compatibilism

[iambiguous]

Okay guys, I made some progress.

It's up to you to argue the differences between 'responsibility' and 'moral responsibility' with him.

Who was responsible for the Holocaust? Hitler and his Nazis, right?

The actual historical fact of it and where the responsibilities lie for it is something that comes about as close as we mere mortals are likely to get to objectively reality.

Though there are still Holocaust deniers out there:
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... d#p2655651

But if we do live in a world whereby Hitler was never able not to pursue the Holocaust as government policy, how can he be held morally responsible for it? And while there are those on both sides able to discuss and debate this, how would we go about determining whether the discussion and the debate itself was not in turn but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

[iambiguous]

We hold bears responsible for killing us.

That's why we shoot them when they have attacked someone or we relocate them where they can't harm people again.

Is he gaslighting me or what??

Yes, we hold them responsible if and when they kill one of us. But we don't hold them morally responsible.

But we do. The guys from animal control might not, cause it's a job, they're used to it. Most people see a bear tear apart someone they love, they'll shoot with passion, in rage. And not rage at the way the Big Bang unfolded, though that might come later.

Okay, how many folks here actually would hold a bear -- or a lion or a shark or a piranha -- morally responsible for killing and consuming human beings?

What am I missing here? What is he missing here?

And is this your concern? That people will hold Mary responsible morally? Like it'd be alright with you if they held her responsible but like she's a defective clock?

Over and again: if some hold Mary morally responsible because their brains compel them to how is that not interchangeable with Mary aborting her unborn baby? How on Earth can anyone or anything be called defective if there was absolutely no possibility of them not doing what they must do? Instead, calling someone defective in and of itself becomes just another inherent component of the laws of matters. Provided that the human brain is not "God-given" or "somehow" in a No God world acquired autonomy "naturally".

Guilt and shame both have to do with what we think we are. Shame is directly about feeling wrong about what he are. And guilt is about what we did and is horrible because we think of that act as showing what we are. Or it would just be regret.

Guilt and shame? What, are they part of that "internal component" packet that shifts the brain into free will mode? It's not possible at all that the guilt and the shame that some feel about abortion and killing animals is not in turn an inherent component of the only possible world?

Don't worry Mary, we hold you responsible, but it's not moral. It's a bit like you're like a rabid dog, only in your case it's about your genes and brain.

It's about morality. But it's about how our brains may or may not compel us to think and feel what we do -- what we must -- about it.

Maybe 1000 posts dealing with what would not make a bit of difference to Mary. They think I am a bad person cause I could have no done that but I did. They think I am a bad person and I couldn't help but be a bad person.

Same thing. They think what they must about something that another was never able not to do.

Yes, slightly different views. But in the end we shoot the bear, and for the bear it doesn't make any difference. Nor the murderer who we put in prison. Nor Mary. Bad person, bad thing. Bad person. Bad machine. 1000 posts. The different connotations of 'bad'.

Bad is not "connoted" in a wholly determined universe as some understand it. It is essentially interchangeable with good. It's just that our brains "somehow" acquired not the capacity to opt freely to choose how to react to abortion or bears but the capacity to delude itself given the psychological illusion of free will.

Deep down inside, intuitively and otherwise, we "just know" that we have free will. That's "proof" enough for many.

And nowhere in all of this an explanation for why that would make much difference. It's implicit. That it would be horrible to judge Mary a bad person, if actually she's just a bad machine, like a bad motor. Hey, that's a bad transmission you've got. I mean, you are a bad transmission.

Again, machines and motors can in fact be bad/defective. Either/or. But what if that which we think of as either correct or defective human behavior really is interchangeable in the only possible world? The behaviors were never able not to unfold and our reactions to them are just more of the same.

[Age]

What's wrong with everyone!?

Is this not an adequate thought experiment for the thread? Maybe you chaps don't want to reveal your cards..

IMO: I think after they speak at the time time, they soon manage to get to a normal discussion.
I think they don't draw on identical parts of the wall, close but not identical and definitely the same fruit, but slightly different drawings of them.


Boony’s Room

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him.

When you say, 'Two identical copies of "david boon" were made are you talking about 'the person' and/or 'the body'?

ffs, really? Stumble number 1. and you expect me to read further of your poorly comprehended crap.

And, EXACTLY as I ALREADY SAID and WROTE, But then 'you', people, in the days when this was being written, were NOT YET FULLY AWARE of the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES. As, if 'you' did, then 'you' would ALREADY KNOW the ACTUAL ANSWER/SOLUTION to these types of 'thought experiments'.

[attofishpi]

And, EXACTLY as I ALREADY SAID and WROTE, But then 'you', people, in the days when this was being written, were NOT YET FULLY AWARE of the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES. As, if 'you' did, then 'you' would ALREADY KNOW the ACTUAL ANSWER/SOLUTION to these types of 'thought experiments'.

U R AN IDIOT

[Age]

And, EXACTLY as I ALREADY SAID and WROTE, But then 'you', people, in the days when this was being written, were NOT YET FULLY AWARE of the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES. As, if 'you' did, then 'you' would ALREADY KNOW the ACTUAL ANSWER/SOLUTION to these types of 'thought experiments'.

U R AN IDIOT

So, I ASKED 'you', "attofishpi", the Truly SIMPLE QUESTION, 'When you say, 'Two identical copies of "david boon" were made are you talking about 'the thoughts and emotions' and/or 'the body'?' for CLARITY, BUT you do NOT ANSWER 'it', HOWEVER it IS 'I' who is, SUPPOSED TO BE, the IDIOT here, correct?

[attofishpi]

And, EXACTLY as I ALREADY SAID and WROTE, But then 'you', people, in the days when this was being written, were NOT YET FULLY AWARE of the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES. As, if 'you' did, then 'you' would ALREADY KNOW the ACTUAL ANSWER/SOLUTION to these types of 'thought experiments'.

U R AN IDIOT

So, I ASKED 'you', "attofishpi", the Truly SIMPLE QUESTION, 'When you say, 'Two identical copies of "david boon" were made are you talking about 'the thoughts and emotions' and/or 'the body'?' for CLARITY, BUT you do NOT ANSWER 'it', HOWEVER it IS 'I' who is, SUPPOSED TO BE, the IDIOT here, correct?

I didn't bother BECAUSE unlike you MOST HUMANS will infer that when I state TWO IDENTICAL COPIES of David Boon (peace be upon him, even though our messiah still lives) I AM indeed meaning DAVID BOON is COPIED in his ENTIRETY!!!!!

Comprehende?

[Age]

U R AN IDIOT

So, I ASKED 'you', "attofishpi", the Truly SIMPLE QUESTION, 'When you say, 'Two identical copies of "david boon" were made are you talking about 'the thoughts and emotions' and/or 'the body'?' for CLARITY, BUT you do NOT ANSWER 'it', HOWEVER it IS 'I' who is, SUPPOSED TO BE, the IDIOT here, correct?

I didn't bother BECAUSE unlike you MOST HUMANS will infer that when I state TWO IDENTICAL COPIES of David Boon (peace be upon him, even though our messiah still lives) I AM indeed meaning DAVID BOON is COPIED in his ENTIRETY!!!!!

Comprehende?

Thank you. It took a while but we got there.

So, now, the rest of what I wrote FITS IN PERFECTLY.

[attofishpi]

Well then, thank fuck you now understand:- U R AN IDIOT

[Age]

Well then, thank fuck you now understand:- U R AN IDIOT

WHY are you ASSUMING that I did NOT 'understand' BEFORE?

Especially considering the fact that I have ALREADY SHOWED the IRREFUTABLE RESULT of that so-called 'thought experiment'.

[Flannel Jesus]

And, EXACTLY as I ALREADY SAID and WROTE, But then 'you', people, in the days when this was being written, were NOT YET FULLY AWARE of the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES. As, if 'you' did, then 'you' would ALREADY KNOW the ACTUAL ANSWER/SOLUTION to these types of 'thought experiments'.

Tell us what time period of the future you're from please. And how does time travel work? Is it the type of time travel where you can't change the past because anything you do is something that already happened? Or is it the type where you can actually change the past, for better or worse?

What organisation sent you back? For what purpose?

[attofishpi]

Well then, thank fuck you now understand:- U R AN IDIOT

WHY are you ASSUMING that I did NOT 'understand' BEFORE?

Because U R AN IDIOT.

Especially considering the fact that I have ALREADY SHOWED the IRREFUTABLE RESULT of that so-called 'thought experiment'.

Thus it must irrefutably prove that .....U R AN IDIOT.

[Flannel Jesus]

He's not an idiot, he's just from the future. He hasn't learned our ways yet. His futuristic ways seem idiotic to us back in our day, but in his time it all makes a whole lot of sense.

[Iwannaplato]

What organisation sent you back? For what purpose?

I had decided, mainly for fun, that he is a channeled entity (that perhaps is also inside all of us), who is time-transcendent. Which is why he himself is sometimes in citation marks.

I mean, the future people could be messed up in their own special ways. This is an entity unsullied by time, culture and specifics.

The host may well be some middle-aged postal worker with few social connections, but Age, he's from nowhen.

[Flannel Jesus]

What organisation sent you back? For what purpose?

I had decided, mainly for fun, that he is a channeled entity (that perhaps is also inside all of us), who is time-transcendent. Which is why he himself is sometimes in citation marks.

I mean, the future people could be messed up in their own special ways. This is an entity unsullied by time, culture and specifics.

The host may well be some middle-aged postal worker with few social connections, but Age, he's from nowhen.

I like this idea.

However, I only recently saw 12 monkeys, and Age is JUST like Bruce Willis in that film - a man going mad from too much time travel, he can't tell what's true anymore.

[phyllo]

Who was responsible for the Holocaust? Hitler and his Nazis, right?

The actual historical fact of it and where the responsibilities lie for it is something that comes about as close as we mere mortals are likely to get to objectively reality.

Though there are still Holocaust deniers out there:
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... d#p2655651

But if we do live in a world whereby Hitler was never able not to pursue the Holocaust as government policy, how can he be held morally responsible for it? And while there are those on both sides able to discuss and debate this, how would we go about determining whether the discussion and the debate itself was not in turn but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

Then the question is not whether someone did something. The question is should they be blamed or praised for doing it?

So 'responsibility' is either doing or not doing. And 'moral responsibility' is doing or not doing and an evaluation of the act as good or bad.

But that would mean that the bear is morally responsible because killing a person is either good or bad. That settles it.

Then you move on to saying that there is no difference between good and bad, right and wrong in a determined world :

It makes all the difference in the world if what is construed to be a mistake in court revolves around the assumption that we can opt freely not to make it. As opposed to a world where "mistakes" are in fact merely a necessary component of the only possible reality. If you must argue that 2 + 2 = 5 and if you were never able not to embrace one set of moral prejudices rather than another...how is that really a mistake at all?

Well, if it's not a mistake, then it would invalidate science, engineering, mathematics and logic. There would be no correct observations, calculations, designs or reasoning. You would not be able to construct any kind of system.