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2023 8:23 pm
by BigMike
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 3:43 pm I recently did something insensitive to a friend. She confronted me. She saw me as the source of the problem. Yes, she would agree that factors in my past led to this. She very clear about expressing her anger and very compassionate. She blamed me for what I did and listened to my response. I'm glad she did. My actions were part of the causes of what she experienced as unpleasant. It was clear in her tone that it upset her. This gave me motivation to really look at what I did.

You mention blame games and groups. Well, sure. Anything can abused. I'm not saying blame is always good, I am arguing that I see not good reason, even one based on determinism, to say it's wrong.
Oh boy, looks like we've got a serious situation on our hands! You know what they say, when the going gets tough, the tough get going... and it sounds like you're one tough cookie! You've done something insensitive to your friend, and she's called you out on it. Ouch, that's gotta sting.

But hey, let's not be too hard on ourselves. We all make mistakes, right? It's how we handle those mistakes that really counts. And it sounds like you're handling this like a pro. Your friend is mad, but she's also showing you some serious compassion. Now that's what I call a good friend!

And speaking of friends, let's talk about the blame game. You know the one I'm talking about - it's like a game of hot potato, except instead of passing around a spud, you're passing around a steaming pile of "it's not my fault!" But hey, if you messed up, you messed up. Own it like a champ and move on.

Now, let's get to the good stuff - motivation. It's like a little spark that can ignite a whole bonfire of change. So go ahead and really look at what you did. It might be unpleasant, but it's necessary. And don't be afraid to make some changes! You've got this, my friend. You're a rockstar, a superstar, a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious star! Keep shining bright!

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2023 9:17 pm
by iambiguous
BigMike wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 12:35 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 10:24 pm
BigMike wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 10:05 pm
I have repeatedly stated that free will does not exist. I have repeatedly stated that I am a strict determinist. One obvious implication of this is that, given my understanding of the "no free will-determined universe," I am not choosing to post this on my own volition. There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about that.
Exactly! If the laws of matter are entirely applicable to human brains then everything that human beings think, feel, say and do is entirely ordinary. Wholly in sync with nature. The nature of the universe.

So, you posted the above because you were never able not to. And if others disagree with you in their posts, well, so what, it's not like they were ever able to agree with you. Nothing that encompasses the "human condition" is unfolding other than as it is fated or destined to given the laws of matter.

Only, come on, how do we go about demonstrating that in fact the human brain did not "somehow" acquire autonomy when biological life began to evolve on Earth. And, for all we know, it may well come back to God.
Ok. At least now, you seem to understand that I claim there is no free will and that we have no free choice in what we do or don't do. That's great. Congratulate your self on that.
Note to others:

Click.

You tell me if this is a reasonable response to the points I made. Though, again, it seems, we have to first assume that we can freely opt to post what we do here because "somehow" the human brain did acquire autonomy when "somehow" biological life did evolve into us here on planet Earth.
BigMike wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 12:35 amThe real kicker, however, is that when I say I have no other choice, I mean right now, in this very moment. But what I do now will impact how I act in the future.
What is the future though but a series of new "nows" in which you have no choice other than to think, feel, say and do what you must because your material brain [past, present and future] is necessarily in sync with the laws of matter.
BigMike wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 12:35 amAs a child, touching a hot stove hurt a lot, so the next time I saw a stove, I made sure it wasn't hot before touching it. As a result of neural connections formed following that initial experience, nerve signals are sent to a part of the brain that prompts me to look again to ensure the stove isn't hot before touching it. I remember it to this day because the knowledge I gained permanently changed the structure of my brain.
Here again this mysterious "I" that "somehow" transcends these nerve signals and "learns" such that in the future "I" can opt not to touch the hot stove.

Now, I'm not saying that's not the case. You may well be making a good point here that I keep missing. I just have a hard time reconciling it with this:
I have repeatedly stated that free will does not exist. I have repeatedly stated that I am a strict determinist. One obvious implication of this is that, given my understanding of the "no free will-determined universe," I am not choosing to post this on my own volition.
Thus:
BigMike wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 12:35 amWhen we encounter similar situations in the future, our brains use these memories to guide our behavior and decision-making.
Our material brains, derived from the laws of matter, doing brain things. Past, present and future.
BigMike wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 12:35 amFor example, suppose we have had a positive experience with a particular food. In that case, we are more likely to seek it out and enjoy it in the future. Similarly, suppose we have had a negative experience with a particular activity. In that case, we may be less likely to engage in that activity again in the future.
Okay, how is this applicable to Mary and Jane? In a no free will wholly determined universe as you understand it, what is unfolding in Mary's brain such that it led to her aborting Jane. Could her brain have chosen instead not to abort her? Is there a real deal choice here for her as, say, the libertarians understand choice?

How are her memories here not in turn the only memories she was ever able to have as her series of "now" past and her series of "now" present shifts to her series of "now" future?
BigMike wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 12:35 amI could be wrong, but your worldview does not appear to allow for learning. If it does, please explain how learning and memory fit into your view of a rather static and unchanging world.
Again, what does it mean to be right or wrong in a no free will wholly determined universe?

We learn new things because we were never able not to learn them. The world changes in a way that it was never able not to...in the only possible reality.

Only I'm the first to admit that I have absolutely no way in which to actually demonstrate this...one way or the other. Nor do the neuroscientists. Because had they done so it would surely be all everyone in the scientific community would be talking about.

Right?

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2023 9:33 pm
by BigMike
iambiguous wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 9:17 pm
Well well well, look who we have here! It's either a walking monument of stupidity or a non-stop argument generator, folks! I mean, seriously, I've never seen someone who could give a wall a run for its money in the intelligence department. And as for being argumentative, let's just say that if you were stranded on a deserted island, you'd find a way to argue with a coconut.

But hey, don't take it from me, let's ask the experts! I'm pretty sure if we put your IQ against a bag of rocks, the rocks would win. And if we had a debate between you and a brick wall, the wall would come out on top.

So there you have it, folks. The ultimate question: is our dear friend here terribly stupid or just really good at arguing? The answer may never be known, but one thing's for sure - we're in for a wild ride either way!

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2023 9:50 pm
by Iwannaplato
BigMike wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 8:23 pm Now, let's get to the good stuff - motivation. It's like a little spark that can ignite a whole bonfire of change. So go ahead and really look at what you did. It might be unpleasant, but it's necessary. And don't be afraid to make some changes! You've got this, my friend. You're a rockstar, a superstar, a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious star! Keep shining bright!
Even if you can't help it, stop giving me credit, because I know what's around the corner.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2023 6:58 am
by iambiguous
BigMike wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 10:50 amConsider the natural world, with its galaxies and stars, its planets and moons, its mountains and oceans, its forests and deserts. It is a vast and beautiful tapestry woven by the forces of nature over billions of years.

And yet, within this grand tapestry, there are creatures like us - human beings - who possess something called consciousness. We are aware of ourselves and the world around us, and we have the capacity to make choices and act upon them.

But here's the thing: the natural world, as far as we can tell, operates according to fixed laws and deterministic processes. The motion of the planets, the behavior of atoms, the growth of plants - all of these things are governed by physical laws that we can observe and measure.

So where does that leave us, as moral agents? If the natural world operates according to fixed laws and deterministic processes, then where is there room for free will - the idea that we can make choices that are not predetermined by the laws of nature?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that there is no room for free will. We are simply products of the natural world, shaped by the forces of evolution and environment. Our thoughts, our feelings, our actions - all of these things are ultimately determined by the physical processes that govern the universe.

And if we are not truly free to choose our actions, then how can we be held morally responsible for them? How can we be blamed for our mistakes or praised for our virtues? It seems that the very idea of moral responsibility is called into question by the scientific understanding of the natural world.
Got that?

If Mary aborts Jane in this no free will wholly determined natural world then she was never able to not abort her. And whether we hold her morally responsible or argue that she is not morally responsible...the same thing. It's just our brains compelling us to argue only as we must. Just as Mary must abort Jane.

But hold on...
BigMike wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 10:50 amOf course, this does not mean that we should abandon ethics altogether. We can still strive to live in accordance with moral principles, even if we recognize that we are not truly free to choose our actions. But we should do so with a sense of humility and recognition that we are, ultimately, products of the natural world - and that our morality, like everything else, is shaped by the forces of nature.
"Somehow" in this no free will wholly determined natural world we can either abandon or not abandon morality. We can strive to live one way rather than another.

But: Just not as the libertarians would argue that we can.

Again, his point may be legitimate, and I am just not able to grasp it. But his arguments are to me almost always basically intellectual contraptions in which words define and defend other words up in the conceptual clouds.

And -- click -- I am not able to grasp how "for all practical purposes" his idea of abandoning or not abandoning something, striving or not striving for something, embracing or not embracing something is different from the arguments of the free will advocates.

Pertaining to his own particular behaviors in a particular context most here will be familiar with.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:24 am
by Agent Smith
What's the essence, if there's one, of compatibilism?

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:27 am
by iambiguous
phyllo wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:08 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 6:59 pm
phyllo wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 3:24 pm What if you applied that to Mary's abortion?
That's what I was doing.
You only applied it to Mary's friend. You didn't apply it to the events happening to Mary.
The Benjamin Button clip is applicable to all of us. But in a wholly determined universe every single interaction of all the material factors that encompass human interactions would become part of the only possible reality. In a free will world, however, we would have some measure of control over some of the factors.

Thus...
In a determined universe as I understand it "here and now", both Mary and her friend are fated [re brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter] to behave in such a way that everything that happens between them could never have not happened.

But if "somehow" in a way neither scientists nor philosophers can yet explain, human brain matter did acquire free will, there are still many, many variables in our lives [re the Benjamin Button clip] that we are either unaware of or are beyond our control. So, if in a free will world where her friend's visit was instrumental in getting Mary to change her mind, any number of the smallest of things happening that prevents them from meeting can result in Jane's demise.
You don't know what is fated until after the event has happened.
Well, in a determined universe as I understand it, everything that I know about anything at all is only that which my brain compels me to know. Mary will abort Jane no matter what she and her friend think, feel, say and do because they were only ever able to think, feel, say and do what they must.
phyllo wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:08 pm If Mary gets an abortion then that's fated. If Mary doesn't get an abortion then that's fated.
Yeah, in a wholly determined universe. Though, sure, if it doesn't make any difference to you that Mary is able to opt to abort or not to abort Jane...if "somehow" human brains did acquire free will...fine, we can just agree to disagree about these two very different worlds.
phyllo wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:08 pm But you're always sitting there after the event, saying that it "could never have not happened". In both cases, you say the same thing.

You don't seem to notice your privileged position.
Right, like if we do live in a wholly determined universe, having a privileged position is not in turn merely that which my brain compels me to think that I have.

Whereas in a free will universe I can choose behaviors that really do put me in a privileged position.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:43 am
by popeye1945
Free will is egocentricity.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:38 am
by BigMike
Agent Smith wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:24 am What's the essence, if there's one, of compatibilism?
Compatibilism is like saying you can have your cake and eat it too, but with free will and determinism instead! It's the kind of philosophical trickery that would make even Houdini scratch his head in confusion. I mean, come on, how can you possibly reconcile the idea that our choices are both determined and free at the same time? It's like trying to convince a cat to take a bath - you can try, but you're probably gonna end up scratched and soaking wet! So yeah, in my humble opinion, compatibilism is just a bunch of hogwash, hooey, and balderdash all rolled up into one big, steaming pile of nonsense!

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:39 am
by Flannel Jesus
There you have it folks, the essence of compatibilism!

Lol. When someone asks you for the essence of a position, I think you're supposed to do your best to steal man it, not just say the most nasty stuff you can about it.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:52 am
by BigMike
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:43 am Free will is egocentricity.
Well blow me down and call me a spinach leaf, Popeye's got it right on the money! I mean, who do we think we are, walking around with our fancy schmancy "free will" like we're the center of the universe? Talk about egocentrism, amirite? It's like we're all a bunch of little Popeyes, flexing our biceps and declaring our independence from fate. But let's be real, folks, we're just a bunch of puny mortals trying to make sense of a chaotic world. So go ahead, eat your spinach and listen to the man with the pipe, 'cause he knows what's up.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:03 am
by Iwannaplato
BigMike wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:52 am
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:43 am Free will is egocentricity.
Well blow me down and call me a spinach leaf, Popeye's got it right on the money! I mean, who do we think we are, walking around with our fancy schmancy "free will" like we're the center of the universe? Talk about egocentrism, amirite? It's like we're all a bunch of little Popeyes, flexing our biceps and declaring our independence from fate. But let's be real, folks, we're just a bunch of puny mortals trying to make sense of a chaotic world. So go ahead, eat your spinach and listen to the man with the pipe, 'cause he knows what's up.
Sounds like you disapprove of believing in free will.