Philosophy Now Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 4:46 pm Autonomy or no autonomy, I don't know of too many free-willers, determinists or compatibilists who would not do anything about people who "behave badly".

People are only "not morally responsible" in the abstract clouds.

Good point. You pretty much have to go up in the clouds to find a reason not to hold a rapist responsible and then to do something that will be consider punishment by that person. On the ground, away from the abstractions of philosophy, it's a matter of what and how much to do and other practical matters.

Of course rape may be defined differently by different groups, and mitigating circumstances will differ from culture to culture - and other standard Iambiguous issues. But those issues are about conflicting values, not about how can one hold one responsible in a determinist causal situation.

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

However, compatibilism may also derive from purely semantic differences – in other words, from having a different definition for the term ‘determinism’. This can be why at times determinists talk over each other and derive completely different conclusions on ostensively the same subject.

Back to the definitionists. True philosophers, many will argue, cannot discuss compatibilism rationally until they first come to agree on the definition of it. But how does that not too become ineffably entangled in the profound mystery embedded in this:

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.

You bring your definition to the discussion as though the act of bringing it, like the act of defining something itself is not as well but another inherent component of the only possible reality.

To show this, I’m going to give a brief comparison of the term ‘determinism’ in two main accounts. One, using determinism in the ordinary sense, leads to the rejection of free will and (so) moral responsibility. The other was defended by the compatibilist philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), who reconciled determinism and moral responsibility in a non-arbitrary and logically non-contradictory way.

Same thing though some determinists will be compelled to argue. Hume was no less inherently motivated by a material brain no less inherently in sync with the laws of matter. Nothing Hume ever thought, felt, said or did was arbitrary. Nor could they have been ever been contradictory.

Instead, click, the focus is still on those who aim to explore all of this scientifically, and those who have, instead, taken a leap of faith to God and religion.

A brief analysis of the term in these accounts will allow us to see how much the definition of determinism plays a role in the conclusion philosophers come up with regarding determinism’s implications for moral responsibility.

Only when we are able to determine empirically whether in defining something we are defining it of our own volition will any of this possibly be resolved. Unless, of course, that's how it all unfolds "in our heads" as just another necessary manifestation of the only possible world.

Well, there were some not quite made, but implied arguments. We have a quote from someone who is anti-compatibilist and has a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy (working on her Master's). We have Hume's argument dismissed, but not shown to have problems, by a not shown argument.

We have this...

Instead, click, the focus is still on those who aim to explore all of this scientifically, and those who have, instead, taken a leap of faith to God and religion.

That's 'the' focus?

And we have mystical sounding statements like:

Unless, of course, that's how it all unfolds "in our heads" as just another necessary manifestation of the only possible world.

which could actually be lines of poetry with a little tweaking

That's how it all unfolds
just a necessary manifestation
of the only possible world.

Lovely. And certainly not an intellectual contraption.

Is this post of Iambiguous' a response to previous posts?
Is this intended as an argument?
Do the responses actually fit the quotes?

It's hard to tell.

those who aim to explore all of this scientifically

A scientific explanation is going to be useless if you believe that determinism "compels" results.

Science may be "compelled" to tell you something that is not true.

There are basically 3 possibilities:

1. It's a free-will universe and science will eventually come to that conclusion. Possibly after erroneously saying it is a determined universe. But one expects that eventually the correct result will be found.

2. It's a determined universe and science is "compelled" to say that it is a determined universe.

3. It's a determined universe and science is "compelled" to say that it is a free-will universe.

So if science says that it's a free-will universe, you can't know if it actually is or science was "compelled" to say it

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:12 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 12:13 am

What’s interesting about the compatibilists’ position, is that they adhere to the idea that everything that happens is predetermined to happen, yet still argue for moral responsibility. One wonders, what is it that compatibilists are able to see that allows them to reconcile these two apparently contradictory theories?

I know that I wonder about this all the time. Again, however, I wonder if all that I profess to know, I was never able not to profess to know.

I think it makes sense that this is a tricky point and that you ask about it. Here's a suggestion that might move the conversation forward. You may have done this before. If so, apologies, but there are a lot of posts to go through.

OK.

You've seen what Phyllo and I wrote above. What exactly about the word responsibility makes it wrong in the way we both suggest reacting to someone who does something we consider wrong or want stopped/inhibited.

And around and around and around our brains compel us to go?

If we can't know without any doubt whatsoever whether this very exchange we are having is unfolding only as it ever could have, sure, we can take our own individual "leaps of faith" to one world of words rather than another. Those dueling definitions and deductions.

So, beyond philosophical arguments, are there any compatibilists here able to link us empirically, scientifically, neurologically, chemically, etc., to an actual experiment/experience...a demostration that what they profess to know about all of this is in fact the...objective truth?

Click.

Over and over and over again, I come back to "the gap" here. The gap and those who seem able to just shrug all that aside as, what, a trivial pursuit?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:12 pmWhich Is why I think the word responsible is key to this issue.

And, for some, it's the only issue. Or certainly the most important issue. If we do embody determinism as some argue then, well, even if we are held responsible by others that is only becasue they themselves were never able not to hold us responsible.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:12 pmMy guess is, and correct me if I am wrong, that you would think it reasonable to incarcerate a rapist. But you would consider it, so far, not correct to say that a rapist in a determinist world is responsible for his actions.

Yes, but that is just another manifestation of dasein in my opinion. Show me the argument -- click -- that unequivocally establishes that rape [or murder or genocide] is inherently/necessarily immoral.

As for "correct" and Incorrect", what changes? Yes, a rapist is responsible to the extent that we do have free will. He could have opted of his own volition not to rape. On the other hand, suppose he was raised in a faimly of sociopaths. From their point of view rape is just another inherent manifestation of their own "me, myself and I" moral philosophy. No God and everything comes to revolves around "what's in it for me?", "show me the money" and/or "my way or the highway?'

And what if what I think is reasonable "here and now" I think only because my brain compels me to?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:12 pmIf I am correct, then is it possible that what the word 'responsible' does in real world consequences is not what you have an issue with - in that case of the rapist - but rather on purely abstract grounds.

Well, to the extent I understand what you are suggesting here, that's more or less my own point. Much of what we profess to know here in regard to compatibilism and responsibility is encompassed in exchanges of largely philosophical assessments. We cannot yet establish that rape and murder and genocide are inherently immoral, let alone establish that our own views on it are in fact freely arrived at.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:12 pmOr perhaps on the grounds of how we view the rapist. It might well be best to restrict his movement and also make it clear to other potential rapist that there are severe consquences, but we shouldn't think of Joe, the rapist, as, for example, evil.

Here though some determinsts will argue that you keep missing the point about the truly hardcore determinist position. Or conundrum? For them, everthing thing that any of us think, feel, say and do [from the cradle to the grave] reflects the universe unfolding only as it ever could have. Others restricting the rapist behavior is interchangeable with the rape itself. Nothing is ever Good or Evil in the absence of God.

I merely accept that given a No God world, there may well be a philosophical, scientific, ideological, deontological, genetic etc., account of objective morality.

Let's hear it. Given particular contexts, however.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:12 pmIn any case, I think focusing on exactly what you mean or think is meant by 'responsible' does not fit the consequences or how people are viewed could get this one step forward.

Unable to comprehend the "for all practical purposes" intent of this. That's why I always come back around to Mary and Jane. How would your point be applicable there? Also, what difference would consequences make [in terms of responsibility] if there is absolutely nothing that we can do to bring about a different set of consequences?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 12:27 am And around and around and around our brains compel us to go?

If we can't know without any doubt whatsoever whether this very exchange we are having is unfolding only as it ever could have, sure, we can take our own individual "leaps of faith" to one world of words rather than another. Those dueling definitions and deductions.

So, beyond philosophical arguments, are there any compatibilists here able to link us empirically, scientifically, neurologically, chemically, etc., to an actual experiment/experience...a demostration that what they profess to know about all of this is in fact the...objective truth?

Click.

Let''s say a scientist came and presented a compelling argument for free will. You could just respond. But for all I know that only seems to make sense but both you and I are compelled to think you made sense and in fact we are not free.

Over and over and over again, I come back to "the gap" here. The gap and those who seem able to just shrug all that aside as, what, a trivial pursuit?

Great. Except I didn't say that.

So, why quote me and write that as if it is a response to what I wrote?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:12 pmWhich Is why I think the word responsible is key to this issue.

And, for some, it's the only issue. Or certainly the most important issue. If we do embody determinism as some argue then, well, even if we are held responsible by others that is only becasue they themselves were never able not to hold us responsible.

Someone could certainly argue that.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:12 pmMy guess is, and correct me if I am wrong, that you would think it reasonable to incarcerate a rapist. But you would consider it, so far, not correct to say that a rapist in a determinist world is responsible for his actions.

Yes, but that is just another manifestation of dasein in my opinion. Show me the argument -- click -- that unequivocally establishes that rape [or murder or genocide] is inherently/necessarily immoral.

You just changed the topic. My point was that I think both you and I dislike rape. I would not have brought that up with someone who I suspected would be pro-rape. The point was to focus on whether holding someone responsible would be somehow incorrect and how. But you jumped to the conflicting goods issue. Which is a fine issue, but all it does here is block.

As for "correct" and Incorrect", what changes? Yes, a rapist is responsible to the extent that we do have free will. He could have opted of his own volition not to rape. On the other hand, suppose he was raised in a faimly of sociopaths. From their point of view rape is just another inherent manifestation of their own "me, myself and I" moral philosophy. No God and everything comes to revolves around "what's in it for me?", "show me the money" and/or "my way or the highway?'

So, would you then think he should not be separated out from the general population because he was raised this way?

And what if what I think is reasonable "here and now" I think only because my brain compels me to?

You can respond to any argument that way. Which means you seems to have decided to end all dialogue with you.

There's no scenario possible where you won't be able to wonder whether you are compelled to believe something false. None.

You keep pretending that some scientist or super philosopher could come and change this. But they couldn't. Because you could still wonder if actually their argument/experiment/demonstration didn't prove anything but both you and she were compelled to believe it was compelling when it fact it doesn't show what that scientist thinks it does.

So, keep it up. Keep responding to people disrespectfully as if was somehow possible for some expert to come and eradicate all skepticism.

Well, to the extent I understand what you are suggesting here, that's more or less my own point. Much of what we profess to know here in regard to compatibilism and responsibility is encompassed in exchanges of largely philosophical assessments. We cannot yet establish that rape and murder and genocide are inherently immoral, let alone establish that our own views on it are in fact freely arrived at.

Different issue.

Here though some determinsts will argue

I'm discussing something with you.

that you keep missing the point about the truly hardcore determinist position. Or conundrum? For them, everthing thing that any of us think, feel, say and do [from the cradle to the grave] reflects the universe unfolding only as it ever could have. Others restricting the rapist behavior is interchangeable with the rape itself. Nothing is ever Good or Evil in the absence of God.

Evey determinist would say the first part. Yes, there is a diversity of determinist positions. But I was asking you about how you would react in the real world in relation to a rapist and what you would want done. Since you keep presenting the situation up in the clouds - what does it mean in terms of causation. But what would you want in the concrete?

I merely accept that given a No God world, there may well be a philosophical, scientific, ideological, deontological, genetic etc., account of objective morality.

Let's hear it. Given particular contexts, however.

That's a related topic, sure. But it wasn't what I was writing about. I was responding to what you said about responsibility.

Unable to comprehend the "for all practical purposes" intent of this.

Who is? Can't you try to communicate to the person that you are quoting, focus on what those quotes focus on, instead of jumping around and using language that is nearly completely abstract. You can't even manage to respond from your own perspective, but throw in what some subgroup of determinists might say. Though I'll bet nearly all of them would hold a local rapist responsible for their rapes in some way or others.

So you jump to them. Jump to the resolving the conflicting good issues. And are up in the serious philosopher clouds.

I mean, I noticed that you posted the same post in another forum. The one I responded to. I thought it was somehow part of the discussion here. But no, just bot bait from someone who clearly wants to pontificate - his we don't really know position - and has no interest in discussion.

That's why I always come back around to Mary and Jane. How would your point be applicable there? Also, what difference would consequences make [in terms of responsibility] if there is absolutely nothing that we can do to bring about a different set of consequences?

I've answered that. And you have not responded to that, even if you quote from posts where I answer that.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:14 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:58 pm The compatibilists seem to posit these mysterious "internal components" of human consciousness that "somehow" resulted in human autonomy.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 10:22 pmCould you quote or link us to compatibilists doing this?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 12:14 amMore to the point [mine "here and now"], how would you go about demonstrating that any quote or link I provide here, I provided of my own free will?

I'll take this as a no. That you can't provide a link to where a compatibilist posits these mysterious 'internal components' of human consciousness that result in human autonomy.

Well, unless you believe that a God, the God installed free will in your soul at the point of conception, something embedded in the human brain must account for that deep down inside "I just know I have free will!" frame of mind.

Also, as I note above from "Why Sam Harris is confused about free will" by Dan Jones...

"In The Moral Landscape [Harris] observes that the last time he went to the market he was fully clothed, did not steal anything, and did not buy anchovies. 'To say that I was responsible for my behaviour is simply to say that what I did was sufficiently in keeping with my thoughts, intentions, beliefs, and desires to be considered an extension of them.'"

As though there are parts of the brain that "somehow" provide us with autonomy...but only because we are compelled by our brains to delude ourselves into thinking and feeling that is the case.

For me it comes down to accepting that we just don't know how to explain this most remarkable matter of all: the human brain. And while there are those who accept this and argue that we just have to behave as though we do have free will, how on Earth is that in and of itself not just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

Again, given my own understanding of compatibilism, they would argue that though I was never able not to provide you with what I did, I am still responsible for providing it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:14 amThat's much more likely, yes. And notice how it is not at all based on some mysterious internal components of human consciousness resulting in human autonomy. In fact, it contradicts this other idea you give them.

Come on, if human consciousness was not easily the most profoundly problematic -- mysterious -- matter in the universe, wouldn't philosophers and scientists [after thousands of years] have pinned down whatever the components are that either permit autonomy or prohibit it?

Again, though, let's bring your point above back around to Mary. She taps you on the shoulder and asks you to explain how she was never able not to abort Jane but she is still responsible for doing so. And, if she lived in a red state, there are those there responsible for arresting her and putting her on trial for first degree murder. And, if found guilty, sent to death row where there are those who were never able not to execute her but are themselves still morally responsible.

Any compatibilists here? If so, please note how this responsibility is derived. What, our brains compel us to exchange posts here...posts we were never able not to submit...but we are still responsible for doing so?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:14 amA number of people have done this.

Really? Then please provide me with what you deem to be the most effective argument. Knowing that beyond the arguments themselves, philosophers have little in the way of actual empirical evidence.

On the other hand, I certainly cannot demonstrate that holding Mary morally responsible for aborting her unborn baby/clump of cells in a wholly determined universe as I understand that "in my head", is not reasonable. Then "the gap", right?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:14 amYou could try. One can support a position, without necessarly demonstrating it must be the case. Often that is the best we can manage.

Exactly my point. The questions themselves are so fascinating, so mind-boggling, we will always come back around to them. The question instead is what -- ontologically? teleologically? -- does this all come back to. To God? That actually makes the most sense to me because God is often said to be omniscient and omnipotent. Nothing is beyond His will.

But...no God? "Somehow" Mother Nature herself thought all this up? She gave us free will because...?

Depends on what one means by "autonomy".

Okay, but doesn't that depend on the assumption that when someone tells us what "autonomy" means, they are then and there engaging their own free will?

So, sure, I challenge any philosophers here to at least make an attempt to provide us with hard evidence that this is in fact how the brain does function.

In other words, to what extent do compatibilists come back to this...

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.

...and acknowledge that none of it is trivial?

So a compatibilist is autonomous if he uses the Mill definition and not autonomous if he uses the Kant definition.

See how it "works"? The assumption seems to be that both Kant and Mill had free will when they defined the words they used. And that if compatibilists choose one over the other that settles it...even if their brain compelled them to "choose".

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 12:21 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:14 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:58 pm The compatibilists seem to posit these mysterious "internal components" of human consciousness that "somehow" resulted in human autonomy.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 10:22 pmCould you quote or link us to compatibilists doing this?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 12:14 amMore to the point [mine "here and now"], how would you go about demonstrating that any quote or link I provide here, I provided of my own free will?

I'll take this as a no. That you can't provide a link to where a compatibilist posits these mysterious 'internal components' of human consciousness that result in human autonomy.

Well, unless you believe that a God, the God installed free will in your soul at the point of conception, something embedded in the human brain must account for that deep down inside "I just know I have free will!" frame of mind.

Also, as I note above from "Why Sam Harris is confused about free will" by Dan Jones...

"In The Moral Landscape [Harris] observes that the last time he went to the market he was fully clothed, did not steal anything, and did not buy anchovies. 'To say that I was responsible for my behaviour is simply to say that what I did was sufficiently in keeping with my thoughts, intentions, beliefs, and desires to be considered an extension of them.'"

As though there are parts of the brain that "somehow" provide us with autonomy...but only because we are compelled by our brains to delude ourselves into thinking and feeling that is the case.

For me it comes down to accepting that we just don't know how to explain this most remarkable matter of all: the human brain. And while there are those who accept this and argue that we just have to behave as though we do have free will, how on Earth is that in and of itself not just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

Again, given my own understanding of compatibilism, they would argue that though I was never able not to provide you with what I did, I am still responsible for providing it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:14 amThat's much more likely, yes. And notice how it is not at all based on some mysterious internal components of human consciousness resulting in human autonomy. In fact, it contradicts this other idea you give them.

Come on, if human consciousness was not easily the most profoundly problematic -- mysterious -- matter in the universe, wouldn't philosophers and scientists [after thousands of years] have pinned down whatever the components are that either permit autonomy or prohibit it?

Again, though, let's bring your point above back around to Mary. She taps you on the shoulder and asks you to explain how she was never able not to abort Jane but she is still responsible for doing so. And, if she lived in a red state, there are those there responsible for arresting her and putting her on trial for first degree murder. And, if found guilty, sent to death row where there are those who were never able not to execute her but are themselves still morally responsible.

Any compatibilists here? If so, please note how this responsibility is derived. What, our brains compel us to exchange posts here...posts we were never able not to submit...but we are still responsible for doing so?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:14 amA number of people have done this.

Really? Then please provide me with what you deem to be the most effective argument. Knowing that beyond the arguments themselves, philosophers have little in the way of actual empirical evidence.

On the other hand, I certainly cannot demonstrate that holding Mary morally responsible for aborting her unborn baby/clump of cells in a wholly determined universe as I understand that "in my head", is not reasonable. Then "the gap", right?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:14 amYou could try. One can support a position, without necessarly demonstrating it must be the case. Often that is the best we can manage.

Exactly my point. The questions themselves are so fascinating, so mind-boggling, we will always come back around to them. The question instead is what -- ontologically? teleologically? -- does this all come back to. To God? That actually makes the most sense to me because God is often said to be omniscient and omnipotent. Nothing is beyond His will.

But...no God? "Somehow" Mother Nature herself thought all this up? She gave us free will because...?

you human beings learn best by 'your mistakes'.

So, so-called 'Mother Nature' gave you human beings the ability to choose so that you would, eventually, choose 'to take', what you, instinctively, 'knew' was Wrong to, so that you could and would, free willingly, keep 'making mistakes', until one day you, finally, learned 'your lessons', in Life, and come to, consciously, 'know'' what is actually Right, and Wrong, in Life, so that you would then, from then on, 'know', for sure, how to only 'choose' what is Right, and good, only, in Life.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 12:21 am Well, unless you believe that a God, the God installed free will in your soul at the point of conception, something embedded in the human brain must account for that deep down inside "I just know I have free will!" frame of mind.

Yes, I've seen your thinking about this many times. You claimed that compatibilists said something. I ask you to show where they say this. You don't do this. So, you repeat your thinking on why, really, they must have said this. I mean, you don't even say that, but it's my best charitable read for why you repeat what you think rather than showing they said what you claimed.

Also, as I note above from "Why Sam Harris is confused about free will" by Dan Jones...

"In The Moral Landscape [Harris] observes that the last time he went to the market he was fully clothed, did not steal anything, and did not buy anchovies. 'To say that I was responsible for my behaviour is simply to say that what I did was sufficiently in keeping with my thoughts, intentions, beliefs, and desires to be considered an extension of them.'"

As though there are parts of the brain that "somehow" provide us with autonomy..

Nope that's not what he's saying. Considerd an extension does not mean that those thoughts themselves were not led to by a series of determined cause and effects going back to the Big Bang.

but only because we are compelled by our brains to delude ourselves into thinking and feeling that is the case.

For me it comes down to accepting that we just don't know how to explain this most remarkable matter of all: the human brain. And while there are those who accept this and argue that we just have to behave as though we do have free will, how on Earth is that in and of itself not just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

Well, you just keep looking for where they say it isn't.

Again, given my own understanding of compatibilism, they would argue that though I was never able not to provide you with what I did, I am still responsible for providing it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:14 amThat's much more likely, yes. And notice how it is not at all based on some mysterious internal components of human consciousness resulting in human autonomy. In fact, it contradicts this other idea you give them.

Come on, if human consciousness was not easily the most profoundly problematic -- mysterious -- matter in the universe, wouldn't philosophers and scientists [after thousands of years] have pinned down whatever the components are that either permit autonomy or prohibit it?

Sure, consciousness is profoundly problematic. Saying that someone is responsible and can be treated as responsible for their actions does not mean they think consciousness is easy to explain.

Again, though, let's bring your point above back around to Mary. She taps you on the shoulder and asks you to explain how she was never able not to abort Jane but she is still responsible for doing so.

Several of us done this. Take an act, acknowledged that it was determined by prior causes and explained why we think it makes sense to hold them responsible. I chose, I believe, rape, rather than abortion, because we are more unified about rape, so the conflicting good issue is less like to be brought up. WHICH IS NOT A CLAIM THAT THE CONFLICTING GOODS ISSUE IS SOLVED. So, I have already done this. You did not respond when I did this and I have done this more than once. I have seen other people do this also, Phyllo for sure. You react to what we right, but do not react to the argument we make. Then posts later you ask for us to do what we have done already.

Note: when I say you didn't respond, this may have been direct ignoring or it may have been where you quote, but do not, in fact, address the points made. I have experienced both.

Any compatibilists here? If so, please note how this responsibility is derived. What, our brains compel us to exchange posts here...posts we were never able not to submit...but we are still responsible for doing so?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:14 amA number of people have done this.

Really? Then please provide me with what you deem to be the most effective argument.

Yes, really. We've presented arguments. You do not interact with them. Like Age you seem to have short-term to long-term memory transfer issues.

Knowing that beyond the arguments themselves, philosophers have little in the way of actual empirical evidence.

It's not that kind of argument. Responsibility is not like muscle tissue where to posit it we need to demonstrate what it is made of and how we tested for it. And if there was free will, libertarian free will, no scientist would be able to empirically demonstrate that responsibility exists, though for some reason you'd accept the use of the concept in that setting. The word is a short hand for how we act in relation to people. If you actually read and thought about our explanations for how we thought and could show the tiniest bit of respect for the people who actually respond to you with what you are asking for, then we could have come to the next step in the discussion.

You treat the people who actually answer your request with Stooge-like behavior. You do not interact with their answers, at all. you just make some throwing up of the arms, well that's just you saying what you always had to say. Or you repeat your outbursts based on incredulity

but not once do you interact with the explanation, you know like here you say ____________________but this doesn't justify....or this conclusion is not justified by ________________because.......

YOu seem not to understand that one thing a reaction does that can move a process forward is if your response actually shows you undertand and read what was written.

But you don't do that and now I or we are supposed to repeat what we've done.

Why? So, you can not actually interact with what we wrote? Yet again.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 5:11 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 12:21 am Well, unless you believe that a God, the God installed free will in your soul at the point of conception, something embedded in the human brain must account for that deep down inside "I just know I have free will!" frame of mind.

Yes, I've seen your thinking about this many times. You claimed that compatibilists said something. I ask you to show where they say this. You don't do this. So, you repeat your thinking on why, really, they must have said this. I mean, you don't even say that, but it's my best charitable read for why you repeat what you think rather than showing they said what you claimed.

Biggy, so shameless

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 8:26 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 5:11 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 12:21 am Well, unless you believe that a God, the God installed free will in your soul at the point of conception, something embedded in the human brain must account for that deep down inside "I just know I have free will!" frame of mind.

Yes, I've seen your thinking about this many times. You claimed that compatibilists said something. I ask you to show where they say this. You don't do this. So, you repeat your thinking on why, really, they must have said this. I mean, you don't even say that, but it's my best charitable read for why you repeat what you think rather than showing they said what you claimed.

Biggy, so shameless

And what is shame to a nihilist?

It seems like what is left is: I don't like what you did.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:23 pm Well, there were some not quite made, but implied arguments. We have a quote from someone who is anti-compatibilist and has a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy (working on her Master's). We have Hume's argument dismissed, but not shown to have problems, by a not shown argument.

Made arguments, implied arguments, arguments that are accepted or rejected by others, arguments that convince us, arguments that do not.

What on Earth, for all practical purposes, do any of the existential sequences experienced here by each of us as individuals really matter if everything that we think, feel, say and do, reflects the only possible reality?

Only, over and again, I acknowledge that -- click -- I may well simply be unable to grasp the points of others here who, in turn, may well be providing me with a more reasonable set of assumptions. But that still doesn't make "the gap" go away. Which, I suspect, is why so many "metaphysical objectivists" among us simply shrug that part off.

Instead, click, the focus is still on those who aim to explore all of this scientifically, and those who have, instead, taken a leap of faith to God and religion.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:23 pmThat's 'the' focus?

Yes. Rooted existentially in dasein, that's my focus. Just as rooted existentially in dasein others have their own subjective focus. Now, given "the gap", how do any of us go about pinning down what all rational men and women are truly obligated to focus on instead?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:23 pmAnd we have mystical sounding statements like:

Unless, of course, that's how it all unfolds "in our heads" as just another necessary manifestation of the only possible world.

Sure, if he wishes to accuse me of being "metaphysical" here, go ahead let him. After all, "I" still believe that the accusation itself may well have been but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality. Nothing composed of matter is exempt from the laws of nature, some argue. On the other hand, what on Earth does that mean?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:23 pmIs this post of Iambiguous' a response to previous posts?
Is this intended as an argument?
Do the responses actually fit the quotes?

It's hard to tell.

As if that isn't basically my entire point here. Though from my own frame of mind "here and now" [given lots and lots of exchanges over the years], the answers to questions of this sort revolve mainly around agreeing with the arguments of those like Iwannaplato who make them.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 5:35 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 12:27 am And around and around and around our brains compel us to go?

If we can't know without any doubt whatsoever whether this very exchange we are having is unfolding only as it ever could have, sure, we can take our own individual "leaps of faith" to one world of words rather than another. Those dueling definitions and deductions.

So, beyond philosophical arguments, are there any compatibilists here able to link us empirically, scientifically, neurologically, chemically, etc., to an actual experiment/experience...a demonstration that what they profess to know about all of this is in fact the...objective truth?

Click.

Let''s say a scientist came and presented a compelling argument for free will. You could just respond. But for all I know that only seems to make sense but both you and I are compelled to think you made sense and in fact we are not free.

Yes, if a scientist -- another Einstein? -- comes along and is able to provide us with comprehensive answers regarding how matter did manage to evolve into biological entities that evolved into conscious entities that evolved into self-conscious entities that evolved into philosophers, he or she may well then be able to establish in the minds of others, that they are either in possession of free will or they are not. Unless that too all unfolds in the only possible manner as well.

We would need some truly solid evidence regarding how the brain functions, however. And, sure, long after all of us are dead and gone, mere mortals may well confront that evidence. But if the evidence is conclusive that we do not possess free will?

Surreal, is the word I keep coming back to. Either way, I suppose. Unless, of course, out of the blue, Jesus Christ does return?

Over and over and over again, I come back to "the gap" here. The gap and those who seem able to just shrug all that aside as, what, a trivial pursuit?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 5:35 amGreat. Except I didn't say that.

So, why quote me and write that as if it is a response to what I wrote?

What do you say about "the gap" then? If you don't shrug off these profoundly problematic conundrums then how are you not acknowledging that your own evidence here [like mine] can only really be encompassed up in the theoretical clouds. Link us to the scientists that, in your view, have come closest to finally resolving it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:12 pmWhich Is why I think the word responsible is key to this issue.

And, for some, it's the only issue. Or certainly the most important issue. If we do embody determinism as some argue then, well, even if we are held responsible by others that is only because they themselves were never able not to hold us responsible.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:12 pm Someone could certainly argue that.

Then back to the part where arguments alone just don't cut it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:12 pm My guess is, and correct me if I am wrong, that you would think it reasonable to incarcerate a rapist. But you would consider it, so far, not correct to say that a rapist in a determinist world is responsible for his actions.

Yes, but that is just another manifestation of dasein in my opinion. Show me the argument -- click -- that unequivocally establishes that rape [or murder or genocide] is inherently/necessarily immoral.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:12 pm You just changed the topic. My point was that I think both you and I dislike rape. I would not have brought that up with someone who I suspected would be pro-rape. The point was to focus on whether holding someone responsible would be somehow incorrect and how. But you jumped to the conflicting goods issue. Which is a fine issue, but all it does here is block.

Over and over again: My own interest in compatibilism revolves precisely around moral responsibility. Now, if we lived in a world where it could be unequivocally established that rape and murder and genocide were in fact inherently/necessarily immoral -- God or No God -- we might still of our own free will choose to be immoral. But at least we would know for certain that we had free will and that we could embody it by always "doing the right thing".

Uh, or else?

Compare that, however, to the world we actually do live in?

As for "correct" and Incorrect", what changes? Yes, a rapist is responsible to the extent that we do have free will. He could have opted of his own volition not to rape. On the other hand, suppose he was raised in a faimly of sociopaths. From their point of view rape is just another inherent manifestation of their own "me, myself and I" moral philosophy. No God and everything comes to revolves around "what's in it for me?", "show me the money" and/or "my way or the highway?'

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 5:35 amSo, would you then think he should not be separated out from the general population because he was raised this way?

And around and around and around...

The point the hardcore determinists are compelled to make here is that "society" might separate some out...but only because it was never able not to.

And what if what I think is reasonable "here and now" I think only because my brain compels me to?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 5:35 amYou can respond to any argument that way. Which means you seems to have decided to end all dialogue with you.

That's not the point though for some. Their point is that nothing that any of us decide [about anything] is other than a "dialogue" that goes all the way back to what brought into existence matter itself. Are there "ontological" or "metaphysical" assessments that mere mortals here on planet Earth might one day be privy to. Yeah, sure.

Just not "here and now". Though, by all means, if someone here believes they have come upon such an assessment...an account backed up with solid evidence...please link me to it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 5:35 amThere's no scenario possible where you won't be able to wonder whether you are compelled to believe something false. None.

More to the point [again] is anything that I ever wonder wondered only because I chose to wonder about it and not something else.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 5:35 amYou keep pretending that some scientist or super philosopher could come and change this. But they couldn't. Because you could still wonder if actually their argument/experiment/demonstration didn't prove anything but both you and she were compelled to believe it was compelling when it fact it doesn't show what that scientist thinks it does.

Like I note time and again...the deeper you delve into all of this the more incredibly surreal it can all truly become. Which is why by and large the objectivists among us will still embrace one or another "my way or the highway" mentality. What matters most to them [in regard to things like free will and morality] is that they are able to sustain the comforting and consoling assumption that they really do "get it". There really is One True Path. There's got to be. How else to explain the fact that they are on it right now.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 5:35 amSo, keep it up. Keep responding to people disrespectfully as if was somehow possible for some expert to come and eradicate all skepticism.

You really, really are convinced that you can differentiate respectful from disrespectful posts? Freely? Autonomously?

Well, to the extent I understand what you are suggesting here, that's more or less my own point. Much of what we profess to know here in regard to compatibilism and responsibility is encompassed in exchanges of largely philosophical assessments. We cannot yet establish that rape and murder and genocide are inherently immoral, let alone establish that our own views on it are in fact freely arrived at.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 5:35 amDifferent issue.

So you say. Now link us to those brain scientists who can connect the dots between what any of us say here and how the human brain functions to preclude determinism when we say it.

...that you keep missing the point about the truly hardcore determinist position. Or conundrum? For them, everything that any of us think, feel, say and do [from the cradle to the grave] reflects the universe unfolding only as it ever could have. Others restricting the rapist behavior is interchangeable with the rape itself. Nothing is ever Good or Evil in the absence of God.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 5:35 amEvey determinist would say the first part. Yes, there is a diversity of determinist positions. But I was asking you about how you would react in the real world in relation to a rapist and what you would want done. Since you keep presenting the situation up in the clouds - what does it mean in terms of causation. But what would you want in the concrete?

Again, when I was being brought up in the belly of the white working-class beast, I was a flagrant racist, a flagrant sexist, a flagrant homophobe. Had I not found God and been drafted into the Army, well, for all I know, I might have become a rapist myself.

And, pertaining to this thread, if you do believe that the rape itself is inherently interchangeable with our reactions to rape, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Reality is reality is reality.

Do I believe this? Yes, no, maybe. But it's not what I want in the concrete so much as what the concrete itself consist of given "the gap", given dasein, given the Benjamin Button Syndrome.

The point is that given free will in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, the social, political and economic interactions we engage in seem [to me] beyond the reach of ethicists.

That's why I always come back around to Mary and Jane. How would your point be applicable there? Also, what difference would consequences make [in terms of responsibility] if there is absolutely nothing that we can do to bring about a different set of consequences?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 5:35 amI've answered that. And you have not responded to that, even if you quote from posts where I answer that. I've answered that. And you have not responded to that, even if you quote from posts where I answer that.

Link me to this please.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:15 pm ade arguments, implied arguments, arguments that are accepted or rejected by others, arguments that convince us, arguments that do not.

What on Earth, for all practical purposes, do any of the existential sequences experienced here by each of us as individuals really matter if everything that we think, feel, say and do, reflects the only possible reality?

What do your posts matter if that is the case.

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to respond to other people and texts with this? Once or twice, to make the point, sure, fine. Yes, good rhetorical move. Good question.

But once done, given that it can be asked of any activity at all in this forum and elsewhere, it's not a response. Unless the point is...hey there's no point in ever discussing anything, so I'll never respond to your points.

And, again, then why bother writing at all.

Instead, click, the focus is still on those who aim to explore all of this scientifically, and those who have, instead, taken a leap of faith to God and religion.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:23 pmThat's 'the' focus?

Yes. Rooted existentially in dasein, that's my focus. Just as rooted existentially in dasein others have their own subjective focus. Now, given "the gap", how do any of us go about pinning down what all rational men and women are truly obligated to focus on instead?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:23 pmAnd we have mystical sounding statements like:

Unless, of course, that's how it all unfolds "in our heads" as just another necessary manifestation of the only possible world.

Sure, if he wishes to accuse me of being "metaphysical" here,

I said 'mystical' which is not the same as metaphysical.

As if that isn't basically my entire point here. Though from my own frame of mind "here and now" [given lots and lots of exchanges over the years], the answers to questions of this sort revolve mainly around agreeing with the arguments of those like Iwannaplato who make them.

Only if you agreed. There are a lot of options between agreeing and disagreeing, many of them neither or partially both, and all of them include discussing and seeing where it goes. IOW exploring.