Philosophy Now Forum

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:47 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:12 pm Mary's heart was heavy with grief and despair as she faced the most difficult decision of her life. She had just learned that the precious life growing inside her was not as healthy as she had hoped. The doctors had given her the devastating news that her baby had a rare and severe medical condition, one that would cause it immense pain and suffering throughout its short life.

Mary's mind was in turmoil as she tried to process the reality of the situation. She knew that she couldn't bear the thought of bringing a child into the world only to watch it suffer every moment of its existence. She couldn't fathom the idea of subjecting a helpless, innocent being to such agony, knowing that there was no cure or treatment that could save it.

As she considered her options, Mary's heart ached with a sense of profound loss. She had dreamed of holding her baby in her arms, watching it grow and thrive, and loving it with all her heart. But now, she faced the heartbreaking reality that this dream could never come true.

The thought of ending her pregnancy was agonizing, but Mary knew that it was the only humane choice. She couldn't bear the thought of her baby enduring a life of pain and suffering. She couldn't bear the thought of bringing a child into the world, only to watch it die a slow, agonizing death.

With tears streaming down her face, Mary made the heart-wrenching decision to have an abortion. She knew that it was the only way to spare her baby from a life of pain and misery, and she prayed that she could find the strength to heal from the emotional wounds that this decision would undoubtedly leave behind.

As Mary walked out of the hospital, her heart shattered into a million pieces. She knew that the road ahead would be long and painful, but she also knew that she had made the right choice. She had chosen to spare her baby from a life of suffering and to give it the peace and love that it deserved, even if that meant saying goodbye before it had a chance to take its first breath.

Free will?

Yeah, and what does this have to do with demonstrating empirically, experientially, experimentally etc., that Mary either does or does not have free will? All that unfolded above may well have embodied the only possible reality in the only possible world.

And my Mary got pregnant as a result of a defective contraceptive. She ended the pregnancy simply because at that point in her life
a child would interfere with her education and her plans for the future.

Then back to him arguing that he himself had no free will in the "now" when he posted this, but that "somehow" anyone who does not share his own determined, "natural" assessment here is wrong. Even though they themselves were compelled to react to his post in their own "now" only as their own brains commanded.

Well, well, well, Mr. Iambiguous. It seems as though you're quite the determinist, aren't you? You believe that everything is predetermined and that there is no such thing as free will. How amusing!

Let me ask you this: did you choose to believe in determinism or were you predetermined to believe in it? Did you choose to respond to this post or were you predetermined to do so? According to your own beliefs, the answer is obvious: you had no choice in the matter.

But don't worry, my dear determinist friend. I understand that you have no control over your beliefs and actions. After all, you are simply a product of your genetics and environment, acting in accordance with the laws of nature.

So go ahead and continue to argue for your deterministic worldview, knowing full well that you have no choice but to do so. And while you're at it, why not have a good laugh at the absurdity of it all? After all, if we're all just puppets on a string, we might as well enjoy the show!

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:59 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:52 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:58 am
I think his reply tells you a lot of pertinent information. Mainly, that he doesn't understand what determinism actually means and its consequences.

Or: "I think his reply tells you a lot of pertinent information. Mainly, that, because he doesn't think exactly as I do about this centuries old conundrum, he doesn't understand what determinism actually means and its consequences."

Flannel Jesus meet BigMike.

And God knows how many other "my way or the highway" authoritarians here.

Do you think that someone thinking their beliefs are correct is itself inherently a problem? I don't really understand this.

No. After all, I think that my beliefs about many things are true. But beyond what I think "in my head" is true about determinism, free will and compatibilism, what am I actually able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in their heads too if they wish to be thought of as rational human beings?

Only on this thread things become all the more problematic because we are discussing what can in fact be known indisputably about the human brain itself.

So, if your own brain beleives it "understands what determinism actually means and its consequences." and that my brain doesn't, how exactly would we pin this down...logically? epistemologically? ontologically? teleologically?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:59 pmIt's like, you're not disagreeing with him, or with me, but instead you're disagreeing with the principle that I could think I'm correct, about anything at all. Like there's no reason for anybody ever to think they are correct about anything.

That's how it comes across anyway

I'm just pointing out the obvious. That for thousands of years now, philosophers and scientists have been grappling with the profound mystery of human consciousness. And in regard to whether or not it "somehow" acquired what some call free will...or autonomy or volition.

The question is so profound and so fascianating and so pertinent to actual human interactions, that some like us will always come back to it over and over and over again.

In part because there are so many aspects of human interactions in the either/or world that we all are easily able to accept as the objective truth. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology. At least in the world encompassing our day to day lives.

But morality and Big Questions?

They are an entirely different thing in my view.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:32 pm.

So, if your own brain beleives it "understands what determinism actually means and its consequences." and that my brain doesn't, how exactly would we pin this down...logically? epistemologically? ontologically? teleologically?

I pin it down by reading what you wrote about determinism, and noting that that is not the mental model any determinist I know actually has.

Here's what you wrote:

Mary will abort Jane no matter what she and her friend think, feel, say and do

That's not the mental model of any person who is a determinist in this thread of how determinism actually works. That's a confusion. Apparently, it's confusing determinism with fatalism.

If you're curious about the difference between determinism and fatalism, and why determinists wouldn't agree with those words of yours that I quoted, I can explain that.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:10 pm Well, well, well, Mr. Iambiguous. It seems as though you're quite the determinist, aren't you? You believe that everything is predetermined and that there is no such thing as free will. How amusing!

Okay, he's a Stooge. But what shall I Call him? Phyllo was Larry, felixdacat was Moe and Karpel Tunnel was Curly. How about...Shemp!!

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:10 pm Let me ask you this: did you choose to believe in determinism or were you predetermined to believe in it? Did you choose to respond to this post or were you predetermined to do so? According to your own beliefs, the answer is obvious: you had no choice in the matter.

Over and over and over again:

Given what I myself have no full understanding of regarding 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.

...how on Earth could I possibly know that? Instead, my point -- click -- is that you clearly come off as someone who treats with disdain all those here who do not think exactly as you do about determinism.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:10 pmBut don't worry, my dear determinist friend. I understand that you have no control over your beliefs and actions. After all, you are simply a product of your genetics and environment, acting in accordance with the laws of nature.

You may know this [compelled or not] but I certainly do not. Instead, compelled or not, I take an existential leap of faith to the assumption that since the human brain is just more matter, then it too is functioning in the same manner as all other matter: given the laws of nature. Human beings being a part of nature as well.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:10 pmSo go ahead and continue to argue for your deterministic worldview, knowing full well that you have no choice but to do so. And while you're at it, why not have a good laugh at the absurdity of it all? After all, if we're all just puppets on a string, we might as well enjoy the show!

Gasp! Yet another Stooge telling the world what I know when I myself remain no less "fractured and fragmented" here regarding what any mere mortal can possibly know about things of this sort.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:50 pm 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.

This favorite of yours must be clarified for it to be taken seriously.

What do you mean by acquire?
What do you mean by autonomy?
What do you mean by living matter?
What do you mean by conscious matter?
What do you mean by self-conscious matter?

Also, convince me that your definitions define something that actually exists.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 6:22 pm I commented on this above. If Jane's life is a good life then she owes it all to the fact that her mother's friend of her own free will discussed the pregnancy with her mother. And while Mary of her own free will had opted to abort Jane, now she opts to give birth as a result of this exchange between two autonomous minds. Whereas in a wholly determined world where Mary aborts her, she was never able to opt not to. I merely interject here with my own assessment of the role that dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome play here.

But if Jane's life has become a miserable hellhole, she might curse her mother for freely choosing to bring her into this stinking world. So, of her own free will, she might choose to commit suicide.

Sure or Sally who might have had a happy life doesn't get to live in a free will world. Or Sally in the determinist world who commits suicide.

Again, from my frame of mind, what difference does it make in a determined world that Mary was a Catholic and was afraid of her father's opinion? All of that is no less an inherent manifestation of the only possible world.

Just me explaining the causes that led to the abortion. That's all. Those in the determined world.
The ponit being, again, that a free will world allows both things that will be appreciated and things that are hated to happen. Just as in a determined world. That's all.

So, sure, in free will world, the number of abortions may rise and fall due to any number of social, political and economic factors.

It's odd that you say in a free will world....
and you list causes
that determine an outcome.
In a free will world it could be mere caprice. A free will world is precisely one where causes do not determine outcomes.

But what doesn't change is that this revolves around at least some measure of autonomy.

Right. Me with the "fractured and fragmented" mind in regard to both the morality of abortion and regarding the extent to which free will is factor at all here thinks I know what a free will world would be like.

Well, you made a clear statement without qualification.

If you say X is true. Or it must be X.

And I comment that I don't know how you know this referring me to other things you've said that contradict your expressed certainty isn't really a response. Sure, when I read you say some things you seem uncertain. But then you make statements that are unqualified and you express things simply as being X.

Look, in the OP of this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382 -- I examine my own take on dasein pertaining to my own views on the morality of abortion. Given a free will world.

That's a different topic than what we were just talking about.

I definitely don't know. At least pertaining to my own capacity to actually demonstrate what "I" think "I" know "here and now" is in fact true. I'm not an objectivist here myself. Quite the contrary.

Well, great, but you expressed things as if you were sure it was a certain way in a free will world.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:58 pm2) You seem to know somehow that in a free will world dasein still, to some degree controls people. Please don't explain why you believe dasein does this. I understand the arguments. I just have no idea why this need apply in a free willl world. I don't even know what a free will world functions like. How do you know that in a free will world there are limits on freedom?

Controls people? As though dasein turns them into robots or cyborgs? That's your take on my take.

Really. I said robots or cyborgs. I missed that. In any case, great. You don't think that dasein necessarily controls us in a free will world. You don't know. Clear.

And if you really understood my arguments you wouldn't sound [to me] like you really don't at all.

Well, that's a truism. But I think you contradict yourself, sometimes through patterns of examples. Sometimes through seeming to express knowing when I don't know how you know.

I've certainly noticed when you say you don't know or that you are torn. Or even that perhaps we cannot know. I notice all that.

But there are times and they come with some regularity you write as you are not torn and do know.

If I react to that, you refer to your statements elsewhere that show you couldn't be certain. Without really grappling with the specific assertions I am responding to.

As for how a free will world functions, well, assuming that we do live in a free will world, just look around you. It functions like that.

If you had framed it like this:

Let's assume for a moment the world we live in is a free will world. If that is the case, I see dasein having very strong effects on people's beliefs, the choices they make and the choices they notice/consider.

Then I understand your assertions more clearly.

IOW it's clear that you are looking at our world now and considering that as a base for conclusions about what a free will world is like.

Since you have said you don't know what this world is, it seemed like you were simply saying, if there is a free will world, it would function like X. Given that this world may not be one, I had no idea how you could draw that conclusion.

But it's clear now to me what you believe, so I can leave it here.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:05 pm I'm like 75% sure that's what you mean when you keep on bringing up "objectivists" even though, as far as I know, nobody you've been talking to considers themselves objectivists ...

Again, being a moral objectivist as I understand it revolves around someone who is convinced that they are in sync with their "true self" -- their soul -- in sync further with the "right thing to do".

And few things in this world are more dangerous, in my view, than those like this who acquire any significant political power in a community. Almost any community.

"My way or the highway". "One of us or one of them", And, for some, that means the gulags and the death camps.

On the other hand, neck and neck with them are the moral nihilists...those who own and operate the global economy and the sociopaths.

Well, click, of course.

larry wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 1:27 pm

I think his reply tells you a lot of pertinent information. Mainly, that he doesn't understand what determinism actually means and its consequences.

What I find interesting is his complete lack of interest in examining his ideas and changing them.

But at the same time he claims to be "fractured and fragmented" and he keeps asking questions.

As I have noted before...

And there have been any number of situations in my past when my thinking was shifting dramatically. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.

Now, give us a heads up on all the times that you had to admit to yourself that you were wrong about a philosophy of life.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 1:34 pm That actually kind of ties into this funny thought process I regularly have, which illustrates a possible mental strategy for compatibilists:

There was a time when I was very lonely. As a pure determinist at the time, I thought "maybe I'm determined to be lonely."

And then the thought occurred to me, I don't *want* to be determined to be lonely.

And then I did something about it, and now I'm not lonely.

I "chose" what I was determined to be.

I didn't do that as some sort of exception to the laws of physics though, I did it as part of the physical system we're all in.

You can accept determinism, and make choices about what sort of determined future you would prefer to have.

Sort of

Right. This definitely proves that "somehow" when exploding stars created all the elements needed to create rocky planets needed to create biological matter needed to create conscious matter needed to create self-conscious, it all becomes perfectly clear that Flannel Jesus nailed it above.

You can "choose" to become a free will determinist. As long as this reconciliation is confined solely to what you believe "in your head" it simply isn't necessary to provide others with any actual, say, hard evidence.

Like those who think, "there was a time when I was fractured and fragmented about morality. Then the thought occurred to me that I don't have to be that way if there is a God. So, I did something about it and became a Christian."

Sort of.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 3:52 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:05 pm I'm like 75% sure that's what you mean when you keep on bringing up "objectivists" even though, as far as I know, nobody you've been talking to considers themselves objectivists ...

Again, being a moral objectivist as I understand it revolves around someone who is convinced that they are in sync with their "true self" -- their soul -- in sync further with the "right thing to do".

And few things in this world are more dangerous, in my view, than those like this who acquire any significant political power in a community. Almost any community.

"My way or the highway". "One of us or one of them", And, for some, that means the gulags and the death camps.

On the other hand, neck and neck with them are the moral nihilists...those who own and operate the global economy and the sociopaths.

Well, click, of course.

Who are you talking about though? Who are these objectivists you bring up so frequently? Phyllo? Iwannaplato? Me?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:22 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 1:34 pm That actually kind of ties into this funny thought process I regularly have, which illustrates a possible mental strategy for compatibilists:

There was a time when I was very lonely. As a pure determinist at the time, I thought "maybe I'm determined to be lonely."

And then the thought occurred to me, I don't *want* to be determined to be lonely.

And then I did something about it, and now I'm not lonely.

I "chose" what I was determined to be.

I didn't do that as some sort of exception to the laws of physics though, I did it as part of the physical system we're all in.

You can accept determinism, and make choices about what sort of determined future you would prefer to have.

Sort of

Right. This definitely proves that "somehow" when exploding stars created all the elements needed to create rocky planets needed to create biological matter needed to create conscious matter needed to create self-conscious, it all becomes perfectly clear that Flannel Jesus nailed it above.

You can "choose" to become a free will determinist. As long as this reconciliation is confined solely to what you believe "in your head" it simply isn't necessary to provide others with any actual, say, hard evidence.

There isn't a part of what I said that's even asking for hard evidence. It's abstract reasoning based on considering possible states of the world.

If you don't like doing that, if you need perfect certain scientific truths in order to continue thinking about this problem, they're not coming any time soon. So once again, you have permission to stop thinking. Us other folks, we don't need that.

I really think it's time you make up your mind on this point: can you think about this stuff without complete perfect scientific certainty? Are you capable of doing that? If you are, it's time you stop asking for that type of certainty here. If you're not capable of it, no amount of posting on philosophy forums is ever going to bring you that type of certainty, because that's just not the type of philosophising at hand here. So if you're not capable of thinking without that type of certainty, then you have permission to stop thinking

What assumptions/"facts" participate in determinism vis-à-vis free will? Gone are the days when medical colleges sufficed to make a doctor out of a person.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 8:46 am If you don't like doing that, if you need perfect certain scientific truths in order to continue thinking about this problem, they're not coming any time soon.

And further some kind of scientific consensus isn't proof. Perhaps it too will get revised in 50 years. This isn't geometry, for example.

I really think it's time you make up your mind on this point: can you think about this stuff without complete perfect scientific certainty?

Can he prove that the people he is disagreeing with are objectivists? Can he prove the attributes he gives to people he labels this way?No.

But he's confident enough to speak label them this way and to speak about them insultingly.

IOW he has enough information, according to his own estimation, to act in the world based on rational despite not having proof. This is where we are on many issues.

So, we have a level of certainly that leads to the way one interacts with other people.

But for a fairly abstract ontological issue - determinsm vs. free will - it seems one needs 'proof', even though it is not clear that resolving this issue changes the way people interact with each other.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:15 am But for a fairly abstract ontological issue - determinsm vs. free will - it seems one needs 'proof', even though it is not clear that resolving this issue changes the way people interact with each other.

He would only ever be capable of coming to that conclusion if he allowed himself to think about the problems, the possible ways the world might be, without scientific certainty. He could only come to the conclusion that scientific certainty wouldn't help much if he first allowed himself to trek forward with uncertainty.

Compatibilism is a philosophical position that attempts to reconcile the idea of free will with the concept of determinism. According to determinism, every event, including human actions, is causally determined by prior events and natural laws. Compatibilists argue that determinism is compatible with free will because free will can be defined as the ability to act in accordance with one's own desires and intentions, regardless of whether those desires and intentions are themselves causally determined by prior events.

However, many philosophers have argued that compatibilism is a contradiction in terms because it attempts to reconcile two ideas that are fundamentally incompatible. According to this view, if determinism is true, then everything that happens, including human actions, is determined by prior causes and natural laws. In such a world, there is no room for genuine freedom or agency, as every action is causally necessitated by prior events.

Moreover, even if we accept that free will is compatible with determinism, the compatibilist definition of free will as the ability to act in accordance with one's desires and intentions is not sufficient to establish the kind of freedom that many people intuitively believe in. For example, if a person's desires and intentions are themselves determined by prior causes and natural laws, then that person's actions are still ultimately causally determined, even if they feel like they are acting freely.

In summary, many philosophers argue that compatibilism is a contradiction in terms because it attempts to reconcile two ideas that are fundamentally incompatible, and the compatibilist definition of free will as the ability to act in accordance with one's desires and intentions is not sufficient to establish the kind of freedom that many people intuitively believe in.

Ex falso quodlibet, also known as the principle of explosion, is a logical principle that states that anything can be proven if a contradiction is assumed. In other words, if one accepts a false premise or contradiction, then anything can be logically deduced from it.

This principle is relevant to the discussion of compatibilism because if one accepts the premise that determinism is true and that free will is compatible with determinism, then one could potentially justify any action or behavior as being predetermined and therefore not subject to moral evaluation or responsibility. For example, one could justify acts of violence, theft, or even genocide as being predetermined by prior causes and natural laws, and therefore not subject to moral condemnation or punishment.

This is dangerous because it undermines the very foundations of morality and accountability. If we accept that our actions are predetermined and beyond our control, then we cannot be held responsible for them, and moral judgments become meaningless. This could lead to a breakdown of social norms and ethical standards, and ultimately to a society where anything goes.

Furthermore, the principle of explosion means that if we accept a false premise, such as the compatibility of determinism and free will, we open ourselves up to all sorts of other false and dangerous conclusions. This highlights the importance of carefully examining our assumptions and beliefs, and being wary of arguments that rely on false or contradictory premises.