compatibilism

[Immanuel Can]

Determinists seek the causes of behaviours. The best people are determinists therefore as instead of simply blaming the man for his bad behaviour they seek the causes of the behaviour so that the badly -behaved man may be controlled by reason whenever possible.

If Determinism were true, there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" person at all.

And they don't "seek" anything, because "they" aren't actually the source of their own behaviour. The "causes" of every behaviour is the same, in a Deterministic world: it is always some chain of prior physical conditions, and persons are in no way the authors of their own behaviours. In a Determinist view, you might say the cause of every behaviour is "the Big Bang," or rather, whatever prior chain of conditions led up to the Big Bang.

No person is ever a "cause" of what he or she does. And you can't correct "bad" behavior, because you can't choose anything and they can't choose anything other than what they already are going to do.

It's that myopic a view.

Now, you don't live like that. I don't live like that. Nobody ever does, and nobody ever has. So that fact needs explaining.

[Skepdick]

No, I understand...it's just a bad argument, because human being are not computers, anymore than they are hammers or ham sandwiches.

Spare us the identity hogwosh.

When somebody says "I am a parent" does it mean they ARE a parent or they DO parenting?
When somebody says "I am a philosopher" does it mean they ARE a philosopher; or they DO philosophy?

What does it even mean when somebody says "I am a human"? OK. You are human. What makes you human?

As a general verb, it is not confined to computers.

What's a computer?

But it also does not bear the same meaning in other contexts. To say a person "computed" something is not to say was programmed to follow an algorithmic function in a silicon chip in his cranium.

Who says anything about silicon chips? You do understand that the history of computing hardware goes back to 35000 BCE, yeah?

You're not understanding metaphor. You're talking as if it signals identity. It does not, of course: it signals analogy.

It sure seems like you are the one making this exact error but you are trying to pin it on me. I have a great way to test/verify this!

Whether it's your identity, or just an analogy - what makes you human?

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

Just resolve the connundrum I've been putting to you, namely, "If Determinism is true, how come nobody ever lives as a Determinist?"

Mr Can, your logic is pitiful; one could as well argue that since no one lives as a determinist, that proves that determinism is true, because to live as a determinist, one would have to choose to do so. For the record, I am not a determinist.

[Skepdick]

For the record, I am not a determinist.

So you've determined that you are not a determinist.

There's just no getting off that hamster wheel...

[Belinda]

Determinists seek the causes of behaviours. The best people are determinists therefore as instead of simply blaming the man for his bad behaviour they seek the causes of the behaviour so that the badly -behaved man may be controlled by reason whenever possible.

If Determinism were true, there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" person at all.

And they don't "seek" anything, because "they" aren't actually the source of their own behaviour. The "causes" of every behaviour is the same, in a Deterministic world: it is always some chain of prior physical conditions, and persons are in no way the authors of their own behaviours. In a Determinist view, you might say the cause of every behaviour is "the Big Bang," or rather, whatever prior chain of conditions led up to the Big Bang.

No person is ever a "cause" of what he or she does. And you can't correct "bad" behavior, because you can't choose anything and they can't choose anything other than what they already are going to do.

It's that myopic a view.

Now, you don't live like that. I don't live like that. Nobody ever does, and nobody ever has. So that fact needs explaining.

Either a man originates his choices, or his choices originate in a man's circumstances. Do you understand 'originate' ?

[Immanuel Can]

Either a man originates his choices, or his choices originate in a man's circumstances. Do you understand 'originate' ?

Now, now, B...you don't have to be snippy. This isn't personal.

That's a case of false dichotomy. Circumstances provide the possible alternatives, but not the choice between the alternatives. For example, you have the choice of being a good woman or a bad one; you have no choice to be a male rodent. But the fact that your given circumstances do not allow you to choose male rodentism does not at all imply you have no choice about being a good or bad woman.

If you are in Boston, you have no choice about simultaneously being in Cleveland. And you cannot go to see the Cleveland museum or watch the Cleveland Browns play at home. But you can go to the Boston museum and see the Celtics or Red Socks or Patriots play. So you still have plenty of choice, and perhaps no constraints at all upon which you do...so long as you're in Boston.

[uwot]

For the record, I am not a determinist.

So you've determined that you are not a determinist.

There's just no getting off that hamster wheel...

Skepdick me old sausage, your logic is quite the equal of Mr Can's. I am perfectly open to the possibility that my not being a determinist was determined by a causal chain over which I have no control.

[promethean75]

"Determinists seek the causes of behaviours. The best people are determinists therefore as instead of simply blaming the man for his bad behaviour they seek the causes of the behaviour so that the badly -behaved man may be controlled by reason whenever possible."

There has not been a post in twenty pages of this thread more important, relevant and useful than that one (except my own, of course). You just went up three levels, big B.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick me old sausage, your logic is quite the equal of Mr Can's. I am perfectly open to the possibility that my not being a determinist was determined by a causal chain over which I have no control.

Oh, I very much doubt that. Since I am not employing any logic at all.

I am simply observing THAT you have determined to be a non-determinist. It would be incredibly peculiar if you had no control over the self-determination of your non-detrerminism, but whatever.

[uwot]

Skepdick me old sausage, your logic is quite the equal of Mr Can's. I am perfectly open to the possibility that my not being a determinist was determined by a causal chain over which I have no control.

Oh, I very much doubt that. Since I am not employing any logic at all.

I am simply observing THAT you have determined to be a non-determinist.

Or it has been determined for me.

It would be incredibly peculiar if had no control over your own of self-determination.

That's assuming I have self-determination.

[Skepdick]

Or it has been determined for me.

That's assuming I have self-determination.

There's a trivial way to falsify the first and confirm the 2nd. Determine to be something else about yourself.

Like this...

Now I determine to be a determinist.
Now I determine to be a non-determinist.
Now I determine to be a determinist again.

Now I determine that I don't want to determine anymore, so I am going to have a G&T.

[Belinda]

Either a man originates his choices, or his choices originate in a man's circumstances. Do you understand 'originate' ?

Now, now, B...you don't have to be snippy. This isn't personal.

That's a case of false dichotomy. Circumstances provide the possible alternatives, but not the choice between the alternatives. For example, you have the choice of being a good woman or a bad one; you have no choice to be a male rodent. But the fact that your given circumstances do not allow you to choose male rodentism does not at all imply you have no choice about being a good or bad woman.

If you are in Boston, you have no choice about simultaneously being in Cleveland. And you cannot go to see the Cleveland museum or watch the Cleveland Browns play at home. But you can go to the Boston museum and see the Celtics or Red Socks or Patriots play. So you still have plenty of choice, and perhaps no constraints at all upon which you do...so long as you're in Boston.

That sort of compatibilism won't do, Immanuel. Free Will, if it existed, is all or nothing. You can't call on Free Will only when Free Will is convenient.

Voluntary behaviour (choice)and also coerced or involuntary behaviour, i.e. all behaviours, originates either with the man or it originates with the man's circumstances.

[Belinda]

Determinists seek the causes of behaviours. The best people are determinists therefore as instead of simply blaming the man for his bad behaviour they seek the causes of the behaviour so that the badly -behaved man may be controlled by reason whenever possible.

If Determinism were true, there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" person at all.

And they don't "seek" anything, because "they" aren't actually the source of their own behaviour. The "causes" of every behaviour is the same, in a Deterministic world: it is always some chain of prior physical conditions, and persons are in no way the authors of their own behaviours. In a Determinist view, you might say the cause of every behaviour is "the Big Bang," or rather, whatever prior chain of conditions led up to the Big Bang.

No person is ever a "cause" of what he or she does. And you can't correct "bad" behavior, because you can't choose anything and they can't choose anything other than what they already are going to do.

It's that myopic a view.

Now, you don't live like that. I don't live like that. Nobody ever does, and nobody ever has. So that fact needs explaining.

It's true we tend mostly to blame the man for originating his bad choices and praise the man for originating his good choices. However this is careless and thoughtless. While nobody is harmed by being praised , people are harmed for being blamed instead of helped to change. Please apply this principle to young children in school. Apply the principle also to criminals' regimes in prisons. Apply the principle also to international diplomacy. Generally it's wise to seek and remedy the cause of a man's bad behaviour instead of simplistically blaming the man.

You will find that through the history of man's past the tactic of blaming the man, or the tribe, or the nation, or the religious group, (tactic of the political agitator)has been enlisted for the cause of war- mongering. Those who sought the causes of discontent and disharmony have always been more inclined to address the circumstances of the evils and thereby remove or ameliorate them.

[Immanuel Can]

Either a man originates his choices, or his choices originate in a man's circumstances. Do you understand 'originate' ?

Now, now, B...you don't have to be snippy. This isn't personal.

That's a case of false dichotomy. Circumstances provide the possible alternatives, but not the choice between the alternatives. For example, you have the choice of being a good woman or a bad one; you have no choice to be a male rodent. But the fact that your given circumstances do not allow you to choose male rodentism does not at all imply you have no choice about being a good or bad woman.

If you are in Boston, you have no choice about simultaneously being in Cleveland. And you cannot go to see the Cleveland museum or watch the Cleveland Browns play at home. But you can go to the Boston museum and see the Celtics or Red Socks or Patriots play. So you still have plenty of choice, and perhaps no constraints at all upon which you do...so long as you're in Boston.

That sort of compatibilism...

It's not "Compatibilism." If you think it is, then all I can say is that you clearly don't know what "Compatibilism" is.

In fact, if I may speak frankly, I would say you've got all of the basic terms wrong, including "Determinism" and "free will." You seem to think that the former is partial and the latter is absolute, whereas the opposite is true: Determinism requires absolute uniformity, and free will is partial and can accept that some things are nothing more than cause-and-effect but also insists that some are not just that.

If we use the same terms -- use them in the conventional and standard ways -- you and I will understand each other better.

[Immanuel Can]

Generally it's wise to seek and remedy the cause of a man's bad behaviour instead of simplistically blaming the man.

You're missing the whole point of Determinism.

If Determinism is true, there is no "remedy" for anything that happens: there is only whatever happens. And while you're right that nobody is to praise or blame for anything, if Determinism is true, then you're wrong to suppose anything can be remedied, fixed, changed or even improved under a Deterministic assumption.

Determinism is strictly and absolutely fatalistic. It does not countenance the possibility of change, except as a descriptor of causes and effects taking whatever inevitable path they do. And human attributions of moral worth refer to absolutely no objective reality.

Given Determinism, whatever is, is -- bad or good, it's what you get.