compatibilism

[phyllo]

Well, unless of course the laws of nature are the underlying reality. And unless of course the human brain is no less the embodiment of them.

Well, the "laws of nature" are the underlying reality. And the brain is the embodiment of them.

But you're saying something more, something different.

Isn't that what many determinists believe? Here though [from my understanding of it] compatibilists seem to agree with this.

No. Not the way you phrase it and not the way you use it.

Again -- click -- you have your take on it, I have mine.

Right. I must be misrepresenting them because they are not in sync with how you represent them. Stooge stuff.

A recurring theme ... whatever you say and do is somehow untouchable.

How arrogant and egotistical can you get?

[Iwannaplato]

Right. "nothing you say matters, so what do you have to say about that?" And then you say something and he's like "doesn't matter" lmao. Check mate

On the other hand, it is your "God given" right to be yet another insufferably arrogant objectivist, isn't it?

He's sure of his judgments including moral ones, even if he thinks determinism eliminates understanding. It's amazing that he never manages to notice his own objectivism. (and yes, I know his predictable 'explanation' for how his objectivism isn't really objectivism)

[phyllo]

There's a big difference between saying "I don't understand compatibilism" and saying "I might not be understanding compatibilism correctly".

The latter is not even an admission of not understanding. And he can't even be held accountable for that watered down statement:

Only I'm then quick to point out I might not be understanding compatibilism correctly. But, if I'm not, that's only because my own brain compels me to misunderstand them.

[Flannel Jesus]

"I might not be understanding compatibilism correctly, but I definitely won't try"

It doesn't really mean much to be quick to point out you might be wrong if you're also unwilling to seriously consider the actual possibility that you are wrong.

[iambiguous]

Right. "nothing you say matters, so what do you have to say about that?" And then you say something and he's like "doesn't matter" lmao. Check mate

On the other hand, it is your "God given" right to be yet another insufferably arrogant objectivist, isn't it?

He's sure of his judgments including moral ones, even if he thinks determinism eliminates understanding. It's amazing that he never manages to notice his own objectivism. (and yes, I know his predictable 'explanation' for how his objectivism isn't really objectivism)

Stooges of the world unite!! You have nothing to lose but your wiggle, wiggle, wiggling ways.

Well, unless, of course, they've nailed me.

[Flannel Jesus]

You know it must be true because it's blue.

[iambiguous]

Stooges of the world unite!! You have nothing to lose but your wiggle, wiggle, wiggling ways.

Well, unless, of course, they've nailed me.

[Flannel Jesus]

Say it twice, you know it's right.

[phyllo]

He will just bring you down to his level.

[Flannel Jesus]

He's still the only one calling people stooges and derailing his own conversations, resorting to huge colourful text because his insecurities don't allow him to just have a normal conversation without all those crutches. He's immensely insecure, but I guess I would be too if I was hundreds of pages deep into a conversation and didn't know the very basics of the concept I was talking about.

You're right though, he does drag us all down.

[iambiguous]

Well, unless of course the laws of nature are the underlying reality. And unless of course the human brain is no less the embodiment of them.

Well, the "laws of nature" are the underlying reality. And the brain is the embodiment of them.

But you're saying something more, something different.

No -- click -- I'm suggesting that, given an introspective wild ass guess and given further the gap between what I think I know about the human brain going back to how it fits into all that I don't know about the existence of existence itself, if the human brain is wholly in sync with the laws of matter then how can everything -- anything -- that we think, feel, say and do not be an inherent component of the only possible world?

Now, basically, what you argue from my frame of mind is that this can't be true because it would be intolerable. As you noted above...

You could never not think that getting slapped in the face is bad.
You could never not dislike him.
You could never not judge him.
Then all the others who could never not react in a different way.

And...

It's his basic idea that the brain and "laws of nature" compel everything that determinists and compatibilists think.

And therefore, all thoughts and ideas are equivalent and meaningless. True and false mean nothing. Reasoning is no different than non-reasoning.

So, therefore, we must have free will! The horror of living in a world where our brains really do compel us in the waking world to think, feel, say and do that which we are never able not to...just as it does in the dreamworld.

Again, it's the metaphysical equivalent of "God must exist because in the absence of God everything really would be permitted". Lots and lots of religious folks come back to this, right? And so lots and lots of libertarians insist that free will must exist because, well, it just must!

Isn't that what many determinists believe? Here though [from my understanding of it] compatibilists seem to agree with this. But then argue that they are still responsible for doing so. So, the only way that makes any sense to me is because, no, in a wholly determined universe determinists are not really responsible for believing that. It's just that the compatibilists are compelled by their own brains to post that they are.

Only I'm then quick to point out I might not be understanding compatibilism correctly. But, if I'm not, that's only because my own brain compels me to misunderstand them.

No. Not the way you phrase it and not the way you use it.

Okay, phrase it and use it in the most technically correct manner. How would determinists who are also "serious philosophers" construe Mary and Jane? How you do? Or, rather, how I construe you doing so: basically arguing "determinism...free will? What's the difference"

To Jane? Still being around for one thing.

Right. I must be misrepresenting them because they are not in sync with how you represent them. Stooge stuff.

A recurring theme ... whatever you say and do is somehow untouchable.

How arrogant and egotistical can you get?

Come on, you're the one here talking about determinism, free will, and compatibilism as though only how you understand them is the correct way...

To witless:

Stop misinterpreting determinism, compatibilism and free-will and I won't come in to correct you.

The problem is that left alone, you spread misinformation.

That's bad.

Then the part that particularly intrigues me: the part where you can't, won't, don't explain how your own commitment to free will and objective morality ultimately comes back to God and/or religion.

Sure, when you can fall back on them your conclusions are then in sync with the Divine itself!

[iambiguous]

He's still the only one calling people stooges and derailing his own conversations, resorting to huge colourful text because his insecurities don't allow him to just have a normal conversation without all those crutches. He's immensely insecure, but I guess I would be too if I was hundreds of pages deep into a conversation and didn't know the very basics of the concept I was talking about.

You're right though, he does drag us all down.

Again, as I have noted before, I call someone [in a particular post] a Stooge, when, in my own rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion, the post seems aimed more at making me the issue rather than the points I raise.

It's purely subjective. A personal prejudice and nothing more.

[phyllo]

No -- click -- I'm suggesting that, given an introspective wild ass guess and given further the gap between what I think I know about the human brain going back to how it fits into all that I don't know about the existence of existence itself, if the human brain is wholly in sync with the laws of matter then how can everything -- anything -- that we think, feel, say and do not be an inherent component of the only possible world?

Now, basically, what you argue from my frame of mind is that this can't be true because it would be intolerable. As you noted above...

I have written about it many times in plain language and you still have no idea what I'm saying about determinism, compatibilism and free-will.

So, therefore, we must have free will! The horror of living in a world where our brains really do compel us in the waking world to think, feel, say and do that which we are never able not to...just as it does in the dreamworld.

That's not what I'm saying.

Okay, phrase it and use it in the most technically correct manner. How would determinists who are also "serious philosophers" construe Mary and Jane? How you do? Or, rather, how I construe you doing so: basically arguing "determinism...free will? What's the difference"

To Jane? Still being around for one thing.

Why don't you look it up on the internet or in a book.

There's no point in me doing it because I can't seem to write anything that you are able to understand.

Try a better writer.

You don't even understand what I'm saying about "the difference". Come on, you're the one here talking about determinism, free will, and compatibilism as though only how you understand them is the correct way...

Lots of people understand it in reasonable ways that vary from mine.

They don't babble, make things up and write/talk without any knowledge of the subject.

To witless:

Who is witless?

Then the part that particularly intrigues me: the part where you can't, won't, don't explain how your own commitment to free will and objective morality ultimately comes back to God and/or religion.

Sure, when you can fall back on them your conclusions are then in sync with the Divine itself!

The topic isn't God or religion.

There's a Christianity thread for that.

[Flannel Jesus]

He's still the only one calling people stooges and derailing his own conversations, resorting to huge colourful text because his insecurities don't allow him to just have a normal conversation without all those crutches. He's immensely insecure, but I guess I would be too if I was hundreds of pages deep into a conversation and didn't know the very basics of the concept I was talking about.

You're right though, he does drag us all down.

Again, as I have noted before, I call someone [in a particular post] a Stooge, when, in my own rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion, the post seems aimed more at making me the issue rather than the points I raise.

It's purely subjective. A personal prejudice and nothing more.

Ah, right, well then that makes you a stooge quite frequently then doesn't it?

[Iwannaplato]

He's still the only one calling people stooges and derailing his own conversations, resorting to huge colourful text because his insecurities don't allow him to just have a normal conversation without all those crutches. He's immensely insecure, but I guess I would be too if I was hundreds of pages deep into a conversation and didn't know the very basics of the concept I was talking about.

You're right though, he does drag us all down.

Again, as I have noted before, I call someone [in a particular post] a Stooge, when, in my own rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion, the post seems aimed more at making me the issue rather than the points I raise.

It's purely subjective. A personal prejudice and nothing more.

Ah, right, well then that makes you a stooge quite frequently then doesn't it?

I loved

[in a particular post]

as if there was some other way to do this. LOL.
And then also, name calling is a label for a person. It indicates what he (ya, ya, subjectively) thinks they ARE. Someone focusing on his behavior need not being doing that. They could be focusing on his behavior. Just like the accusation of 'serious philosopher' is doing, though again as a label for the person.

Instead of asking for a concrete example.

And also note the loophole for himself: in a post primarily aimed at making him the issue. So, when he calls you Mr. Wiggle in a post that he can argue was primarily on topic, that's not Stooge behavior.

So, to use that loophole myself, I would like to draw our attention to what I thought was a fairly clear short summary...

Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, bue we can still act morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires.

Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free. Compatabilism does not hold that humans have free will.

Compatibilism holds that:

1) the thesis of determinism is true, and that accordingly all human behavior, voluntary or involuntary, like the behavior of all other things, arises from antecedent conditions, given which no other behavior is possible: all human behavior is caused and determined

2)voluntary behavior is nonetheless free to the extent that it is not externally constrained or impeded

3) the causes of voluntary behavior are certain states, events, or conditions within the agent: acts of will or volitions, choices, decisions, desires etc...

Compatibilism is NOT a position that combines the libertarian and determinist positions.

Compatibilismis NOT a compromise of the two other positions.

Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans are "a little bit" free.

Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans have "limited free will".

Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans have some free will.[/size][/b]

Compatibilism is determinism with a slight modification for the sake of appearances and for our language use. It is a position taken because of the perceived need to have some idea of accountability or responsibility for human behavior.

For those who hold this position humans can be held accountable for their actions and blameworthy if they act according to their will (however formed) and are not coerced or forced by external agencies or agents. If the motives or goals or other factors that form the will are the results of prior events and experienced and are so determined that does not nullify the idea that the human acts according to a will and has freedom of the will.

Humans are either free or they are not. They either possess free will and can use it or they do not have it at all. They either have it and can use it as often as they want to do so or they have only the appearance of free will and really never make decisions or choices devoid of prior influences that determine the outcome of the decision or choice making procedure.

That there may be social or physical constraints is not the issue here. Humans are not able to fly using only their own bodies to propel them through the air. You could say that humans are not "free " to do so but that would be to misuse the word free and change its meaning from "being able to choose" to "being physically able to do".

There may be repercussions or consequences for our actions so that a person might want to say something like "I am not free to rob a bank and by that mean that if they did they would be pursued and captures and imprisoned. If persons have free will they can make the choice to rob a bank and flee capture.

Freedom in this context of the freedom versus determinism issue has a meaning that identifies it with possessing free will or being able to make choices for ones self.

I bolded an increased the size of the part that talks about what FJ was saying to Iambiguous for a while.

I think the assumption of moral responsibility is due to an identification of the person with their desires.

IOW if we frame moral resposibility in terms of a person could have done any of a number of things, but from from any prior conditions, including his own nature and tendencies, then determinism and compatibilism (at least the form being discussed in this thread) should not be able to apply moral responsibility to humans. What was going to happen was going to happen.

But for compatibilists you are the person who wants to rape. And to put it kind of street simply: You're a rapist and we don't like rapists. Even if you are compelled to rape given who you are, well, that's precisely our point, you're a rapist guy and we don't like that. So, we're gonna put you in a box so you can't rape and so maybe other rapists will stifle that urge out of fear of prison.

And, again, I don't see how free will actually leads to coherent reasons to judge and punish people. A rapist and a non-rapist are more or less the same. People who could do anything at any moment.

You can't argue that the rapist raping, in a free will universe, in any way says anything about his future actions. His past has not the slightet influence on his behavior.

I changed some of the wording of the above that I found online. The writer used 'free' in ways I think were confusing.