If it bothers you that people focus on you, well, you'll have to decide whether you hold them responsible for that behavior. I think it's pretty clear you do hold them responsible, but I'm not sure if you've noticed. How you managed to do that might help you in understanding Sam Harris non-free will determinism.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 10:08 pm
Again, the point some determinists make is this: that it's not what you thought about Harris or what Harris thought about punishment, but whether either one of you was able to opt freely to think something else instead.
Ah, ok, so it doesn't matter to you if you make up stuff about someone you claim to want to understand. Got it.
Consider the situation of a bear wandering into an area that humans are living in and attacking them. We do not need to think the bear has free will in order to justify tranquilizing it and locking it up if we can or shooting and killing it if we have to.
Of course both bears and human beings are mammals. Over millions of years the first brains became bear brains became our brains. But bear brains are rooted almost entirely in genes [biological imperatives] whereas our brains evolved to encompass memes [social, political and economic narratives] as well. Memes then evolved into morality. And philosophy. And science.
Still, how did our brains come to acquire autonomy?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 9:12 pmDid Harris say our brains have acquired autonomy?
Well, if he believes that he lacks autonomy, why doesn't he note that his own argument itself is but another inherent, necessary manifestation of the only possible reality? Instead, from my frame of mind, he seems to opine on punishment in the same manner that the libertarians do. He's arguing that it is reconcilable with determinism...suggesting [to me] that those determinists who argue that it is not are...wrong?
OK, so it doesn't matter to you if you present his position as he does, and yet you want to understand his position. One might wonder if you will every define autonomy. But then that wondering, if expressed, would be rather optimistic about the dialogue.
And yes, it seems to be precisly his point: that determinism does not entail what you think it does. That doesn't mean he believes in free will.
And perhaps reading his book on the subject might help you.
You assume his position entails that actually he believes in free will. You never try to demonstrate this. But you present him this way to others.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 9:12 pmDo you think determinism means we should let the bear run free in an area where humans live and kill them?
No, determinism as I understand it "here and now" suggests that both bears and human beings do only what they are never able not to do. It's just that bear brains are more...primitive? And that "somehow" when their brains evolved into ape brains evolved into our brains, autonomy came to be a part of our own reality. How? Why?
Then you don't understand determinism nor are you presenting Sam Harris' position. That much can be found out on the internet. He doesn't believe in free will and you seem to be attributing free will to his position.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 9:12 pmHow do you see the free will/determinism issue as changing how we ought to view that issue?
What on Earth does it mean to say we ought to do this instead of that when everything that we do we do becasue we are never able not to?
You presented it as if what he was saying did not make sense to you unless human brains had autonomy.
Then back to Mary and Jane. If Mary is wholly determined by her brain to abort Jane, how is it reasonable for compatibilists to argue that she still ought to be held morally responsible for doing what she could never have not done?
So, you think she cannot be held responsible if determinism is the case. OK.
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 9:12 pmWell, hey, if he said somewhere he believes in free will determinism, then you certainly got that part right. I could only find him saying determinism. If he's only saying determinism, then your understanding of Harris could be improved by avoiding saying he embraced free will determinism. That could be a tiny start.
All I can do -- click -- is to repeat the point I noted above:
.."somehow" Harris himself acquired the capacity to embrace "free will determinism".
Yes, it seems that's all you can do. Repeat things you make up.
You assume free will MUST be the case for someone to be held responsible, so you conclude that 'really' Sam Harris believes in free will determinism. You don't actually read his arguments. You don't actually try to demonstrate that his arguments are wrong. You just keep repeating what seems obvious to you, and attribute things to Harris he never said.
You don't demonstrate that his position must entail human brain 'autonomy'. You state that it does, but never justify this. You expect others to justify positions, but you don't justify yours. You present it as self-evident and attribute a free will determinism to Sam Harris, when this is misrepresenting his position. You state that he is somehow claiming that human brains have an autonomy other matter does not, but you do not demonstrate that he has said this or that it is entailed.
If you want to understand his position, one recommendation, don't misrepresent it.
If you are sure, as you seem to be, that he is a free will determinist, demonstrate this. If you are sure he must believe in his autonomy, define the term and then demonstrate this.
This is basic stuff. So, when we find a pattern of basic stuff problems AND it seems a great reluctance to admit things when they are pointed out, and the same pattern happens over and over, yes, you get made the issue. And probably by the people who have tried the hardest to point out this basid stuff.
You can always ignore us when we make you the issue.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 9:12 pmThen you could explain how if you were convinced there was free will tomorrow, utterly and finally, or you were convinced determinism was the case utterly tomorrow these certainties would change/affect your opinion about what to do about the bear.
Well, if I have free will then it really is my opinion. And if I don't then it is only the psychological illusion of free will.
Wow, so much information about what you would do differently about the bears. And why what seems obvious to you is the case.
Then the part where in regard to bears in a free will world, the discussion shifts from objective facts about them to rooted existentially in dasein subjective opinions about them. For example, is it moral or immoral to put bears in zoos or in circuses? Is it moral or immoral to hunt them...either for food or for trophies?
So, instead of addressing the issue of the beat killing people, you raise other issues.
Then the "Grizzly Man" controversy. Some see Timothy Treadwell as the hero for trying to protect the bears while others see him as the villian for encouraging bears to feel comfortable around human beings. And thus endangering them.
And then move even farther afield.
Yup. It's back to making fun of you in future posts.
