compatibilism

[iambiguous]

As though this part...

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.

...is still just, what, a trivial pursuit?

No, it's not as though that this the case. Nothing I have done has said those are trivial issues. Feel free to point to something I said that indicates this.

Feel free to point out where Strawson encompasses this in his own argument. His is just one more particularly intelligent wild-ass guess.

Also that it becamse conscious hasn't even been your issue in most posts.

Maybe that's because any number of scientists and philosophers are still completely baffled regarding how matter emanating from the Big Bang became biological, and then conscious and then self-conscious matter.

In fact, if there is any argument that might convince me that a God, the God exists, it's that one. Pantheism on the other hand has always seemed considerably far-fetched to me.

In most of your posts the issue is how brain become autonomous and free somehow from determinism. So, this just seems ridicualous. A ridiculous accusation.

In most of my posts pertaining to meaning, morality and the Big Questions, the issue revolves around The Gap and Rummy's Rule.

A change in the focus from consciousness - which yes, I have seen you raise as an issue, but it's not the issue you have mainly raised around compitiblism in the posts I have responded to - to autonomy.

Hundreds and hundreds of animal species around the globe have acquired consciousness. But the only one that invented science and philoosphy is our own. Why? How did this come about? What ontologically and teleologically might be behind it?

What I have pointed out is that the brain cells becoming autonomous was not what the compatibliists your quoted were saying.

On the other hand, how would we go about determining if brain cells are autonomous?

Then this part:

"The human brain is made up of about 86 billion nerve cells, along with many other types of cells. They interact and link together in unique ways, creating distinct brain regions with specific functions. NIH

Think about it. Somewhere amidst those 86,000,000,000 cells there's this autonomous I still able to take charge when confronting conflicting goods? Sure, maybe. But when something is composed of 86,000,000,000 cells [not to mention 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms] where to even begin to pin it all down.

As for framing the problem, that's always been the same for me since the OP: figuring out how the compatibilists are able to reconcile determinism with moral responsibility. Both philosophically and for all practical purposes.

Great, well, it'll be convincing you have this interest when you actually interact with what the people you quote are saying - which is not that brain cells are exceptions to the rules of determinism - and if you actually read and respond to people who have presented such arguments.

Over and over and over again with this. As though there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that perhaps what is really going on here is you accusing me of failing to respond to others in the manner in which you would.

[iambiguous]

Note to others:

A little help here please. Either for him or, sure, for me. What did I do above "precisely" as he said? Pertaining to Mary and Jane.

Is there or is there not a distinction being made between is and ought by the preponderance of men and women around the globe?

Of course, those who hold with Hume. Nowhere, nowhere did I argue that people dont' make the distinction.

Though nowhere, nowhere have you been able to demonstrate how you freely opted to argue that. Not that I'm aware of. Instead here, by and large, it's arguments all the way down. Including my own.

I have presented an argument for that three or four times. I have pointed out that often in the context of determinism, when you are thinking about that and whether we can know things, you say we may be compelled to believe that. I have then gone on to explain that that is true regarding all knowledge, any knowledge.

Again, so you say. Please link me to what you construe to be your best argument. The one that avoids abortion altogether.

When your focus is somewhere else on the issue, you talk about scientific facts and wish scientists would come here and they would give real answers and possibly then we would know, forgetting what you have said about us being compelled to believe things, which would include scientists and us listening to them.

Now it's your turn. Note where I have ever argued that scientists are any different from the rest of us? They may or may not possess some measure of autonomy. Instead, I do note how there may come a day when scientists and philosophers are able to establish that we do have free will. But how on Earth would we know beyond a doubt that this too is just another inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe.

The more mere mortals in a No God world attempt to think this through, the more surreal it seems to become.

[Age]

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.

OBVIOUSLY, this one is completely lacking in courage and/or is completely incapable of just explaining to you readers here what it believes it is showing to you that is true.

[iambiguous]

People who think that determinism isn't compatible with (psychological, legal, everyday) responsibility, simply don't understand determinism. We don't have free will in the philosophical sense, but most people have more than enough free will in the psychological, legal, everyday sense.

What's the big mistery here?

So, what are you suggesting then...that the preponderance of philosophers and scientists are in fact able to demonstrate that determinism and compatibilism can co-exist in regard to human interactions that come into conflict.

Links please.

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." wiki

Theoretically anyway.

[Age]

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.

And, as you also say, and claim, you will take another's life, liberty, and/or property when 'they' just do what you do not like. Again, the absolute greediness and selfishness, within you, has control 'over you', and thus why and how 'you' are "a slave".

LOL 'This one' will continually say, and claim, that 'any person' has a so-called 'absolute moral claim', or a 'natural right', to their own life, EXCEPT WHEN "henry quirk" wants to and chooses to 'take' 'that right', and 'life', 'away from them'.

And, the funniest part of all of this is "henry quirk", actually, BELIEVES, absolutely, that if 'a person' even just 'tries' to make off with what it 'claims' "is his", even if 'it' is just a piece of bread, and even a 'stale piece of bread' at that, or even just a 'piece of wood', which it uses to clean teeth, then, laughingly, the claim that every and any person has an 'absolute moral claim' to 'the life' is completely and utterly distinguished, and that "henry quirk" has now obtain some 'other sort of right', where and when it can choose to 'take away' 'the life' of 'that person'.

And, what is Truly amazing to watch play out here is "henry quirk" is absolutely completely oblivious to the fact of just how CONTRADICTORY and HYPOCRITICAL this REALLY IS.

My coach gun is my property.

Yes, 'these words' really did come from the mouth of a so-called 'adult human being'.

I've done no wrong with it.

Except own some thing that was created to cause what is called 'the death' of living animals, like you human beings.

But, according to 'those' like "henry quirk", there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, because I keep "my gun" to 'protect' 'me and my toothpicks' from 'them'.

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.

And, here is a/nother PRIME EXAMPLE, from 'this one', of just how Truly SCARED and AFRAID it is, in Life.

Also, it would be one of the first to give up 'that gun' if it became 'law' to do so. it would be too afraid of 'the consequences'.

[Age]

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

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.

Well, 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.

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!

If you only want people who are anti-abortion to respond to this thread, MAKE THAT CLEAR.

Click.

Huh? Where did that come from?

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.

But, you never even had 'objective morality', itself, to begin with.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Age]

People who think that determinism isn't compatible with (psychological, legal, everyday) responsibility, simply don't understand determinism. We don't have free will in the philosophical sense, but most people have more than enough free will in the psychological, legal, everyday sense.

What's the big mistery here?

So, what are you suggesting then...that the preponderance of philosophers and scientists are in fact able to demonstrate that determinism and compatibilism can co-exist in regard to human interactions that come into conflict.

Links please.

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." wiki

Theoretically anyway.

What do you believe the 'compatibilism' means, or is referring to, exactly?

'Compatible', (of two things) able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict.

To me, asking some thing like, 'Is it possible to demonstrate that 'determinism', and, 'compatiblism' can co-exist?' is beyond ABSURD.

However, saying some thing like, 'Is it possible to demonstrate that 'determinism', and, 'free will' can co-exist?' is perfectly NORMAL.

Both 'free will' AND 'determinism' can, or can not (for some), co-exist, together, and thus be 'compatible', or be 'not compatible'.

But, the idea that 'determinism' AND 'compatibilism' co-existing together, or 'free will' AND 'determinism' co-existing together, is just pure NONSENSE.

[iambiguous]

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.

See how it works. He said that so it must be true. Instead, in my view, what is particularly problematic regarding henry's own absolute and natural moral claims, is that he blinks.

He just doesn't trust himself to get it right, so he posits a God, the God that installed -- in his soul? -- "the dictates of Reason and Nature". Only this God split the scene satisfied that those like henry would win over all the rest of us.

So, how's he doing so far?

[Atla]

People who think that determinism isn't compatible with (psychological, legal, everyday) responsibility, simply don't understand determinism. We don't have free will in the philosophical sense, but most people have more than enough free will in the psychological, legal, everyday sense.

What's the big mistery here?

So, what are you suggesting then...that the preponderance of philosophers and scientists are in fact able to demonstrate that determinism and compatibilism can co-exist in regard to human interactions that come into conflict.

Links please.

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." wiki

Theoretically anyway.

Err no. The majority of academic philosophers go into philosophy because they aren't good at anything more productive. And when they even suck at philosophy, they will usually go into topics like ethics, free will, religion.

The average philosopher in the topic of free will is thus fairly braindead, but he wants to make his mark anyway and also needs to earn a living, so he will then usually try to do the awesome feat of unifying free will and determinism, and call it compatibilism. So 60% of philosophers subscribe to compatibilism.

The only problem is that in the philosophical debate between free will and determinism, these are by definition mutually exclusive, so compatibilism is a position that can't logically exist. 60% of philosophers subscribe to a position that doesn't exist. This is pretty sad imo. Then they justify it by redefining free will and determinism, which is sophistry because it's no longer about the original core issue.

Now outside the philosophical free will vs determinism debate, we can and should use other meanings of free will. That's why I wrote that in the psychological/legal/everyday etc. sense we have more than enough free will. There is nothing difficult about this topic if we don't keep conflating different concepts with the same name.

[Age]

People who think that determinism isn't compatible with (psychological, legal, everyday) responsibility, simply don't understand determinism. We don't have free will in the philosophical sense, but most people have more than enough free will in the psychological, legal, everyday sense.

What's the big mistery here?

So, what are you suggesting then...that the preponderance of philosophers and scientists are in fact able to demonstrate that determinism and compatibilism can co-exist in regard to human interactions that come into conflict.

Links please.

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." wiki

Theoretically anyway.

Err no. The majority of academic philosophers go into philosophy because they aren't good at anything more productive. And when they even suck at philosophy, they will usually go into topics like ethics, free will, religion.

The average philosopher in the topic of free will is thus fairly braindead, but he wants to make his mark anyway and also needs to earn a living, so he will then usually try to do the awesome feat of unifying free will and determinism, and call it compatibilism. So 60% of philosophers subscribe to compatibilism.

The only problem is that in the philosophical debate between free will and determinism, these are by definition mutually exclusive, so compatibilism is a position that can't logically exist.

Talk about providing irrefutable proof of just how STUPID and CLOSED these human beings can be, and are.

Some define 'God' in a way that is impossible to exist, and then just say and claim that 'God does not exist'. Which is blatantly OBVIOUS to those who can SEE, and UNDERSTAND.

Obviously, if a definition of some thing would make 'that thing' impossible to exist, then, CLEARLY, 'that thing' would not, and could not, ever exist. Just like if the definitions of 'free will' and 'determinism' are 'mutually exclusive', then they, CLEARLY, just cannot be 'compatible', and thus 'compatibilism' here could not exist. But, again, this is only if and when one chooses to use 'definitions' that do not 'fit in', perfectly, with each other, and thus, by definition, just do 'not work'.

So, absolutely ALL of the bickering, arguing, fighting, and debating here was, literally, a complete WASTE.

60% of philosophers subscribe to a position that doesn't exist.

And, people like "atla" create, and use, definitions, which makes things, by definition, only, 'not exist' or 'not able' to 'fit in with', 'work with', nor be 'compatible with' any nor all other 'things'.

This is pretty sad imo.

And, what you are, exactly, doing here, and 'trying to do', here, is very illogical, irrational, nonsensical, and unreasonable, or as some would say, just 'very sad'. But, here you are, still, conflating and confusing things here, as well as having just convoluted things here.

Then they justify it by redefining free will and determinism, which is sophistry because it's no longer about the original core issue.

LOL

And, it is this so-called 'original core issue', which has not been resolved for over thousands of years, 'now', when this is being written, which "Atla" wants TO KEEP.

Which, again, is 'very, very sad', as some would say, and claim.

Now outside the philosophical free will vs determinism debate, we can and should use other meanings of free will.

LOL

'This one', actually, wants to keep 'the, thousands of years old, debate' going.

This, really, is just how Truly CLOSED, and thus STUPID, some of these people, back when this was being written, really were.

That's why I wrote that in the psychological/legal/everyday etc. sense we have more than enough free will. There is nothing difficult about this topic if we don't keep conflating different concepts with the same name.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This one, actually, adds different words onto things here, thus, literally, conflating more and more here, and then there is nothing difficult about 'this topic' as long as 'others' do not keep conflating different concepts.

LOL 'This one' is, actually, 'trying to' claim that there is one particular type of 'free will' that is not compatible with 'determinism', but then there are a few other types of 'free will' that are compatible with 'determinism'.

Talk about a PRIME EXAMPLE of conflating different concepts here, with confusing language.

people like this one, known as "atla" here, actually believed that 'Lift', Itself, was hard and complex, and so, un and sub consciously were 'trying to' make things here hard and/or complex.

Yet, absolutely every thing here is absolutely SIMPLE, and EASY.

[Iwannaplato]

Note to others:

A little help here please. Either for him or, sure, for me. What did I do above "precisely" as he said? Pertaining to Mary and Jane.

Is there or is there not a distinction being made between is and ought by the preponderance of men and women around the globe?

Of course, those who hold with Hume. Nowhere, nowhere did I argue that people dont' make the distinction.

Though nowhere, nowhere have you been able to demonstrate how you freely opted to argue that. Not that I'm aware of. Instead here, by and large, it's arguments all the way down. Including my own.

Um, hello. Are you confusing me with someone who is a Libertaran free will advocate.

Seriously, responding to you is a constant process of saying 'he never said that' 'she isn't saying that', 'I never said that,' you response doesn't fit what you quoted, but it appears to be a responese to what to what you quoted,' and so on.

I have presented an argument for that three or four times. I have pointed out that often in the context of determinism, when you are thinking about that and whether we can know things, you say we may be compelled to believe that. I have then gone on to explain that that is true regarding all knowledge, any knowledge.

Again, so you say. Please link me to what you construe to be your best argument. The one that avoids abortion altogether.

In both ILP and here, as greenfuse and as Iwannaplato, I not only presented arguments and then commented on your lack of response. I'm not your parent.

When your focus is somewhere else on the issue, you talk about scientific facts and wish scientists would come here and they would give real answers and possibly then we would know, forgetting what you have said about us being compelled to believe things, which would include scientists and us listening to them.

Now it's your turn. Note where I have ever argued that scientists are any different from the rest of us?

That's not what I said. I never said you said that. It's that you think scientists coming here and weighing in would potentially give answers, whereas our arguments and thoughts can't. That the experts coudl demonstrate this. You draw this distinction about is and out in arguments about whether objective morals are possible. That scientist can demonstrate facts, but how do we demonstrate objective morals? You do this around determinism and free will. PHilosophy cannot resolve this but perhaps neuroscientist can come and present us with facts and research.

But, exactly, neither the scientists and what they think leads to the truth, nor us as listeners are exempt from determinism if determinism is the case. So, NO, THAT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.

Do you see? It's not that you directly said they are not compelled but you regularly contrast is with ought assertions and what we can work out in philosophical discusion vs. scientific research and what would a scientigst might be able to demonstrate.

You don't notice the problem with these two stances and I am putting them together to show you.

YOu treated this as a strawman. But I am saying there is something entailed by your position on one thing that undermines your position all over the place.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you missed a quote/unquote somewhere buddy.

[Flannel Jesus]

In any case, biggy has absolutely implied multiple times that info from scientists would be taken seriously by him where philosophical arguments would not

Now all he has to do is find a brain scientist who, step by step by step, can explain precisely how our material brains did acquire the capacity to experience things autonomously.

Now if a non scientist says "we experience things autonomously" his standard response is "you were compelled to think that, you couldn't ever not think that". But the text above implies that if a scientist told him, he wouldn't respond to that scientist with the same retort, you were compelled to science that science, you couldn't ever not have scienced that science. He's implying he would take it more seriously.

And that's not the only time he's posted like that about scientists weighing in on this topic, just the first one I found when I searched his contributions for the word "scientist". There's plenty more. He's not being entirely honest (or maybe he's just very forgetful, who knows?) when he says he's never placed scientists above anybody else.

And let me clarify that I'm not even saying he shouldn't place scientists above. Maybe he should. He should just be honest about it.

[phyllo]

Now if a non scientist says "we experience things autonomously" his standard response is "you were compelled to think that, you couldn't ever not think that". But the text above implies that if a scientist told him, he wouldn't respond to that scientist with the same retort ...

I'm not sure he wouldn't respond in the same way.

I find that his responses are often aimed at "getting the better of someone".

So if an scientist has an answer, Iambiguous will put him in his place. Even if it means that he is not being consistent with his own previous posts which implied some sort of reverence for science.

[Flannel Jesus]

Now if a non scientist says "we experience things autonomously" his standard response is "you were compelled to think that, you couldn't ever not think that". But the text above implies that if a scientist told him, he wouldn't respond to that scientist with the same retort ...

I'm not sure he wouldn't respond in the same way.

I find that his responses are often aimed at "getting the better of someone".

Yeah it did occur to me that his asking for a scientist to weigh in is just bait, and he's actually prepared to just reject what the scientist says on the same grounds.

(I'm not sure this is a question for science ATM anyway, as it seems more conceptual than measurable. What kind of information from a scientist would be pertinent to establishing if compatibilism makes sense? I can point to a scientist who is a compatibilist, but he's not so because he's made any measurements that measure how much compatibilism exists - he's a compatibilist for conceptual reasons.)