Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 8:04 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 8:03 pm
High-larious, right?

Yeah, that is indeed hilariously bad.

Hey, it's hard to make up a pretend conversation where you get to put words into the mouth of the person you disagree with and then win the argument. It's even harder to quote someone else doing this.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 2:24 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 2:15 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:56 pm Where's that discussion?

That's the impression I get when Iambiguous talks about "wants". And some other free-willers as well, but they are less direct.

And it extends to "choice" as well.

In a free-will world, I choose to buy a car. Okay.

In a determined world, I choose to buy a car. Whoa ... Something not right there ... Your brain compelled that. No choice was really made.

(Buy a car. Get an abortion. )

OK, I think I know what you mean.

When I read this post and got to Your brain compelled that. I just shook my head and laughed. Iambiguous and his brain compelling him. Who is this him?

I get it. That issue doesn't solve the whole determinism thing. I can understand the idea might still be offputting. But he could actually say...Yeah, I see what you mean. I am my brain(and body). It doesn't compel me, and then go on and still argue that 'choice' is not the right word or has meanings that don't fit. He wouldn't have to give up his project, but he acts like it, since he can't manage to admit things.

My point being he could actually admit that it's a poor way of wording it, to the degree that it is false, AND STILL have his general position.

But he simply can't admit that or look at it. It's like his whole world and argument would come crashing down if he said to you or FJ - OK; you're right about that.

And then you could have REAL discussion of your disagreement, likely focusing on the word 'choice' or something similar.

But instead of letting himself do that, he just goes on using that ridiculous formulation.

And further, I think it allows an expression of victimhood, it allows him to frame the issue with him as a victim. He is even compelled by his brain.

The ghost in the machine.

Let's try this...

Click.

We create a new thread that revolves around compatibilism and moral responsibility. Given a set of circumstances revolving in turn around a "conflicting good" we all agree on.

Then as the exchanges unfold, both of them are able to note specifically all of the things they say about me here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 3:47 pm Where does compatibilism fit?

5F73CD48-B1B0-4BC8-A2C0-A7BC29DC9980.png

We'll need an actual context, of course.

Then the part where henry connects the dots between his own moral, political and philosophical prejudices pertaining to free will and the Deist God.

Of course, the difficulty here is that Deists believe conflicting things about, well, many, many, many things:

"Different Deists had different beliefs about the immortality of the soul, about the existence of Hell and damnation to punish the wicked, and the existence of Heaven to reward the virtuous." wiki

Maybe if and when He returns to us mere mortals, however, He'll bring along a Scripture that Deists can argue endlessly about as well.

Think the God of Abraham and His Scripture.

The part I root in dasein and they root in their own arrogant self-righteous assumptions that what they believe is in fact the most intuitively rational thing that can be believed.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 8:03 pm
High-larious, right?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:19 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 8:04 pm

Yeah, that is indeed hilariously bad.

Hey, it's hard to make up a pretend conversation where you get to put words into the mouth of the person you disagree with and then win the argument. It's even harder to quote someone else doing this.

I truly wish Henry could, for a moment, see how everyone else views this weird straw man dialogue he loves to post.

Or maybe he still just doesn't get my point of view. Either because of his own free will he simply lacks the intelligence to, or, in a wholly determined universe, he was never able to get it.

I see no reason to talk about moral responsibility when we don't even have an agreement on what free-will and determinism involves.

I post what, I think, is a clear example of determinism/compatibilism and you think that it's an example of libertarian free-will.

If we are not on the same page with that simple example, then any discussion of moral responsibly is going to go nowhere.


BTW, free-will would not give me any more intelligence. I would still be stuck with my genetics and my experiences. Just saying.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:12 pm So, what do we have above. There is an appeal to incredulity. There is an ad populum argument.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 8:48 pmHe posts things like this and I don't really have a clue as to how they pertain to my points. Here the gap between the paths all those other animals create in the jungle and the paths that our own species create. The gap between brains almost entirely compelled by genes and brains bursting at the seams historically, culturally and experientially with ever evolving and changing social, political, moral, economic and religious memes.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:15 pmI indicated later what I was referring to that was an appeal to incredulity and what was an ad populum argument.

Thanks for not clearing that up.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 10:14 pmBut the interesting thing is

Iambigious presents it as clear. If humans have free will, they are the only species that has it on earth.

Sure, if others here wish to argue that termites and ants and all those other creatures embody free will in forging paths through the jungle...just as the men and women in Apocalypto do...fine.

Instead, the argument that some determinists make is that, ironically enough, the human beings in the film don't have free will either.

In orher words, brains are brains are brains: matter entirely in sync with the laws of nature.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:15 pmNo, here's the point. You haven't argued, but have asserted, that if anyone has free will, humans do and those species don't. Back it up. How do you know this?

We'll have to run this by the zoologists. If they can convince me that those animals noted above forge paths through the jungle in a manner that comes anywhere near replicating the brains of those men and women in the film...? And there is almost certainly no moral component among them.

Instead, this thread explores the extent to which zoologists can definitively confirm that our species itself has free will. And, if we do, the ethicists among us can attempt to pin down if the behaviors depicted in the film are either moral or immoral. After all, who is going to bring up compatibilism and moral responsibility in regard to all of the other animals. Here the closest we come to that is in regard to these animals: https://sentientmedia.org/which-animals ... oOEALw_wcB

I merely embrace the assumption "here and now" that we live in a No God world.

Then [of course] back to "let me describe iambiguous as all other rational men and women are obligated to construe him here":

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:15 pmI understand that you think other people have the burden when they disagree with you, but actually you presented some ideas that you think are so obviously true that there was incredulousness on your part that someone would think differently and this incredulousness is repeated here. So, you want to shift the burden to me, regarding a position I did not assert, but actually you can try to back up your own claims.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:15 pmHumans have more plastic neurobiologies. They are more affected by experience. Animals are more hardwired. Peachy.

Right, as though few things that we discuss here could be more...trivial?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:15 pmBut it's all causes. So, why it is so obvious that if anyone has free will it's humans.

Fine, for ants and termites, as with human beings, it's all causes. In a free will world, when the jaguar pursues Jaguar Paw through the jungle paths, their brains are practically indistinguishable.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:15 pmI was pointing out that you seem confident in the truth of some things. Suddenly the possibility of deterministic chains of causation are not stopping you from expressing things with a lot of certainty (yes, I realize you are not claiming you must be correct, but certain enough to mock other positions.)

Here [as always], given human autonomy, I make the distinction between certainty embedded in actual objective facts in the either/or world and the ceaseless uncertainties that pop up in regard value judgments in the is/ought world.

It's you who makes this...

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:15 pmYet if someone else has a similar certainty around the free will determinism debate you wonder how they could possible be sure, given that their thoughts might well be caused inevitably in that direction.

...distinction between us.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:53 pm Here is a weird part of these discussions:

You live in a free-will world and you want a car. That's okay.

You live in a determined world and you want a car. There's something suspicious and illegitimate about that.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:09 pm

Over and again, he comes back around to this.

You have free will and you want a car. You have free will and you steal the car. You have free will, get drunk, and drive the car into a pedestrian, killing her. And her child.

Society holds you morally responsible for choosing these things of your own volition and punishes you.

Or...

You don't have free will and were never able not to do those things. Society was never able not to punish you. In fact, everything pertaining to you and the car and the two dead people and society above is entirely fated/destined to happen.

Now, sure, maybe his lumping the two scenarios together as though they were interchangeable is the more reasonable frame of mind. Maybe I still just don't get it.

Or maybe he still just doesn't get my point of view. Either because of his own free will he simply lacks the intelligence to, or, in a wholly determined universe, he was never able to get it.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:53 pmI see no reason to talk about moral responsibility when we don't even have an agreement on what free-will and determinism involves.

Hey, that's my point:

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.

Even the hard guys and gals don't have an agreement about that. Here, of course, in "worlds of words" the philosophical objectivists among us practically dare others to think about it other than they do. And not just about this, right? And while many of the theologians among us agree it's all back to God, try getting them to pin down which God that is.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:53 pmI post what, I think, is a clear example of determinism/compatibilism and you think that it's an example of libertarian free-will.

If we are not on the same page with that simple example, then any discussion of moral responsibly is going to go nowhere.

Okay, so why did you not note my reaction above to your "clear example"? What about the points I raised regarding that above? I'm the one who introduced the moral element, right?

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:53 pmBTW, free-will would not give me any more intelligence. I would still be stuck with my genetics and my experiences. Just saying.

If you do have free will then, of your own volition, you can choose to spend more time exploring all of this. Philosophically or otherwise. With free will, our genetic IQ may stay the same, but our capacity to attain more and more knowledge about these things can expand leaps and bounds.

At least until it comes up against this:

...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.

And, if that's not tivial enough for you there's always "the gap" and "rummy's Rule" going all the way back to how and why the human condition fits into an understanding of the existence of existence itself.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:53 pm
BTW, free-will would not give me any more intelligence. I would still be stuck with my genetics and my experiences. Just saying.

If you do have free will then, of your own volition, you can choose to spend more time exploring all of this. Philosophically or otherwise. With free will, our genetic IQ may stay the same, but our capacity to attain more and more knowledge about these things can expand leaps and bounds.

It does not expand at all because people with free-will have the same motivations as people without free-will. They would rather smoke weed or play video games or do whatever they like to do, instead of attaining more knowledge.

There is this myth among free-willers that free-will somehow makes you more intelligent, more thoughtful, more aware, more caring, ...

Total nonsense.

If Mary had free-will, then she would do the right thing and not have an abortion. Crapola.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:39 pmI truly wish Henry could, for a moment, see how everyone else views this weird straw man dialogue he loves to post.

Er, I don't see an everyone, just you and your amigos.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:29 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:39 pmI truly wish Henry could, for a moment, see how everyone else views this weird straw man dialogue he loves to post.

Er, I don't see an everyone, just you and your amigos.

Yes, I wish you could see how me and my amigos view the weird straw man dialogue you like so much.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:35 pmYes, I wish you could see how me and my amigos view the weird straw man dialogue you like so much.

As I say: I do. Now what? What's supposed to happen?

Well, you'd have a sense of shame and stop posting it. It's... embarrassing.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 12:06 am Well, you'd have a sense of shame and stop posting it. It's... embarrassing.

Didn't you know? I'm absolutely shameless!

Let me just give you an analogy for what the dialogue comes across like:

Imagine some insufferable atheist who doesn't know the first thing about Christianity or spirituality in general writes a dialogue. He resurrects a straw man of a famous influential Christian theological thinker - Thomas Aquinas, for example - and he constructs a dialogue where he gets to say all the clever atheist things he wants to say to Aquinas and Aquinas, being of course DEAD, has no choice but to be the ventriloquist dummy and say things the real Aquinas would never say, concede points the real Aquinas would never say, as pay of this charade. So our insufferable atheist convinces the ventriloquist dummy corpse of Thomas Aquinas that in fact there is no God, which the corpse of Thomas Aquinas has no choice but to begrudgingly agree with, being dead and all.

And then imagine other insufferable atheists posting this meaningless straw man dialogue around the internet and smugly thinking that it's meaningful, that this means Aquinas really was wrong and really would change his mind, and all the other Christians should change their mind too!

Now, you wouldn't change your theological beliefs if some silly atheist did some silly shit like that, would you? It wouldn't really mean much at all to you, would it? Knowing that Aquinas himself wouldn't respond the way this puppet master made him respond in his idiotic fabricated dialogue.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 12:21 am

I hear ya.

Too bad you focus solely on the delivery and ignore the message...

The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.

...anywho, that's me, done, for the evening.

More high-larity tomorrow.