Philosophy Now Forum

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 1:24 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.

Me: 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?

You said yes, but clearly you do not understand my point.

When one of us other humans writes something about this topic you often respond by contrasting the situation where we make points or or investigate the topic with the situation where a scientist comes and demonstrates, once and for all, whether we have free will or not. As if that could possibly be a different situation.

But what I was saying above is it would not be different. Because you could still wonder if in fact their demonstration should be convincing. Perhaps it just seems that way given determinism. You are compelled to believe it made sense.

Or, for that matter, it could be a brain in a vat scenarior. So, this contrast is false.
You could still doubt. So, what functions as a I don't need to listen to your suggestions, because this is not the ideal situation with a new Einstein who can show we have free will doesn't have any sense to it.

As far as I can tell, there is and will always be the possibiity we are wrong for some ontologica reason or another.

If you simply don't want to interact with anyone and these threads are not for discussion, ok. But the idea that one would have good grounds to discuss it if there was some (really rather odd) superexpert who came here makes no sense.

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.

I never said there are scientists who are close to resolving it. What I pointed out is that we still have the same issue regardless. See above.

So, the best we can do is reason about it between lay peers. If the only possible discussion where you would actually interact with the points made by other people is with the credentialed scientist who claims to have solved it, you've come to the wrong place. This is a philosophy discussion forum. And even if one miraculously appeared, the conundrum does not go away REGARDLESS of what this genius says. He or she might be correct, but you can't know if you were simply determined to think so.

We are, yes, in a situation, where there is (and I think will always be, an asterisk. Perhaps we are a brain in a vat or some kind of dream Or all our conclusions are determined, etc. This will not go away if Einstein 2.0 comes here with what you beIieve is the perfect research.

You can then say to him 'WeII that seems like perfect research and final proof, but perhaps we are just determined to think so.'

And you could write after any post in this forum, quoting the person, adding 'But we might be a brain in a vat.'

But hey, it's a discussion forum, one can interact with the points made.

And email addresses of the best scientists in the world are actually fairly easy to find on the internet and my experience is they actually respond to people, even lay people, who write to them.

I don't shrug off the issue. But here's the situation on the ground. Here we are alive. We hold people responsible or we don't. Someone does something to us or someone we know and we either are pro holding them responsible or we aren't through the way we live. Society does not have some third option, nor to we. We can choose a range of reactions if we hold them responsible. We can do a variety of things if we don't. But if there is a rape and we don't want rapes and/or consider it objectively immoral, we can only do something about it or not do something about it.

Regardless of whether determinism is the case or we know or don't know or think.

If we say we don't know or can't be sure, fine. But if we say that and do nothing, then we have acted as if we don't hold the person responsible.

So, here we are. That's on the ground, not up in the clouds. On the ground we try to reason as best we can.

Yes, we could throw up our hands and say we can't be sure we're not in a simulation or vat or we are determined to think X is more reasonable.

But once you come down out of the clouds you do your best. Inaction has consequences. Action has consequences.

So, Phyllo, FJ and I react by explaining what we think and what we would do. This does not mean we are ruling out all uncertainty. Hardly. It does not mean this issue has no meaning or is unimportant.

We made our best analyses and here presented arguments in relation to what to do in relation to acts we want to reduce or eliminate.

I am not saying this solves conflicting goods. But the specific issue of can one reconcile holding people responsible if determinism is the case or might be, I have given an answer.

You could interact with that answer or not, obviously.

But saying for all I know my response was determined and only seems to make sense, if it does that, is an up in the clouds response. As if we are not, in life, holding or not holding people responsible for their actions already, even in tiny acts like saying someone is shameless.

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

Determinism in the Ordinary Sense

The first account of determinism, which is determinism taken in the ordinary sense, takes a unitary approach to the universe. According to this account, all things in the universe are connected by threads which are the laws of nature. The laws of nature act on the natural world only according to a path determined at or by the first cause, which may be the Big Bang or God, depending on one’s beliefs.

Matter is matter is matter? Unless, perhaps, there is a God? And the beauty of religious convictions is that the only thing required is that you do believe what you profess to believe. That makes it true for millions. Whereas if we are compelled instead to to take it all the way back to the Big Bang...?

Where to even begin in explaining that.

Hence, it would not be too much of a stretch if we said that this theory assigns the active power of choice only to the first cause.

Same thing? With most religions, God not only has the capacity to choose, but His choices are themselves derived from both an omniscient and an omnipotent starting point. Can we say the same thing about the Big Bang, though? Or about philosophers and scientists?

All other things are viewed as passive entities transmitting predetermined causal power from one to another. According to this theory, things are determined by this very first cause and happen necessarily and only according to the laws of nature. Therefore, things cannot happen any other way than the way they already do.

Calvinism? And, perhaps, the equivalent of that among other denominations?

Also, the part here where some argue that human autonomy is simply not reconcilable with an omniscient First Cause.

As for how to grapple with human autonomy going back only to the Big Bang? That's even more mind-boggling [to some of us] than a God, the God.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 7:36 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:15 pm 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?

What do your posts matter if that is the case.

What does it mean for something -- anything -- to matter to you if you were never able to opt that it not matter? If it mattering to you is just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

Besides, I make it clear that my own frame of mind here may well be wrong. Then "the gap".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 7:36 amDo 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.

Do you realize how apalled many become when told they do not have free will?

In fact, it's only ridiculous in my view if it can be established that mere mortals did somehow acquire free will over the course of biological evolution on this planet but some simply refuse to accept that. They continue to claim that everything is beyond their control.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 7:36 amBut 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.

And, again, huh?

I'm not here arguing that mere mortals don't have free will. I'm not here arguing that only fools would believe that they do. Instead, I own up to "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" and merely note that "here and now" in a "leap of faith" I don't rule out the possiblity that we don't.

Unless, perhaps, I am not understanding your point correctly, and I do in fact have the capacity -- the free will -- to think this all through again and maybe change my mind?

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,

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 7:36 amI said 'mystical' which is not the same as metaphysical.

On the other hand, given some measure of free will, how many of these folks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy
...would, in fact, not make much of a distinction at all between them?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 7:36 amIs 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: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 7:36 amOnly 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.

Okay, for some, that's true enough. But my point here focuses in on how moral objectivists as "I" understand them -- my way or the highway, my way or else -- refuse to accept any answers other than their own. Or, rather, after one [compelled or not] takes an existental leap of faith to autonomy.

And what I do is to come back time and again -- click -- to "the gap".

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:32 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 7:36 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:15 pm 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?

What do your posts matter if that is the case.

What does it mean for something -- anything -- to matter to you if you were never able to opt that it not matter? If it mattering to you is just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

Besides, I make it clear that my own frame of mind here may well be wrong. Then "the gap".

Yes, you do, but you try to analyze things, make points, reason as best you can, even though, it is possible that you could only think the way you do for reasons that have nothing to do with reason. You do your best.

But when others make a point and you respond with, more or less, 'but this point you are making may well be something you are compelled to think is the case....etc.´´

Sure, yeah. But that's a non-respöonse. It's a kind of conversation stopper. Yes.

But if you are posting here, responding to people you read, expecting perhaps to get some knowledge of something, making arguments, etc. You are doing this in the face of perhaps this being illusory. Yet, you do it.

So, why not drop that response, unless someone comes to you and says 'Hey, I know that I arrived at my position in a free way and I am certain it is correct, period.' In that situation, sure bring out what determinism entails in relation to such a position.

But otherwise it's just a conversation stopper. And yet it doesn't stop you and your mulling.

Unless it is only other people's thoughts and points that can be made moot by that point, you could instead respond to the point the other person is making. Do your best to reason around it as they do their best to reason around your points.

If it is clear that they do not understand what determinism entails or might entail, there's a moment to bring in that idea.

But you use it whenever.

I can't speak for FJ or Phyllo, but I realize that I may believe and assert things for reasons that have nothing to do with their truth value. I may be compelled to believe them for reasons that I am unaware of. I don't need to be reminded at random moments what determinsm may well entail.

it would be the same if someone responded to all your posts with 'But you may well be simply compelled to dismiss that compatibilist's point here'. And you'd respond, Yeah, I know that's possible.

That's the last time that ever needs to get mentioned to you. Oh, OK, he gets that. Now I can look at Iambiguous' reasoning and points.
But rather than doing that, some guy just keeps telling you that after whatever you write.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:52 am
That's the last time that ever needs to get mentioned to you. Oh, OK, he gets that. Now I can look at Iambiguous' reasoning and points.
But rather than doing that, some guy just keeps telling you that after whatever you write.

Iambiguous, I'll save you the trouble and write what you would have written:

But what if you were just compelled to write that because of the manifestation of the only possible reality?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 9:19 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:52 am
That's the last time that ever needs to get mentioned to you. Oh, OK, he gets that. Now I can look at Iambiguous' reasoning and points.
But rather than doing that, some guy just keeps telling you that after whatever you write.

Iambiguous, I'll save you the trouble and write what you would have written:

But what if you were just compelled to write that because of the manifestation of the only possible reality?

I like to think of myself as the manifestation of the only possible reality.

I can't speak for FJ or Phyllo, but I realize that I may believe and assert things for reasons that have nothing to do with their truth value. I may be compelled to believe them for reasons that I am unaware of. I don't need to be reminded at random moments what determinsm may well entail.

I'm not "compelled" to believe anything.

I may believe falsehoods for a variety of reasons. I have been presented with false statements, I had limited knowledge, I misunderstood, I made errors in reasoning.

The result is that I reached the wrong conclusion.

The word "compelled" is victim language. It implies a controlling victimiser.

It leads to all sorts of absurd ideas, many of which have already been presented in this thread.

A person is "compelled" by the the laws of nature? A person is "compelled" by the Big Bang?

I am now sitting facing a wall... I'm "compelled" not to pass directly through it to the outside? I'm "compelled" to use the door to get out of the house?

A toaster is "compelled" to toast bread? A clock is "compelled" not to toast bread?

These are not compulsions.

The first account of determinism, which is determinism taken in the ordinary sense, takes a unitary approach to the universe. According to this account, all things in the universe are connected by threads which are the laws of nature. The laws of nature act on the natural world only according to a path determined at or by the first cause, which may be the Big Bang or God, depending on one’s beliefs.
.
.
.
Hence, it would not be too much of a stretch if we said that this theory assigns the active power of choice only to the first cause.
.
.
.
All other things are viewed as passive entities transmitting predetermined causal power from one to another. According to this theory, things are determined by this very first cause and happen necessarily and only according to the laws of nature. Therefore, things cannot happen any other way than the way they already do.

Actually, that is a big stretch.

The Big Bang is assigned "the active power of choice". And humans are merely "passive".

What???

Which options did the BB have? How did it chose between these options?

This line of reasoning only makes sense if the first cause is a God ... an entity with the power to think and decide. A small amount of sense.

But why does God have the motivations it does? On what basis does God decide anything? How did God come to think in this particular way?

Well, (conveniently) we don't know. So the causes of God's decisions and actions are just ignored.

Every human being has 'free will', (now what, exactly, which every human being has, which could be referred to as 'free will', needs to be discussed, and discovered), BUT, every human being is 'limited' by and from the 'thoughts' already obtained, which, will be discovered, were 'pre-determined'.

So, both 'free will' AND 'determinism' exist, within you human beings.

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

Defenders of this theory [above] resist non-physical explanations of thought and extend the laws of physics to the human mind. Consequently, humans are viewed simply as a part of physics with no power of causation in their minds – no effective power of choice.

Then [for some] back to this: are they defending it only because they were never able not to defend it? Do they resist only because they were never able not to resist?

You tell us. And in such a way that we are convinced of our own free will to accept it. And, in fact, of our own volition, we spread the word.

How exactly does the brain create the mind? And why do millions upon millions around the globe assume the only plausible explanation is God?

In this sense, humans are simply pre-programmed ‘moist robots’ (a term coined by Scott Adams), created physically causally, and acting only physically causally.

Scott Adams. Remember him? He once advised white folks to "get the hell away from black people". As though he was ever able not to?

Our actions, be they evil or good, do not originate from us.

And that, of course, becomes the whole point. How can good and evil not be interchangeable in a world where even our individual reactions to the behaviors of others is no less destined or fated?

We experience our thoughts, feelings and ‘decisions’ because we are determined to experience them at the particular instances we do. Even the wishes, desires, thoughts that we feel we are initiating by our power of choice are, in fact, completely outside of our power, since we have no power of choice.

Again, however, there will be those who want to believe this because then they are off the hook for, well, everything, right? And others who won't because damned if they are going to even consider the possibility that all the great things they have accomplished are as well beyond their control.

We have no choice but live through our predestined script, as the actors of that script.

Now, let's try to grapple with all of this in regard to, say, the Alec Baldwin/Rust trial. The case was just dropped. But how is that a good thing or a bad thing if it could never have been otherwise? Some will be appalled, others ecstatic. Taking all of their cues from Mother Nature.

In this way, we are victims of fate. Upon this account, we would not be wrong to say that the first cause determined for each person living fourteen billion years after to have a particular feeling or emotion at any given time. Right now as I am typing this article, the speed with which I’m moving my fingers, the typos I make, and ‘choose’ to correct, were also determined at that very first cause.

Does that perturb you? Of your own volition?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:52 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:32 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 7:36 am
What do your posts matter if that is the case.

What does it mean for something -- anything -- to matter to you if you were never able to opt that it not matter? If it mattering to you is just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

Besides, I make it clear that my own frame of mind here may well be wrong. Then "the gap".

Yes, you do, but you try to analyze things, make points, reason as best you can, even though, it is possible that you could only think the way you do for reasons that have nothing to do with reason. You do your best.

On the other hand: right back at you?

Again, as though in regard to things like morality and free will, both philosophers and scientists had long ago pinned down what either is or is not reasonable.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:52 amBut when others make a point and you respond with, more or less, 'but this point you are making may well be something you are compelled to think is the case....etc.´´

And that is because if the hardcore determinists are correct, that is precisely how human interactions -- all of them -- do unfold. Back to speculation of the sort Nurana Rajabova proposed above:

"We experience our thoughts, feelings and ‘decisions’ because we are determined to experience them at the particular instances we do. Even the wishes, desires, thoughts that we feel we are initiating by our power of choice are, in fact, completely outside of our power, since we have no power of choice."

No fucking way...right? And I'm here every day posting as though I opted freely to do so. No getting around that. But that doesn't really settle anything, does it?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:52 amSure, yeah. But that's a non-respöonse. It's a kind of conversation stopper. Yes.

Well, it's a good thing then that no one here is actually required to read what I post. Let alone respond to it. On the other hand, I've been stopping conversations in online philosophy forums now for nearly 25 years. Even in the private forum where I pursue most of my exchanges now, there are those no less disturbed by my own fractured and fragmented philosophical prejudices. Only they fall back on science rather than philosophy for their own TOE.

Scientism some call it.

Then back to this:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:52 amBut if you are posting here, responding to people you read, expecting perhaps to get some knowledge of something, making arguments, etc. You are doing this in the face of perhaps this being illusory. Yet, you do it.

I do it because over the years I have changed my mind [dramatically at times] regarding many very important issues in my life. Some years ago [over at ILP] I recall getting into exchanges with Volchoc about determinism. To the best of my recollection -- click -- he was basically arguing there then what I do here now. But the existential leap I was embracing then was in support of free will.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:52 amSo, why not drop that response, unless someone comes to you and says 'Hey, I know that I arrived at my position in a free way and I am certain it is correct, period.' In that situation, sure bring out what determinism entails in relation to such a position.

I could drop it. But, again, how on Earth does that enable me to know whether or not, in fact, I could of my own free will not drop it?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:52 amUnless it is only other people's thoughts and points that can be made moot by that point, you could instead respond to the point the other person is making. Do your best to reason around it as they do their best to reason around your points.

Okay, about that...

Over and again with you, in my view, I have been accused of failing to grasp what this or that author meant to convey in this or that article. As though how you understand his or her points is necessarily more reasonable. When, all the while, over and over and over again, I suggest that both sides are able to offer reasonable arguments here merely by changing the assumptions [regarding the human condition] they start out with: https://www.educationalwave.com/pros-an ... free-will/

Clearly, the sheer number of components involved here -- biological, historical, cultural, social, political, economic etc. -- make resolutions all the more problematic once we take our theoretical conjectures down out of the clouds.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:52 am...it would be the same if someone responded to all your posts with 'But you may well be simply compelled to dismiss that compatibilist's point here'. And you'd respond, Yeah, I know that's possible.

And it's...not?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:54 pm I do it because over the years I have changed my mind [dramatically at times] regarding many very important issues in my life. Some years ago [over at ILP] I recall getting into exchanges with Volchoc about determinism. To the best of my recollection -- click -- he was basically arguing there then what I do here now. But the existential leap I was embracing then was in support of free will.

Well, that's not likely to happen again, if everyone you quote and anyone who responds to your posts, you respond to them with your current tic about how their ideas could be utterly determined by the Big Bang.

That thinking stopper precludes reasoned interaction. It dismisses their thoughts.

On the other hand, if you interact with the specific ideas as you perhaps did with Volchok, and only once in a great while, with someone who hasn't already heard your conversation/thinking stopper 20 times or more already, throw it in as PART
of an intellectual exchange, you might well change or learn something here.

And of course you're right. No one has to read or respond to your posts.
It's just fascinating that you use the conversation/thinking stopper
and
continue to consider it worthwhile to post and reason yourself, when you do.

Got it, despite apprearances...these are monologues.

Anyway Kudo's to Volchok. I wonder how he got through the epistemological conversation/thinking stoppers you had as a habit before the determinism ones.

I'm sure your last words about him there were complimentary.

And of course you're right. No one has to read or respond to your posts.

Well, no.

That's not a consistent option.

If the contents of the post is "compelled", then reading his posts and responding is also "compelled".

If a person "freely chooses" what they post, then they can "freely choose" to read or not read and respond or not respond.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2024 12:37 pm

And of course you're right. No one has to read or respond to your posts.

Well, no.

That's not a consistent option.

If the contents of the post is "compelled", then reading his posts and responding is also "compelled".

If a person "freely chooses" what they post, then they can "freely choose" to read or not read and respond or not respond.

I stand corrected, thank you.
I felt there was something compulsive about this, but I failed to honor it.
Of course, now I have been informed about this. This is a new cause. It might lead to a change.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:54 pm Over and again with you, in my view, I have been accused of failing to grasp what this or that author meant to convey in this or that article. As though how you understand his or her points is necessarily more reasonable. When, all the while, over and over and over again, I suggest that both sides are able to offer reasonable arguments here merely by changing the assumptions [regarding the human condition] they start out with: https://www.educationalwave.com/pros-an ... free-will/

I give reasons for why I think my interpretation is correct.
You do not respond to this by giving reasons why you think your interpretation is correct.
In instance after instance.
You treat my suggesting your interpretation is incorrect as some kind of dominance act. And here, in a philosophy forum, you opt, again and again, to not justify your interpretation.
Perhaps there is no way to resolve it, but you don't try. And then you go back, in later posts, to the same interpretations.
OK, if you think there is no way to ever reason the way to a better interpretation, fine. But then you don't act like that when you do reason your way to conclusions - for example around moderation, compromise and negotiation. The latter two processes I see no sign or in you dialogues about interpretations, for example. I know, you mean that in the political realm. But it's odd.

Don't you think in political negotiation and compromise and seeking some kind of moderation in the process there would be reason.

Yes, sometimes people cannot justify their interpretations such that they agree.

But here we are two people who might possibly, thought a process of investigation, end up agreeing. Oh, I see what you mean. I missed that part of the article. This happens. People can arrive at agreement or changes in portions of opinions and interpretation via reasoned dialogue.

But your reaction is an utter disinterest in whether there could be merit in the other interpretation. And you show utter disinterest in justifying your interpretation. It is as if it is a non-issue. Lots of interpretations, our interpretations could well be utterly determined, I'll just move on. The possibly futile becomes the inevitable default for some reason. Yet at the same time post after post in a philosophy forum, with doubled versions in at least one other.

Clearly, the sheer number of components involved here -- biological, historical, cultural, social, political, economic etc. -- make resolutions all the more problematic once we take our theoretical conjectures down out of the clouds.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:52 am...it would be the same if someone responded to all your posts with 'But you may well be simply compelled to dismiss that compatibilist's point here'. And you'd respond, Yeah, I know that's possible.

And it's...not?

Wow. If you think that is the route to possibly productive communication, go for it.

Of course it's possible.

But here we are and we don't know. If we decide to respond to any different opinion or interpretation with - maybe we are just compelled to think X.

Then the possibility that we could reason our way to something is eliminated.

It's possible that there is no point in having a reasoned exchange, so I will respond to the beginnings of any exhange by mentioning this, so we don't engage in justification and reasoning because it
MIGHT
be futile.

I can see how well this works in a survival situation.

A: Fire the flare.
B; They might not see it.
A: Yes, they might not. But if you don't fire it, there is zero chance they will see it.
B: The flare may not work.
A: Yes, but if we don't try it is 100% it won't work.
B: You're trying to dominate me in a situation where we can't be sure what's going on.