compatibilism

[promethean75]

The idea of freewill has absolutely no applicability beyond its use to blame, make guilty and weaken someone. Those who evoke it, use it for that reason. If u can't physically overpower someone, u can poison them by making them doubt themselves, by making them regret.

If u can give an example of something you've ever done that was preceded with a moments hesitation wherein u asked yourself 'do i have freewill', I'll believe there is some other use for the idea.

But u cannot becuz you never have. Nobody has. The idea is used as a weapon only against others. If u want to find weakness and the underhandedness it produces, find someone who believes in freewill.

Now they may tell u they believe it exists becuz they want to take responsibility for themselves, to have pride in themselves. But wait; does this mean u wouldn't take responsibility for yourself if you didn't have freewill? Ah. Of course not. U are responsible in any case, whether your actions spring from your own choice or from a determination of events.

The strong couldn't care less whether or not they or anyone else has freewill.

[promethean75]

Show me where the concept of freewill has any relevance, any existence, outside of a philosophical language game or a court of law.

Take your time.

[Iwannaplato]

The idea of freewill has absolutely no applicability beyond its use to blame, make guilty and weaken someone.

You seem to be managing to blame and perhaps try to make someone feel guilty without the use of free will. Presumably this can be done inside the determinism framework also.

Those who evoke it, use it for that reason.

1) Do you mean they don't believe it to be true? How do you know this? 2) Again this seems like blame and could potentially, if they believe you, make them feel guilty 3) Can they help but believe in free will and express this?

If u can't physically overpower someone, u can poison them by making them doubt themselves, by making them regret.

And Number 2 again.

But u cannot becuz you never have. Nobody has. The idea is used as a weapon only against others. If u want to find weakness and the underhandedness it produces, find someone who believes in freewill.

More mindreading and blaming, possible guilt-tripping as well.

Now they may tell u they believe it exists becuz they want to take responsibility for themselves, to have pride in themselves. But wait; does this mean u wouldn't take responsibility for yourself if you didn't have freewill? Ah. Of course not. U are responsible in any case, whether your actions spring from your own choice or from a determination of events.

Please, please explain this to Iambigous. I failed in my attempts to get this across even as a possibility. I think others, such as Atla, were met with complete incomprehension.

The strong couldn't care less whether or not they or anyone else has freewill.

More mindreading.

[promethean75]

"You seem to be managing to blame and perhaps try to make someone feel guilty without the use of free will. Presumably this can be done inside the determinism framework also."

Nice dude! A switcheroo. Hmm. How will i get myself out of this one. Quiet. Let me think.

Okay i got it (I think). As a determinist I wouldn't be able to believe joe could have done otherwise when he (morally) condemns jack for stealing the loaf of bread, so my indictment can't be for the purposes of making joe feel guilty becuz he 'chose' to try and make jack feel guilty (when he didn't have to). I'm merely describing an event; joe is angry at jack and is trying to make him feel bad about what he's done. And joe cannot help this becuz he believes freewill exists.

Joe, on the other hand, believes that jack could have chosen not to steal the loaf of bread. The difference seems to be in the mood of the charge.

It comes down to what 'guilty' and 'blame' means. There are two ways to consider the uses of these words.

As i said earlier, even without freewill, one is still guilty and can be blamed for stealing a loaf of bread if these words simply mean 'is the cause of'. Yes, joe stole the bread. But why these strange words 'guilty' and 'blame'? Why would we use these words to describe Joe's behavior and not the behavior of a dog when it steals a loaf of bread?

See what's goin on? There's a hidden layer involved in this process of describing. It attempts not only to ascribe a cause to an event, but also tries to imply that this cause didn't have to be, and that perhaps joe shouldn't have stolen the bread. And finally, that if he did, he did something wrong.

The essence of the pernicious nature of the charge is concealed here.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay i got it (I think). As a determinist I wouldn't be able to believe joe could have done otherwise when he (morally) condemns jack for stealing the loaf of bread, so my indictment can't be for the purposes of making joe feel guilty becuz he 'chose' to try and make jack feel guilty (when he didn't have to). I'm merely describing an event; joe is angry at jack and is trying to make him feel bad about what he's done. And joe cannot help this becuz he believes freewill exists.

that's logical, but it doesn't mean that's your intent. Further it also has little to do with how Joe will react to your indictments. You may not have thought of that before, but now it's been pointed out. How it will affects things only time will tell.

Joe, on the other hand, believes that jack could have chosen not to steal the loaf of bread. The difference seems to be in the mood of the charge.

Yeah, I think if we look at the examples in your post above, the mood doesn't seem all that different. Of course we can't know for sure what your mood was, but as some feedback, it sure seems like the mood isn't different from a free will person's accusation. Pointing this out may or may not have an effect.

It comes down to what 'guilty' and 'blame' means. There are two ways to consider the uses of these words.

As i said earlier, even without freewill, one is still guilty and can be blamed for stealing a loaf of bread if these words simply mean 'is the cause of'. Yes, joe stole the bread. But why these strange words 'guilty' and 'blame'? Why would we use these words to describe Joe's behavior and not the behavior of a dog when it steals a loaf of bread?

Dogs sure do feel guilt and express blame. And given mine have held me responsible and blame me, I respond in kind. I do get your point. I tend not to blame avalanches. Well, I might in the moment, but not later, should I survive.

See what's goin on? There's a hidden layer involved in this process of describing. It attempts not only to ascribe a cause to an event, but also tries to imply that this cause didn't have to be, and that perhaps joe shouldn't have stolen the bread. And finally, that if he did, he did something wrong.

In the end I am not sure how much difference this amounts to. Words of anger and judgment. Assigning guilt and expressing blame. I am pretty sure poor old determined Joe is not going to react very different to an email from you about his stealing bread and an email from a free willer.

[promethean75]

I am pretty sure poor old determined Joe is not going to react very different to an email from you about his stealing bread and an email from a free willer."

Oh but he will, IWP. My email isn't accusatory or judgemental. He suffers no 'bite of conscience' from reading mine. I say not 'u should or shouldn't have' for any other reasons than his own.

I imagine that I'm so far out of the moral loop that i seem like an alien creature. I confess my position is difficult to understand.

If only I hadn't already spent years wasted elsewhere addressing the matter of freewill. I might actually make a decent effort to be understood today.

[phyllo]

Oh but he will, IWP. My email isn't accusatory or judgemental. He suffers no 'bite of conscience' from reading mine. I say not 'u should or shouldn't have' for any other reasons than his own.

If he is decapitating kittens, you're not going to say that he shouldn't do it?

Really?

Why not?

[iambiguous]

Now they may tell u they believe it exists becuz they want to take responsibility for themselves, to have pride in themselves. But wait; does this mean u wouldn't take responsibility for yourself if you didn't have freewill? Ah. Of course not. U are responsible in any case, whether your actions spring from your own choice or from a determination of events.

Please, please explain this to Iambigous. I failed in my attempts to get this across even as a possibility. I think others, such as Atla, were met with complete incomprehension.

Over and over and over and over again...

If human brains are entirely in sync with the laws of matter and if everything that we think, feel, say and do, we think, feel, say and do only becasue we were never able to opt not to then how does this not include everything that we post here, everything that we read here, and every single reaction we have to that?

We take responsibilty for things or explain things or blame others for things or succeed or fail at things or comprehend or miscomprehend things in the only possible reality that there ever could have been in a wholly determined universe.

And then this part:

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.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

Then "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule".



Unless, of course, the hard determinists are wrong. So, link us to the scientific/philosophical/theological arguments that actually do in fact establish this.

[iambiguous]

If he is decapitating kittens, you're not going to say that he shouldn't do it?

Really?

Why not?

Again, that's not the point in a wholly determined universe.

In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, someone decapitates kittens because they were never able not to. Someone says what they do about that because they were never able not to. You and I react as we do to this because we were never able freely to react otherwise.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh but he will, IWP. My email isn't accusatory or judgemental. He suffers no 'bite of conscience' from reading mine. I say not 'u should or shouldn't have' for any other reasons than his own.

Saying he's guilty and blaming him. He's not going to magically suss out the unspoken ontological position.

I imagine that I'm so far out of the moral loop that i seem like an alien creature. I confess my position is difficult to understand.

I just disagree with your sense that you're somehow less judgmental and less blaming. I understand your position, just don't buy it.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh but he will, IWP. My email isn't accusatory or judgemental. He suffers no 'bite of conscience' from reading mine. I say not 'u should or shouldn't have' for any other reasons than his own.

If he is decapitating kittens, you're not going to say that he shouldn't do it?

Really?

Why not?

No, no: he's admitted to blaming, holding responsible and considering them guilty. He just seems to think that the deep down context of his beliefs will mean that people don't feel blamed or guilty. Except they would, as any free willers would reading his earlier mindreading posts about their motives, etc.

[promethean75]

"If he is decapitating kittens, you're not going to say that he shouldn't do it?"

So what i do is a case analysis to determine whether or not i approve of the reasons why joe decapitated kittens... and this has nothing to do with whether joe is right or wrong.

If i approve, i like joe. If i don't, i don't like joe.

It's that simple. No morality needed.

[phyllo]

Oh but he will, IWP. My email isn't accusatory or judgemental. He suffers no 'bite of conscience' from reading mine. I say not 'u should or shouldn't have' for any other reasons than his own.

If he is decapitating kittens, you're not going to say that he shouldn't do it?

Really?

Why not?

No, no: he's admitted to blaming, holding responsible and considering them guilty. He just seems to think that the deep down context of his beliefs will mean that people don't feel blamed or guilty. Except they would, as any free willers would reading his earlier mindreading posts about their motives, etc.

Need to get it fleshed out a bit.

[phyllo]

If he is decapitating kittens, you're not going to say that he shouldn't do it?

Really?

Why not?

Again, that's not the point in a wholly determined universe.

In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, someone decapitates kittens because they were never able not to. Someone says what they do about that because they were never able not to. You and I react as we do to this because we were never able freely to react otherwise.

There appears little doubt you think that is the point, since you have written it hundreds of times and it seems to be your universal answer to all things regarding determinism.

Point taken . Again.

But it's a small trivial point. Trivially true.

[phyllo]

"If he is decapitating kittens, you're not going to say that he shouldn't do it?"

So what i do is a case analysis to determine whether or not i approve of the reasons why joe decapitated kittens... and this has nothing to do with whether joe is right or wrong.

If i approve, i like joe. If i don't, i don't like joe.

It's that simple. No morality needed.

So if you don't approve of his reasons, you're not going to say or do anything to get him to stop?