Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:04 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:01 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:31 pm

He hasn't shown any interest in respecting this kind of request.

Why don't you only post the things I think and believe? Why are you posting the things you think and believe?! The horror!

It's like he lacks object permanence or something.

Well, lack of object permenance in an adult would likely lead to memory problems, problems with empathy, not getting context, inability to understand other people's perspectives and a kind of functional solipsism.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:31 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:20 pm
'you' could also, by the way, just say and write things that are True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct only, and then there will be less times that I will want to quote you. But, I will, still, quote you when I want to.

You have the intellect of an actual infant, to write something like this.

Okay. If this is what you believe is absolutely true, then this is what you will, absolutely, see, and hear.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:31 pm No, people can't just say and write things that are true and correct,

But, you people can just say and write, only, those things that are true and correct, ONLY.

However, you people CHOOSE not to.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:31 pm for one clear and obvious reason that anybody past their toddler years understands - people genuinely believe things that aren't always true and correct.

LOL I KNOW. This is VERY OBVIOUS, and this forum proves this ABSOLUTELY True.

And, it is also WHY I chose to only believe one thing, ONLY.

Also, and by the way, just because you people CHOOSE to, laughingly, 'genuinely' believe things are true and correct, which are not even true and correct is not the reason why you cannot just say and write thing that are true and correct.

The reason WHY you people do not just say and write, only, the things that are true and correct is BECAUSE you want to express 'your beliefs', and have 'your beliefs' HEARD, and 'believed' true, like you "yourselves" do.

Which, again, makes all of this absolutely HILARIOUS to watch 'play out' in so-called 'real time', and all of the time here.

LOL you people want 'your own beliefs' to be BELIEVED like 'you', "yourselves", BELIEVE (in) them.

And, you will not allow the Truth to get 'in the way' of 'your beliefs'. Which makes all of this even more ABSURD, but very interesting to watch and observe 'come-to-light' here, now.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:31 pm So if you're going to insist on quoting me still, when I've asked you not to, please at least learn how to think beyond toddler level intelligence.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If only you 'knew' "flannel jesus". If only 'you knew'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:01 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:31 pm

He hasn't shown any interest in respecting this kind of request.

LOL

And, imagine if I asked these ones to, please, stop talking 'about me', and how much 'respect' this would get?

A Truly funny part of what "flannel jesus" was doing was quoting 'me', and talking 'to me', to request that I stop quoting 'it', and to stop talking 'to it'.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:04 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:01 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:31 pm

He hasn't shown any interest in respecting this kind of request.

Why don't you only post the things I think and believe? Why are you posting the things you think and believe?! The horror!

Here 'we' can SEE just how DECEPTIVE they can be.

It says things, while 'trying to' make out that what is says was some thing like what I said, and meant. Which, obviously, could not be any further from the actual Truth.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:04 pm It's like he lacks object permanence or something.

What can also be CLEARLY SEEN here is this one 'trying' its very hardest to 'try to' 'justify' it writing and claiming things that it, only, 'believes' are true and correct, but which may not be true nor correct at all.

Which speaks of and shows and proves just how Truly deluded 'these people' could be, back when this was being written.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:12 pm I hope Rick is at least getting paid a decent amount for letting Age post here.

These people would stop at nothing in 'trying to' garner support for their HATRED of 'me'.

And, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, all I have, really, done was just question and/or challenge them over 'their beliefs and claims' here.

I, still, wonder what 'these ones' believe a 'philosophy forum' was intended for, if not for to share views and ideas and have those ideas and views critiqued, questioned, and/or challenged?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:42 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:12 pm I hope Rick is at least getting paid a decent amount for letting Age post here.

These people would stop at nothing in 'trying to' garner support for their HATRED of 'me'.

And, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, all I have, really, done was just question and/or challenge them over 'their beliefs and claims' here.

I, still, wonder what 'these ones' believe a 'philosophy forum' was intended for, if not for to share views and ideas and have those ideas and views critiqued, questioned, and/or challenged?

People need somewhat functioning brains to participate on a philosophy forum. You are very far from that and always will be. You can never talk to humans period.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:12 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:04 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:01 pm He hasn't shown any interest in respecting this kind of request.

Why don't you only post the things I think and believe? Why are you posting the things you think and believe?! The horror!

It's like he lacks object permanence or something.

Well, lack of object permenance in an adult would likely lead to memory problems, problems with empathy, not getting context, inability to understand other people's perspectives and a kind of functional solipsism.

And, what is 'it' a lack of' when one cannot, and/or just will not, clarify nor back up and support its claims, beliefs, and views?

My view is 'free will' is just the ability to choose, which all human beings HAVE, and, 'determinism' just refers to the fact that how all matter is NOW, in whatever shape and form that 'it' is in was pre-determined by the continual flowing previous event.

Now, how and why the Truly peaceful and harmonious world' WILL come-to-be, soon enough, is because 'you' adult human beings have 'the ability' to choose to 'look at', 'see', and 'do' things differently.

'you' are just in the process of being 'prepared' for this, and when 'you' have been, then this when what is 'determined' to happen 'will' happen, 'freely'.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:42 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:12 pm I hope Rick is at least getting paid a decent amount for letting Age post here.

These people would stop at nothing in 'trying to' garner support for their HATRED of 'me'.

And, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, all I have, really, done was just question and/or challenge them over 'their beliefs and claims' here.

I, still, wonder what 'these ones' believe a 'philosophy forum' was intended for, if not for to share views and ideas and have those ideas and views critiqued, questioned, and/or challenged?

People need somewhat functioning brains to participate on a philosophy forum. You are very far from that and always will be. You can never talk to humans period.

So, once again, these ones' will STOP fighting, bickering, and arguing with 'each other', when 'they' 'work together', on the 'same goal'. And, the 'same goal' here is to 'try to' dismiss, reject, ridicule, and/or humiliate 'me' as much as they can, together.

Which is, exactly, another thing that I wanted to show, and prove, in regards to what I have, and will be, discussing.

See, when 'belief', itself, is used in the One and only True, and Right, way, then absolutely any thing is possible, including the creating and making of the 'kind of world' in which absolutely all of you human beings Truly want to live in, together.

In fact, I am rather surprised at just how quickly, and simply and easily, these posters here are actually proving, irrefutably, True, here, for me, 'that', which I want to discuss.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:54 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:42 pm

These people would stop at nothing in 'trying to' garner support for their HATRED of 'me'.

And, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, all I have, really, done was just question and/or challenge them over 'their beliefs and claims' here.

I, still, wonder what 'these ones' believe a 'philosophy forum' was intended for, if not for to share views and ideas and have those ideas and views critiqued, questioned, and/or challenged?

People need somewhat functioning brains to participate on a philosophy forum. You are very far from that and always will be. You can never talk to humans period.

So, once again, these ones' will STOP fighting, bickering, and arguing with 'each other', when 'they' 'work together', on the 'same goal'. And, the 'same goal' here is to 'try to' dismiss, reject, ridicule, and/or humiliate 'me' as much as they can, together.

Which is, exactly, another thing that I wanted to show, and prove, in regards to what I have, and will be, discussing.

See, when 'belief', itself, is used in the One and only True, and Right, way, then absolutely any thing is possible, including the creating and making of the 'kind of world' in which absolutely all of you human beings Truly want to live in, together.

In fact, I am rather surprised at just how quickly, and simply and easily, these posters here are actually proving, irrefutably, True, here, for me, 'that', which I want to discuss.

You aren't showing anything true to anyone. You are merely talking to yourself.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 5:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:54 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:48 pm
People need somewhat functioning brains to participate on a philosophy forum. You are very far from that and always will be. You can never talk to humans period.

So, once again, these ones' will STOP fighting, bickering, and arguing with 'each other', when 'they' 'work together', on the 'same goal'. And, the 'same goal' here is to 'try to' dismiss, reject, ridicule, and/or humiliate 'me' as much as they can, together.

Which is, exactly, another thing that I wanted to show, and prove, in regards to what I have, and will be, discussing.

See, when 'belief', itself, is used in the One and only True, and Right, way, then absolutely any thing is possible, including the creating and making of the 'kind of world' in which absolutely all of you human beings Truly want to live in, together.

In fact, I am rather surprised at just how quickly, and simply and easily, these posters here are actually proving, irrefutably, True, here, for me, 'that', which I want to discuss.

You aren't showing anything true to anyone. You are merely talking to yourself.

If this is what you believe is absolutely true, then 'this' is, only, what you will see, and hear.

Also, noted is you saying and claiming this as though you, actually, believe that you are.

Now, if you believe that you are showing things to be true here, to people, and you have any courage at all, then just list what you believe is true here.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 5:22 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 5:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:54 pm

So, once again, these ones' will STOP fighting, bickering, and arguing with 'each other', when 'they' 'work together', on the 'same goal'. And, the 'same goal' here is to 'try to' dismiss, reject, ridicule, and/or humiliate 'me' as much as they can, together.

Which is, exactly, another thing that I wanted to show, and prove, in regards to what I have, and will be, discussing.

See, when 'belief', itself, is used in the One and only True, and Right, way, then absolutely any thing is possible, including the creating and making of the 'kind of world' in which absolutely all of you human beings Truly want to live in, together.

In fact, I am rather surprised at just how quickly, and simply and easily, these posters here are actually proving, irrefutably, True, here, for me, 'that', which I want to discuss.

You aren't showing anything true to anyone. You are merely talking to yourself.

If this is what you believe is absolutely true, then 'this' is, only, what you will see, and hear.

Also, noted is you saying and claiming this as though you, actually, believe that you are.

Now, if you believe that you are showing things to be true here, to people, and you have any courage at all, then just list what you believe is true here.

Guess what, I don't take commands from you.

Criticising Strawson’s Compatibilism
Nurana Rajabova is wary of an attempt to dismiss determinism to keep free will

Interestingly enough, studies show that human bodily reactions do not occur only in response to physical stimuli; they can also happen in relation to ‘moral things’.

On the other hand, "moral things" are pertinent only to actual flesh and blood human beings. Physical down to the bone.

And then on up into the brain. But how exactly are they connected? Or, as some seem inclined to suggest, "who needs to know that"?

The anterior cingulate cortex is a part of the brain that activates to produce disgust when a human is presented with rotten food (a function which evolved to keep people from harmful food). It turns out that the same area of the brain also gets activated when a person witnesses an event they deem morally repugnant.

Okay, but then this part: what one individual deems to be delicious another deems to be disgusting. Same with morality. What is morally repugnant to some, others actually pursue as enlightened.

In other words, even given free will, human brains are no less the embodiment of dasein. Moral responsibility is the real deal, but no less rooted historically, culturally and in regard to our uniquely personal experiences.

This is just one quick example supporting Strawson’s point that the natural human disposition is to react to moral stimuli. However, the question I want to ask is whether the reactive attitudes (in other words, our emotional responses) are enough to confer moral responsibility.

Of course, they might be. If "somehow" when brains evolved into us, emotions were "somehow" different from thoughts. Whereas from my frame of mind, they are both intertwined existentially out in a particular world understood in a particular way. Then the Benjamin Button Syndrome.

For the sake of brevity and clarity, I will explore this question by analyzing it in only one case, that of death, yet one could explore the same question in almost all types of human emotionally reactive experiences.

The irony then being that death itself makes human actions and reactions, well, you tell me.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:44 am Again, I am not arguing that determinism "undermines our conclusions" so much as to suggest it makes them...interchangeable? That's why compatibilism continues to boggle my mind. How on Earth can someone "act out" Nature's script other than as their brain compels them to? Where -- chemically and neurologically -- does autonomy fit in here?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:28 am And you quote people who do not assert this. They do not assert libertarian autonomy. They accept determinism, yet assert that one can, nevertheless, say someone is responsble.

No, I focus instead on those who do make assertions about compatibilism. And that's not me. Unless. of course, your own interpretation of me is actually closer to what may or may not be the objective truth.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:28 am So, again and again, you quote people who are not saying brains are not determined, and repeat your incredibly that brains or humans are free from determinism. Strawson for example explicitly argues that his position fits with determinism, including the determined nature of our actions. But you respond to him as if he is asserting the opposite and repeat your position.

No, I do what all of us here do. I read articles in Philosophy Now magazine and elsewhere. I react to them given my own philosophical prejudices. Whereas from my frame mind "here and now", those like you seem far more interested in pinning down What The Author Meant. As though instead of this being open to interpretation, there's actually only one truly correct assessment.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:28 am I hope you would consider it fair to say you think that his position makes no sense.

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense given his own set of assumptions [philosophical or otherwise] about the human brain. Same for Libertarians, compatibilists, and determinists. Just insist that only the manner in which you understand the meaning of these words...counts?

Like discussing gun control with those like henry quirk. But: no free will and he is just one more of nature's automatons. With free will and it's only his own assumptions about life, liberty and property that...count?.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:28 am However you do not respond to his position. I have seen this happen in relation to posters here and at ILP also, including myself, where we present an argument saying that one can assign responsibility despite determinism AND NOT based on some kind of exception for human brain cells from determinism. Your response has been incredulity that brain cells are free from determinism or incredulity that without that libertarian free will one should be assigned responsiblity.

I still react to didactic assessments like this as just so much...mental masturbation? You argue that "we present an argument saying that one can assign responsibility despite determinism AND NOT based on some kind of exception for human brain cells from determinism" as though just believing this makes it true.

Instead, I ask compatibilists who believe things like this to note how it is "for all practical purpose" demonstrable.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:28 am What I have not seen is an argument supporting the latter. What i have not seen is you actually interacting with their actual argument. I just see reactions to what they/we are not saying.

Okay -- click -- how about this...

In regard to another article in PN magazine pertaining to compatibilism and morality, you react to it given your own interpretation of what the author is attempting to convey. Let's see if I can level the same sort of accusations at you that you level at me.

Like discussing gun control with those like henry quirk...it's only his own assumptions about life, liberty and property that...count?.

As I say: a person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

My coach gun is my property. I've done no wrong with it. I won't give it up or be hobbled in my ownership becuz some nimrods and nutjobs use their own firearms badly, or becuz the people get themselves bamboozled into giving up their guns by employees who act as rulers.

I was asking "others here" to factor their own understanding of free will into the article. In particular the compatibilists among us.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:43 am People should factor in - what does that mean - their understanding of free will into an article that is not asserting free will.

That doesn't make sense to me.

Well, let's wait for others here to weigh in then.

Were they or were they not determined by laws of matter emanating from their brain to read it? And if they were never, ever going to come into contact with it, how can they be held responsible for not sharing its conclusions?

The part I keep missing.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:43 amWell, perhaps you should interact with Strawson's argument, then. Or with those posters here who have presented such arguments. Merely dismissing them and treating them as libertarian free will arguments, when they are not, will continue to lead to you missing the point.

This is just you asserting that the points you and others make here in regard to Strawson and compatibilism are not missing the point. Meanwhile, Mary is still compelled to abort Jane. And others are still compelled to react to that in the only possible reality. It's just that given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, no one really knows what that actually means. Neither ontologically nor teleologically.

Moe wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:03 am Actually it's the part you keep making up. If you are too fucking lazy or disinterested in reading the people you quote and every single time your're just going to make up positions they do not have, why not stop quoting them?

Fortunately, even Stooges are not exempt from living in a world where everything we think, feel, say and do is for all practical purposes "beyond our control". So, he's still off the fucking hook!

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:03 am If you only want people who are anti-abortion to respond to this thread, MAKE THAT CLEAR.

Click.

Huh? Where did that come from?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:43 am It comes from the fact that in ILP you wouldn't even discuss anoter moral issue. It had to be abortion.

First of all, over and again I have explained this:
1] with abortion life and death itself are on the line
2] abortion is a moral conflagration that almost all of us are familiar with
3] it was the issue of abortion -- John and Mary -- that eventually led me to abandon objective morality itself.

Also, over and over and over again, I note that others can always choose their own issue. Click, of course.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:43 am How can I argue that Mary should be held responsible for her immoral act of having an abortion if I dont think it's an immoral act.

This thread however focuses not on what we thnk or argue about the morality of abortion, but on how the human brain itself functions when thinking or feeling or saying or doing...anything.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:43 am I chose an act that pretty much everyone would consider immoral and which I do. I then explained why I would hold that person responsbile for that action even in a determinist universe.You refused to even look at or respond to my argument because it wasn't abortion. I even said I could move from that argument once we had discussed that and I could present what a potential anti-abortionist could do with my argument, after we focus on a different moral issue. You refused to even look at or respond to my argument because it wasn't abortion.

Link me to that please.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:43 am The general issue is how can one give someone responsibility for their actions if their actions are utterly determined. I spend time responding to that.

Nothing, nada from you.

My example was specific and concrete and I am nto the only one who has done this.

The link, please. Or perhaps you posted it and -- click -- I never read it.

Note to the compatilisists here:

Please attempt to explain to me how compatilism unfolds both "in your head" and "for all practical purposes" when you interact with others pertaining to conflicting goods.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:43 am But pointing this out makes me a Stooge and you decide to socially judge me by calling me a Stooge and calling me Moe.

Over and over again, I've explained my "rooted existentially in dasein" usage of the word Stooge here. So, why do you keep misinterpreting me?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:43 am Again, why don't you tell use how you held me responsible for my actions, given that determinism may well be the case.

That's basically what I ask of the compatibilists, of course. But here, apparently, only you get to distinguish reasonable from unreasonable reactions.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:43 am Who gives a fuck if in your memory you were a well respected philosophy student 40/50 years ago, when here you don't respond to people actually meeting your requests by interacting with their posts, but rather just dismiss without justification and quote people assinging them positions they do not have.

I just thought it was important to note that actual philosophy professors interpreted me quite differently from you. Unfortunately, I just don't recall how the issue of determinism and moral responsibility played out in classes and in personal interactions back then.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:43 am Hey, I'll avoid you for a while at least. You don't even have the fucking decency to respond to people politely meeting your requests.

Yes, that might be advisable. My gut feeling here -- click -- is that you react to me as you do because you may well be sliding down into that "fractured and fragmented" hole yourself.