Philosophy Now Forum

Moe wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 9:22 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 8:42 pm We'll need a context of course.

It's funny. The man with thousands of posts here and posts in other forums going back decades....
Man, if what you do here isn't a context, you ain't got a context.

No, I meant the sort of context where Mary is compelled by her brain to abort Jane and the compatibilists argue that she is still morally responsible for doing so. The part where [compelled or not] I suggest that compatibilists themselves argue what they do because they too are compelled to by their brains. It's completely beyond their control but what is also beyond their control is being able to grasp this...given the psychological illusion of free will.


A suggestion...

Larry, Moe and Curly commence their own thread on compatibilism and moral responsibility. They might then be plagued by Stooges here all their own. They begin to grasp what it's like when they themselves become the issue.




Note to nature:

How does that sound?

No, I meant the sort of context where Mary is compelled by her brain to abort Jane and the compatibilists argue that she is still morally responsible for doing so. The part where [compelled or not] I suggest that compatibilists themselves argue what they do because they too are compelled to by their brains. It's completely beyond their control but what is also beyond their control is being able to grasp this...given the psychological illusion of free will.

How make times has it been pointed out that someone being compelled by her brain makes no sense?

There is no 'your brain' separate from 'you'. There is no free floating 'you' independent of 'your brain'.

What your brain thinks is what you think. What your brain decides is what you decide.

Unless you want to argue that there is a non-physical 'you' trapped, imprisoned, in your physical body. A helpless, powerless 'you'.

Go ahead if you want to go there.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 9:46 pm No, I meant the sort of context where Mary is compelled by her brain to abort Jane and the compatibilists argue

Obviously you meant that. I mean, that's so obvious any of the three of use who are not you would fill in the blanks in our sleep. that she is still morally responsible for doing so. The part where [compelled or not] I suggest that compatibilists themselves argue what they do because they too are compelled to by their brains. It's completely beyond their control but what is also beyond their control is being able to grasp this...given the psychological illusion of free will. And the hilarity of you writing 'we'll need' when you actually mean 'I want' - which has been pointed out before - is still missed by you.

But my point, despite knowing full well what you want, was that you posted 'we''ll need a context' in response to a post with a context. A concrete on, down here, with specific individuals.

A suggestion...

Larry, Moe and Curly commence their own thread on compatibilism and moral responsibility. They might then be plagued by Stooges here all their own

Oh, yeah. We've never experienced people talking about us. Yes, that's clearly the experience we need. We've never had ad homs aimed at us, and certainly not with regularlity. We've never interacted with Wizard or VA or, well, you.

. They begin to grasp what it's like when they themselves become the issue.

yes, that's an experiences I know nothing about.

There comes a time, good old Iamb, when someone with great regularity does not respond to the point one makes, that continuing to act like they are responding to you, is irrational. Certainly one can leave. One can point this out. One can even enjoy mocking it. These are vastly better options than pretending this is some kind of dialogue.

If only you had the experiences of communicating with someone who with great regularity doesn't respond to the points you make, then you might understand what it's like to communicate with you.

But, of course, I know that you have experienced this. How you could not know we have experienced being the focus of others' posts rather than our pointed is amazing, but not, unfortunately, surprising.

A number of people have made very nice and flexible attempts to explaining to you what we have seen as the confusings in the way you frame compatibilism and then what we think compatibilism means and how this can make sense. You really haven't dealt with this well, yes, in my opinion'. So, you become the focus. Just as you go ad hom when you get irritated or when you feel like mocking.

So, here we are.

You can always ignore us.






Note to nature:

How does that sound?
[/quote]

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 10:03 pm

No, I meant the sort of context where Mary is compelled by her brain to abort Jane and the compatibilists argue that she is still morally responsible for doing so. The part where [compelled or not] I suggest that compatibilists themselves argue what they do because they too are compelled to by their brains. It's completely beyond their control but what is also beyond their control is being able to grasp this...given the psychological illusion of free will.

How make times has it been pointed out that someone being compelled by her brain makes no sense?

There is no 'your brain' separate from 'you'. There is no free floating 'you' independent of 'your brain'.

What your brain thinks is what you think. What your brain decides is what you decide.

Unless you want to argue that there is a non-physical 'you' trapped, imprisoned, in your physical body. A helpless, powerless 'you'.

Go ahead if you want to go there.

For example, yes. I think you and Flannel Jesus have done a very nice job around this and other points. I don't think anyone solved the whole shebang, but at no point is there any acknowledgement that anything said to good old Iamb was actually well formulated. At no point could iamb managed to leave behind this way of framing the issue with brains causing us to...etc.

What you get when you make a good point is some hands thrown up in the air Benjamin buttons we are all forced to have said that for all we know, non-response.

Well, yeah, that makes you the issue.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 9:46 pm
Larry, Moe and Curly commence their own thread on compatibilism and moral responsibility. They might then be plagued by Stooges here all their own. They begin to grasp what it's like when they themselves become the issue.

Did biggy just admit he's the issue? Fascinating.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 10:45 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 9:46 pm
Larry, Moe and Curly commence their own thread on compatibilism and moral responsibility. They might then be plagued by Stooges here all their own. They begin to grasp what it's like when they themselves become the issue.

Did biggy just admit he's the issue? Fascinating.

And not only that but despite not being sure about the whole free will/determinism issue, he is suggesting rehabilitative punishment. Which seems to answer his own concerns about holding people responsible regardless of whether their acts are determined or free or both or whatever.

Moe wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 10:11 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 9:46 pm No, I meant the sort of context where Mary is compelled by her brain to abort Jane and the compatibilists argue

Obviously you meant that. I mean, that's so obvious any of the three of use who are not you would fill in the blanks in our sleep. that she is still morally responsible for doing so. The part where [compelled or not] I suggest that compatibilists themselves argue what they do because they too are compelled to by their brains. It's completely beyond their control but what is also beyond their control is being able to grasp this...given the psychological illusion of free will. And the hilarity of you writing 'we'll need' when you actually mean 'I want' - which has been pointed out before - is still missed by you.

But my point, despite knowing full well what you want, was that you posted 'we''ll need a context' in response to a post with a context. A concrete on, down here, with specific individuals.

A suggestion...

Larry, Moe and Curly commence their own thread on compatibilism and moral responsibility. They might then be plagued by Stooges here all their own

Oh, yeah. We've never experienced people talking about us. Yes, that's clearly the experience we need. We've never had ad homs aimed at us, and certainly not with regularlity. We've never interacted with Wizard or VA or, well, you.

. They begin to grasp what it's like when they themselves become the issue.

yes, that's an experiences I know nothing about.

There comes a time, good old Iamb, when someone with great regularity does not respond to the point one makes, that continuing to act like they are responding to you, is irrational. Certainly one can leave. One can point this out. One can even enjoy mocking it. These are vastly better options than pretending this is some kind of dialogue.

If only you had the experiences of communicating with someone who with great regularity doesn't respond to the points you make, then you might understand what it's like to communicate with you.

But, of course, I know that you have experienced this. How you could not know we have experienced being the focus of others' posts rather than our pointed is amazing, but not, unfortunately, surprising.

A number of people have made very nice and flexible attempts to explaining to you what we have seen as the confusings in the way you frame compatibilism and then what we think compatibilism means and how this can make sense. You really haven't dealt with this well, yes, in my opinion'. So, you become the focus. Just as you go ad hom when you get irritated or when you feel like mocking.

So, here we are.

You can always ignore us.

Unless, of course, he's right?

Curly wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 10:45 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 9:46 pm
Larry, Moe and Curly commence their own thread on compatibilism and moral responsibility. They might then be plagued by Stooges here all their own. They begin to grasp what it's like when they themselves become the issue.

Did biggy just admit he's the issue? Fascinating.

Seriously though, shouldn't you be over at ILP sustaining a futile effort to keep the folks there focused on...philosophy? You know, instead of ripping each other new assholes.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 10:05 pm

Curly wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 10:45 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 9:46 pm
Larry, Moe and Curly commence their own thread on compatibilism and moral responsibility. They might then be plagued by Stooges here all their own. They begin to grasp what it's like when they themselves become the issue.

Did biggy just admit he's the issue? Fascinating.

Seriously though, shouldn't you be over at ILP sustaining a futile effort to keep the folks there focused on...philosophy? You know, instead of ripping each other new assholes.

Seems like something "the issue" would say.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 9:59 pm Unless, of course, he's right?

He is.

Moe wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 10:29 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 9:59 pm Unless, of course, he's right?

He is.

Okay, but objectively?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 10:44 pm

Moe wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 10:29 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 9:59 pm Unless, of course, he's right?

He is.

Okay, but objectively?

A guy walks into a party and bumps into his friend or perhaps 'friend' Jack.
They greet.
The guy says things are going well.
Jack, gives the guy a smug, skeptical look and says 'Are they?' and also aims this look at others.

Later the guy mentions to people what Jack believes about him, that he's supposedly not doing well.
Jack says 'I never asserted anything.'

'Uh, huh, Jack. Whatever' the guys says.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 7:04 am A guy walks into a party and ...

I'll raise you one better.

An armadillo walks into a party and bumps into one of those pin ball machine bumpers. Startled, he rolls up into a ball and gets flinged across the room, directly into another pin ball machine bumper. There are bumpers scattered across the room and he bounces from one to another. The party guests watch horrified but eventually the horror gives way into amusement, and eventually into boredom as they realise there's no way to end this bumping cascade. The armadillo is stuck there with no way out. Nobody's going to save him. This is his eternity now.

Apply this predicament to Mary and Jane. I dare you.

I would say that Biggus wants to be in a community and voice his opinions on his favorite topics.

No dealing with challenges to those opinions, no modifications, no arguments.

I got my opinions, you got your opinions.

That's it.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 12:02 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 7:04 am A guy walks into a party and ...

I'll raise you one better.

An armadillo walks into a party and bumps into one of those pin ball machine bumpers. Startled, he rolls up into a ball and gets flinged across the room, directly into another pin ball machine bumper. There are bumpers scattered across the room and he bounces from one to another. The party guests watch horrified but eventually the horror gives way into amusement, and eventually into boredom as they realise there's no way to end this bumping cascade. The armadillo is stuck there with no way out. Nobody's going to save him. This is his eternity now.

Apply this predicament to Mary and Jane. I dare you.

I think I will apply it to the same thing I applied my analogy.
A few people notice that the armadillo occasionally gets bumped outside of the bumpers. He quickly runs back into the center of the machine and starts bouncing around again. He keeps choosing to get bumped around. Here the word choosing may mean something in the free will category or it may mean a choice that is determined. But either way, what we have is an armadillo attached to something unpleasant. And yet the armadillo's cries of suffering are quite real.